Dangerous Intersection

2003-08-14T16:29:00.000-04:00

I'm Back!?

For how long, who knows. My blogging ability is limited by time and talent. I do not have much of either. The blog has been renamed to reflect the intersection of religion and society. I delineate three models for the relationship between religion and society -- 1) an uncritical acceptence of the prevailing culture by religion; 2) an uncritical rejection of culture by religion; and 3) an incarnational, and yet, critical understanding of culture by religion. My stance is the third. The idea of "dangerous" comes from the two other models -- religion cannot take on unreflectively the prevailing culture without losing its ability to preach the gospel (see Church, Episcopal) nor can religion unreflectively reject the prevailing culture for this makes preaching the gospel impossible (see Robertson, Pat).

2003-02-08T09:46:00.000-05:00

How Us Liberal Catholics Get It Wrong, Pt. I

Around my neck of the woods there are two Catholic Churches that I attend. The first is my parish Church. Built during the Great Depression and completed after WWII, it much resembles, not in architecture but in its art and atmosphere, the National Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Washington; a Church built during the same era. Both Churches have a bit of almost everything from Catholicism, not kitschy, but politely busy. The second church is a neighboring parish that we attend on hot Sunday summer afternoons if the sleeping-bug had hit us. The distinction between this church and my parish church, other than the air conditioning and the church having been built "in the round," is the lack art and atmosphere. The walls are painted off-white and there is no art in the main section save a beige tapestry of the crucifixion and a plain wooden statue of the church's patron saint. I am not knocking the architecture, that's fine, but what is missing is a story of the Catholic faith. In one church, you cannot help but being knocked over by the mythos of the Catholicism. In the other, you cannot help being knocked over by want.

The contrast of these two Catholic church buildings highlights how us liberal Catholic get it wrong. We liberals get hung up on logos; cool, clean and rational. What gets lost with this drive toward the scientific and rational is the stories that shape the faith. Faith is not passed down through the generations using scientific formulas. Faith belongs to the realm of the mythical, the narrative, the story.

The tendency of our age is to discount mythos. If a story is not factually true, it gets relegated to the dust bin. Ask a high school student about the meaning of Genesis and chances are they will say it is just a myth. Of course, and unfortunately, they are taught that myths are falsehoods. To them, Genesis is wrong and if Genesis is wrong, then almost everything that they are taught about Catholicism is false. While high schoolers can be an extreme example of this logic, it is a logic that we liberals tend to delve into. We can take scriptural studies and bleed the life out of Jesus' words and deeds. If a certain saying of Jesus is thought to be attributed to the early community and not to the historical Jesus, then somehow, that saying loses weight; if Jesus did not say it, then any use of such saying to explain a matter of faith negates the doctrine. We liberals can get so caught up in the details of study, or the rational explanation, that we lose the mythic concern or deeper meaning of the good news.

We liberals tend to add an extra level to the mythos' burden of proof and buy too easily into the rational and scientific. This tendency is problematic because the logos of the modern sciences cannot express value and morals. With us liberals negating (either consciously or unconsciously) or devaluing the story or the mythos of faith, we lose the meaning and moral grounding of faith. When mythos is eliminated all that remains is an a-moral rationality that cannot convey a deeper meaning. As an example of this dynamic in action, we can look at how liberals use St. Augustine's outlook on human sexuality. We can get caught up in Augustine's seemingly negative statements on human sexuality and make statements such as: since Augustine's negative viewpoint is wrong, as demonstrated by philosophic and scientific inquiry, everything he had written should be discounted. If this is the case, therefore, the entire content of the Church's teaching on human sexuality should be discounted because it was built upon Augustine's faulty foundation. The mentality is like that of the high schooler, if one part of the story is rationally wrong, then the whole is not true. While Augustine may have been wrong on the level of expression, he was not necessarily wrong in the deeper meaning of the values and morals he was attempting to convey. On the flip side, we will extol the virtues of every scientific study that demonstrates that all forms of human sexuality are neutral, and therefore, should be accepted by society and the Church. If one thing of science is good, then it is all good.

