2008 March archive at Being Frank

Archive for March, 2008

Mar

Culture clash

Categories: Being Frank...

Right. This will be even shorter and sweeter than originally planned as I just inexplicably lost this entire post already when I went to post it last time!!!!

I want to shout out to all those in the Being Frank community who are in marriages where your spouse is a totally different culture/nationality to you. I have been reflecting on the beauty of “mixed culture marriages” these last few days after attending the wedding of two friends of mine from different cultures and backgrounds, and as I prepare to attend another one this coming weekend. I say the “beauty of mixed culture marriages” because I have quite a few examples of them in my peer group, and they’re all beautiful.

Stick with me here.

Watching these friends of mine prepare to get married, I have witnessed a lot of conflict and disagreement – real culture shock at times. And, for an outside observer, it has often seemed that some of these differences would be insurmountable. But that is just my narrow perspective because, without fail, each of these culture dramas have been resolved by using the same tools that they will need to use to keep their marriage a successful and happy one – listening, compromise, love, patience and remembering that the culture of their spouse-to-be is part of why they love them.

It’s been inspiring for me to witness this – not only so that I can take some lessons for my own marriage, but also because I see married couples as the base building blocks of a strong society. Therefore, if we can see inter-racial harmony on a small scale (and we can!), then surely there is hope for the big scale?

So, my shout out goes like this: congratulations to all of you who, on a daily basis, overlook the differences between you and your spouse(-to-be) in favour of focusing on the fact that God has brought you together and that he/she is the person for you. Good on you, and thanks for setting an example of the rest of us!

Mar

A voice you can agree with?

By eyeWitness 57 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

It’s interesting that the Pope is asked to speak on and be a representative for so many issues around the world, be they “religious” or otherwise. Why do people listen to him and recognise him as a political figure, be they Catholic or not? There is no risk that Church leaders will hold hostages and pull out guns if not appeased once in awhile, so there’s no real need for them to appear on any political agenda I would have thought.

The Church’s comment on a range of issues affecting us is appropriate considering the Church should surely encompass our entire way of living and no issue should be classed as “not in the Church’s domain”.

Physicians and Nurses Against Tobacco, a Rhode Island-based organization, is asking Pope Benedict XVI to support its campaign for a tobacco-free society and declare Vatican City the world’s first tobacco-free state.

“We hope to convince him to make this gesture as an example to other religious and political leaders and policymakers,” the petition says.

The church has never defined smoking as a sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the gift of physical health requires “reasonable care” of the body, and more specifically says: “The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco or medicine.”

The Catholic Church is always an authoritative voice, be it in the Iraq war, the environment, stem cell research, or simply health issues such as smoking. As much as people always cite what they don’t agree with over and over again (contraception maybe…? abortion for others perhaps?), there is really very little that you can disagree with that comes out of the Church’s official mouth.

Compare this to our presidents and prime ministers, and the world in general, and you have a real point of difference. If the Church appears to be defending the good and right on so many points when so many others (including Christian organisations) repeatedly spout rather dodgy points and views, surely this is points in favour of the Catholic Church?

Mar

Bring back the index?

By Filia Day 28 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

This week I had my first assignment due for a course I’m doing at university on academic practice. Basically, the assignment consisted of reading any two books on higher education and then writing a short review on each.

While I generally enjoyed the books, I found myself in a similar predicament as to when I was studying a couple of years ago. Both authors had an agenda – one that I couldn’t relate to or agree with. Firstly, both authors make the assumption that all knowledge is relative. Moreover, one of the books was overtly anti-Catholic with underhanded comments attacking and misrepresenting the Church. Who would have thought, a book on facilitating learning could be anti-catholic!!!!!!

Now this got me thinking about the books that we read and the effect they could potential have on (mal) forming our intellects. In some cases our own formation is good enough to discern errors. In other areas perhaps our expertise are simply not good enough to be able to detect errors and more importantly the appropriate remedy.

When I was studying European history a few years back, I remember learning about an index of books released by the Church that Catholics that were forbidden to read. Books that made the list were either determined to be a direct attack on the Church or contained philosophy or theology that was heretical. While the list is rarely referred to anymore and is not updated, I still think it is important to be cautious about what material we read. A telltale sign is that the Vatican will often publicly state books that could be of grave harm to our faith and advise the faithful not to read them.

With regards to television and movies we are often advice to guard our sight. Likewise, one would not go and watch or read porn for the very reason that it could have detrimental effects, right? Could one say that reading material against the faith could be placed in the same category? Does one have a moral responsibility not to read material against the faith or if one has to read it for an assignment, to at least seek a remedy before reading the work?

I can imagine secularists would argue that by self-censoring our reading material one doesn’t really have an understanding of true freedom because they are not open to all ideas and expressions of thought. I disagree because that isn’t my understanding of freedom. The Church teaches (paraphrased) that authentic freedom is choosing the good and that real freedom is not just making a choice and neither is it pure licence. As any good mother would, the Holy Church wants to protect its children and make sure that what they consume is not going to be harming them. I’m not necessarily advocating bring back an index, rather that there is a need to be prudent in our reading especially considering all the wonky literature/philosophy/theology that is available.

