I have clear memories of history classes in middle school when the discussion of WWII Germany came up (for me, in the mid '70s). The question invariably came up, "how could the German people allow such monsters to gain power?" I even recall an ABC After School Special on the topic. Now, I understand how in a very personal way.
In the 1920's, Hilter declared that the Jews were the source of Germany's problems. By the 1930s, Hitler and the Nazis had softened the rhetoric against the Jews, and many Germans had convinced themselves that Hitler and the Nazis had wised up. The democratic mechanisms were getting pretty clunky, as the government seemed ineffective in solving Germany's woes. Hitler presented himself and the Nazis as the solution to this. Note that the "Final Solution" was not part of the Nazi platform; that developed after Germany went to war (Nazis in power 1933, Germany at war, 1939).
Appropriately in America, no candidate could ever reach the national stage if he were a racist. Even the hint of such caused Trent Lott to lose his position as Senate Majority Leader. On the national stage, racism is one of those "single issues" that would automatically disqualify a candidate from consideration. The Clinton campaign recognized that fact when they suggested that the burnings of black churches would resume if Republicans came to power. MoveOn.org recognizes the fact when they deliberately compare Bush to Hitler.
Is racism worse than abortion? I'd say no, especially when you consider the tepid "separate but equal" sort of racism practiced in America. What I mean by tepid is: even though racism was practiced, the very phrase recognized that blacks were "equal" and that racism was wrong. This is not so in the current language. It refuses to recognize certain human beings as persons; the concept of equality is not even considered. The language is of "choice." Freedom for adults, disaster for the unborn. This is the language of not so tepid racism.
In the issues between Kerry and Bush, there are only shades of difference. Kerry is pro-war, but not as much as Bush. Bush is proposing nationalized health care, but Kerry says he'll do more faster. Bush signs Democratic Senator Kennedy's education bill, but presumably that's not enough. The biggest Kerry issue is that he is not Bush. Frankly, the best claim is that Bush is so incompetent that we should give the weak junior senator from Massachusetts a chance to prove himself (really, as a senator, Kerry hasn't lead much; he has just been sitting there and avoiding controversy).
But on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Kerry shines brightly in his opposition to life at its earliest stages. By no means is Bush perfect, but Bush's position is better than the current legal reality, while Kerry's position is worse than the current legal reality.
Is racism worse than abortion? What chance would Bush have if he went to a KKK rally and promised an end to Affirmative Action? What chance does Kerry have after promising to protect a woman's "right to choose" abortion at a NARAL dinner?
Some issues give clear indication of a person's moral make up, their ethical character. Catholic John Kerry stands against the teachings of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of life. No one needs to show me that Bush isn't perfect. What they have utterly failed to prove by the widest of margins is that Kerry is better than Bush.
I think that if Kerry becomes president, serious damage will be done to Catholic Church in America. I dare say it will be more serious than the sex scandals. For in the end, everyone acknowledges that the sexually predatory acts of many priests were wrong, and so were the actions by the hierarchy to cover up and re-assign those priests. Sin is still a sin. However, a pro-abortion president of the United States, the most powerful man on earth, will be an affront to the Catholic Church in a way that the Church can not ignore. If the American bishops don't act, then Rome surely will.
The question will be: does the Church take her teachings about the intrinsic evil of abortion seriously? If the Church does nothing, then most will conclude no, abortion really isn't all that bad. So even though the sex scandals did not change the teachings of the Church, it will appear that a Kerry presidency has in fact watered down the teachings of the Church. That is, abortion is really not that evil.
But what if the American bishops or the Vatican takes strong action (such as official excommunition) as I think probable? Then I expect that for cafeteria Catholics and politically liberal Catholics this will be the last straw. They will draw on the typical American response, "You can't tell us what to do!" Indeed, fear of schism may hold back a strong action.
It seems the Church will take a hit either way, and there doesn't seem to be middle ground between the two extremes.
I'm not alone in this assessment, although I'm probably alone in daring to compare this to the sex scandal.
Greg Popcak asks "Will a Kerry win cause schism?"
