June 10, 2006
What is HE? Chopped liver?!?
The following must of necessity be somewhat vague. If you have been following http://fructusventris.stblogs.org you have seen parts of this and understand why.
First let me say that my comments that follow are about something VERY REAL for one family.
More importantly PRAY for a family that the social services department in another state is trying their best to dismantle. Pray in particular that the TRUTH be brought to light.
The items in quotes are reputed to be from Social Services.
Assume that we are talking about a large Eastern Rite Catholic family. Several children are old enough to have moved out but one has moved back in with two children (one disabled) after a Divorce. Assume no court findings - only allegations. Assume that an allegation exists of abuse of a younger sibling by an older (not quite adult) sibling. Assume the application of the term "should have known, should have prevented". Assume also that the family is larger than mine and that several of the children are young (pre school). And add that some of the children are home schooled.
Here are a few comments that I wish you to ponder as Catholic men and as husbands and fathers.
"Your problem is that your family bonds are too tight"
"Abuse is learned within the family". If there is an allegation of abuse it is assumed that it was learned from the male parent.
"He was a stay at home dad when the allegation arose" Only an abuser would wish to stay at home with his children.
"Large families are by their nature abusive of the children" They cannot provide every physical 'need' that children should have.
"It will help you get custody of your children back if you divorce him." As my heading says: What is he? Chopped liver? They are their children.
"If you are given Physical Custody of the children, you may not even talk to him on the phone in the presence of the children."
"You are not to talk to him, even at church services."
"Since you do not have legal custody of the children, there is no requirement for them to go to church." They can decide for themselves when they are legal adults.
"Since the children are in the custody of Social Services their priest cannot visit them". See above.
"If you don't 'work with us' we can place you in jail like your son." A reputed response was that they should go ahead, they had already taken her children, there is nothing more that they can do to hurt her.
"You will be observed and your parenting evaluated during your visits with your children." Fewer visits as there are few 'trained observers' to do the evaluation.
I am trying to keep this vague but it is difficult. The entire process horrifies me. This is one area where aggressive actions to assume guilt make proving innocence difficult in the face of the actions that these alleged comments show being taken by Social Services.
How must the husband/father feel in this case? How wounded would any of us feel if we were excluded from the process of deciding the future of our children? How would we feel if we were told that our mere presence or our wife talking with us on the phone is damaging to our children?
Is this the fruit of No-Fault Divorce?
How would any of us feel/act if we were told that our Sacramental marriage must be ripped asunder for the right of one parent to have custody of their children to the total exclusion of the other? "What God has joined, let no man rip asunder" is what we are told in scripture.
I am old enough to remember hearing from my parents about the horror of the people in this country at hearing of similar actions in the USSR. What has changed to allow this to happen here? How deeply have we allowed the concepts of "State Socialism" to become entrenched. I fear just how easily we can be told "you no longer have legal custody of your children". I also fear the apparent lack of recourse. Most appalling to me is the lack of public scrutiny "For the sake of protecting the privacy of the children".
"Quis custodiet ipses custodies" (Who will guard the guardians?)
I do not intend this as a screed against the state. We know from much that is written what a horror abuse is. Sexual abuse, physical abuse, psychological abuse, abuse of power.
I will emphasize the request that I started this observaton with:
PRAY for a family that the social services department of one state is trying their best to dismantle. Pray in particular that the TRUTH be brought to light. May God's light and truth shine on all who are involved in this matter. May the Holy Spirit strengthen this family in their time of travail.
Pray in particular as men for the father involved! There but for God's grace (and a possibly unfounded allegation) go we!
Posted by John Huntley at 11:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 19, 2006
The Culture of Death Marches On
Deacon and lawyer Keith Fournier assesses the recent decision of the Supreme Court:
Suicide has long been against the law. Likewise, assisting someone in the act of suicide has long been illegal. Now, because of this opinion, those who kill themselves and the Doctors who help them, are protected, at least in Oregon. As a former prosecutor, the supplying of a substance intended to cause death used to render one an accomplice, now, it makes one wealthy, at least in Oregon, if the accomplice wears a white coats and holds what is now – understandably- called a terminal degree. Given the trajectory unleashed by this opinion, the delivery of the new hemlock will probably be covered by “health� insurance.
Posted by Walter Babetski at 10:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 20, 2005
Medium, Message & me
This was triggered by a post and comments at the Curt Jester.
Anyone who has been interviewed or intends to ever be interviewed by the media (MSM which includes "Public Radio") needs to be VERY AWARE of the process called editing. Context will NOT be maintained. Your intent will not come through but sections of your words will. Period. Paragraph. Stop and consider this.
In Broadcast there is the very real limit of time. In Print the concern is space. Journalists learn to write in a fashion that allows major sections to be removed and the coherence (that they intended) will still remain intact.
Note that I say "that they intended". Reporters, editors and the organizations that they work for DO have observable biases.
Some of us were taught in American History about the period of "Yellow Journalism" in the History of the United States. It was a very strong political bias, editorial bias, public statement of opinion by the print media of the late 19th and early 20th century. There are still biases present in today's media. (generic examples do follow)
In most cases an effort is made to act (or at least appear to act) in an unbiased fashion. Quite simply, I do not believe that an unbiased opinion is possible from the media.
We all think and speak from our individual biases. At times these biases are subtle. Remember from Genesis that "The Serpent was the most subtle of creatures."
My wife refuses to be interviewed for anything other than background unless she is allowed to pre-approve any quotes. This demand includes any sound bites.
