It directs people to a site called jesustattoo.org. No specific church is taking responsibility for the billboards. In the "About Us" section on the site, those responsible for them say that they are just what they seem, a small group of people who want to lead others to Jesus. Looking at the site, it seems to be pretty theologically neutral. It's definitely Protestant as it features a Sinner's prayer, but I found nothing there that was particularly problematic from a Catholic perspective. It even says that a follower of Jesus needs to belong to a community of believers which is an idea found more readily in Catholic circles.
So, what about the tats?
The Catholic Church teaches that tattoos as such are morally neutral. That said, there are three main factors that could push it over the fence either way.
The image used or...
the location of the tattoo could be immoral or inappropriate
Your motivation in getting the tattoo could be impure. "Am I seeking to glorify God or draw attention to myself? Will my tattoo be a source of contention for my loved ones? Will getting a tattoo cause me to disobey my parents? Will my tattoo cause someone who is weak in the faith to stumble?" are all good questions to ask (Source).
A big part of the controversy seems to be the idea of Jesus having one. The website features videos where people tell their stories of how Jesus changed their lives. In these videos, an actor playing Jesus changes the tattoos on the new Christians. They were tattooed with words like "addiction" but Jesus changes those tattoos to say thing like "hope." Jesus, in turn, takes the new Christian's old tattoo onto himself. Here, it's easier to show than tell:
While the details might be offensive to some, the general idea here is very true and Biblical:
He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.- 1 Peter 2:24
For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin,so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.- 2 Corinthians 5:21
Jesus is the Lamb of God, not just because he's perfect or because he's cute, but because lambs were used for sacrifice.
Jesus was pure, that goes without saying, but he did bear our sins on the cross and I think that this tattoo idea is a pretty creative way of making that reality tangible for people. It makes a theological idea visual in a society in which we are getting more and more used to getting our information visually rather than verbally.
A tattooed Jesus doesn't bother me, but it can be used as a source for meditation. What tats did He get from me? What sins do I need to confess? What sins do I need to remove from my life?
Buzzfeed had a post not too long ago about a deeply moving and fascinating PSA campaign about domestic violence in India. The organization "Save our Sisters" is working to bring awareness to domestic violence and help the victims. More than 68% of women in India are victims of domestic violence. To put that in perspective, in the United States, the rate is 25%.
The ads say,
“Pray that we never see this day. Today, more than 68% of women in India are victims of domestic violence. Tomorrow, it seems like no woman shall be spared. Not even the ones we pray to.”
The advertisements themselves are incredibly striking and beautiful in a painful and sad way. The advertising company took traditional images of the goddesses and made a real-life recreation. They cover the goddess in bruises and cuts. The props in the pictures are either real or painted on.
The posters feature a phone number to report abuse.
As the Buzzfeed writer points out, this advertisement campaign directly addresses a contradiction in Indian society. They revere many goddesses, but the country remains unsafe for mortal women.
This contradiction can be found in other religious traditions as well. Speaking as a Catholic, I can point out the Catholic devotion to Mary and the Church's long history of social justice. Yet, domestic violence still occurs in some Catholic households.
Here are some of the ads:
Saraswati is the goddess of knowledge, music, the arts, and science.
Lakshmi is the goddess of wealth.
Knowing the subject of this ad, this is perhaps the most striking of all. Durga is a warrior goddess. She is representative of the victory of good over evil. I have a statue of her in my room (because I like to keep pieces of every part of my religious history). May she give the people of India strength to defeat the evils of domestic violence.
For a better view of these ads, including close-ups of some of the details, visit the original Buzzfeed article.
This heart-wrenching story is about a family who were horribly wrongly educated about the Christian views about homosexuality and the deadly results.
Picture taken from the article
It took their son's death from overdose to realize that they should have loved and accepted him regardless of his sexual orientation. They tried to support him while being faithful to their faith. No Christian denomination (including and especially Catholic) teaches that we are supposed to hate gay people. People are people regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone is a beloved child of God.
