Been Busy

Sorry you haven't heard from me in a while. I've been busy on some of my other websites. Here are some of the things I've been writing:

Mary Speaks to All of Us

What I Learned About Marriage From Two Nursing Home Residents

I re-posted my last reflection on Lumen Fidei.

Saint of the Day: Saints Fausta and Evilasius

Some memes I've made:

Confirmation Classes are starting again. Technically, I'm going to be teaching two classes at once which is unheard of in my parish. One of my classes will be ending in November, so it shouldn't be too bad. 

There have been a number of things in the news lately about pro-life and women's issues that I would like to comment on and I'll get to work on that. I just wanted to let you know I haven't disappeared. 

I gotta use this cartoon every excuse I get. Although I'm done with the shameless plugging.

Lumen Fidei #16: Share The Light

From #37: Faith is passed on, we might say, by contact, from one person to another, just as one candle is lighted from another.

This is one of the many points in this encyclical in which I'm reminded of this year's Lawn Chair Catechism series at Catholicmom.com. We're reading Forming Intentional Disciples by Sherry Weddell. While my participation in the series has been shoddy at best, I have been faithfully reading along and I love this book. Just this summer, I've recommended this book on at least three different occasions. That is saying a lot for me. I don't usually volunteer book recommendations.

In the book, the stages of conversion are discussed. Essentially, in order for someone to become a disciple of Jesus, they need to have a personal relationship with His Church. Faith is passed on in personal contact between one person and another. We can't just launch into catechesis; a person needs to trust the Church and have a relationship with the Church before they can learn.

This reading has changed my views on my job teaching Confirmation at my parish. Last year, I concentrated mainly on giving my students accurate information and making that information relevant. This year, I'll likely put more emphasis on prayer and developing a connection with my students.

If you want to read more of my reflections on Pope Francis' first encyclical, visit here.

And when spreading the faith, don't forget new media.

  

Lumen Fidei #15: Technical Jargon

From # 36: Theology also shares in the ecclesial form of faith; its light is the light of the believing subject which is the Church. This implies, on the one hand, that theology must be at the service of the faith of Christians, that it must work humbly to protect and deepen the faith of everyone, especially ordinary believers. On the other hand, because it draws its life from faith, theology cannot consider the magisterium as something extrinsic, a limitation of its freedom, but rather as one of the internal, constitutive dimensions, for the magisterium ensures our contact with the primordial source and thus provides the certainty of attaining to the word of Christ in all its integrity.

In other words, theology as a discipline must serve the ordinary believer and work with the magisterium, not against it. I almost didn't share this quote because 1) it's too fracking long and 2) I thought only me and my fellow armchair theologians would appreciate it. I decided to share it because it needs to be said.

The Magisterium is not the enemy. We're all in this together. The Magisterium contains the collective wisdom of thousands of well-educated men and women accumulated over centuries. When we say "the Church teaches X," we are referring to this well of knowledge. It really shouldn't be cast aside like it's worthless or rebelled against like it's always wrong. At the very least, it deserves a fair hearing and thoughtful (prayerful) consideration. God gave us the Magisterium. The Holy Spirit leads the Magisterium. You can't just ignore the Magisterium.

If you want to read more of this series of reflections on Pope Francis' first encyclical, visit here.

Jesus giving the keys to Peter

Swords to Plowshares

Let Us Beat Swords into Plowshares, a sculpture by Evgeniy Vuchetich, given by the Soviet Union to the United Nations in 1959; my picture taken from UN grounds showing sculpture in front of the East River. Picture from commons.wikimedia.org

In days to come,The mountain of the LORD’s houseshall be established as the highest mountainand raised above the hills.All nations shall stream toward it.Many peoples shall come and say:“Come, let us go up to the LORD’s mountain,to the house of the God of Jacob,That he may instruct us in his ways,and we may walk in his paths.”For from Zion shall go forth instruction,and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.He shall judge between the nations,and set terms for many peoples.They shall beat their swords into plowsharesand their spears into pruning hooks;One nation shall not raise the sword against another,nor shall they train for war again. - Isaiah 2:2-4

For some reason, I always had the idea that God was the one who was going to come down and turn our "swords into plowshares" when this world comes to an end. But this morning during morning prayers, I had another idea.

In this passage, people go up to the LORD's mountain so that God can instruct them. After this instruction (and judgement), the people themselves turn their swords to plowshares. So...

Let's think about this for a moment. As we learn about God and follow His will, we find peace within ourselves. We know we're doing the right thing and we know we are on the right path. We are told that peace begins in ourselves, our families, and our communities.