I live in the diocese of Manchester NH. I work for the Public Radio station for New Hampshire. I am not a journalist, nor do I wish to play one. I am a Broadcast engineer by training and career. Any observations are personal and practical and NOT intended to be cynical. To follow the usual disclaimer from work ... "these remarks do not reflect the opinion of my employer, underwriters, or any other member/donor of ... "
I heard from a friend who works for the Diocese that when he was interviewed by a co-worker of mine, the questions established a direction and an intent to direct the interview to a pre-established position / conclusion. Knowing the reporter and the topic, I was not surprised. (Right to life issues - need I say more)
NPR and the NPR member stations (yes, there is a difference) do make an effort to "present all sides". The problem is that this approach is not inherently unbiased. The flaw is glaringly obvious when the assumption is made that "everyone knows what 'normal' is and it does not need covered". IMO this is done on a far too regular basis. Likewise, coverage of certain opinions and lifestyle choices can serve to glorify them. At the very least, the more an opinion is covered the more it is "normalized". "Oh yeah, I heard about that on..."
There is also an unfortunate tendency for NPR to present a very balanced story and then at the end make a "zinger" comment. The comment establishes the reporter's (or corporately the Network's) opinion. The NPR Ombudsman commented to me in an email (personal complaint about a specific report) that (paraphrased) "The audience is intelligent enough to determine that what was expressed was the reporter's personal opinion".
As Mother Angelica was reported to have remarked: "Applesauce!"
How often do any of us really listen to a news report that critically?
There is a Journalistic "culture". In my opinion there is one for most careers. They each have their slightly differing worldviews. Law, engineering and Medicine come immediately to mind. These cultures are not necessarly bad. They do have their individual mindsets - worldviews. But, we should be aware of our biases and how they influence our actions.
The MSM is not necessarily "bad". They do provide a valuable service. Hey, I listen to NPR by choice as well as for my job. My opinion is that many in the media are unaware of their biases. Then there are those like the reporter I mentioned. In some cases a bias really is "expected".
What this really means is that we should listen more carefully. I'll repeat the word "subtle".
The more certain opinions are normalized, the more they become part of our culture, our language, our expectations, our laws, our legal precedents, and even our "civil rights". Are we on the verge of a "civil right" not to be exposed to someone elses religion? This "right" is already in place in mainland china. What others are in the wings?
Too often we unwittingly let our work culture(s) supercede our Catholic culture. Too often the surrounding "Culture of Death" (per JP-II) is overriding our Catholic culture. The pervasiveness of this culture has led to several examples of new "civil rights".
I am a Cradle Catholic. I have, over a multi-year period, re-devoloped a sensitivity to a bias against an orthodox Catholic viewpoint. It has everything to do with my prayer life, and my personal commitments.
My personal sensitivity shows when I yell at the radio every time I hear "Why can't the American Catholic Church just change this doctrine?"
However, I am prudent enough not to yell at the radio while at work.
I pray that by my example and quietly expressed observations I am able to be "salt, light and leaven" to my work environment.
St. Michael the ArchAngel defend us in battle.
Posted by John Huntley at 10:14 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 10, 2005
TOTB simple but not shallow
First, take a look at Catholic Ragemonkey . One of the priests there is asking "What are the five most essential spiritual reading books so that you can be a well-informed Catholic?" Comments for them?
When I posted the simplified Theology of the Body comments, I began to be nudged by a concern that the very simplicity would be taken to mean that the subject is not worth pondering.
It may be simple but it is far from shallow.
A few examples of simple concepts include: "God loves me", "I love my wife", "Christ died for our sins." All of them have a great depth to them.
When I say "I love my wife" it means that I must be willing to get on the cross for her. I must be willing to recognize our love in all its aspects as sacred. God's love is reflected through me. It is through my incarnate nature - my body.
We are truly blessed by this teaching of the late Pope john Paul II.
Posted by John Huntley at 9:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
June 18, 2005
TOB in a nutshell & Descartes
TOB in a nutshell
Everything God made is good.
Our bodies are good.
God's plan for us is written in/on them.
We share in this lifegiving love through our bodies.
Slightly longer:
God made me therefore I am.
God made me with body & soul, soul and body.
I cannot ignore one for the other, or exault one over the other.
Everything God made is good.
Our bodies are good.
God's plan for us is written in/on our bodies.
God's gift to us is his lifegiving love.
We share in this lifegiving love through our bodies.
Our sharing in his plan is through our vocation.
Those in the Vocation of Marriage share in this plan through the Marital Embrace.
In that embrace there are two aspects, unitive and procreative.
In that embrace we must be open to God's gifts.
We must be as open to the procreative as we are to the unitive.
This was triggered for me when Alicia returned from the ACNM conference in Washington DC. She was talking about long evenings of religious discussions with her roommates. Four of them were sharing a room. All were Christian. Alicia and one others are Catholic. During our discussion on the drive home, I stated the four sentence summary of TOB at the top of this post. "Write that down!" she said.
I am no "expert" on TOB. But I have begun to study it. I started several months ago with Christopher West's 10 CD set. What an intense and thoughtful lecture he gave on TOB. Recommended listening! If you have a long drive it is worthwhile. I was lucky enough to have a period of 8 weeks where I had nearly 2 hours of driving to do on a Saturday morning going to/from Cursillo weekend team preparation meetings.
The EWTN series on TOB was not quite as deep. But it had the distraction of having to be "visual" at the same time.
As I was writing the slightly expanded version above, I was thinking of Descartes and his "I think, therefore I am." I was led to remember that God made us before we could even think, conceptualize or intellectualize ourselves. The gift of life does not require that we "recognize" or "acknowledge" our existence.
I just realized that Descartes famous comment could be an infamous idolatrous statement. Just focus on the phrase "I AM" from his statement. Nothing exists until I recognize it. To use the phrase "I think, therefore I am" is to make oneself God. We should all know "I AM" as the name that God gave for himself when he was asked by Moses. I do not know if that was the intent of Descartes. I do know that in our times and self centered world, that is often how it is read & believed. That is how I heard it at St. Mary's College 30+ years ago.
This concept may have been discussed elsewhere. I don't remember having read it before. It did set me back to recognize it.