Mar

“Wait, I’m no missionary! I don’t even believe in Jebus!”

By Methuselah's Beard 11 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

It’s quite coincidental that The Captain decided to post something on Confession yesterday. It’s good to see a bit of talk about confession as its a lovely thing that we really should do more often. Well I’m not so much going to talk about confession, but more about a recent experience I had.

I was at confession at St. Patrick’s recently during lunch. Ok so it wasn’t really lunch… but I don’t find myself in the city too often and its usually my only chance to go. Anyway, confession there usually runs for about 40mins and there were quite a few people in line. Now I don’t know if it’s just me or whether people are just inherently selfish and usually think of themselves first and how they want things, but I was quite far back in line and people in front were taking sooo long. I found myself constantly looking at my watch and wishing they’d hurry up. I thought ‘How can they be so selfish? Taking so much time while the line is still so long’. How ironic.

Actually I don’t know if that’s irony and it may be erroneous use of the word, but I’ve always wanted to say ‘How ironic’.

It is a bit of a dilemma. Do I speed through my confession in a wonderfully self sacrificing act to ensure everyone has a chance to have their slate wiped clean, or make sure I have a good confession and get everything off my chest. Actually, I never think about any of this once I’m in with the priest. How selfish of me.

Mar

This Confession thing…

By The Captain 14 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

It’s not that I don’t like going to Confession, it’s more that I’m a little confoooosed by it all…

The time before the last time I went (must have been just before Christmas, such is my shamefully low record of attendance), I picked out a “highlight sin”, as usual, said: “Father, I’m sorry for all my sins especially ….” and we chatted very briefly about it.

Then he said: “Say your [something I didn't understand].”

I looked at him quizzically, such was my low level of understanding of the terminology, and “how it’s properly done”.

He, noting my blank look, very patiently led me in: “Father, I have sinned…”

So I mumbled some sort of penitential stuff (more confused than ever, as I thought I’d already said sorry and thus asked forgiveness). Whatever I said must’ve sufficed though because he raised his arm and washed me slate clean.

But I was embarrassed, and more than a little put off going back to Confession. I realise as Catholics we love structured prayers and “stand here”s and “hold out this hand now”s. I, for the most part, enjoy that. But when we’re talking about me opening myself up and confronting my failings, I really just want to be able to say: “Look Father, I’ve sinned. I’m sorry. I don’t want to do it again. Please forgive me and HELP me not do it again.”

Anyway, last week I headed along to Rite II and blow me down! The priest who was lucky enough to be hearing my Confession was our dear, much-loved Bishop Pat. Just sitting up there on the altar, one of many priests doing their duty (I was quite humbled by that alone).

Now, I’d been a little apprehensive after my previous episode so I carefully planned my speech. Problem was, as much as I’d been meaning to read up about what I’m “supposed to say”, I hadn’t got round to it. So I just did my little introductory, with my “highlight sin”, but had prepared in my mind a “back-up” penetential thingy in case it was requested of me.

It wasn’t. Instead, the Bishop said something reassuring about my “highlight sin”, then said: “What a lovely Confession.”

Obviously then, he wiped my slate clean and off I went!

By the time I got back to my seat, I was shaking. It was without a doubt, the single most influential, beautiful, enriching, encouraging Confession I’d ever had. I wanted to run from the Church telling everyone to do what I’d just did because it was the most amazing feeling!

When all is said and done about Bishop Pat, I think he’s an inspiring, living example of a shepherd tending to his flock and I feel privileged to have him as my Bishop (let alone, the priest hearing my (Confession).

Anyway, it’s really interesting to me, the two very different experiences – and what shaped them (as in, the priest’s reaction/coaxing).

I’m not so sure about a few things on this topic (obviously, given what I’ve written) but the biggest question I have is: When you go to Confession, everything’s wiped right? Even if you didn’t verbalise it? Like, for example, if someone commits murder and goes to Confession and says “I’m sorry for all my sins” but doesn’t verbalise the murder, are they forgiven? Or, three years later if they still haven’t verbalised, are they still in a state of mortal sin? Do you have to specifically verbalise before it’s forgiven? If so, why? I have much to say on that, but I’ll see if someone knows the answer first.

DISCLAIMER: I realise there are a number of things I have said here that will make many people throw their hands up in disbelief, cry out: “Sacrilegious!” and generally rant and rave about the ignorance of some Catholics today. It takes quite a lot for me to make myself as vulnerable in such a public space as I have today, and I have done so here because I truly believe there are a number of Catholics out there who are muddling through, like me. Please, please, be charitable. If how I practise is not good enough according to you (or the Magisterium, if you feel the need to throw that at me too), don’t expect me to engage in conversation about it and please remember how hurtful words can be. Thanks.

Mar

Present as dude…

By Tuppence 28 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

A friend recently said to me that Christ is as present in Scripture, as in the Eucharist itself. I did a double-take – “Sorry, what?” Well, according to my friend, St Irenaeus said so. And who could argue with a Church Father – agreed, wouldn’t take on one of them on my best day!