Another sad thing about this article is the comments section. I usually don't read the comments on articles because the idiots tend to come out in the com-boxes, but I was asked to. Many, many people were using this story to bash organized religion. Organized religion is never the culprit. If you read all the founders of the major religions, you'd know that they all teach love. Religion isn't the problem, it is sometimes the followers who are sinful and foolish.
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:
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?
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.
This is the 8th part of a discussion occurring right now on Catholicmom.com. We are reading Sherry Weddell's Forming Intentional Disciples. It's a really interesting book and it is never too late to join us.
I skipped last week because my reflection was long and it rambled. I didn't like writing it and I didn't want to force anybody to read it. Hopefully it won't be so bad this time.
Knock on wood
Let's revisit my conversion experience. Here I was: I practicing Wiccan. I had played around with Christian symbols and I'd read some of the Bible simply to prove that the abuse I suffered from my grandfather no longer had any power over my life. I knew all about reincarnation and astrology. I meditated and I practiced yoga. I left offerings to the Goddess a couple times a day.
I walk into a Catholic Church because I had to do a paper on a religion I was unfamiliar with and I had a crush on a Catholic.
And it hits me. I feel at home although I have no idea what is going on. I feel like God/Goddess/Whomever wants me to join this Church. All I had ever heard of about this Church is that it's all about conformity. I've never conformed to anything in my life.
I was angry. I went to the sunken garden. I screamed at God and I cried. I could not understand what was going on or why.
Sunken Garden at Truman State University. Picture not taken by me, I'm not that good.
That night, I went on a walk with one of my friends who was a fallen-away Catholic. He ranted about what the Church teaches and why it's wrong. He told me that the Catholic Church was against both the death penalty and abortion. That made me pause, I had never met anyone who agreed with me on both points. I had always held a consistent life ethic and I thought I was a freak.
I still asked my RCIA teacher when we first met: "Is it okay that I still believe in reincarnation?"
So, openness to Catholicism was a huge problem for me.
Ironically, one of the first retreats I went on had the theme "Surrender." On that retreat, someone told me that I was a model of "surrender" to them. They admired me for leaving behind everything and joining the Catholic Church. This retreat happened only 5 months after my first Mass.
So, how did I do it? I don't know. I just did. People tell me from time to time that I'm a brave person. I really don't see that in myself. I just do what I need to do.
There is no doubt in my mind that God can show Himself to those who do not believe. If He can make me Catholic, He can do anything. I really don't have any advice for people who are struggling to be open. It's still a struggle for me in different areas of my life.
When I got pregnant with James, my husband asked me if I was going to breast-feed. I didn't know how to answer. All the children in my family were formula-fed. I guess I just kinda assumed I'd formula-feed too. That's when my husband informed me that we were going to breast-feed because that's how a lot of our conversations go. Ask question then give order. If you're reading this: I love ya, babe.
Like the author of this article, I thought that breast-feeding would be a no-brainer in third-world countries. Heck, money is one of the main reasons why I agreed to breast-feed here in the US. So, I was surprised when I read that 1.4 million babies are dying annually because of poor education in regards to breast-feeding.
In some countries, women are waiting for breast-milk to mature before giving it to their babies, denying them the health benefits of the colostrum. In their defense, the colostrum does look nasty and it doesn't look like it would do the baby any good, but it's actually very important for the baby's health. They even said in my breast-feeding class that if your baby gets nothing else, try to make sure your baby gets the colostrum. Some breast-feeding is better than no breast-feeding at all.
One of the things that struck me the most though was the practice of giving the baby a mixture made from water and ink from a Koran verse for protection. Well, my Bible says too, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4, Deuteronomy 8:3) Apparently, however, the Koran specifically states that you are supposed to breast-feed for the
first two years.