All that I am, All that I have is God's.
God made me, therefore I pray. Glory be to ...
Posted by John Huntley at 11:44 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
March 26, 2005
Whatsover you do ...
I have spent the last few weeks listening to the 10 CD set of Christopher West's talk on the Pope's Theology of the Body. One of the topics he covers is how people should be treated as "Subjects" rather than as "Objects". We all understand (and feel) on a deep internal level that when we are objectified it is against our diginity. It decreases our value. Two examples: As Men we understand that if we lust after someone we are not viewing her as a person with her own diginty. She is viewed as an object of our desire rather than the subject of our attention. The value of the person is disregarded. The other example is when we are used as a "stepping stone" for another person's promotion or agenda.
It is interesting that our legalistic / scientistic society has been placing a strong emphasis on "Objectivity". Yet as individuals we cannot help but have a subjective view of things. The Constitution of the United States speaks of and to individual rights.
I am horrified to see that Terri Schiavo has ceased to be an individual with her own value and has become an "Object" where the law is concerned. The approach of the courts has been " we must follow the law (the letter of the law)". The Law, it now appears, has become more important than the individual.
I could be wrong on this. It may simply be that the slavish adoration of precedent by the courts has overridden every other value in the law.
In my opinion the "Justice" of the congressionally passed law requiring a "de novo" (from the beginning) review of the case has been overridden by the belief of those in the legal system that it cannot possibly have been broken. "The precedents in the case are clear". I find myself cynical when I read that back in 2001 Judge Greer stated "That woman will die." Pride, arrogance, spitefullness. These are all things that I understand. I have been told so many times that "the Law is above all this".
I also understand that there is a difference in worldview between those trained in our system of Jurisprudence and the rest of us. Years ago a friend of ours went through law school. At the beginning of the first semester, the professor asked the class a question and she and everyone else in the class could answer it. It was "common sense". At the end of the third semester the same professor asked the same question and none of them could answer it. Why? They had started to think as members of the legal profession.
It was brought home to me during the readings at last night's service. John 19:7 "We have a law, and according to that law he should die ..."
"Whatsoever you do the least of my people, that you do unto me. " It brings it home to me that with Catholic views and beliefs that I will always remain "In the world but not of it".
It has been a strong incentive for me to contact our Congressmen & Senators. Above that I must continue to pray for Terri, for Michael, for all the Justices who are involved, for our legal system and the "justice" that has been left undone.
Below is a short quote from near the end of a LONG post on this topic from a legal standpoint.
Posted by John Huntley at 11:08 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 4, 2005
Why Some Marriages Fail
Catholic Light blogger and Canon Lawyer Pete Vere has a revealing article in the current issue of Lay Witness magazine.
Posted by Walter Babetski at 3:37 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
November 11, 2004
Whatsoever you do...
I was watching the mass on EWTN this evening and that phrase in today's readings caused several thoughts to gel.
Today was a day off and we were preparing the roses for winter. We cut them back, muched around them and put covers over them. The original forecast was for snow tonight, but that has now moved to tomorrow afternoon. I also cut down a couple of birches. One of them was dead and would probably have hit the garage this winter.
This sort of work always leaves me time to ponder things as I work with cutters and bow-saw.
An image of Jesus came to me. In this case he was scarred as if he had been cut apart.
Over the course of the afternoon, I reflected on a High School classmate of our youngest daughter. This classmate had been in track and cross country with Bethany over the last two school years. She was not in XC this year as she wanted to keep her internship with NARAL.
It took the "whatsoever you do to the least of my people" for it to all pull together.
The roses were also a reminder for me to get a rosary in my hand and pray for all those young women who are faced with "an impossible choice" and the pagan voices suggesting "the easy" way out. May they make the choice of another young woman who chose to trust in God.
Mary, Mother of God, pray for those who do not even recognize that they can have recourse to thee.
I pray for my daughter and all those who have to be "In the world and not of it". May our prayers and example continue to lead them to God.
Posted by John Huntley at 10:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 25, 2004
I think there is a
I think there is a great correlation between the struggle for authentic Catholic family life and the battle against the culture of death. On their Life Matters blog, the Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE) have issued a statement regarding the recent demonstration by Florida jurists that they don’t understand even the basic principles of life.
(Thanks to Times Against Humanity)
Posted by Walter Babetski at 2:12 PM | TrackBack
August 25, 2004
The need to know
There was a flurry of comments over at Fructus Ventris as a result of a post about Celiac Disease, Deal Hudson and John Kerry and a second comment to a response. It is amazing the things that can come to someone's mind as a result of an excellent Homily.
There was one set of responses from someone who is obviously angry and disappointed by their lack of understanding of the Catholic Faith. The more I think about it the more I can emphathize with the pain of trying to understand but not receiving the depth of undertanding they expect. I can understand it. Lord, I believe. Help my disbelief.
The church is made up of people. We are all flawed. We cannot help but to say things that unexpectedly push someone else's buttons. We learn to accept that sometimes it will be "But that is not what I MEANT to say!" "Lord, I believe. Help my disbelief. " is not something I say to throw in someone else's face! It is my cry of agony as I struggle to live as a Catholic.
What makes the Catholic faith so hard to live is that it remains countercultural. We believe so that we can be led to understand. It is diametrically oposed to the expectations of our culture! "I deserve to know, and right now." Faith, like Love, is a verb, an action word. I might not want to Love someone, but I am called to do it as a Catholic (Christian). I may not want to be faithful to the teaching of the Church. But, as with Love, I must struggle to learn to be obedient.
We are also prodded to be excited about things. Sometimes a deeper understanding arrives when the excitement is just a memory. Maybe we'd overlook that understanding if the excitement was still there.
Possibly God has put understanding on a "Need to know" basis.