My fear is that by the time the Bishops are forced to lead--one way or the other--the emotional temperature will be so high among Catholics it won't matter what they say. The die will be cast. By then, people will be so emotionally committed to their own agendas that they will be well past listening to reason. And that is exactly the climate in which a schism could easily grow.
Journalist Robert Novak writes:
John Kerry's promise in the last presidential debate that he would impose an abortion litmus test on Supreme Court selections deepened anxiety of pro-life Catholics. For Charles J. Chaput, Roman Catholic archbishop of Denver, and Brian P. Golden, a Democrat in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, election of a pro-choice Catholic spells disaster.
Law professor Greg Sisk writes:
It is for these reasons, principled reasons far beyond those flowing from ordinary partisan politics, that I and so many others genuinely tremble at the prospect of a President Kerry. It is difficult even to contemplate the appalling spectacle of a professing Catholic who knowingly and freely and energetically gives financial and legal aid and moral comfort to those who daily add to our national holocaust. Watching the most powerful man in the country throwing his arms in a warm embrace around those who kill unborn children, while banishing from government and judicial office those who would promote life, would be heart-rendingly painful. That this same man then could claim communion with the Church of Life is astounding. Such unavoidably would be an act of fundamental dishonesty and contempt for the Churchs witness to life. The scandal that would be caused to the faithful and the injury to the Churchs credibility and voice on issues of life might reverberate for years.
As far as the probable response that I'm fear mongering for votes against Kerry, it's just not true. I honestly believe that no earthly message will budge a Kerry "Catholic" from his or her vote for Kerry.
I left the following in Mark Shea's comment box for this blog entry. I'm sure his Imperial Highness will not be pleased:
I am not at all convinced that Kerry would do anything much different from Bush on Iraq (his stated plans certainly aren't significantly different from Bush's), but if I were so convinced, I'd likely vote for Kerry. The Bushies have so badly screwed the pooch on this war.
There you go. Rod Dreher would vote for a pro-abortion candidate if he held the "right" views about Iraq.
Sad. I really don't care for Dreher's opinions any longer. His caustic remarks about the American bishops (re: the Scandal) appear to lack charity (IMHO I'm unable to find charity, I sure hope Rod's defenders can point the charitable comments out to me). I can't help but think that this poor man has a distorted view of the world. It's too "realistic."
It's also sad that Mark considers this man's remarks as worthy of mention in his blog, just because they happen to agree about Iraq.
Many liberal Catholics have questioned why the issues of war or poverty have to take a second seat to the abortion issue. They question why others like me are "single issue" voters who disqualify Senator Kerry because of his pro-abortion voting record. The answer is and shall continue to be: the abortion issue is the most dominant issue of our time. The abortion issue includes other issues: poverty, war, justice, you name it, it's there. We cannot put any other issue above abortion so as to justify a vote for John Kerry because we automatically distort the issue by excluding the unborn. It becomes, "I'm for issue x, except for the unborn."
In the following quote, Mother Teresa examines root causes:
****
And see, this neglect to love brings spiritual poverty. Maybe in our own family we have somebody who is feeling lonely, who is feeling sick, who is feeling worried. Are we there? Are we willing to give until it hurts in order to be with our family, or do we put our interests first? These are the questions we must ask ourselves, especially as we begin this year of the family. We must remember that love begins at home. And we must also remember that the future of humanity passes through the family.
I was surprised in the West to see so many young boys and girls given to drugs, and I tried to find out why, why is it like that, when those in the West have so many more things than those in the East. And the answer was, because there is no one in the family to receive them. Our children depend on us for everything--their health, their nutrition, their security, their coming to know and love God. For all of this, they look to us with trust, hope and expectation. But often, father and mother are so busy they have no time for their children, or perhaps they are not even married or have given up on their marriage. So the children go to the streets and get involved in drugs and other things. We are talking of love of the child, which is where love and peace must begin--there, in our own family.
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because Jesus said, `If you receive a little child, you receive me.' So every abortion is the denial of receiving Jesus, the neglect of receiving Jesus. It is really a war against the child, and I hate killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that the mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love. And we remind ourselves that love needs to be willing to give until it hurts.