The problem that we liberals need to face is that we are trading in rich symbols for cheap and easy signs. While my parish church is busy and visually messy, it does convey a rich story of Catholicism. But in our time, we are too enamored by the crisp, clean, and easy and we do not like the messiness of stories. However, it is within this mess that the meaning and purpose of our lives is discovered. I do think that us liberals do play a valid role within the the life of the Church, but that role is grounded and found within the Church's mythos and not in the logos of the scientific age.

2003-01-23T17:35:00.000-05:00

Genetic Screening or How to Freak Out Expectant Parents Better Than Stephen King

I'll start with the finish: everything is cool, so far. Now onto the queasy stuff. Being new to fatherhood-to-bedom, I was not previously aware that ob/gyn's and hospitals were strongly pushing genetic counseling and screening onto expectant parents. I suppose this is done partly to uncover true genetic problems, but my suspicion is that this screening is done to protect hospitals against big bucks malpractice suits.

As background, my wife was born with a few birth defects that were corrected with plastic surgery when she was a child. Her doctors attributed the problem to artificial sweeteners used by her mom and other environmental factors (her parents at the time lived just uphill from a factory that burnt coal in its production process). Fast forward a few decades. My wife and I are sitting in a hospital office with a genetic counselor with the people skills of a mosquito. She's asking about family history and all that, taking note of the specifics of my wife's birth defects. Other than my wife's defects, both our families are clear of genetic and environmental defects. The counselor takes the notes, says she will pass this information on to her boss, the hospital's genetic specialist with whom we have an appointment for the next day. My wife was completely freaked out after this initial meeting because the genetic counselor stated that she was skeptical that my wife's defects were environmental -- but she left it at that. After this meeting, we go down for the sonogram. Fortunately for us, the sonogram technician was as empathic as the genetica counselor was apathetic. The sonogram showed a healthy, perfect baby. Every part of the baby was accounted for, healthy and within the normal range for its age. Needless to say, we were relieved.

Next day, we meet the next day with the genetic specialist who decides my wife has a rare genetic disorder that our baby has a 50-50 chance of picking up. The genetic specialist tells us any child we have would be in peril. My wife's is in tears, I am stunned, and the genetic specialist sends us down to the lab so my wife's DNA can be shipped off to a lab in Germany. Meanwhile, we have a sonogram that shows a normally developing baby. The specialist is shocked to discover that the sonogram is normal. We are given no information about the rare genetic disorder except for its misspelling. My wife is convinced that the specialist never had children because she was very statistical. None of the symptoms are life threathening. The worse defects are a heart-valve problem that is easily fixed in this day and age and a shortening of the forearms (which would have been noticeable on the sonogram).

We do research on this genetic disorder. Turns out that there are only 350 cases world-wide and none known in the United States. Additionally, it runs in families for generations. No one in my wife's family has this disorder (we found out late yesterday that her mom and dad had been genetically tested). Turns out my wife's defects are among the most common for her generation and one is thought to be attributed to smoking (which her mom and dad did back in the day). We are a little more calm after doing our own research through the medical library and the Internet. We will not find out for sure until we get the results of the DNA tests -- which could take six to twelve months.

Other than the sudden shock from the scare tactics and the lack of people skill's demonstrated by the geneticists, I was pissed at the implication from the specialist that we should have been more responsible people before the pregnancy by being tested then. I am offended at the notion that since we have the technology (as if) to have only perfect babies, it is irresponsible of people to have imperfect babies.

2003-01-23T16:37:00.000-05:00

It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To

Until yesterday I was proudly registered as a Democrat. I am a Democrat for the same reason I am a Catholic -- I was born that way. Over time I grew into being a Democratic party activist and briefly on the payroll. However, I was sickened yesterday morning listening to NPR's Morning Edition story on Democratic Candidates & Abortion. Over the years I have become uncomfortable with the increasingly militant stance of the Democratic party and abortion. I was completely discouraged and demoralized listening to the Democratic presidential contenders stating that the major issue that unites them (and therefore the entire Democratic party) against President Bush is abortion! How wrong can these men be? Being pro-abortion should not be the organizing principle of a major political party.