Above is the song "Let there be peace on earth." Keep your comments to yourself. Yes, I hate most church songs popularized post-Vatican II. Not this one. Sue me.

So, maybe here is another point to all of this reading, studying, and catechizing. As we learn more about God, little by little this world will find peace.

Can a Muslim Tell Us Anything About Jesus?

Yesterday, my Facebook newsfeed was on fire with two things. One, Pope Francis' comments about gays. And two, a Fox interview with Reza Aslan, the author of Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.

The so-called news channels (Source)

Now, I refuse to judge a man based on an interview on a so-called news channel. What passes for journalism today is nothing more than thinly veiled propaganda. I'm reading his book. I'll be reviewing it later.

But the main question I ask is: Can a non-Christian tell Christians anything about Jesus?

I think they can. Two of my favorite paintings of Jesus were done by non-Christians.

Source

This is a painting of Jesus done by a Buddhist using some traditional symbolism found in pictures of Bodhisattvas. Jesus is situated in a desert and directly behind him is the cross. He's seated on a lotus, which symbolizes purity and non-attachment. Both of those are among the highest values for a Buddhist to attain. Between his hands is a tiny heart. That was my latest discovery looking at this picture. I've looked at it for 8 or 9 years now and I'm still finding little things like that to meditate upon.

The White Crucifixion by Marc Chagall (Source)

This one is apparently one of Pope Francis' favorites too. It places Jesus' crucifixion squarely in the history of persecution endured by the Jewish people. Jesus was a Jew. He was born and he died a good Jewish boy. The roots of our faith and practices are all in Judaism. Judaism deserves our utmost respect.

I look forward to the day when my family gets to move into a house with more wall-space so I can hang my copies of these paintings up again.

I think it's valuable to see Jesus through non-Christian eyes. Seeing something fresh gives you a new perspective. From their religious traditions, they might see something in Jesus that you do not see and that always gives good food for thought. As long as we approach it with a discerning spirit, we can never learn enough about our Lord.

The Church's Strange Relationship with Apocryphal Literature

Today is the feast day of Mary's parents, Sts. Joachim and Anne. Thinking of them reminds me of this icon I saw a while back in a blog post by Christopher West:

Source that TOB Institute credits

In the post, he talks about how this icon illustrates for him the beauty of chaste marital love. In this icon, you see the saints embracing and in the background is a bed. It is supposed to depict the great mystery which is Mary's Immaculate Conception.

What is that? Catholics believe that Mary, the virgin Mother of God, was conceived without original sin. Original sin is a stain that we are all born with from Adam and Eve's fall in the garden. Mary was conceived without this sin because she was destined to be the Mother of God. God cannot be in the presence of sin, so His earthly vessel, Mary, had to be without sin. This is also credited to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. As time is no barrier to God, Jesus' sacrifice made His mother's sinlessness possible. We are all redeemed through Christ including those who were born before He was.

Now, Joachim and Anne are not mentioned in the Bible. How do we know who they are? That is where this gets fun because I get to play Bible scholar again.

We are told in every other History Channel Bible special that the big, bad Catholic Church suppressed the wonderful literature found in the apocryphal gospels. This feast day is a prime example of how wrong that is.

Joachim and Anne's names and everything else we know about them comes from an apocryphal book. Yes, you read that correctly.

The book is called the Protoevangelium of James. "Protoevangelium" is just a fancy word for "pre-Gospel." The book is a "pre-Gospel" because most of it revolves around things that happened before Jesus' birth like the childhood of Mary and the events of Jesus' early life like running from Herod.

Ever seen a statue or a picture of St. Joseph holding a staff with a lily, like so?

Source

That comes from the same book. At one point, it tells the story of how St. Joseph came to be betrothed to Mary. The story goes that St. Joseph and other widowers brought their staffs to the temple. St. Joseph's staff bloomed, indicating that he was the one chosen by God to take Mary as his wife.

So it seems that the Church didn't suppress the apocryphal gospels at all, but incorporated some of their legends into it's rich treasury.

So, how was the New Testament established if it wasn't some judgement pontificated from on high? (Pun completely intentional.)

It was an organic process over the first few centuries of Christianity. As Christianity grew, groups of Christians used a wide variety of texts based on what the group's views were and whatever was available in their time and place. Over time, it became apparent that if Christianity was to survive, they needed some kind of standard. They used a variety of standards to determine what would eventually become part of the New Testament canon:

1) There were several books that were widely used by most groups. Those books were mostly shoe-ins.