I can understand the importance of tradition. I'm sure some of these women in the third-world would find it odd that I had a priest pour water over my infant's head. I have to applaud UNICEF for aggressively trying to solve this problem. As the article said:
There are babies suffering and dying because they don’t get enough to
eat, yet the best nutrition for them is inches away at all times.
I read an article by a fallen away Catholic explaining why he has left the Church. While a colleague of mine at Ignitum Today wrote a post directly responding to him, I took it upon myself to read TheSparrowby Mary Doria Russell. In the article, he directly refers to the book as being instrumental in him finally taking the plunge to leave his childhood faith.
Spoiler alert: This book tells the story of the first Jesuit mission to an alien planet. Everyone on earth gets excited when we hear radio signals from a nearby world. While plans for a trip get lost in committee in all the various governmental bodies on earth, the Jesuits quickly get their stuff together and are the first to arrive on the new planet. It helps that they are spurned on by one priest in particular who thinks that it is his mission from God to make this trip.
In a couple of years, however, this trip goes completely to hell. All of the explorers except for the aforementioned priest are killed. Innumerable alien children are killed indirectly due to the explorers' actions. The priest is sold into sex slavery and he ends up accidentally killing an alien child who had become his closest friend. (And that's just the tip of the iceberg.)
The priest in The Sparrow has a lot more reason to sue God than this guy.
This story is a blunt exploration into theodicy. Theodicy is the attempt to rectify the existence of evil with the existence of a good and powerful God. In my opinion, the book leaves the question wide open. The priest ends feeling like he had been "seduced and raped by God." He feels as if God led him to this place, leading to the horrible deaths of many people and aliens, especially children. He feels as if it was God's will that the alien men rape him. He cannot rectify his belief in God with what he went through but, in the end, he wants to try. His fellow Jesuits want to help him in any way they can.
Toward the end of the book (pg. 401), two priests are discussing his experience. One of them explains to the other the idea of the "clock-maker God."
The other priest responds, "So, God just leaves?"
"No. He watches. He rejoices. He weeps. He observes the moral drama of human life and gives meaning to it by caring passionately about us, and remembering."
The other priest quotes Matthew 10:29, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them fall to the ground outside your Father's care."
"But the sparrow still falls."
But The Sparrow Still Falls
That is a very poetic way at looking at the issue of theodicy. God cares about us all individually, but bad things still happen. Surprisingly, this is not what the article writer, B. Sarmiento, was struck by.
The character that the fallen away Catholic most relates to is one of the older women in the group of explorers. In a conversation with the priest, she explains that she doesn't need God in order to do good. As the article says:
But that war soon ended. As the saying goes, everything passes. It ended when I found Maria Doria Russell’s “The Sparrow,” a book with a science fiction theme, about a Jesuit who lost his faith because of a tragic event in his life. A character in the book, Anne—a middle-aged American doctor in a Brazilian slum doing work for the poor, an atheist—really got my attention. In one scene, she says in effect: Just because you don’t believe in a god doesn’t mean you can’t do good.
It was as if a light bulb switched on in my head. And suddenly I was thinking: Do good for the sake of doing good, and not because you’re afraid of ending up in some hell.
First of all, Anne isn't an atheist. As her husband characterizes her, "She's a Catholic when you get her drunk enough." She believes in God, but God is not a huge deal to her.
Otherwise, Sarmiento's summary is accurate. After a long day adapting to life with an alien culture on an alien world, she shoots the breeze with the main character priest. They discuss all too briefly whether or not you can live a moral life without God before moving on to other topics.
It is entirely possible to live a moral life without God. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about "natural law." There are moral rules, like for instance murdering an innocent person, that can be reached purely through reason and experience. You don't divine revelation to tell you how to be a descent human being.