What continues to attract me to the Democratic party, despite the inept bunch now in Washington, are the principles of social justice, economic fairness, and environmental concerns. For these three reasons (among others), I continue to identify as a Democrat. Even though the Republicans do pay a fair amount of lip service to being contra abortion (I will not use the tag pro-life with the GOP because they are not truly pro-life in the Catholic sense of that term), I do not vote Republican because I cannot tolerate the complete package (see Lott, Trent for starters). At this time, there are plenty of opportunities and issues for the Democrats to distinguish themselves from President Bush: the rolling back of President Clinton's sane fiscal policy, the rolling back of environmental standards, the usual concessions to big business, and Karl Rove's tokenism racial politics for starters. So far, no Democrat has demonstrated the cajones to fight President Bush head on. Instead they hide behind Kate Michelman's skirt.

If the Democratic presidential contenders insist upon making abortion the defining issue in 2004, I am sitting it out. The Democratic crash and burn of 2004 may become the moment when the party rediscovers its soul. The party must destroy itself to save itself from its soul killing embrace of abortion.

2003-01-16T16:16:00.000-05:00

Hearts vs. Habits

I received a mention in Cohabitation Nation (scroll down to Reader Response on 01/11/03) regarding my previous post on cohabitation (see post below). Mr. Miller cites my post to validate his belief that cohabitation is justified as a trial run to test compatibility:

As [Jacquie] explains, their hearts were compatible, but their habits were not.

I take the soap off the wrapper and throw the wrapper away. But he likes to keep the wrapper. I have shoes galore, I love my shoes. This man takes his shoes off and throws them in the middle of the floor. He says, "If we lived together I would have to kill you in two days because you’re always picking up my shoes. I know where my shoes are." But I say, "You can find them better in the box." Can you imagine these two people living together for the rest of their lives? We tried it for a month and it was no good. It was like eating ice cream when know you have a lactose intolerance.

Jacquie’s relationship with her partner survived because they agreed never to live together. She says that now, after not seeing him for four or five days, "When I do see him, it’s like drinking a glass of cool water."

Problematic is the presumption in this citation that hearts and habits are on equal footing in determining compatibility for being married or cohabitating. If the couples hearts were truly compatible, then a difference in habits should not matter. As most married couples can tell you, habits can be negotiated. These negotiations may not always be pretty, but if the hearts are truly and sincerely compatible, then the details can be worked out. From Mr. Miller's example of Jacquie and her partner, their hearts were not compatible. One heart is too cluttered and the other too orderly to allow room for another. So in the end, the incompatibility of the Jacquie and her beau, has reduced them to what my students call "f*** buddies." There is not a love between the two that allows for life giving growth. Instead there are two emotionally stunted adults. As Augustine would say, a small error at the outset leads to a greater error at the finish.

Figuring out the habits of our girlfriends/boyfriends is part of the dating and engagement process. After a few dates, it should have become obvious to Jacquie (did they move in after the first date?) that her partner was not as orderly as she. It does not take moving in to figure out the day to day habits of the other. Blaming the living habits of a partner as the reason a relationship did not work out demonstrates the immaturity of at least one person in the relationship and/or they made a commitment to cohabitate/marry too soon. Once I was at a talk where the speaker spelled marriage "c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n." The essence of any committed relationship is communication. It seems in the example given by Mr. Miller that Jacquie and her partner were basing their relationship on the superficialities of sex and not giving to one another.

Maybe Jacquie and her partner are satisfied with what they have. What they got is like getting dinner at a McDonald's drive thru window; cheap, fattening, and better than putting out an effort to do better when tired.

Any of my students can tell you that love is one of the theological virtues, and like all virtues, love is always a habitual disposition to do the good.