Jesus gave even his live to love us, so the mother who is thinking of abortion should be helped to love--that is, to give until it hurts, her plans, her free time, to respect the life of a child, for the child is the greatest gift of God to the family, because it has been created to love and to be loved.
The father of that child, however, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problem. And by abortion, the father is taught that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into that world. So that father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.
Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love one another but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
[...]
If we remember that God loves us and that we can love others as he loves us, then America can become the sign of peace for the whole world, the sign of joy from where a sign of care for the weakest and the weak, the unborn child, must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. This is to love one another as God loves each one of us. And where does this love begin? In our own home. How does it begin? By praying together.
****
The following is the complete transcript. It can be found at Thomas, using the following link for 103rd Congress and the search term "Mother Teresa"
****
Make us worthy, Lord, to serve our fellow men throughout the world who live and die in poverty and hunger. Give them through our hands this day their daily bread, and by our understanding love, give peace and joy.
Jesus came to give us the good news that God loves us and that He wants to love one another as He loves each one of us. And to make it easy for us to love one another, Jesus said: `Whatever you do to the least, you do it to me. If you give a glass of water, you give it to me. If you receive a little child in my name, you receive me. So whatever you do to the least, you do it to me.'
And where does this love begin? In our own families. How does it begin? By praying together. The family that prays together stays together, and if you stay together, you will love each other as God loves each one of you. So teach your children to pray, and pray with them, and you will have the joy and the peace and the unity of Christ's own love living in you.
As we have gathered together here, I think it would be beautiful if we begin with a prayer that expresses very well what Jesus wants us to do for the least. St. Francis of Assisi understood very well these words of Jesus, and in his life very well expressed them by prayer. And this prayer, which we say every day after holy communion, always surprises me very much, because it is very fitting for each of us, and I always wonder whether 800 years ago when St. Francis lived they had the same difficulties that we have today. I think that some of you already have this prayer of peace, so we will pray it together.
`Lord, make me a channel of your peace.' You have the prayer with you? Will we say it together?
(In unison.) `Lord, make me a channel of your peace. Where there is hatred, may I bring love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. Oh, Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; not so much to be understood as to understand; not to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born again to eternal life.'
Let us thank God for the opportunity he has given us today to have come here to pray together. We have come here especially to pray for peace, for joy and for love. We are reminded that Jesus came to bring the good news to the poor. He told us what is that good news when he said, `My peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you.' He came not to give the peace of the world, which is only that we don't bother each other; he came to give the peace of heart, which comes from loving, from doing good to others.
And God loved the world so much that he gave his son. It was a giving. God gave his son to the Virgin Mary. And what did she do with him? As soon as Jesus came into Mary's life, immediately she went in haste to give that good news. And as she came into the house of her cousin Elizabeth, Scripture tells us that the unborn child, the child in the womb of Elizabeth, leaps with joy. While still in the womb of Mary, Jesus brought peace to John the Baptist, who leapt for joy in the womb of Elizabeth. The unborn was the first one to proclaim the coming of Christ.
And as if that were not enough, as if it was not enough that God's son should become one of us and bring peace and joy while still in the womb of Mary, Jesus also died on the cross to show that great love. He died for you and for me and for that leper and for that man dying of hunger and that naked person dying in the street, not only of Calcutta but of Africa and all over the world.
Our sisters serve these poor people in 105 countries throughout the world. Jesus insisted that we love one another as he loves each one of us. Jesus gave his life to love us, and he tells us that we also have to give whatever it takes to do good to one another. And in the gospel, Jesus says very clearly, `Love as I have loved you.' Jesus died on the cross because that is what it took for him to do good to us, to save us from our selfishness and sin. He gave up everything to do the Father's will, to show us that we, too, must be willing to give up everything to do God's will, to love one another as He loves each one of us.
If we are not willing to give whatever it takes to do good to one another, sin is still in us. That is why we, too, must give to each other until it hurts. It is not enough for us to say, `I love God.' But I also have to love my neighbor. St. John said that you are a liar if you say you love God and you don't love your neighbor. How can you love God, whom you do not see, if you do not love your neighbor, whom you see, whom you touch, with whom you live?
