Unapologetic Catholic

Torturing bad drivers

I thought I was a good driver.

One thing I observed this Christmas season was the widespread incidence of poor driving.  People speeding, cutting others off, unsafe lane changes, and it seemed there was more than the typical number of serious accidents on the nearby freeways and byways.  I, of course am a good driver, not like all those other fools.

Now, I didn’t say I was a perfect driver, just better than all those other fools.  I freely confess that I have rarely committed the following driving sins in the past:  exceeding the speed limit by a prudent amount on the freeway, following too closely when necessary, executing rolling stops late at night on empty streets, entering the intersection when the light was “orange” and mild inadvertence in making lane changes without a signal. All of these venial sins have gone unnoticed by our local law enforcement personnel and I’ve never been behind the wheel in a traffic accident.  My teenage children call me “old Granny” because I insist on driving 65 on the freeway. A full list of drivng sins is here.

I have never committed any of the big 3 mortal driving sins:  Running a red light, parking in handicapped spaces or driving too slowly in the fast lane.  There is a special place in hell for those sins especially driving too slowly in the fast lane. I am certainly better than other drivers—even my insurance company tells me so.

Until yesterday.  I was driving to an appointment, on time, observing speed limits and alert to young children in wheelchairs. Traffic was holiday light. Of course, I was driving slowly in the right lane .In fact there was only one other car visible. He was also driving in my direction in the faster left lane and exceeded the speed limit as he passed me coming to a stop at the intersection ahead.    I only briefly noticed him at a complete stop in the left lane as I passed him doing the 45 mph speed limit on the right.  As I entered the intersection I wondered why he was at a complete stop.  Then I saw that big honking red light dangling down right in front of me!  I had completely blown a red light—a driving mortal sin.  Fortunately, there was no cross traffic whatsoever, so my zero accident record remains intact. Not so my driving ego. I am, alas, not better than those other drivers at all. Just luckier.  Shook, I paused, recollected myself and completed my safe journey.

I think the same thing holds true for Catholics, too.  Some of us know we are more orthodox than all those others and ridicule those who practice “catholic lite” becasue we are not like those cafeteria types. Yet here’s a weblog that disdains "Catholic lite" that has difficulty understanding the Catholic teaching on, of all things, torture.  Several commenters apparently conclude that church teachings authorize torture as long as it’s not too painful.  Oh, and it must be infallibly declared to be intrinsically wrong before we have to pay attention to the teaching (this by a priest). Furthermore, a Catholic actually says it’s both legal and  “just” to simply execute people.

This is the religious equivalent to blowing the red light.  This is an issue that’s not even close, yet people dissect the Catechism in these discussions in an effort to justify torture.

I point this out to suggest that we all “run the red light.”  I don’t think any of us really have all the Catholic Answers and we all have our own blind spots. I hope those who sneer at those Amchurch VOTFers or liberal  (or conservative) dissenters will take this to heart.  And don’t torture anybody. We don’t need an infallible pronouncement to know that it’s intrinsically evil. We are all on a journey to better understanding of our Faith, its very difficult teachings and how we can better live those in our lives. Never underestimate how easy it is to blow a red light both on the road and in the practice of our religion.

Updated

New clarification at the same blog. Apparently the choice is:

Should we torture detainees, or give them candy?

and the Catholic blogger's response is: "I gave my personal opinion: that we should have extracted whatever information we could from the detainees, then executed them, as customary international law allows."

There went that red light.

  WWJD.

Further  Update

Typically, Disputations has excellent thougthful posts, Parts 1, 2 and 3 on wthis subject

"Bad Catholics"

A lot of times I hear people accused of being “bad Catholics”  People sometimes accuse others of being “apostates” when they themselves are apparently ignorant of the Catechism definition of that term. [2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."^11] Apparently there’s no need to be accurate if you’re going to be uncharitable. Of course the harm this kind of name calling has done to he Church through the centuries is incalculable  [CCC 817].

Now, I hate to be called a bad Catholic mainly because I know I am one.  In fact, I am my own worst critic in that regard, so it feels like “piling on” when unqualified people also chip in.  My Pastor, Bishop and Pope are “qualified” to comment on my religious health, but I’m usually under that radar of the last two.

With all that in mind I Googled “bad Catholic” and of course found interesting websites. Both are intriguing and worth checking out: A Bad Christian and Bad Catholic. I hope they don’t mind the links. Both sites had great observations about religion and what being Christian means.

A Bad Christian has this observation:

I think it can be broken down to this: Progressive and liberal Christians want to have conservative Christians to say to them, "I respect your viewpoints, and I maintain that there is a place for you within Orthodox Christianity."