Coming to an understanding of our faith from reason is not impossible. But I have found that for me it is very difficult. Very few of us are like Augustine or Aquinas. But I have found that for me, "Sufficient to the day are the Graces God makes available to me". I have to chose to accept them. I have to chose to be faithful and obedient.
Faithfulness and obedience are not necessarily passive. This is particularly true for my role as a Husband and Father. I can be unfaithful to my call as a father by chosing not to act and not to correct. I can take the easy way out and not set a good example. I must take the step and ask forgivness when I cause my wife or children pain. I must make the effort to form my conscience and then to take advantage of the Sacrament of Confession for the forgivness of my sins. Most importantly, I must pray.
An image that I have for this world and our lives is a tapestry. (This is not original to me). I see the backside of the tapestry. Loose ends, knots, colors that clash. Occasionally I can get a glimmer of how parts of it go together. I fidget and fret trying to be patient as I wait till God is ready to let me see the tapestry from his side. There may still be a few knots I have to tie before then.
Lord, I believe. Help my disbelief.
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, have mercy on me a sinner.
Posted by John Huntley at 10:36 PM | TrackBack
August 22, 2004
Marian Feminism
I was pleased when my wife directed me to this entry on "why don't we love men anymore" over at Scattershot Direct. M'Lynn's post is fleshing out a Marian Feminist aproach. She talks about how men/husbands can also have a "thankless job" and so often we just do what is needed daily. We should be respected for it. She says much more.
Marian Feminism will undoubtedly be derided as an oxymoron. In Amy Welborne's book de-coding DaVinci she points to the Mary as the true Sacred Feminine and her glaring absence in DVC. This book is a quick read. While under 130 pages, it is not fluff. It is insightful and incisive. As a personal insight into the author of DVC, I take a comment from a talk he gave (re-broadcast on New Hampshire Public Radio) in which he stated (my paraphrase) that the authors of the debunking books are "after all, writers and their real intent is to take advantage of the chance to make money by their writing about my book." Once again I was yelling at the radio while driving.
We should all be Marian Feminist. We are all called to support the women in our lives and to make our behavior a shining example for our sons and daughters. We support them by our prayer for and with them. We also support them by our physical presence, our encouragement and gentle correction. It is our call to love them. and to let them know we love them. I have been known to use flowers. I am told that words are ok also. I have learned not to follow the example of the old farmer who when asked why he never told his wife he loved her, replied: "I told her once when I married her, I've not changed my mind"
She cannot read my intent if I do not say it! When I tell her I love her, I (usually) remove the chance for misunderstanding.
Encouragement and gentle correction is something both Husband and Wife have to learn for themselves. We are not born with it. We both are called to forgive the other's clumsiness throughout our lives. Even the good example of my parents, took a while for me to internalize and adapt to my own life. An example from (early in) my own married life is when my wife said: "I love your mom dearly but I don't look like her, don't expect me to act like her!"
I am glad that my wife grew in love for me in spite of my missteps like above. I am also glad that we grow to love each other in spite of (and because of!!) the differences. It is one of God's blessings on our Sacramental Marriages.
Blessed be the Name of the Lord. Mary Mother of God, Pray for us.
Posted by John Huntley at 8:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 17, 2004
Robin Hood, Zoro, Lone Ranger, & Cafeteria Catholicism.
What do these all have in common? They are all fighting a corrupt power hungry authority. Or so we are to believe.
I grew up with these shows on TV or at the movies. They were an example of "one man's fight" against the forces of evil. Their message is deep in the underpinnings of my generation. I believe that it is carried through in our current cultural attitudes.
We have been encouraged (in advertising) for years to stand up for "What you deserve".
We are bombarded lately with messages that we should stand up for a rather vocal "Downtrodden Minority" as they "ACT-up" against a heartless religious bureaucracy that is working to bar them from the joy of a "Marriage" they so richly deserve. Or another group that believes that they deserve to be ordained. Or the others who sadly believe that it is "My choice", rather than someone else's life.
We have been "trained" to be suspicious of anything that gets in the way of what we WANT. Or anything that interferes with what WE believe is good for us. Besides, it feels good to be a hero for the downtrodden.
Here we see a confluence of the "Cult of individuality", "Moral Relativism", and impatience. It is like a room full of four year olds. It is a "MINE!" field.
As Christian husbands and fathers what are we called to do? Pray. Then teach by both example and words. Be present for our spouses and our children. When my oldest ones were young, I would sit in their room as they were going to sleep and read a "trade magazine" out loud to them. Soporific? You bet! Sometimes even to me! The most important thing was that I was there with them.
I've done my best to teach my children a number of things:
There really is a God. There really is an absolute "Right and Wrong". It is OK to have strong values. Having these values means that you may be viewed as "different". It is ok to be "different". Prayer is important. The Sacraments do give us grace. We are ALL to be obedient. Sin is real. No one (except God) will always "understand" why things are the way they are. Human beings are imperfect. Human institutions are therefore also imperfect. God has given us a means of having our sins forgiven. (very useful as we are imperfect). I am not always right, nor are they, but that we are to work on being perfected. God loves us. I love them. Being loved may mean being called to responsibility for an action or inaction. I love their Mother. I love them and their mother even when I express anger or disappointment. They should not try to play Mom vs Dad. We talk. It will not work. (AKA "the older ones blew this game for you" just as we blew it for our younger siblings!) Learn to share. Learn to forgive. Some things are NOT EASY.
This list has varied somewhat with the ages of the children and their individual personality. A couple have been "difficult" (euphemism for hyperactive and willful - ADHD). It has been "work". But my vocation has been to be a husband and father. I praise God for all the "gifts" he has allowed me (us) to try to raise. I don't expect that I'll ever stop praying for them.
Posted by John Huntley at 9:09 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
July 15, 2004
It's ONLY words - NOT!
There is a value and power to common useage of words. I was reminded of this as I found myself yet again yelling at a report on NPR on the radio. I was driving at the time, that is where I am free to vent.