2003-01-09T21:16:00.000-05:00

Cohabitation

I ran across a new blog by Marshall Miller, author of the recently published book Unmarried To Each Other: The Essential Guide to Living Together as an Unmarried Couple. I know that Miller's blog and book will cause howls of indignation in this parish. I doubt if I will get around to reading the book (it received a decent review in one of the magazines I read on a frequent basis but I cannot recall which one), but I do not believe that cohabitation is all that it is made out to be by those who advocate such an arrangement. I am not going to vilify couples who cohabitate, but I do believe that cohabitation is problematic at best. Not that I am an expert, but I have been through the process twice. The first time proved every ugly statistic trumpeted by the Church as correct. The ending was a horrific break-up that I would not wish on my worst enemy. The period following the break-up was the lowest point in my life. The second time was with my then fiancee and, now, wife. I can rationalize that we were engaged and some circumstances had changed (like a job opportunity for my wife in her hometown and buying a house) that made cohabitating the path of least resistence. But at this point, we were both aware of the difficulties that couples face when cohabitating. We did not go into it thinking it was a "trial run." We treated it as if we were married. Looking back, I do wish that we would have made the effort to find separate quarters. Now being married, I can understand just how imperfect cohabitation is. However valid the rationalizations, they were not really good excuses. It was just easy. I wish I could have tried harder to demonstrate just how much I love my wife by not living with her before being married. What saddend me most is the widespread belief that cohabitation is almost necessary before marriage, and while I knew better, I joined the crowd.

The argument that I hear most in favor of cohabitation is needing to find out if the partners are sexually compatable. I find this humorous, if not, wrong-headed. Unless a person has a medical problem, a man and a woman are going to be sexually compatable. The sex argument is just plain bogus, as is the toothpaste argument. If a marriage is going to break-up over how a person squeezes toothpaste or because they prefer the toilet paper rolling from the top, then there are more issues going on than separate bathrooms can solve.

2003-01-03T06:00:00.000-05:00

St. Genevieve

Patroness of disasters, fever, Paris, plague, and WACs. Courtesy of Catholic Forum.

2003-01-02T09:00:00.000-05:00

Memorial of Saints Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen, bishops and doctors of the Church

Basil and I were both in Athens. We had come, like streams of a river, from the same source in our native land, had separated from each other in pursuit of learning, and were now united again as if by plan, for God so arranged it.

When, in the course of time, we acknowledged our friendship and recognized that our ambition was a life of true wisdom, we became everything to each other; we shared the same lodging, the same table, the same desires, the same goal. Our love for each other grew daily warmer and deeper.

The same hope inspired us: the pursuit of learning. We seemed to be two bodies with a single spirit. Our single object and ambition was virtue, and a life of hope int he blessings that are to come.

We followed the guidance of God's law and spurred each other on to virtue. If it is not too boastful to say, we found in each other a standard and rule for discerning right from wrong.

Different men have different names, which they owe to their parents or to themselves, that is, to their own pursuits and achievements. But our great pursuit, the great name we wanted, was to be Christians, to be called Christians.

from a sermon by Saint Gregory Nazianzen

Banished Words for 2003

2003-01-01T22:52:00.000-05:00

Lake Superior University has published a list of banished words for 2003
. Before you get mad,
it's not about censorship, but a humorous look at the cliches that fill
our media (and blogs).

2003-01-01T11:50:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year's Day

We left the party well before midnight, and we were one of the last people standing. Another sign of creeping adulthood is going to parties where pre-teens outnumber adults by 2 to 1. At midnight I was walking the dog in a rainstorm. The rain was not detering the youths of the neighborhood to light firecrackers at midnight. Now if you have a dog, you know that firecrackers and dogs are not a good mix. He was so spooked that he did not do his business. Naturally, he was whining at three in the morning to be let out.

2002-12-31T15:18:00.000-05:00

U2 -- New Year's Day

All is quiet on New Year's Day
A world in white gets underway
I want to be with you
Be with you night and day
Nothing changes on New Year's Day
On New Year's Day

I will be with you again
I will be with you again

Under a blood red sky
A crowd has gathered in black and white
Arms entwined, the chosen few
The newspapers says, says
Say it's true it's true...
And we can break through
Though torn in two
We can be one

I...I will begin again
I...I will begin again

Oh...
Maybe the time is right
Oh...maybe tonight...

I will be with you again
I will be with you again

And so we're told this is the golden age
And gold is the reason for the wars we wage
Though I want to be with you
Be with you night and day
Nothing changes
On New Year's Day
On New Year's Day