To take it a step further, the goal of Christians is to do good for the sake of doing good. We aren't supposed to do good out of fear of Hell. In Catholicism, that's called imperfect contrition. Doing good because you don't want to go to hell is a good enough reason, but it is not the best. The best is to do good out of love for God and neighbor; to do the right thing because it's the right thing. It pains me to see how poorly catechized Sarmiento was in this respect.
The Sparrow is a very good book. I would caution readers, however, that the end gets very graphic and disturbed me greatly as the killing and raping is described in detail. It is interesting in its exploration of theodicy and in its social commentary. I would recommend it, but not to the faint of heart.
The priest in this interview with the Huffington Post really knocks it out of the park.
The diocese of Brooklyn has developed a new ad campaign that has people talking. In as series of ads, they try to reach young adults who aren't coming to church. They are releasing ads specifically aimed at parents, joggers, and people of different ethnicities. And hipsters? The ad campaign is called "All faces. Everyday understanding" and it is doing it's job at getting people's attention.
So, what do you think about this ad campaign? Is it appropriate to talk about Jesus like this? Was Jesus really a hipster?
It is also appropriating a meme that has been used and abused for years.
I'm all for anyone taking back something that is used to mock them and twisting it into their own. Way to stick it to...well...whoever you're sticking it to.
The priest in the above video makes the valid point that every culture that Christianity has come in contact with has made Christ into their own image. What ever is considered beautiful and good in your culture, you apply rightly or wrongly to Christ. That's the reason why this Middle-Eastern man is often depicted here in the west as a good looking Caucasian with blue eyes.
At least the Bible miniseries gave him brown eyes
But, just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right. So, is it right? Jesus came into our world as a Middle Eastern Jew around the year 4 BCE. Is it okay to depict him as anything else? Well, unlike St. Paul, we don't have a detailed description of what Jesus looked like. That's not any excuse. Forensic scientists have been trying to work around that. And this "hipster" label isn't really talking about His looks anyway. It's about His beliefs and we have plenty of literature and 2000 years of Tradition to tell us about those.
Urban Dictionary defines "hipster" as:
Hipsters are a subculture of men and women typically in their 20's and 30's that value independent thinking, counter-culture, progressive politics, an appreciation of art and indie-rock, creativity, intelligence, and witty banter...Hipsters reject the culturally-ignorant attitudes of mainstream consumers, and are often be seen wearing vintage and thrift store inspired fashions, tight-fitting jeans, old-school sneakers, and sometimes thick rimmed glasses.
Jesus was certainly counter-cultural. Let's take two prime examples:
The woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11)- An angry crowd comes to Jesus with to ask him if it is okay to stone a woman caught committing the sin of adultery. After making them stew for a moment as he wrote something on the ground, he dared that "whoever among you that is without sin can cast the first stone." This is in direct contradiction of the rules and practices of the time. Now, he doesn't let the woman go scot-free, he tells her to sin no more. But he does save her life. And notice something else about the story. It's only the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery. The last time I checked: it takes two people to have sex. Where was the man? I like to think that this played a role in Jesus' judgment of the case.
The question of divorce (Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-12)- Jesus is asked if divorce is permissible. Jesus says, essentially, that it shouldn't be. His questioners argue that they believe it is permissible because Moses said so. Jesus responds saying that it was only because of their "hardness of heart" that God has allowed it to occur. Again, very counter-cultural and very pro-woman. The wife usually got the raw end of the deal in divorces because they were seen as their husband's property and they typically didn't have anything of their own. So women abandoned in divorce would often have to resort to begging or prostitution simply to stay alive. So, in addition to affirming that "what God has put together, let no man put asunder," he's also, once again, protecting women.
Now we wade into the murky waters of progressivism. As I have argued before, I truly Catholic outlook would not jive with either the Republicans or the Democrats. I don't think Jesus would fully support either one.
Like our new Pope, Jesus seems to have been a doctrinal hard-ass who loved the underdog and the outcast. If you don't believe me, see his teaching on divorce above. His questioners bring up Moses, Jesus points them all to Genesis. Jesus is trying to point them all to the very beginning, how God made everything before any man, even the venerable Moses, had any say. You can't get more conservative than that.