PC Politically Correct, Purposeful Change, Powerful Corruption. It is in someone's advantage to re-define the meaning of common words and phrases. If you change the common useage, you change the common meaning.
I was yelling at the reporting of the failure of the procedural motion to bring Senate Resolution 40, also known as FMA, forward to an eventual vote. The comment? "The bill to ban Gay Marriage has failed". Heard again later, "The bill to prevent Gay Marriage has failed". The same phrasing was also used by a local reporter in a local news segment.
How can you ban something that does not exist?
We need to hold fast to what the term Marriage really means. Sacramental Marriage.
Here are a very few excerpts the sermon on Marriage by St John Chrysostom, from the Book On Marriage and Family Life, a collection of his sermons.
"Marriage was not instituted for wantonness or fornication, but for chastity. ... "These are the two purposes for which Marriage was instituted: to make us chaste and to make us parents. Of these two, the reason of chastity takes precedence. When desire began, then marriage also began."
I wish I had read parts of this collection when it first was published 14 years ago. The sermons themselves date from the third century. They are still timely.
Another aspect of the same attempt to change meaning is the continued effort to change "Love" to mean "Romance".
Love, particularly in a sacramental marriage means commitment and self sacrifice. Romantic "Love" is a feeling. Other feelings include anger, lust, jealousy, greed, sadness, hopelessness, elation, pride. None of these are bad in and of themselves, it is in our human nature to "feel".
Feelings themselves are transitory. How we chose to act on them is the crux of the matter. From a song on EWTN as I type this, "Before you react, just stop and sit back, ask what Jesus would do! "
So it goes with the confusion of romance with love, a substitution of something transient for something permanent.
Years ago I heard that most guys have two feelings: "Good and Bad". Years ago, that was me. That was how I grew up. Like many other men I was not taught the language. I did have to learn to recognize the range of my own emotions. It was important to my growth in love to lean it. I had to learn my own feelings to better understand Alicia's feelings. It also helped me to understand and have empathy with the children as they grew. The younger ones benefitted from it. The oldest two say that the rest had "different parents". What can I say, I/we continue to learn. Perfection lies elsewhere.
Posted by John Huntley at 10:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 27, 2004
Parental wisdom
As I was mowing the lawn today, I remembered several items of wisdom from my late mother. While I realize that today is Sunday, I use the time pushing a power mower to pray and meditate.
I am the eldest of 6 children and the first to marry. I had been married only a few months when my mother took me aside. "If you ever enter my house complaining about your wife, I will throw you right back out the door. " She was all of 5' tall and usually weighed around 100#. But I had no doubt that she would have succeeded. "I am your mother, I can't help but be on your side. So you will NEVER put me in the position of taking sides in your marriage. You made your commitment. You will work things out. Do not bring your complaints to me!"
Many years ago, it must have been at a "difficult time" (probably a tight time financially), she told me that when I was small she had been told by her confessor "Who told you that life would be easy?" "Offer it up" She prayerfully took it to heart. She taught it to us. I remember hearing from her an endless number of times. "Offer it up" I also remember being chided for the time we all caused her to spend on her knees in prayer.
The older I get, the better I understand what she meant. I recognize just how powerful are the gifts and the tools she gave me.
Posted by John Huntley at 8:44 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
June 26, 2004
In the world but not of it.
Two links from Alicia's blog caught my attention . The first one has left me wondering if it is too late to try to steer our society back toward being Christian. Is the "contraceptive mentality" too deeply ingrained in our secular society? Will it simply be a matter of time until "Being in the world but not of it" will mean a time of trial? Will I be willing to stand up for my belief in Christian Marriage?
The second one is a wonderful set of quotes on marriage from St John Chrysostom. It is from the book On Marriage and Family Life which is a collection of his sermons. Even though celibate, he did truly understand the value of Marriage. Does this sound like Pope JP II?
"How foolish are those who belittle marriage! If marriage were something to be condemned , Paul would never call Christ a bridegroom and the Church a bride, and then say this is an illustration of a man leaving his father and his mother, and again refer to Christ and the Church. " "Remind one another that nothing in life is to be feared, except offending God. If your marriage is like this, your perfection will rival the holiest of monks. "
There are more excerpts from his wisdom found at this website. There is so much here in these excerpts for me strive for. This taste of his wisdom has led me to order the book.
Posted by John Huntley at 6:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
June 17, 2004
Kepha?
Has anyone heard of this new group, Kepha? Quoth their front page:
KEPHA is a growing brotherhood of Catholic fathers and sons in seven states. Faithful to the Holy Father, we promote the Culture of Life through monthly retreats and shared daily prayers and provoke each other to Heaven according to our motto, "Dynamic Orthodoxy, Infectious Joy." Ours is a high-octane Catholicism rejecting spiritual laziness and moral compromise. We are under the patronage of our "BIG 3": St. John Bosco, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Bl. Pier Giorgio Frassati. KEPHA's anchors are our 5 commitments: apologetics, brotherhood, charity, mortification, and prayer.Join us and LIVE AND DIE CATHOLIC TO THE CORE!
This isn't an endorsement; on the contrary I find the rah-rah high-octane bit offputting (maybe because I'm low-octane or something :-).
Posted by Bill White at 9:10 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
June 11, 2004
Chronicle of an Announced Death: Secular Marriage
The marriage woes the western civilization is going through were explained and prophesied by Leo XIII in 1880: http://www.familylifecenter.net/html/resources/churchdocs/arcanum.html
hat tip to Steve Wood from St Joseph Covenant Keepers
Posted by Yann the Frenchman at 8:23 AM | TrackBack
June 10, 2004
The online version of the
The online version of the May/June issue of "Lay Witness" magazine (from Catholics United for the Faith) has some nice articles on several aspects of Catholic family life.