2) Preference was given to books that contained stories told by the apostles themselves.

3) Also, they stuck to books that were similar. Books that contained bizarre stories or doctrine not found anywhere else were thrown out.

But no books were suppressed. Over the first 4 centuries when these decisions were being made, Christianity itself was being suppressed and persecuted. No one Christian group had the power or the visibility to suppress another.

When Christianity did become institutionalized, certain groups that used these writings were suppressed, but the writings themselves were not.

In short, it wasn't ever about power, but about the need for standardization. But that isn't what we're taught because it isn't neat and tidy. It's much easier to blame the Church. Anything organic is messy and takes a lot longer to explain.

Lawn Chair Catechism #5: Grace Abounds

This summer, I'm participating in an online book club reading Sherry Weddell's book, Forming Intentional Disciples. It's hosted by Catholicmom.com and it's never too late to join us!

An issue that the youth minister at my parish and I have talked about ad nauseum is teenagers and confirmation. Namely, all of the parents who see confirmation as a rite of passage that the teen has to go through whether they like it or not.

 

This topic also came up in my Bible study one time and it was enlightening. Many of the women in my Bible study were in this camp. They were of the opinion of "We had to do it, so should they." Also, the mentality that Wendell speaks about in the book of "The Sacrament will take care of anything lacking in intention." I had to bite my tongue not to say something I would later regret.

 

As a convert, I do have a very different relationship with the sacraments. I received Baptism, Confirmation, and First Communion all in the same ceremony after 16 months or so of preparation. Before even entering a Catholic Church, I had looked for God for at least a decade of my life. I journaled every day for the month prior to the rites, examining my life up to that point and thinking about what the rites meant to me. My family isn't Catholic, the rites weren't part of my family heritage or hoops to jump through.

 

I wish I had this chapter with me when this conversation at my Bible study occurred. I wonder if this chapter could stand alone for copies to be given to all parents of the teens going into confirmation. (Sherry, I know you read some of these, can we get permission to do that?) To be honest, this idea of the two parts of the Sacraments was not brought up in my theological studies. But, then again, my specialty was Bible not Liturgy, so they might have covered this, but not in any of the classes I took.

 

The standard practice at my parish is that every teen going for confirmation has to have an interview with the youth minister. If in the course of that interview, the teen expresses that they do not want to be confirmed and can give a good reason, the youth minister will call the parents in. The youth minister will then argue on the behalf of the teenager for the teenager's right to say "no."

 

In my classes with the Confirmation students, I share with them my conversion story. I try to make it clear to them that they have to want this. I also tell them it is not a one time deal, they can refuse and come back later. RCIA is always an option. Half of the candidates in the last RCIA class we had were young adults who had refused to get confirmed as teenagers and changed their minds as adults. Similarly, this is not "graduating Catholicism." There will always be new things to learn and new ways to grow in your relationship with Christ.

 

Like Bible Study

 

The women in my Bible study were full of beautiful stories about forcing their teens to be Confirmed and their kids then leave the faith only to they rediscover the faith later on in life. They all linked it back to the day they forced them to get Confirmed. They feel that if they didn't force their child to get Confirmed, they would have never returned to the Church.

 

The women might not be that far off the mark. They mistakenly think that the Sacrament works even if the person doesn't want it. However, once the person does want it, the grace that was previously blocked can begin to flow.

 

I am still of the opinion that Confirmation should be later, when the young adult can appreciate it more. I have heard, however, great arguments the other way. I just think it's a mess and a half to have these poorly catechized teenagers with hormones raging and the attention span of gnats go through a Sacrament that leaves a permanent mark on the soul. (I love my teens, but, holy cow, they can be difficult.)

 

Maybe an all around change in parish culture like that proposed in Forming Intentional Disciples could make the whole process go smoother and the teens would get more out of it. They would get better catechesis from the beginning. They would from day one be encouraged to have a more personal relationship with Jesus. Then the hormones and the attention span wouldn't be nearly the problem they are now and the grace can simply flow.  

A World Without Health Insurance?

A South Portland doctor is joining a growing community of doctors who refuse to deal with the insurance companies any longer. He refuses all insurance, posting his prices for services online, and working with patients on an individual basis if they have a problem paying. He's lost some patients who are very dependent on their insurance to pay their bills, but most of his patients have been understanding.