I think that's it. Simple, eh? Then we want to be treated like those conservative Christians believe what they say. That's it. I don't need conservative Christians to quit being conservative. I just want to be a part of the 'Christian' club sometimes...or at least treated like I'm a welcome member.

For Catholics, this is a bit more complicated. Nevertheless, on the vast majority of issues this is just as applicable to Catholic discussion.  As I’ve said before, almost all Catholic web bloggers and commenters have misapplied the Catholic faith or expressed some teaching inaccurately or incorrectly.  In that sense, we’re all bad Catholics, so it’s counter productive to make the charge that we are all guilty of.

VOTF rolls continue to grow

According to a leading Catholic psychologist, now we know why.

Of course when it's "your" favorite Catholic organization, it's persecution.  When it's the "other guy's" favorite organization, it's "episcopal spine."

I got it, completely.

A Ridiculous Challenge

Amy Welborn has a very interesting observation regarding the Pope's position on the Iraq war. Some Pro-war Catholics (yes, a contradiction in terms) argued that the Pope never explicitly condemned the Iraq war.

She says in response:

No, we don't find (on the Pope's part) an explicit condemnation. But what we do find is a completely different mindset than the Bush administration or even most of us have, and one at the time, if we're honest, drove many observers nuts.

The post is excellent and the comments are alternately comical informative foolish and wise.

Since I focus on misuse of apologetics in particular, I can say that such challenges are ridiculous.  According the these pro-war Catholics, the challenge is "to quote a statement of the Holy Father which condemns the United States in its conduct of the war Iraq commencing 3/2003 or supports the continuity of the Saddam regime."

Of course, those of us who were conscious in 2003 and 2004 remembered comments by a number of Vatican officials who clearly thought the U.S. resort to force did not meet the requirements of the Catechism. There are several papal encyclicals enjoining war. None of this is good enough for these particular Catholics who must reside in a remote corner of Missouri, a state that officially teaches over the top skepticism.

Note that statements made by the Vatican Secretary of State don't count. Neither do statements made by Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, even though comments by both were within their "job description" and not dis affirmed by their "boss." Also not counting are any papal denunciations of war in general--the only thing that counts is a statement by the POPE that condemns the WAR in IRAQ.

Got the picture?  To show how ridiculous this is, I'd like someone to show me where the POPE (not a Cardinal) condemns (or otherwise declares evil) women's ordination.

[Inter Insigniores? not by the Pope...Ordinatio Sacerdotalis?  Not a condemnation, simply an observation that the Church presently has not power to ordain women....get the picture now?

Do you have any doubt about the Church's teaching on women's ordination?  I didn't think so. Any doubt about what the Pope thinks about the U.S. prosecution of the Iraq war?

I'm not saying George Bush, a non-Catholic, had any requirement to observe the Catechism regarding just war. In fact, a very good argument can be made that the teaching is a little idealistic. Furthermore, what does it say about our country that the U.S. even considers the question of the justness of a particular war it is about to wage? I'm thankful I live in such a country and I think it says a lot about Americans to even consider the issue.

I just object when the very same Catholics who want to excommunicate Kerry voters pull semantic shenanigans when their own oxen are being gored. This kind of apologetics will cover a multitude of sins and deserves to be scrapped.

MyAnnual SNAP donation

This weekend, I got the annual call from SNAP asking for a donation.  As I've explained below, I've diverted my Church donations so that my parish receives only 1/3 of my realistic donations that I would ordinarily give. I divert the remainder split evenly between SNAP and Project Rachel or some other local organization assisting unwed mothers.

You can tell the person on the other end of the line is not a paid professional telemarketing donations solicitor.  The person is always a little shy about simply asking for money. I try to make it easier by committing to a donation early in the conversation which makes things less awkward for the solicitor who always seems genuinely surprised I'm willing to donate anything. But once the money's out of the way, there's an uncomfortable silence.  The solicitor usually asks my connection to SNAP "if it's not too painful to talk about."  I usually respond by telling the truth--I'm a practicing Catholic with no firsthand knowledge of anyone sexually abused by a priest, and I'm unhappy with the way the Church has responded and therefore I divert some of my donations, which won't begin to make up for the damage caused.  When I told this to the lady yesterday, she began to cry.  her son had committed suicide.  All I could say was, I'm sorry." 

I had no other words of comfort for her.  It's times like this that I can be ashamed to admit I'm Catholic. Seems like that is a recurring theme today.

Healing Signs in O.C. Abuse Ordeal

Link: Healing Signs in O.C. Abuse Ordeal.