Posted by Walter Babetski at 3:26 PM | TrackBack
May 31, 2004
The rule of law.
"I Believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. And in Jesus Christ his only son..." I believe in God and that he made the ordered universe around me.
This world has a very strict set of laws. Physical laws. Gravity comes to mind. Momentum does also. Conservation of energy. Lightning is a big caution of mine. That has to do with my line of work. I don't always understand the why of them but I do acknowledge their effects. I cannot "decide" that gravity or any other physical law does not apply to me.
Part of my role as a father is teaching the children "not to play on the freeway" (or run into the street when they are very young). I must help them to internalize an obedience to the physical laws that can kill them. I've had at least one child that had to find out for themselves what "Hot" really meant. And yes, they get that from me. I often learn best from leaving a nose-mark in the wall.
I also believe that God as maker and creator can suspend these laws. We call that "A Miracle". We ask, and he may chose to do so. Jesus could walk on water, calm the storm, heal those around him and cast out demons. This is part of what we believe as Catholic Christians. It is only a small part of what we believe. We also believe in all we say in the Nicene Creed each Sunday.
I believe that there are also ordered spiritual laws. Hard spiritual laws, like gravity is a hard - unchangable physical law. They are harder to observe than the physical. I don't know if that is the consequence of a choice not to observe them or if it is because of our nature. Willfull? Disobedient?
By "law" I don't mean the rules and regulations that God gave to our spiritual forefathers as found in the Old Testament. Nor those rules given by Jesus and passed on to us in the New Testament. Nor the continuous teaching of the Magesterium of the Church. These teachings (rules) were given to us so that in our obedience to them, we do not suffer the spiritual equivalent of being "Run over by a Truck" Indeed, the consequences of disobedience to the spiritual laws are more severe. Eternal punishment is a lot more severe!
I have been searching for the perfect descriptive analogy between the physical laws and spiritual laws. I have been coming up short. I know that we must obey the laws of God. I wonder if when we are disobedient, that we are chosing to "Play on the freeway" (Expressway, Interstate, Highway) and that at the point of Death if we are in that state of sin, we will experience the equivalent of being hit by that truck. Yes, I have tied disobedience to sin.
I am apalled by how often I have heard that a "Truly Loving God would never condem us to Eternal Suffering because of our actions". The logic of this belief escapes me. If this logic were carried through to the physical world, the same "TLG" would never allow us to die if we chose to jump off a cliff. (suffering the consequences of physical law of gravity)
I am grateful to God that he has given us the "miracle" of absolution. When I recognize my sins, actions & omissions, willfulless & self-centeredness, and am truly contrite AND confess them to the Priest (in alter Christi) in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the punishment for these actions is lifted from me.
The miracle of forgiveness is God's gift to me, but I must ask. I must acknowledge my prior sin. I must intend not to sin again. I must use the Sacrament that we were given by Christ Jesus.
I struggle not to presume on Gods divine mercy. I strive to be the good example that Alicia and the children can look to.
Posted by John Huntley at 7:05 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 18, 2004
Friendship Among Men
In this excellent article on friendship among men (entitled “The Friendship-Deficit Syndrome” in the May 2004 Catholic World Report magazine), Fr McCloskey writes: “Friendship requires spending time with one another. There are no short cuts…..we need to share who we are and what we have to give, in order to receive the same gift from our friend.”
I am somewhat convicted by this, because I feel that I have few close male friends. I blame that condition on my responsibilities involved in fathering a large family, along with my personal preference to spend time in prayer and spiritual reading. Now I’m wondering how much I’ve cheated myself out of receiving “the same gift from our friend?”
Posted by Walter Babetski at 12:28 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
May 4, 2004
Book Review
I haven't posted for quite a while, and I apologize if you visited the site, again, and again, and again, and saw that nothing had changed for a week or so. The trouble has been the "time factor".
Time does not belong to a neophyte father ... Some put a monetary value on it (i.e., work), some just take it because it's there to be taken (and they're right): the kids and spouse.
These days, I am reverting to my childhood years when I used to surreptitiously turn on my flashlight to read books when I should have been sleeping. Nowadays, once everybody is asleep (spouse included), I go hide in the study to enjoy making progress in the pile of books that has been accumulated. But no matter what, rainy or sunny days, weekdays or saturdays, the calling from the vast unfed will come at the same hour, regardless how late I read the previous night ...
Anyway, I did manage to finish Windswept House by Malachi Martin and I am plunging ahead in Father Elijah by Michael O'Brien.
Windswept House is a very interesting historical fiction (claimed to be 85% accurate) about the Church from 1958 through 1993. It has lots of details and, though written in the early 1990s, was prophetic about the Scandal hitting the Church in 2002. There are also numerous fascinating tidbits about post-V2 reorganization of bishops into national and regional conferences, and it offers great insights into the bureaucratic workings of the Vatican and of the Bishops Conferences. Fr. Martin died in 1996, and was obviously distraught about the aftermath of Vatican II and more than once, one can detect the author's partiality to some traditionalist theses (in particular in bemoaning the rapid disintegration of the Church following V2). It is a gripping but grim book.
Although Fr. Elijah starts with the same premise (the generalized apostasy of this age), it seems to offer a lot more hope. I am only at the beginning of the book, but I am already enthralled by it, and not least because of the enlightning reflections of the characters about personal and spiritual conduct. These observations run very true and I'll be posting a couple of them here later. A bientôt...
Posted by Yann the Frenchman at 12:49 PM | TrackBack
April 22, 2004
Battle of Titans: Self-Sacrifice vs Self-Actualization
Continuing on the quest to "unify the theory of fatherhood", as Bill White greatly put in a comment to yesterday's post, here are some additional considerations (warning long post!):
Fatherhood entails several roles, among them being a provider to the family (I'll try to address other roles in subsequent posts). This ties back to the underlying theme of previous post(s), which is the battle between self-sacrifice and self-actualization (other terms for the latter include self-fulfilment or self-realization ...)