In this world where health insurance is too often synonymous with healthcare, this is scary. People without insurance don't get care until it's too late. Those who do have insurance often have to weigh in the question, "what will my insurance cover and how much?" when making healthcare decisions. The Catholic Church holds that basic healthcare is a right. Not a privilege or a benefit, a right.

This question of insurance, however, brings into play a much misunderstood, ignored and abused Catholic concept called "subsidiarity." Catholics will often treat this concept as it supports or condemns their individual political views. What does it actually mean and how important is it?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about "subsidiarity":

1882 Certain societies, such as the family and the state, correspond more directly to the nature of man; they are necessary to him. To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged "on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs." This "socialization" also expresses the natural tendency for human beings to associate with one another for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights.
1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

Basically, it means that problems are best handled by those closest to the problem. The government oversteps its bounds when it tries to micromanage. When it was originally introduced by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, it was meant as a middle ground between communism and unbridled capitalism.

The foundation of all Catholic thought is the inherent dignity of the human person. From that flows pretty much everything the Church teaches. So, as humanity is the most important of God's creation and all people are created, beloved, and redeemed by God, human organizations are supposed to work for the good of people, not for the almighty dollar or someone's ego.

What does this have to do with health insurance? Insurance companies and money have too much control over people's health. The most foundational right that a person has is the right to life. If they get subpar health care, that undermines their right to life.

As long as this doctor in South Portland and others like him are truly flexible with those who cannot pay, their decision to no longer take insurance is a laudable one. He has shown in the article how cutting out the middle man dropped the prices of some of his most basic services like simple routine office visits. If this is true and can be replicated without completely destroying our economy, maybe his decision should be imitated.

A Catholic social teaching equal to and intimately related to "subsidiarity" is "solidarity." We need to do what we can to help those in poverty. If taking insurance out of the equation ultimately leads to more poor people getting the help they need, I'm cool with it.

"Subsidiarity" was introduced as a middle way between two extremes, neither of which are truly in line with the dignity of the human person. I would also say that "subsidiarity" itself should not be taken to an extreme. We cannot completely eliminate the all of the bigger organizations or make them completely impotent because that could lead to chaos which also does not serve the good of humanity.

For more information, here is a very informative article on Catholic Culture.org.

7 Quick Takes (#9) Shameless Pulg Edition

--- 1 ---

I've been back home for a week now. Time flies when you're sicker than a dog and still trying to work your butt off.

--- 2 ---

 

I'm always looking for an excuse to use the above cartoon. So, what have I been doing? I volunteered for another website: YOUCATholic.com. I'll be blogging and putting together the unit on ethics. The biggest issue I've had so far is not being able to find a YOUCAT in all of Syracuse NY. You wouldn't think that would be an issue. Syracuse isn't that small of a town, but you'd be wrong.

 



--- 3 ---

Next Sunday will be my 5th article for Ignitum Today. As I am writing this, the site is down, but as soon as it's back up, you need to check it out. Writing for IT has been enormously helpful for me in developing my blogging skills. Although I'm still not a great writer, I'm a lot better than I was when I first started at IT.

--- 4 ---

I'm helping with publicity for a new organization in town called the John Paul II Center For Women. It is something that Syracuse is in desperate need of. They work on promoting Catholic teachings in regards to the dignity of women, specifically NFP and Theology of the Body. I'm running their FB page and I'm working on their blog right now. I hope to get a Twitter account going soon.

--- 5 ---

And last but not least, my Feminists for Life internship. Of course, it got going to a running start while I was in MO visiting family and friends. I was on the computer a lot more than I would have liked to during my visit. I've already been learning a lot, though, and I've met online some like-minded pro-life feminists. Including a dude. Yes, men can be feminists, too.

--- 6 ---

As mentioned above, James and I did bring home a lovely souvenir from MO. We are both full of snot. Our throats hurt. James is clinging to me, because, hey, mom's supposed to take this stuff away right?

--- 7 ---

That pretty much covers everything. I've renewed my efforts at finding work that I can actually get paid to do. I've volunteered again to review a book for Patheos. I promise it will be better than my last one. And James just pulled himself up on dad's footrest! My big boy!

 

 





For more Quick Takes, visit Conversion Diary!

Pope Francis Doesn't Value Women's Issues?

I thought long and hard about whether or not to respond to this article I saw posted online yesterday. It seems to me that the author doesn't know fundamental things about Catholicism. Maybe I'm being unfair in assuming she doesn't want to know. I would like, however, to give her readers the benefit of the doubt. Even if you don't agree with the Church, it's always good to understand people who are not like you. So, let's take this article apart and explain some things.