And so it is very important for us to realize that love, to be true, has to hurt. I must be willing to give whatever it takes not to harm other people and, in fact, to do good to them. This requires that I be willing to give until it hurts. Otherwise, there is no true love in me, and I bring injustice, not peace, to those around me.
It hurt Jesus to love us. We have been created in his image for greater things--to love and to be loved. We must put on Christ, as Scripture tells us, and so we have been created to love as he loves us. Jesus makes himself the hungry one, the naked one, the homeless one, the unwanted one, and he says, `You did it to me.' On the last day he will say to those on his right, `Whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me.' And he will also say to those on his left, `Whatever you neglected to do for the least of these, you neglected to do it for me.'
When he was dying on the cross, Jesus said, `I thirst.' Jesus is thirsting for our love, and this is the test of everyone, poor and rich alike. We all thirst for love of others, that they go out of their way to avoid harming us and to do good to us. This is the meaning of true love: to give until it hurts.
I can never forget the experience I had in the sitting room where they kept all these old parents of sons and daughters who had just put them into an institution and forgotten them, maybe. I say that in that home, these old people had everything--good food, comfortable place, television, everything--but everyone was looking toward the door. And I did not see a single one with a smile on their face. I turned to a sister and I asked, `Why do these people who have every comfort here, they are there looking toward the door? Why are they not smiling? I'm so used to seeing the smiles on our people. Even the dying ones smile.' And sister said, `This is the way it is nearly every day. They are expecting, they are hoping that a son or a daughter will come to visit them. They are hurt because they are forgotten.
And see, this neglect to love brings spiritual poverty. Maybe in our own family we have somebody who is feeling lonely, who is feeling sick, who is feeling worried. Are we there? Are we willing to give until it hurts in order to be with our family, or do we put our interests first? These are the questions we must ask ourselves, especially as we begin this year of the family. We must remember that love begins at home. And we must also remember that the future of humanity passes through the family.
I was surprised in the West to see so many young boys and girls given to drugs, and I tried to find out why, why is it like that, when those in the West have so many more things than those in the East. And the answer was, because there is no one in the family to receive them. Our children depend on us for everything--their health, their nutrition, their security, their coming to know and love God. For all of this, they look to us with trust, hope and expectation. But often, father and mother are so busy they have no time for their children, or perhaps they are not even married or have given up on their marriage. So the children go to the streets and get involved in drugs and other things. We are talking of love of the child, which is where love and peace must begin--there, in our own family.
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because Jesus said, `If you receive a little child, you receive me.' So every abortion is the denial of receiving Jesus, the neglect of receiving Jesus. (Applause.) It is really a war against the child, and I hate killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that the mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love. And we remind ourselves that love needs to be willing to give until it hurts.
Jesus gave even his live to love us, so the mother who is thinking of abortion should be helped to love--that is, to give until it hurts, her plans, her free time, to respect the life of a child, for the child is the greatest gift of God to the family, because it has been created to love and to be loved.
The father of that child, however, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problem. And by abortion, the father is taught that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into that world. So that father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.
Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love one another but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. (Applause.)
The beautiful gift God has given our congregation is to fight abortion by adoption. We have given--(applause)--we have given already from one house in Calcutta over 3,000 children in adoption, and I can't tell you what joy, what love, what peace those children have brought into those families. It has been a real gift of God for them and for us. I remember one of the little ones got very sick, so I sent for the father and the mother , and I asked them, `Please, give me back the sick child; I will give you a healthy one.' And the father looked at me and said, `Mother Teresa , take my life first, then take the child.' So beautiful to see so much love, so much joy that little one has brought into that family.
So pray for us that we continue this beautiful gift. And also I offer you--our sisters who are here. Anybody who doesn't want a child, please give it to me. I want the child (Applause.)
I will tell you something beautiful. As I have already told you, by adoption, by care of the mother and adoption for her baby, we have saved thousands of lives. we have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations, `Please don't destroy the child; we will take the child.' So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble, `Come, we will take care of you; we will get a home for your child.' And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child, but I never give a child to a couple who have done something not to have a child. Jesus said, `Anyone who received a child in my name, receives me.' By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus. By aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus.
Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I'm willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child.
I know that couples have to plan their family, and for that there is natural family planning. The way to plan the family is natural family planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life or loving through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self, and so it destroys the gift of love in him and her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily. That's why I never give a child to a family that has used contraception, because if the mother has destroyed the power of loving, how will she love my child?
I also know that there are great problems in the world, that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve he problems in the world, but let us never be involved in the worst problem of all--to destroy love, to destroy life.
The poor are very great people. They can teach us so many things. Once one of them came to thank us for teaching her natural family planning and said, `You people who have practiced chastity--you are the best people to teach us natural family planning, because it is nothing more than self control of the love for each other.' And what this poor person said is very true. These poor people maybe have nothing to eat. Maybe they have not a home to live in. but they can still be great people when they are especially rich in loving one another as God loves each one of them.
When I pick up a person from the streets hungry, I give him a plate of rice, a piece of bread. But a person who is shut out, who feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person who has been thrown out of society, that spiritual poverty is much harder to be overcome. And abortion, which often follows from contraception, causes the people to be spiritually poor, and that is the worst poverty and the most difficult to overcome.
Those who are materially poor can be very wonderful people. One evening we went out and we picked up four people from the street, and one of them was in a most terrible condition. I told the sisters, `You take care of the other three; I will take care of the one who looks worse.' So I did for her all that my love can do. I put her in bed. And there was such a beautiful smile on her face. She took hold of my hand, and she said one thing only: Thank you. And she died. I couldn't help but examine my conscience before her, and I asked what would I say if I were in her place? And my answer was very simple. I would have tried to draw a little attention to myself. I would have said: `I'm hungry. I'm dying. I'm cold. I'm in pain.' But she gave me much more. She gave me her grateful love. She died with a big smile on her face.
Then there was the man we picked up from the drain half eaten with worms, and after we had brought him to the home, he only said, `I've lived like an animal in the street, but I'm going to die as an angel, loved and cared for.' Then, after we had removed all the worms from his body, all he said with a big smile was, `Sister, I'm going home to God,' and he died. It was so wonderful to see the greatness of that man who could speak like that without blaming anybody, without comparing anything, like an angel. This is the greatness of people who are spiritually rich even when they are materially poor.
We are not social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of some people, but we must be contemplatives in the heart of the world, for we must bring that presence of God into your family, for the family that prays together stays together. There is so much hatred, so much misery, and we with our prayer, with our sacrifice, are beginning at home. Love begins at home, and it is not how much we do, but how much love we put into what we do.
If we are contemplatives in the heart of the world with all these problems, these problems can never be discouraging. We must always remember that God tells us in Scripture even if the mother could forget the child in her womb--something impossible--but even if she could forget, I will never forget you. As so, here I'm talking with you. I want you to find the poor here, right in your own home first, and begin to love there. Be the good news to your own people first and find out about your next door neighbor. Do you know who they are?
I had a most extraordinary experience of love of neighbor with a Hindu family. A gentleman came to our house and said, `Mother Teresa , there is a family who have not eaten for so long. Do something.' So I took some rice and went there immediately. And I saw the children--their eyes shining with hunger. I don't know if you have every seen hunger. But I have seen it very often. And the mother of the family took the rice I gave her and went out. When she came back, I asked her, `Where did you go? What did you do?' And she gave me a very simple answer, `They are hungry also.' What struck me was that she knew--and who are they? A Muslim family--and she knew. I didn't bring any more rice that evening because I wanted them, Hindus and Muslims, to enjoy the joy of sharing. But there were those children, radiating joy, sharing the joy and peace with their mother because she had the love to give until it hurts. You see, this is where love begins--at home in the family.
So, as the example of this family shows, God will never forget us, and there is something you and I can always do. We can keep the joy of loving Jesus in our heart and share that joy with all we come in contact with. Let us make that one point, that no child will be unwanted, unloved, uncared for or killed and thrown away. And give until it hurts--with a smile.