That seems kind of counter-cultural in and of itself. Going down the street, you see people wearing their identities on their tee-shirts. The United States is becoming ever more divided into our respective camps. People proudly announce their labels from the rooftops. To refuse to be put into a box is against the norm.
While Jesus might not have necessarily agreed with all that the current progressive movement stands for, he was completely counter-cultural.
He was completely against hyper-consumerism (Matthew 21:12-13).
He followed God regardless of anything people said (Mark 12:14-17).
He would feel at home with the bohemians (Luke 9:58).
Jesus made ironic statements and used sarcasm (examples include Matthew 19:23-26 [camel through eye of needle], Matthew 7:3 [plank in your own eye], John 1:46-47 [Jesus being snarky to Nathanael], and Luke 14:16-24 [the really lame excuses the wedding fest guests give for not showing up]).
Yeah, I think Jesus could be considered a "hipster" as long as you are lenient on your definition of "progressive."
All who were destined for eternal life came to believe,
and the word of the Lord continued to spread
through the whole region. - Acts 13:48b-49
Apostle Andrew spreading Gospel in what is now known as Russia
I, John, had a vision of a great multitude,
which no one could count,
from every nation, race, people, and tongue.
They stood before the throne and before the Lamb,
wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands. - Revelation 7:9
Jesus said:
“My sheep hear my voice;
I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.
No one can take them out of my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all,
and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.
The Father and I are one.” - John 10:27-30
There is one clear overarching theme this Sunday: The spread of Christianity to people of every nation and the great cloud of witnesses that proceeded us to Heaven. There are 2.18 billion Christians in the world, around half of them are Catholic. This is all from a relatively small band of Jewish men and women from Galilee. How crazy is that?
The vision from Revelation that we read about this week (Revelation 7:9, 14b-17) is a view of the martyrs in heaven. John sees that these martyrs dressed in white robes carrying palm branches, both of which are traditional symbols of martyrdom. Someone explains to him that they are now happy and fulfilled in Heaven. Now, when we think of martyrs, we will think of St. Stephen being stoned (Acts 7) or St. Peter being crucified upside down.
We have an ever growing cloud of witnesses. Not to belittle our current issues with the HHS mandate and stuff like that, but here in the United States we at least have the freedom to go to church. We have the freedom to pray and to read the Bible. We can get together in public places with other believers. We can protest governmental policies we don't like. There are many, many Christians in the world who cannot do any of those things.
Think about that the next time you are too tired for church on Sunday or you don't feel like doing your prayers. (Just like you think about the starving kids when you throw away your leftovers.)
A transgendered friend of mine came across the following quote from a book of CS Lewis quotes:
"Everyone must sometimes have wondered why in nearly all tongues certain inanimate objects are masculine and others feminine. What is masculine about a mountain or feminine about certain trees? Ransom has cured me of believing that this is a purely morphological phenomenon, depending on the form of the word. Still less is gender an imaginative extension of sex. Our ancestors did not make mountains masculine because they projected male characteristics into them. The real process is the reverse. Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings. Female sex is simply on of the things that have feminine gender; there are many others, and Masculine and Feminine meet us on planes of reality where male and female would be simply meaningless. Masculine is not attenuated male, nor feminine attenuated female. On the contrary, the male and female of organic creatures are rather faint and blurred reflections of masculine and feminine. Their reproductive functions, their differences in strength and size, partly exhibit, but partly also confuse and misrepresent, the real polarity." -Perelandra, pg. 171-172 She got excited because she thought this quote would help her son understand her better. Now, I saw this and thought something fishy is going on here. C.S. Lewis was a very orthodox Christian. This quote in context could not possibly be saying all that my friend hoped it was. And so, I sat down to the Space Trilogy
Overall, I would say this is an excellent, thought-provoking series, but do not sit down to it if you're looking for a light, mind-less story. These books are crammed full of explicit and not-so-explicit theology, especially theology in regards to the nature of evil. I read the first two books back-to-back and I'm going to wait a while before starting the third because my brain needs a break.