The Vatican has enjoyed religious authority worldwide, directly controlling more than a million bishops and nuns who are followed by 1.2 billion worshipers: more than any other Christian sect.

First of all, the Church doesn't work that way. Yes, the Pope is in charge, but he rarely exerts direct control over the other bishops. She makes it sound as if he micro-manages. He usually steps in on another bishop's turf only when stuff seriously hits the fan. Pope Francis seems to have  this view of the papacy, as he prefers to be referred to as the Bishop of Rome, not the Pope. Otherwise, the hierarchy is a lot more messy than she indicates. Nuns are not equal to Bishops, but some religious superiors are not answerable to any Bishop other than the Pope. And it just gets more complicated from there.

There is little doubt that the latest sex abuse scandals have played a major role in shrinking the Church's membership and undermining its credibility.

Actually, statistically, no. Although it has undermined our authority in "pelvic issues" among the general public, the sex abuse crisis has had little to do with the numbers of people leaving the Church.

Ending mandatory celibacy would go a long way to deal with much of the hypocrisy witnessed over the years.

Also, no. Think about it: If someone told you that you could never have sex again, would you start messing with kids? Pedophiles come in many different guises, many are "happily" married men and many never took a vow of celibacy. While the cover-up in the Church is deplorable, the rate of abuse in the Church isn't any higher than any other institution. The priesthood doesn't turn people into pedophiles, pedophiles are attracted to the priesthood because they get unfettered access to kids.

It's no coincidence then that American nuns are also leaving the church in record numbers, according to Catholic World News. Their number has  dropped from 180,000 nuns in 1965 to 75,000 in 2002, and to 56,000 today. They are expected to drop to well below 40,000 by 2020.

I'm sure there are nuns leaving the Church, but the bigger issue is that the vowed religious women are dying. Orders are disappearing because of a lack of vocations to replace those elderly nuns, not because they are jumping ship.

It is common sense that women who make up the majority of the Church's worshipers, should have equal influence over a church in crisis and incapable of truly reforming itself.

And now she shows her whole hand. She has absolutely no understanding of the Catholic priesthood or how the Church actually works. Yes, women make up the majority of the worshipers. They also make up the majority of the catechists, the majority of pastoral staff, the majority of parish councils. The Church isn't about one celibate old man pontificating from on high (pun intended). It's a community. It's the body of Christ and we all have our roles. No role is less important than any other. As Paul says:

Now the body is not a single part, but many. If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one part, where would the body be? But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.” Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.

- 1 Corinthians 12:14-26 

In every parish I've ever belonged to, the true power behind the throne has been a woman. The priest was there to administer the Sacraments which are necessary for salvation, but the woman was largely in charge of day-to-day finances and staffing. She helped make sure the priest made it to his appointments and had everything he needed to do his job. Women educate the young, including those who will one day become priests, and pass the faith down to future generations.

The way I see it: I can no more become a priest than a man can give birth to a child. It isn't a glass ceiling to break through as if the Church was some kind of corporation. That's just not how the Church works. I'm not being held down in some subservient role because I'm a woman.

I can still speak up and I can still be heard. Some of the best priests I've ever met held their female staff in high esteem and often rubber stamped whatever the staff wanted to do. Not to say that the priests were doormats, but they listened and they saw running a parish as a truly collaborative job.

 Source

Women have come a long way in recent years in the Church. We still need more women theologians. Women as well as men need to learn more about their faith in order to accurately and effectively pass it on. But women don't need the priesthood.    

  

Praying Through, Not To, Mary

Praying mantis praying through, not to, Mary. I didn't know they were Catholic.

This is one area that Catholic and non-Catholics get tripped up on all of the time. What is it with Catholics and Mary?

The most realistic picture of Mary I've ever found

Mary is the mother of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I think that all Christians can agree with that. Mary carried Jesus in her womb, gave birth to Him, raised Him and was one of His closest followers. I would hope that all of that is pretty straight-forward.

Catholics have a thing about saints. We have a ton of them.

I mean, a ton of them.

 

 

Like, a whole lot of them.

Nobody has bothered counting them, there are so many. Best estimates are somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000. And being canonized doesn't mean that you then get to go to heaven. It means that the Catholic Church recognizes by your life, works, and miracles in your name that you are already there. We know there are more saints than are formally recognized by the Church.

Now, I start by talking about the saints because Mary is a saint. She is considered to be the highest and most perfect of the saints, but she's still a saint. Now, what makes her so much better than the other saints?