As you know, we have a number of homes here in the United States where people need tender love and care. This is the joy of sharing. Come and share. We have the young people suffering with AIDS. They need that tender love and care. But such beautiful smiles--I've never yet seen a young man or anybody die displeased or angry or frightened. They're merely going home to God. Such a beautiful smile always. So let us pray that we'll have the gift of sharing the joy with others and loving until it hurts.
Also I talk so much about giving with a smile that once a professor from the United States asked me, `Are you married?' And I said yes. And I find it sometimes very difficult to smile at my spouse, Jesus, because he can be very demanding sometimes. (Laughter.) This is really something true, and there is where love comes, when it is demanding and yet we can give it with joy. One of the most demanding things for me is traveling everywhere and publicity. I have said to Jesus that, if I don't go to heaven for anything else, I will be going to heaven for all the traveling, with all the publicity, because it has purified me and sacrificed me and made me really ready to go home to God. (Laughter.)
If we remember that God loves us and that we can love others as he loves us, then America can become the sign of peace for the whole world, the sign of joy from where a sign of care for the weakest and the weak, the unborn child, must go out to the world. If you become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for. This is to love one another as God loves each one of us. And where does this love begin? In our own home. How does it begin? By praying together.
Pray for us that we continue God's work with great love. The sisters, the brothers, and the fathers, lay missionaries of charity and co-workers, we are all one heart full of love, that we may bring a joy of loving everywhere we go.
And my prayer for you is to love one anther, for this peace and joy in the family, that you may grow in holiness. Holiness is not the luxury of the few. It is a simple duty for you and for me. Because Jesus has very clearly said, `Be ye holy as the Father in heaven is holy.' So let us pray for each other that we grow in love for each other and through this love become holy as Jesus wants us to be, for he died out of love for us.
One day I met a lady who was dying of cancer in a most terrible condition, and I told her--I said, `You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus, a sign that have you come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you.' And she joined her hands together and said, `Mother Teresa , please tell Jesus to stop kissing me.' (Laughter.)
So pray for us that we continue God's work with great love, and I will pray for you, for all your families. And also I want to thank the families who have been so generous in giving their daughters to us to consecrate their life to Jesus by the vow of poverty, chastity, obedience, and by giving wholeheartedly through service to the poorest of the poor. This is our fourth vow in our congregation, and we have a novitiate in San Francisco where we have many beautiful novices who are wanting to give their whole life to Jesus in the service of the poorest of the poor.
So once more I thank you for giving your children to God. And pray for us that we continue God's work with great love.
There’s no such thing as pro-choice. A person may have a choice of whom they are to marry, of what they will do with their time, of what’s the best way to raise one’s own kids. This is a legitimate exercise of freedom, where we discern among goods and pick one as reason tells us is best. To use freedom to choose evil is not to use one’s freedom, but to abuse one’s freedom. One never has the freedom to do evil. The more you do good, the more deeply you experience your freedom. Freedom is not defined by choice, but by love.
Since today is the feast day St. Francis of Assisi, I thought I'd share a story about animals. This has been a special year for squirrels. They are just overrunning the area. I can't walk out my front door without stepping on the cute little varmints. Okay, I'm exaggerating. A little. This morning before Mass, I opened my front door to find one of them on the front lawn on his hind legs staring at me. I mean, I can't help but notice.
One of the cute things I've noticed is the way they hop across a lawn. Arch and bounce on the front paws then to back feet. Front and back. Repeat.
This encounter took place yesterday morning, also before Mass. Since it's Sunday, it means I walk. But since the sun was petty low and would blind me in my eastward hike, I took the scenic route. Across Bruce Pond runs an old railroad bridge that has been planked over so that people can take a short cut to church across the pond rather than walk through downtown Main Street. It's a nice cool path that is vaulted by trees. The trees provide almost complete cover even where the bridge crosses the water where there is a small hole in the ceiling.
As I was clomping on the planks, I noticed on the far bank there was a squirrel heading towards me about thirty yards away. "Interesting," I thought. I was also determined not to diminish my pace.
*thump* *thump* *thump*
*boing* *boing* *boing*
*thump* *thump* *thump*
*boing* *boing* *boing*
*thump* *thump* *thump* *thump* *thump*
*boing* *boing* *boing* *boing* boing*
At about ten feet, the squirrel stops, perks his head up, and looks me straight in the eye. He turns around as if to say, "you're not the one I was looking for" and continues back at an unhurried pace.