Back to the quote: The quote is found near the end of the second book, Perelandra. Spoiler alert: Dr. Ransom had just saved Perelandra (aka Venus) from unimaginable evil. Before leaving the planet, he meets the gods of Mars and Venus. The god of Mars is male. The god of Venus is female. Both of these gods are body-less spirits. This leads Ransom to reflect on the fact that gender is more than the body. There are inanimate objects that have an undefinable feminine-ness or masculine-ness as illustrated in many of the world's languages. One cannot truly put their finger on exactly what feminine and masculine means.
If this is what my transgendered friend wants to use the quote for, she is exactly right. She can tell her son that some of the greatest minds in history recognized that gender is more than biological sex (Including but not limited to JPII, the authors of the Catechism, St. Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle). One of the things I appreciate most about my Catholic faith is the recognition that we are more than our bodies, we are more than our spirits. We are both. We will see that in the end of days in which we will all be resurrected body and soul. A dualist mentality is truly inconsistent with a Roman Catholic worldview. You can see all the way back to Christ that dualism is not Christian. Jesus didn't reject the physical world, he embraced it. As Christians, we cannot disparage the physical nor can we ignore the spiritual.
This is a far cry, however, from saying that CS Lewis would be supportive of transsexuals. The key concept here is that we are both body and spirit. God created each one of us in our mother's wombs. God created us to be male or female. Our gender, while it is not solely a matter of our physical characteristics, is defined by both our natural characteristics and our spirit. Our physical bodies are completely and intricately linked to our souls. We are embodied souls.
The Catholic Church considers it a mutilation of the body to remove perfectly functioning sexual organs and replace them with something that looks right, but cannot function. It is a psychological disorder requiring a psychological treatment, the Church argues. Someone changing their sex does not only affect the transsexual, but also their families, friends, and communities. It breaks relationships. It has been judged that sexual reassignment surgery can be used if it will cure a person of their emotional and psychological pain, but many in the Church are not convinced that surgery is the only answer.
All of that said, some of the language used by Church leaders in regards to these issues have been very hurtful and not pastorally sensitive. I am reminded frequently of Benedict XVI's Christmas address in 2008 in which he seems to accuse transsexuals of simple rebellion and equate sexual reassignment surgery with the destruction of a rainforest. (May be a misinterpretation) I hear from transsexuals and other transgendered that they feel as if the Church considers them "deformed" and "disordered."
I'd ask you to put yourself in their shoes, but you cannot know what they go through if you are not yourself transsexual. It is completely outside of our experience to feel like you're in the wrong body. Most of us don't know what it's like to feel so completely uncomfortable in your own skin that your willing to endure major surgery and alienate half your family to alleviate your own pain.
My friend mentioned earlier has a strained relationship with her own son over this. Her son is a devout Christian and she's looking for a way to explain herself in his terms. In this quote, she has found a way to poetically describe the complexity of gender, but she hasn't completely defended herself. Especially if her son happens to be Catholic.
Here is another quote to ponder:
"Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day."-Gaudium et Spes
A while back, I reviewed John L. Allen Jr.'s interview with Archbishop Cardinal Dolan. I walked away from that book completely enamored with the man, but that's not why I bring this up. At several points in the interview, he talked about the imperfections of the Church. Any organization, even one ran by God, is going to have imperfections because it consists of people. People aren't perfect. As Dolan says in the interview, "We shouldn't be afraid to show off the wounds of the Church to the world, and we should boast that the wounds remind us of the healer." People run from church to church trying to find the perfect one. They say, "This one is full of hypocrites" and "this one has better preaching." They are looking for some imaginary church that is full of living saints, with awesome services and amazing programs. They are looking for a church in which they'll agree 100% with everything the hierarchy says. And when they do not find this church, they are the people and families that stay home on Sundays. They figure it's good to just be alone with God, because other people just mess things up anyhow. I have 6 things to say to them: 1. In any group of human beings, perfection does not exist. Everyone fails from time to time.