I would argue that this inner battle is more intensely felt by practicing catholic men born about 1965 and on. I would also venture that the questions that were raised by the feminist movement about women being confined in occupations traditionally fostered by society, did find an echo among men as well: if women could eschew their conventional roles to do other things that made them feel more fulfilled, couldn't the same principle apply as well for men?
Today's society recognizes a brilliant career, significant earnings, etc. as material evidence for accomplishment. There are no such society-recognized tangibles (i.e., having numerous kids, an obvious tangible, is actually looked down by society) to show a person's accomplishment through family care. Furthermore, raising a family appears to be at odds with the aforementioned career and earnings.
So self-fulfilment for men had to remain in the job market because of its inherent peer recognition. The loyalty of our father or grandfather to only one company throughout their work life (as a mean to bring the bacon home) has transformed into company hopping in our generation. The underlying assumption being that if the job does not satisfy you, you will not be motivated enough to apply yourself more fully to your job, which would mean a potential loss of profit for the company. Better that one be happy at work for one's emotions and for the company's profit, so goes the assumption for the pursuit of happiness ...
This is particularly strong in a country that was based and continues to value individualism. Freedom to choose rings loud for the majority of Americans ... So how do you square that with Christ's teachings on carrying your own cross, self-effacing so God can fulfill you, etc.?
At the same time, one cannot ignore the demands of today's rat race. It requires substantial amounts of money to afford housing and education for the kids. This in turn traps parents to become dual earners for the sake of reasonable quality of life for their children. However, this means that time spent with the kids (and spouse!), which is is a true indicator of a solid family, is minimal. To compensate this loss, one goes into giving a lot of stuff and is lenient in discipline (since you wouldn't want to have this precious remaining time being marred by unpleasantness for everyone, etc.). And so it goes into a negative spiral ...
Practicing Catholics have to make a radical choice (e.g., homeschooling) of being in the world and not of the world, at the risk of being mocked and called crazy. But the attachment to the world is strong, and one still hopes for a balance that does not fully require that our "yes to be yes, and no to be no". I think at heart of this problem, is a possible lack of trust that God will provide everything we need (happiness and joy included). This is especially true for people needing to have things under control for fear that the whole structure will crumble (that description unfortunately fits me to a "T" ...)
Society has become so secularist that it is harder to choose the "narrow path", since support for following it keeps declining. The jump seems more costly than it might have been for previous generations, for society seems to have cut itself from its christian roots, and has become structured in a way that makes difficult to resist the sirens of self-fulfilment.
This self-fulfilment quest probably started with the Serpent suggesting to Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil ... But God keeps His Covenant(s), and even in the desert of our lives (i.e., if we fully take the choice of carrying one's cross) we will receive manna from the Lord. Keep trust in the Lord for "if God so clothes the grass which is alive in the field today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O men of little faith!" (Luke 12, 28)
Even though the sirens of self-actualization may make a convincing case that finding joy would further motivate you and fully enjoy this life on Earth, let us keep strong in our decision to follow the Lord. Joy and fulfilment are like the manna: if you're looking for it, you will not find it; if you're hoarding it, it will turn to ash in your mouth ...
In the end, if one does see our work as just being a provider for the family, then one avoids the angst of wondering if this was the right career for self-fulfilment. In all this let us remember to remain joyous and confident disciples. There is a saying in French: "un saint triste est un triste saint" (a saint who is sad is a sad (i.e., not great) saint). Although joy is implied to come through self-realization, if we truly forget this quest and we follow God's commands, we will receive a joyous certitude about the path chosen in our life.
Posted by Yann the Frenchman at 9:59 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
April 15, 2004
St-Ex and the Little Prince
I somewhat disagree with Amy Welborn's take on St Exupery. Probably because of my French background, but also because I was read the Petit Prince when I was small and I enjoyed it then (and later on my own), as my 2.5-year old seems to enjoy it also.
I don't think that kids need full understanding (cognition) to intuit the underlying truths that are disclosed through poetic images. Too often I see the tendency of some to stoop down to the child's cognitive level to share a great story. I think this is sad and belies their faculty to grasp the meaning of the story. When I read C.S. Lewis "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" or Bible stories to T. (the 2.5-yr old), he follows what is going on, even if he is not able to express it.
Now regarding St-Ex, I read all his books (including "Citadelle", which recaps his life philosophy). When reading the Petit Prince, one realizes how much his themes were repeated throughout his books, and how deeply Christian his books thirst for God (even if he personally veered off the Faith for a while). Such books would be "Pilote de Guerre" [I think "Flight over Arras" is the title fo the translation], in which you could replace "Homme" [Man] by "Christ" and be amazed by the theology behind it).
It is a manly literature, with a strong conception of what it takes to be a leader and the many, many responsibilities it entails. Responsibility, tradition, sacrifice, immanence, purpose, are all addressed in St-Ex's books in profound terms (and especially so in the Petit Prince, where the "allumeur de reverberes" has found meaning in his life by following his call for duty ...). I find it to be an excellent (and of course not the only one) guide to fatherhood.
Reading St-Ex can be demanding at times because of his poetic philosophy (which may appear at times more stoic than Christian) or his concept of romantic love, but it is full of gems. If you're looking for a book that shows transmission of values from generations to the next ones and that underlines the principle of one's responsibility towards weaker ones (i.e., a strong departure from basic individualism), then St-Ex's literature is for you.
Posted by Yann the Frenchman at 1:55 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 13, 2004
Passion of The Easter Bunny
Dear Guys:
I like to have fun with the news. One news item from last week caught my eye, maybe you read it too.