First of all, there must've been something about her that made God choose her to bear His Son. Catholics believe that Mary was born without the stain of original sin. Original sin is a stain that we all get from our first parents Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God in the garden. We believe that she must've been sinless because she carried God in her womb and God cannot co-exist with sin.

Then we observe human nature. All good kids honor their mothers, right? And Jesus must've been the best kid of all, right? So. we know Mary is in heaven and as the mother of God, we figure she's pretty close to the throne.

Through the centuries, the Church has held Mary up as a role model for all the faithful. We see her willingness to have Jesus (Luke 1:26-38). We hear about her pondering things in her heart (Luke 2:19). We wish we had the openness to Jesus that Mary had and the ability to ponder Jesus' deeds and sayings like she did.

Praying through a saint is like asking your best friend to pray for you. We figure these saints are in heaven and they can talk to God directly about our needs. Mary is considered the closest of the saints, so she is given the most respect and attention from the Church. That is the best summary of an answer that I can give.  

We call her the Queen of Heaven because that's what we figure she is.

 She did give birth to Jesus, after all.



Communion Hosts Dispensers?

Since 2007, there have been these nifty things on the market called Communion Host Dispensers.

These Jesus PEZ dispensers are in use in 375,000 churches, at least one of which is Catholic. So, this makes me wonder, what would the Vatican say about such things?

Please wait as your local theology student researches answer (source)

After a couple of hours of looking through everything I have, I see nothing that explicitly says that communion has to be given by hand or that it cannot be given by a dispenser like those above. This is possibly due to the fact that in some Catholic Churches of other rites, it is not given by hand.

Like so.

Next question: Why does this go against our sensibilities then? Why are we so completely bugged by a Jesus PEZ?

Not this.

The first thought I have is directly related to the phrase "Jesus PEZ." It's disrespectful to take communion the same way we take candy. Communion is unlike anything else we eat and it shouldn't be consumed in an ordinary way.

These dispensers are silver and gold, though. And isn't it important to take communion in the right frame of mind? Can't it be reverent regardless of the trappings?

The old-school definition of sacrament is: an outward sign of an inward grace. So the outer trappings really do matter.

Being in the right frame of mind is all well and good, but the appropriateness of your behavior counts. Behavior makes a difference. Take for example smiling: If you smile even when you're depressed, it will make you feel better. Act reverently, even if you're not particularly feeling it, and you'll start to feel it. But act irreverently and, even if you do feel reverent, the feeling will go away.

So, what about this makes Catholics make this face?

 

Simply put, we take actions and outer trappings very seriously, especially when it comes to our Sacraments. The inner life affects the outer actions. The outer actions certainly affect the inner disposition.

 

 

It might sound shallow to you, but that doesn't make it less true.

Unrealistic Views about Death

I read an interesting op-ed from the Washington Post yesterday. It was written by a doctor talking about our unrealistic view of death.

In part, she bought into Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' myth that there once was a day when we weren't afraid of death, a day that never existed. But overall, I think that her words are well worth noting:

For all its technological sophistication and hefty price tag, modern medicine may be doing more to complicate the end of life than to prolong or improve it.

Amen.

Sequestering our elderly keeps most of us from knowing what it’s like to grow old.

This physical and emotional distance becomes obvious as we make decisions that accompany life’s end. Suffering is like a fire: Those who sit closest feel the most heat; a picture of a fire gives off no warmth. That’s why it’s typically the son or daughter who has been physically closest to an elderly parent’s pain who is the most willing to let go.

I have long noted how we seem to move our dying out into the nursing homes on the edge of town. I like her analogy, that "suffering is like a flame." Looking back at my years working in the nursing homes, I see how the family who had visited the resident every week are more willing to let go than the family that is flying in to make the final decisions. We cannot let our own fear of death cloud our judgment in caring for our dying loved ones. Even the Church says there is a time when people can be let go.

Directive 57 of the Ethical Directives for Catholic Health Care states:

A person may forgo extraordinary or disproportionate means of preserving life. Disproportionate means are those that in the patient's judgment do not offer a reasonable hope of benefit or entail an excessive burden, or impose excessive expense on the family or the community.

And you cannot make blanket statements in regards to what constitutes extraordinary treatment. An example used in my ethics class once: A dying woman is ballooning up and her skin is cracked and weeping because her body no longer processes fluids correctly. In a case like that, it is not unreasonable to forego IV fluids.

Death is inevitable. Doctors can do a lot to postpone it, but they cannot prevent it. Sometimes it's just time to let someone go.