2. Jesus came for sinners, not for the well.
3. He also came to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. So, you don't 100% agree with the hierarchy of your church? Maybe this is God's way of asking you to reconsider your position. Maybe this is God's challenge for you to prophetically change your hierarchy's mind. In either case, maybe you should look at the issue closer. There must be something more to learn there. Never stop learning.
4. Religion isn't supposed to be easy and it definitely isn't entertainment. No, you don't have to earn your way to heaven. Catholics and Protestants both agree on that. But church is supposed to change you. You aren't supposed to get a warm fuzzy feeling every time you go to church. Sure, sometimes you'll get a warm feeling, but other times you'll be hurt, or get angry, or sometimes you won't feel much of anything at all except the comfort of knowing you are not alone.
5. This is in direct response to the Muslim convert to Catholicism who left the Church because the Church "got soft on Islam": church isn't about hate. We don't get together to hate. Jesus doesn't hate. This also goes for the Catholics who think the Church is not being hard enough on homosexuals.
6. But neither should you expect unconditional acceptance of your behavior. "Love the sinner, hate the sin," said St. Augustine. There is a huge difference between the doer and the action. The doer is always a person in the likeness of God who God loved so much that He died for them. The action is not always so holy.
So, find a church that isn't completely bad and one that you feel at home in and stick with it. Through good times and bad. When you love it and when it challenges some of your fundamental beliefs. You'll grow through it and you'll be better for it.
I'm done. This is it. I'm politically liberal, but I am sick and tired of people on my side-of-the-fence's pro-abortion rhetoric. Watch this:
I would ask her to listen to herself. She is judging a being, that she admits has the potential to someday be a person, based on how much a financial burden they are. So, to her, people are only worth how much they can produce? How much of a financial burden they are?
Let's expand this logic. There are there are over 1.5 million people living in long term care facilities in the US. They don't have jobs. Many of them are not mentally or physically capable of work. I'm sure it costs quite a bit to keep them all alive between the room and board and all the medications. Using her logic, why don't we kill them all?
Oh, that's right. Because killing the disabled or the elderly is murder.
She says that the belief that the fertilized egg is a person is just that, a belief. So apparently science can tell us when life begins? Science cannot tell us definitively when life ends, how can science tell us when it begins? Life is the ultimate mystery. No one will ever be able to figure out exactly how it works. No one knows where it comes from or where it ends because newborn babies don't talk and, except for maybe that Jesus guy, no one has ever come back from the grave. This is purely the realm of philosophy and religion. Science cannot touch it, just like science cannot touch God.
Her junk science is judging, at the very least, a unique grouping of human cells to only be worth as much as it can be worth on the marketplace. It is putting a financial value on life. Regardless of your beliefs on when life begins, you must see the inherent immorality of such a judgement. It is morally repugnant to judge anyone, even a "potential human," based on their economic usefulness.
I know that life starts at conception, but even if I ignore that fact, Melissa Harris-Perry's logic is dangerous and deeply morally flawed.
I stopped watching CNN a while back because they had one "journalist" who had clearly forgotten how to do an appropriate interview. Now, between this and Toure, I will no longer be watching MSNBC. I only watch FOX NEWS sometimes for the humor; I can't believe rational, intelligent people actually believe some of the spin on that channel. So, I guess I'll start reading the newspaper?
"The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
because the LORD has anointed me;
He has sent me to bring good news to the afflicted,
to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
release to the prisoners,
To announce a year of favor from the LORD
and a day of vindication by our God;" - Isaiah 61:1-2a
In the Gospel today, Jesus reads this passage from Isaiah and concludes that "Today, this scripture passage is fulfilled in your hearing." Today, I tell you that this passage needs to continually be fulfilled by the Body of Christ on Earth.
After we were baptized, we were anointed with an oil called the Holy Chrism. This is the same oil that is later used for the sacraments of confirmation and holy orders. As we are anointed with this oil, the priest says:
Priest: The God of power and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has freed you from sin and
brought you to new life through water and the Holy Spirit. He now anoints you with the
chrism of salvation, so that, united with his people, you may remain for ever a member of
Christ who is Priest, Prophet and King.
We are anointed priest, prophet and king following in the footsteps of Christ. Jesus was a priest in offering himself up as a sacrifice for us all. He was a prophet in declaring the Kingdom of God. He was a king in his service to everyone in healing and in setting an example for us all of a life lived in holiness. Not all of us will literally be priests. Some of us will not take Holy Orders and some of us cannot take Holy Orders. Not all of us will be called to preach on street corners like the prophets of the Old Testament. This idea of evangelization frankly scares most Catholics. Not all of us will be in leadership positions. The Church won't run well with too many cooks in the kitchen and some people just don't want the responsibility. But we can all be priests, prophets and kings in our own way.
So, where did this idea come from? I see plenty of evidence in the Bible of Jesus being a priest, prophet and king, but no where is this explicitly said. You're not crazy. It isn't explicitly in there. It is mentioned in the early 4th century by Eusebius of Caesarea and it has been expounded upon by the likes of Sts. Augustine andJohn Chrysostom and this idea was used extensively by the Protestant Reformers. It's called the "Threefold office." It is used to explain how Christ fulfilled all of the Old Testament predictions of the messiah. It is also used to expound upon our mission as part of the body of Christ.
So, what does this have to do with my everyday life? How can I be a priest? Well, for beginners, there is lay ministry. With the vocational discernment shortage, there is a huge demand for lay people to step up to the plate and do some of the things that the religious used to do like visit the home-bound or run Catholic schools and hospitals. But, not all are called to do lay ministry. So what do you do then? The Catechism of the Catholic Church (902, to be exact) mentions that parents play a special role as priests in passing on the faith to their children. If you don't have children, you can take time out to spend with God. Deepening your prayer-life and earnestly trying to follow God's will are both wonderful ways of fulfilling our call to be priests.
What about prophet? What exactly is a prophet anyway? Don't they just sit around and tell the future? Well, not exactly. I like the Old Testament definition of a prophet: A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression. (Source) A prophet doesn't necessarily tell the future. A prophet spreads God's message. Any Catholic can fulfill this call by teaching the faith or evangelizing. Or, if you don't want to put yourself out there like that, you can always be a prophet by your everyday words and actions. Simply by being the best Catholic Christian you can be, you are prophetically witnessing to your faith. You can be a prophet by making the world a better place and making your opinions known.
How on earth can I be a king? I live in America (Okay, I'm assuming so because most of my audience is in the US, but if not, that's cool). America doesn't have kings! First of all, Jesus said, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as 'Benefactors'; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves." (Luke 22:25-27) So, our kingly office is not literally an office of leadership. We practice our kingly calling by serving others and by trying to live a moral life. Those are two things everyone can do.
In today's Gospel, Jesus points out these three parts of His calling and consequently our calling. Like Jesus, we are anointed. Like Jesus, we are to give sight to the blind (through the priestly office of teaching). Like Jesus, we are to proclaim liberty to captives (through the prophetic office of witnessing to our faith). Like Jesus, we are to let the oppressed go free (through the kingly office of service).
The following is a live performance by Casting Crowns of their song "Love them like Jesus." This song speaks to how we are to imitate Jesus in our everyday lives, even if that means sometimes just being present to someone who is suffering.