Evangelization vs. Apologetics

A commenter makes a good point about evangelization and apologetics and recommends the apologetics books by Scott and Kimberly Hahn. She makes a good point and I need to clarify myself a bit.

I distinguish between evangelization and apologetics.  Evangelization is any activity intended to lead others into the faith. I see apologetics as a subset of evangelization. Apologetics addresses the pure rational side of human beings attempting to use reason logic and evidence in support of a religious position.  As I've said before there is a place for apologetics in evangelization. I believe though that it should be used sparingly and defensively.  When we are attacked unfairly, apologetics should be responding by identifying what we do believe, why we do and the scriptural basis for it. There is a time and place for apologetics and properly done, it should be conducted on a voluntary basis according to agreed rules.  It should never be mistaken for evangelization.

Apologetics often fails when the target person fails to grasp the apologetic’s rational arguments. After all, anybody who can’t listen to reason must be “stupid.” Apologetics has a habit of becoming hateful, uncharitable and often turns inwards and is used against fellow Catholics.  That's the part I object to.

Some of the best evangelization efforts are stories of witness, like that of the Hahn's.  As the commenter notes, the stories of a "faith journey" can be very compelling. They are most compelling and effective when they are told to someone in similar circumstances. That’s why Alcoholics Anonymous and other such organizations are so effective. When I was active in bereavement ministry, I could be effective because I had a story to tell similar to those I was trying to reach. And, I became active because of those who had gone before me who had shared their experience with me, helping me when I really needed help.

Conversion stories don’t do a lot for me because I never converted. I simply can’t resonate with that experience at all. I don’t comprehend “born again” or “accepting Jesus as my personal savior.” I was Catholic before I knew what that meant. I was born into a Catholic environment and Catholicism permeated the atmosphere. I breathed the air—and I was doomed to be Catholic for the rest of my life. I never had a bad catechis experience. My religious training in grade school, high school and home was excellent and all shortcomings in my religious education are the result of my own lack of diligence. I never rebelled against the religion itself—even if I didn’t keep the commandments. (There’s a difference between frequent personal sin and outright rejection of the faith that’s often confused.)

I’m always intrigued not by what a person says about their religion, but by how they live their lives under the influence of their religion. I really can’t tell you much about Mother Theresa’s insights into the Real presence or Jimmy Carter’s thoughts on Sola Scriptura, but both people have made a tremendous impact on me by living a life informed by their faith. They are models in that respect.  I want some of that.—whatever they have.  That is powerful evangelization.  That’s why the lives of the saints mean so much to me.  What was it that made San Francisco Solano stay with the shipwrecked slaves instead of saving himself like everybody else? Why did St. Peter Claver minister to African slaves when nobody else could see the evil in slavery? What teachings of Christ led Father Damien to care for lepers?

Why can’t those same things act in my own life to improve this world?

Book review Evolution and Intelligent Design

My earlier posts strongly criticized Intelligent Design theory, spawned from the worst of apologetics—lying for God. Many people not familiar with the underlying falsehoods accept it as an interesting and hopeful way of proving scientifically the existence of God. I consider it on a par with UFO abductions, and the search for Noah’s ark—ridiculous as science.  However, it’s also bad theology. John Haught, former department chair of the Georgetown theology department, thinks so, too, and obviously has a much better grip on the theology than I do. He has written a number of books on science and theology and is a vocal critic of Intelligent Design on theological grounds. He has written a very short (143 page) book, Responses to 101 Questions on God and Evolution.

The book is written in “apologetics” style with the promised 101 questions divided into six categories: Darwin’s Revolutionary Idea, Darwin and Theology, Creationism, Darwin and Design, Divine Providence and Natural Selection, Evolution, Suffering and Redemption, and Teillhard de Chardin and Alfred North Whitehead. The last two individuals are scientists who have a lot to say on theological aspects of evolution. Answers to each page are about a page long. Obviously, a one page answer cannot do more than summarize the fundamental issues he raises. Nevertheless, this is a great “starting” book for those interested in this areas who want to approach the issue from a religious perspective.

Apologetics style question and answer books often fail because the “questions” are straw man type questions, easily demolished in the answers.  Such books are not very convincing. Here, though his questions are very thoughtful and go right to the heart of the matter. Some samples:

1. Is Evolution merely a theory
2. Doesn’t it render the idea of a God superfluous?
3. What significance does evolution have for theology today?
4. Can evolution be reconciled with the doctrine of original sin?
5. Can the God who suffers along with evolution also be powerfully redemptive?
6. What reply can I give specifically to the atheistic evolutionary claims of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett?

I recommend the book as a thoughtful, understandable and short read.