*boing* *boing* *boing*
*thump* *thump* *thump*
*boing* *boing* *boing*
*thump* *thump* *thump*
At the far bank, he scurries up a tree.
I was left wondering... Are squirrels that nearsighted?
I will leave for another day the entirely true tale of when a chipmunk tapped me on the shoulder and demanded that I hand over some peanuts.
Chesterton always has an appropriate quote. His words seem timeless. This reminds me how the Left and Right speak past each other:
In short, the rational human faith must armor itself with prejudice in an age of prejudices, just as it armoured itself with logic in an age of logic. But the difference between the two mental methods is marked and unmistakable. The essential of the difference is this: that prejudices are divergent, whereas creeds are always in collision. Believers bump into each other; whereas bigots keep out of each other's way. A creed is a collective thing, and even its sins are sociable. A prejudice is a private thing, and even its tolerance is misanthropic. So it is with our existing divisions. They keep out of each other's way; the Tory paper and the Radical paper do not answer each other; they ignore each other. Genuine controversy, fair cut and thrust before a common audience, has become in our special epoch very rare. For the sincere controversialist is above all things a good listener. The really burning enthusiast never interrupts; he listens to the enemy's arguments as eagerly as a spy would listen to the enemy's arrangements. But if you attempt an actual argument with a modern paper of opposite politics, you will find that no medium is admitted between violence and evasion. You will have no answer except slanging or silence. A modern editor must not have that eager ear that goes with the honest tongue. He may be deaf and silent; and that is called dignity. Or he may be deaf and noisy; and that is called slashing journalism. In neither case is there any controversy; for the whole object of modern party combatants is to charge out of earshot.
At CatholicMatch.com a poster asks: "What I don't understand is what's the big deal about altar girls?"
One reason is that the seed of priestly vocations is most frequently planted in altar boys. While it's not the exclusive seedbed for vocations, it is given prominent mention in Pope JPII's exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis.
Another reason might be psychology (I use "might" because I'm no more than an amateur psychologist). In my limited exposure to churchs that have both male and female altar servers, it is usually an overwhelming ratio of female to male servers (is anybody else's observation different? If different, is it because of a pastor's active discouragement of altar girls?).
Again, in my capacity as amateur psychologist, I think it's a boy's natural preference to be involved in exclusive activities (that is, it's not a culturally indoctrinated preference). It seems to me women and girls are blind to that exclusive preference, especially now in this post-feminist culture.
Whether that's just a fear of female cooties or the ravings of a cantankerous bigoted old man playing psychologist, I have yet to encounter an alternate explanation other than an appeal to fairness. Or perhaps I'm wrong about the overwhelming dominance of altar girls where it's allowed. But during a period of great need for priestly vocations, "what's the big deal?" falls far too short as a reason to allow altar girls.
Since I'm aware of my feelings, I'm aware of the possibility that the above might come across as too defensive. I'm really agnostic over whether the poster was truly ignorant of the reasons against altar girls or willfully blind of the reasons against altar girls. I'm really charitable enough to concede that she posed the question with the utmost sincerity and innocence, "what's the big deal?"
My sore spot is not over altar girls, but the question itself: "what's the big deal?" I'm a traditionalist, but not in the way most people here would understand. I'm not going to be confused with those who love the Traditional Latin Mass (n.b.: I'm not opposed to the TLM either). Change is common enough these days that people are comfortable with change such that, often enough, they don't see what might be wrong with change. Sometimes it's chronological snobbery (e.g. "that is so old fashioned"), but more often it's an indifference toward tradition -- "what's the big deal?" -- as if the burden of proof lies with tradition, and not with those who propose the change.
As such I stand very much with Chesterton's democracy of the dead over that of the democracy of those who happen to be living. Often enough, the reasons for tradition are too complex or beyond the capacity of those living defenders of tradition to properly explain. Chesterton explains the proper attitude for reformers to take (hat tip to Chesterton.org):
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
To the question "what's the big deal about altar girls?" the best answer is "go away and think."