Intrigued as I was with this comment, I searched on the net to find reference to St Irenaeus saying such a thing…with no luck. (Albeit, I searched about 5 mins…this is the 21st century folks, time is money blah blah…) Anyone else able to help me out here?

In the meantime, I did find a couple of other articles that helped clarify for me why I did a double-take when the suggestion was made.

In one case, a lady in charge of a parish scripture program claimed Christ to be â€˜equally’ present in Scripture as in the Eucharist. Her evidence…some parishes give the Bible a special place with lighted candles on either side. Nice. A cute case of the cart pulling the horse in terms of logic.

But anyway, the response to that anecdote immediately noted the importance of terminology. Language is that necessary beast that we must use to express ourselves, but our understanding of our faith should, in some respects, leave us speechless as the language is left for dust in its’ inability to express the mystery of our faith.

The responder made a good point:

When speaking of the Eucharist or anything relating to the mystery of God, the words we use are critical. Any presence of God, of the Trinity or of Jesus in the Bible or in the Eucharist or anywhere else is “unique” in the sense that it is different from all other presences. There’s nothing like it. Unique does not necessarily mean it is better or superior, just that there is nothing more perfect of its kind or class.

The response continues on to explain that of all the â€˜presences’ of Christ in the mass – in His power, His Word, the person of the priest (in persona Christi), the people themselves as they pray and sing – Christ is present especially (maxime) in the Eucharistic species of bread and wine.

And to add to that…

It is important to note that when the Church speaks of the Eucharist in this context it does not mean primarily the simple presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species, as it is in the tabernacle, for example. It means most directly and essentially the sacrificial liturgy of the Eucharist, the celebration of Mass by the Catholic community. It is in this sense that the Eucharist is the focal point of our lives as Catholics.

Maxime…hmm, a little latin is always good for the soul. Although it is used above next to â€˜especially’, it also means: particularly, principally, greatly, exceedingly, to the highest degree, very…I don’t see that for any reference to the presence of Christ in Scripture…

I have a hunch however, that this friend of mine who suggested that Christ is as present in both Scripture and Eucharist is in fact lamenting the level of understanding among Catholics generally about the presence of Christ in His Word. On that, I totally take his point and wholeheartedly agree that we could all do with delving into His Word more and more…

Mar

A very timely message from a very unlikely source

By The Dumb Ox 64 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I came across this editorial last week, and I thought it was well worth reproducing here (the original can be viewed here)…

Sarkozy and European Secularism
CHARLES COLSON

French President Nicholas Sarkozy is an unlikely scourge of European secularism: He is on his third marriage and has been called the “playboy president” by his critics.

But it is what Sarkozy has just said about the role of religion in French life that has really got his critics up-in-arms.

For more than a century, what the French call laÃ¯citÃ© has been the defining characteristic of French politics and public life. The word, which has no English equivalent, goes beyond the separation of church and state. It is a kind of secularism that tends to see “any strong religious views as a direct threat to [ France's] freedom and way of life . . .”

Thus, discretion about one’s religious views, especially among leaders, is regarded as “a necessary part of being French.”

Sarkozy disagrees. In a book he wrote before becoming president, Sarkozy declared, “I am of Catholic culture, Catholic tradition, Catholic belief, even if my religious practice is episodic.”

He continued this theme after becoming president. He has criticized removing references to ” Europe’s Christian roots” from the European constitution. In a speech in Rome last December, he emphasized France’s Christian roots. He invoked France’s ancient title of the “Eldest Daughter of the Church.”

He proposed a new version of laÃ¯citÃ©, one that “does not consider religions a danger, but an asset.” That is because, according to Sarkozy, when it comes to teaching right and wrong, “the schoolteacher will never be able to replace the priest or the pastor.” Well said.

Sarkozy has also stood up for France’s often-beleaguered Jewish community. He recently announced that, starting next fall, French fifth-graders will have to learn the story of at least one of the 11,000 French children killed in the Holocaust.

He defended his plan by blaming the wars of the twentieth century on the “absence of God.” He further shocked French sensibilities by adding that Nazi racism was “radically incompatible with Judeo-Christian monotheism.”

This latter point is not hypothetical for the French president, whose maternal grandfather was Jewish.

Critics are appalled by Sarkozy’s invocations of religion. As one socialist leader put it, “a speech citing God not only on every page, but on every line, creates a fundamental problem for the republic.” Others chide him for disregarding the separation of church and state.

And, of course, they do not hesitate to point out the gap between his rhetoric and his lifestyle.

I wish that Sarkozy’s “religious practice” was less “episodic.” Nevertheless, I am gratified that he is taking on what has been called a “major taboo” in French public life. This may be the first time since the French revolution that a French leader has spoken seriously to the people about God.

A French-born writer, Hilaire Belloc, put it this way, “the faith is Europe.” Without Christianity, Europe would not exist. European secularism and the denial of its Christian roots have cut it off from its own heritage, leaving it vulnerable to the challenge of Islam.

After all, you can not fight something with nothing, which is what a “post-Christian” Europe is left with. That is why I welcome Sarkozy’s message â€” however unlikely the messenger.