News Item: Last week, at an Assembly of God church in Pennsylvania, the church youth minister decided to give kids a lesson on the true meaning of Easter by staging an Easter Play, featuring the Easter Bunny. To the surprise of the young guests, the play involved older kids shouting "There is no Easter Bunny," then they proceeded to flog the guy in the easter bunny suit and stomp on easter eggs. Kids in attendance began to cry, and adults in attendance found it "quite disturbing." When questioned about the appropriateness of the play afterwards, the youth minister was clueless why anyone would not appreciate her work.
That said, I tried to re-create in my mind how one might put together such a play, and I came up with "Easter Bunny-The Born Again Musical"
Such a play should begin with a joyous song:
"We're floggin Peter Cottontail
Draggin' him down the bunny trail
Hippity-Hoppity throw him out of town.
We're breakin' both his little legs
So he won't bring no Easter Eggs,
Hippity-Hoppity bring that bunny down!"
Youth minister: "Hey kids, what time is it?"
kids: "It's time to kill the Easter Bunny!"
Youth minister: "That right, kids. String him up!"
At this point, the little ones all take part in the communal attacking of the Easter Bunny, and when the frisky frenzy subsides, our bunny is suspended like a pinata a short distance above the crowd. Each child is given a "bunny bat" made of that same gopher wood that they read about in Genesis last week.
Youth minister: "Well, kids, do you know why we need to kill the Easter Bunny?"
Kid #1: "Because he doesn't have Jesus in his heart."
Youth minister: "That's right. He's taking the focus off our Lord's special day and making it into a celebration. He's candy-fying your teeth, and that's a sin. So what do we do when the Easter Bunny candy-fies your teeth?"
Kid #2: "Brush?"
Youth minister: "No kids. We're talkin' sin. Sin is bad, and sin demands atonement--a sacrifice. We'll sacrifice the Easter Bunny. How should we do it?
Crowd of kids: "Pinata him! Pinata him!"
Youth Minister: "Well, if you insist. But first, I must wash my hands. I so detest touching children--they're so dirty."
Kids begin whacking away at the suspended Easter Bunny with their bunny-bats.
Cynical kid #1: "If you are the real Easter Bunny, make candy fall out!"
The bunny gets whacked, his suit rips and lots of candy falls out.
Converted cynical kid: "Surely this was the REAL Easter Bunny."
THE END
Now, I don't write this to be irreverent or anti-Assemby of God, but really--how can you put together a youth play about Easter that features the scourging and murder of the Easter Bunny?
My youngest one, 8 year old Eva, figured out who the Easter Bunny was this year, despite my pointing to circumstantial evidence to the contrary--half-eaten carrots after the delivery of the candy, and my own lack of a white, puffy tail, and my inability to hop in any meaningful fashion.
I am going to miss the bunny around here.
Allen Browning
Posted by Allen Browning at 4:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 10, 2004
Who is yer Santa?
I don't know how many of you are familiar with Myers-Briggs character typology, but my wife is very E(xtravert) and I border a lot more on (I)ntrovert. This makes for some interesting interactions that will probably be posted here some day. Anyway, my beloved being a very strong E (she went 11 on a scale from 1 to 10) has a hard time staying home all day with the kiddos (in other words, she needs to somehow interact with another human being outside of these four confining walls). Consequently, we found a "Mothers Morning Out" (twice a week for three hours) close by and managed by a local methodist church (would the local catholic parish have something similar? Noooooo, but that will be the subject of another post on involvement in the Church ...). Son No. 1 is very happy there and loves hanging out with the other 2- to 3-year old dudes and dudettes...
One day, Son No. 1 and I were sawing some logs in the backyard (the result of Hurricane Isabel on our tall [80 ft] pecan tree ) ... That is, I was sawing some logs and Son No. 1 was checking the length with a measuring tape (he loves tools and the more real they are (i.e., like papa's) the happier he is), when out of the blue I hear: "Papa, when Santa give me big presssents?" I say nothing for 2 seconds (hey you gotta admire my quick thinking at being quiet!) but my brain wheels are spinning:Wait a minute, the lad just mentioned the guy in the red suit and we never even mentioned his name at home, where did he pick this up? So I say: "Santa? Who is Santa? Now, you know you're getting presents for your birthday and for Christmas. And we're giving presents to each other at Chirstmas because Jesus loves us and we love Jesus. Santa does not exist!"
The little guy looks at me with a quizzical look, says nothing for a while, and sort of nods. "phew!", I think, "that didn't go too bad for the first cultural skirmish ..." Until I mention the incident to my sweet Extravert. "but Yann" she says a bit crossly "Remember, 'we' had decided to say that Santa Claus was OK" (and guys, you gotta admire sometime how the memory of our wives works); "Ah shucks, I wanted this guy out altogether from this household" I reply. Well, it turns out that Son No. 1 picked up the concept and the name while watching a video at this "Mother's Morning Out" ...
So here is the deal: on one hand you have contender Yann (me) who says "fi with this materialism, let's teach the truth, death to the white-bearded guy in red, to give in is to open the door to a toxic culture that we may be not be able to vanquish once it is tolerated at home, etc."; and on the other hand you have contender Mary (my wife) who says "let's be realistic: a lot of kids grow up with Santa Claus and they don't turn out with materialism foaming at their mouth. You have to be in the world too, and I want our kids to be able to interact with other kids and not appear as religious freaks ...". So two visions, and only one must win! (no, not really but I thought it sounded better this way).
Well friends, what to do about the pervasiveness of this example of the surrounding materialistic culture ? Are we somewhat immune to it in the long run (i.e., we don't need to make a strong stand; if we just stick to the essentials it will be all right, etc.)? Or is it a line in the sand?
In the end, Mary and I agreed to speak to Son No.1 about St Nicolas and how he is a saint protecting the children, and how because of St Nicolas' (and ours) love for Jesus kids receive presents for Christmas (at least that's what I remembered from the conversation ...). Quid dicitis fratres?
Posted by Yann the Frenchman at 1:14 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack