Please click here to vote for us in the Catholic New Media Awards 2009 - thanks!

Archive for June, 2009

29
Jun

The imperfect origins of necessary infrastructure

Yesterday (well, today, but observance yesterday) was the feast of St Peter and St Paul.  As was covered in the homily at our parish, if either of these two were given a performance review today, they probably wouldn’t come out on top.  Think about it: St Paul spent his pre-conversion time hunting down Christians and getting them put to death, and St Peter managed to deny the man who he had seen firsthand was the Son of God – right when He needed him the most.  Not exactly fantastic character references, eh?

But, then again, how about taking another look?  St Peter – the rock on which our Church is formed – and St Paul – “Apostle to the gentiles” – both so firmly believed in God and the truth of His message of love, that they spent (literally) their lives spreading that Good News.  They preached far and wide a message that was very counter-cultural back then – and unfortunately still is today.  It’s a message that calls us all to look past ourselves and our own little lives, and look to our neighbour and see how we can help and how we can give of ourselves to them.  It’s a message that makes us realise that there is more to life than just what we see here, and that physical possessions and desires are fleeting (at best). 

Yet, it’s a message which still comes under attack and is very often misunderstood.  This is evident even on humble little blogs like this one.  I’ve been trying to catch up on some of the discussion on some of the posts from last week, and a couple of comments have really stuck out there for me.  One asked the oft-asked question: paraphrased to “why doesn’t the Church just sell up all its nice buildings and assets and give the money to the poor?”  And why not?  I mean, look at St Peter and St Paul?  No gold chalices for them! 

Tell you what, though – why stop at the Church?  Why not have the New Zealand government just sell all its assets and give the money to the poor?  Better yet – why even bother having money at all?  Why not just collect all the resources together and distribute them evenly amongst the community?  Ahh…sounds like utopia.

Of course, there is the ever so slight chance that such a governmental move might not work.  I can think of a couple of reasons why not.  Firstly, one would think that it would be tricky to maintain all that annoying “critical” infrastructure that the government runs on behalf of all the people in the community.  Secondly, there is no question in my mind that humanity is far from perfect.  I don’t really care what you believe about God or His alternatives – we as a species have an ability to stuff things up, and to let the weak links in the chain ruin it for everyone.  Call it “fallen nature” or “human greed”, but either way you’ll struggle to find a perfect example of society where we haven’t dropped the ball.

Okay, so let’s leave the government out of it and focus back on the Church that these two saints gave their lives to establish and grow.  Well, fine, but I think the same two reasons apply in this case too.  If the Church was to sell all the assets and infrastructure she owns and to give the money to the poor, would that solve poverty?  And I really mean “solve” it?  Because if there is any doubt that such an act wouldn’t provide the total solution, then I’d suggest the Church doesn’t sell up.  If there is still work to be done, then I suggest the Church is right to continue to grow and build her infrastructure – the infrastructure that often fills the gap left by others, namely helping those least fortunate in our society, and continuing to do so until the end of the world or the end of poverty and despair – whichever comes first.  :) 

Think about the impact that the Church has, for example, as being the largest care providers of HIV and AIDS in the world.  Now think about the same level of impact if you remove the infrastructure. 

To the other reason, that of the fallen nature of Man, one might think that there is still a lot of work to do here too.  Just maybe.  :)  Remember – the core mission of the Church, and her very reason for existing, is to draw people closer to God.  That’s it.  That’s why we have the churches and the ceremony, the sacraments and the schools, the charities and the societies – all is about drawing people closer (or, nowadays, back) to God. 

And why is this so important?  Because of that message.  That message which St Peter and St Paul died for.  That message which we, and so many before us and so many more to come will hold to so dearly.  That message which far surpasses pure scientific curiosity as to why and how we came to be…

…you want the summary?  ;)

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength and love your neighbour as yourself.”

So sad that we need so much to explain something so simple.

28
Jun

Catholic guilt

The Catholic Church seems to have a reputation for invoking ‘Catholic guilt’ – the term is even defined on Wikipedia! That seems to especially be the case in the “baby boomer” generation.

On someone’s blog on the internet I read this:

I would love to go to church without feeling guilty. Right now, I’m afraid that I wouldn’t be welcome because I’m a sinner. I’ve been having sex before marriage, and haven’t been going to church. I know God is loving and forgiving. But before I go to church properly, I know I’d have to go and confess my sins to a priest. And I know that priest would be angry at me for my recent behaviour. I know I’m going to be punished with a thousand Our Father’s. I just wonder if that really is the way that God would welcome back a prodigal son? God knows what’s in my heart. So, why would I need to do all those prayers?

Firstly, I would be very surprised if a priest suggested you do more than one or two prayers to help you as penace. And in fact Christianity is all about forgiveness, all about sinners, and very little to do with judging people. One only has to look to the parable of the prodigal son! Priests especially are only interested in helping you. It’s important to find a good one, as some are of course better at understanding and helping you with your particular problems than others. if a priest is judging you he really isn’t doing his job – and they are sworn not to tell anyone either. It would be like a counsellor you tell your problems to judging you. Then they wouldn’t be doing their job.

A priest’s job is to forgive you in Christ’s place, pray for you, and actually make you feel forgiven because you’ve told someone directly in the shoes of Christ that you’re sorry – Priest’s normally also give you advice on things that might help you with the things you struggle with. You of course have to be very humble to admit your faults, and doing so keeps you accountable to yourself and helps you to process with someone else how you are living your life and what you want to improve on.

Yes, there is a right and a wrong and the Church will not sway from that. Yet the Church firmly realises and acknowledges that we all have the tendency to sin, and do sin. So surely that is in fact a very accepting position. Come in, you are a sinner, we are sinners too, but we are constantly trying and struggling against our tendency to sin to try to become better people and do what is right.

Someone else’s reply to the above blog was this:

Maybe it’s different when you’re forced to do things without explanation, and when the focus is on just the acts that you perform rather than any meaning behind them or the real message of salvation. From my perspective, Catholicism is a faith based on grace, and has a beautiful heart centred on submission to Christ and God’s will. When you understand the reasons behind things, you WANT to do them. You WANT to partake of the divine nature in the Eucharist. You WANT to confess and hear the words of absolution. There is freedom there, not guilt.

Speaking of, why would a priest ever be angry? Has that really been your experience? In mine, priests are always very understanding, and the prayers are for our own benefit, to help us focus on turning our hearts back to God. The Bible DOES say to confess your sins, too, AND to pray for one another (i.e. intercede).

27
Jun

‘Heteronormativity’

I read an article this week criticising Disney for perpetuating a children’s culture of ‘heteronormativity’ through their films. The study states:

“Despite the assumption that children’s media are free of sexual content, our analyses suggest that these media depict a rich and pervasive heterosexual landscape,”

and,

“Both ordinary and exceptional constructions of heterosexuality work to normalize its status because it becomes difficult to imagine anything other than this form of social relationship or anyone outside of these bonds.”

So, normal is heterosexual, but it is too exclusive, and should be downplayed to allow for those marginalized by heteronormativity to fully identify with who they believe they are.

While the study has a valid point as I have never seen a Disney movie portray a homosexual couple, I don’t think the study went in-depth enough. Disney films also ardently promote ‘Homosapien-normativity’. What about all those people who are marginalized by that culture, such as those who wish to marry dolphins? It also perpetuates a ‘monoga-normative’ lifestyle as well, refusing to make movies about all those thousands who see polygamy as beautiful and wonderful and find themselves with 30 children from three wives and one husband. I also don’t see them promoting the wonderfulness of ‘net-cannibalism-normativity’ either. I mean, come on, there is so much beauty in the world that is shamed and degraded due, in part, to Disney and their narrow minded writers and illustrators. We need another study that will fully reveal Disney’s bigoted influence on society.

It is stunning to see what homophobia perpetuates in society today. As the article concludes:

Sexuality expert Dr. Judith Reisman told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) yesterday that the “politically correct” study reveals “the growing dominance of Heterophobia within academia and the spread of heterophobes among female professionals.”

“Now, if the Ladies of the Sociology Society think pornography is becoming the heteronorm and that Disney is contributing to that form of what is really Heterophobia, they might have an argument,” Reisman noted.

“However, the Ladies of the Sociology Society appear to favor Homoerotic child propaganda, as the current academic party line dictates.”

It is only after I wrote this that I noticed the wonderful post by Lucia Maria over on the NZ Conservative. Great post.

26
Jun

“That was Bobby McFerrin’s new one, “I’m Worried (Need Money)’.”

(Quick edit: Michael Jackson is either in hospital or has passed away… if the latter, R.I.P… you were a talented musician.)

Today is Friday and I’m not a multi-millionaire. Thanks for nothing Big Wednesday. Looks like I’ll have to get my money the hard way. Or illegally, but working for it is probably the better option.

Anyway today is only the 26th of June and my calendar reliably informs me that it is James the Least’s birthday. Happy birthday JTL!! A lot has changed over the years, not least your width and general hirsute-ness (I say it in jest of course).

Without sounding like a cheesy letter or a corny love song, was it luck that brought us together all those years ago, or was it part of some grand scheme? At our first meeting at a 7th From (year 13) pre-ball, little did I know that this meeting would lead to future years of involvement in youth groups, blogs, podcasts, poker nights, LAN parties, and general all round merriment and self-improvement.

Now I can honestly say that having JTL as a friend has changed my life for the better. Was meeting JTL just good luck? Coincidence? What is luck anyway. Is it just a word or feeling that we attach to a fortunate experience that we can’t explain? Is it just a mathematical anomaly?

I like to think it’s God having a hand in putting opportunities in front of me, and it’s up to me to make the opportunity good or missed.

Now if only I had $35m.

25
Jun

Because the Night Belongs to Love (not lust)

Well I have just attended my third marriage class. We decided to get a priest friend of ours to give us classes instead of attending the diocesan program (from what I have heard it more of a general overview – because of its audience) and there are 4 other couples attending with us. I must say I was rather impressed by our last class which was on openness to life and love, so much so that I can’t stop talking about it! As homework, we were given this short pastoral letter by Bishop Victor Galeone. I have posted it below and I encourage you all to read it.

Marriage: A Communion of Life and Love A Pastoral Letter by Bishop Victor Galeone

My brothers and sisters in the Lord,

Some state legislatures are presently considering bills that would redefine marriage as the stable union of any two adults regardless of gender. Such legislation would equate same-sex unions with traditional marriage. Furthermore, divorces continue to escalate to the point where couples may now get a bona fide divorce online for fees ranging from $50 to $300. These latest developments are mere symptoms of a vastly more serious disorder. Until the taproot of that disorder is cut, I fear that we will continue to reap the fruit of failed marriages and worsening sexual behavior at every level of society. The disorder? Contraception. The practice is so widespread that it involves 90% of married couples at some point of their marriage, cutting across all denominational lines. Since one of the chief roles of the bishop is to teach, I invite you to revisit what the Church affirms in this area, and more importantly, why.

God’s Plan for Marriage
The vast majority of people today consider contraception a non-issue. So much so that to label it a disorder sounds like a gross exaggeration. And to revisit it seems analogous to studying a treatise from the Flat Earth Society. But contraception is an issue, an absolutely vital issue. To comprehend why it is wrong, it’s first necessary to understand what God originally intended marriage to be. In the opening chapters of Genesis we learn that God himself designed marriage for a twofold purpose: to communicate life and love.

There are two accounts of creation in the book of Genesis. The first account occurs in chapter one: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.” The next verse contains the very first command given by God: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” We thus see that God’s first purpose for marriage is that it be life-giving. Without the love embrace between husband and wife, human life would cease to exist on this earth. In the second account of creation in Genesis 2, we learn that the other purpose God has for marriage is that it be love-giving: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helpmate as his partner.” Yes, God meant husband and wife to be intimate friends, supporting each other in mutual and lasting love. Accordingly, marriage exists to communicate both life and love.

The two purposes of marriage are so mutually interconnected as to be inseparable. First, recall that Jesus ruled out the possibility of divorce by applying these words to the union of husband and wife: “They are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one ever separate.” In other words, spouses form an organic entity, like head and heart—not a mechanical one, like lock and key. So the separation of the head or heart from the body—unlike the removal of a key from its lock—entails the death of the organism. So too, with divorce. Likewise, it was God who also combined the love-giving and the life-giving aspects of marriage in one and the same act. Therefore, we can no more separate through contraception what God joined together in the marital act than we can separate through divorce what God joined together in the marriage union itself.

II. The Body Language of Marital Love
5. Before examining what the Church teaches about contraception, I would like to digress for a moment. According to Pope John Paul II, God designed married love to be expressed in a special language—the body language of the sexual act. In fact, sexual communication uses many of the same terms that verbal communication does: intercourse, to know (carnally), to conceive, etc. With this in mind, let’s pose some questions: Is it normal for a wife to insert ear-plugs, while listening to her husband? Is it normal for a husband to muffle his mouth, while speaking to his wife? These examples are so abnormal as to appear absurd. Yet if such behavior is abnormal for verbal communication, why do we tolerate a wife using a diaphragm or the Pill, or a husband employing a condom during sexual communication?

6. Worse still, how can one justify a husband having a surgeon clip his robust vocal cords, or a wife having her healthy eardrums surgically removed? Yet in the area of sexual communication, how do such horrific examples differ from a vasectomy or a tubal ligation? Isn’t it the task of a surgeon to remove an organ only when it is diseased and threatens human life? If the testes or ovaries are not diseased, on what grounds are we frustrating their purpose? Could it be that we have been so indoctrinated by the culture of death that we now consider babies a disease, from which we must immunize ourselves through sterilization?

7. Yes, we have been created in the image and likeness of God! Jesus revealed God’s inner life to us as a Trinity of persons. Accordingly, the body language of the marital union between husband and wife must reflect God’s own inner life, namely, the mutual love between the Father and the Son, which is the person of the Holy Spirit. From the first page to the last, the Bible is a love story. It begins in Genesis with the marriage of Adam and Eve and it ends in the Book of Revelation with the wedding feast of the Lamb—the marriage of Christ and his Bride, the Church. From all eternity God craves to give himself to us in marriage. No one expressed that fact more graphically than the prophet Isaiah:”As a young man marries a maiden,
so will your Maker marry you. As a bridegroom rejoices over his bride,so will your God rejoice over you.”

St. Paul embellished this theme when he wrote, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her.”8 How did Christ give himself up for the Church? Totally—to the last drop of his blood! He held nothing back. If husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved, can they hold anything back? Not even their fertility?

III. Contraception: Telling Lies with Our Bodies
8. Since God fashioned our bodies male and female to communicate both life and love, every time that husband and wife deliberately frustrate this twofold purpose through contraception, they are acting out a lie. The body language of the marital act says, “I’m all yours,” but the contraceptive device adds, “except for my fertility.” So in actual fact, they are lying to each other with their bodies. Even worse, they are tacitly usurping the role of God. By thwarting the purpose of the marital love embrace, they are telling God, “You may have designed our bodies to help you transmit life to an immortal soul, but you made a mistake—a mistake we intend to correct. You may be Lord of our lives—but not of our fertility.”

9. Thirty-five years ago this month, Pope Paul VI said essentially the same thing when he issued his encyclical Humanae Vitae: “There is an inseparable link between the two meanings of the marriage act: the unitive meaning (love-giving) and the procreative meaning (life-giving). This connection was established by God himself, and man is not permitted to break it on his own initiative.” Pope Paul went on to condemn every form of contraception as being unworthy of the dignity of the human person. A tidal wave of angry dissent erupted over this teaching. Catholics and non-Catholics alike berated “the celibate old man in the Vatican” for failing to read the signs of the times and thus hindering the Church’s full entry into the modern era. But the Holy Father was merely restating the unbroken teaching of the Church from the beginning, upheld by all Christian denominations until the Anglican Church made the first break at the Lambeth Conference of 1930.10 In substance—though not expressed in these exact words—he was declaring: “It is not right for man to separate what God has joined together. Attempting to do so would enshrine man in the place of God, and unleash a series of unspeakable evils on society.”

10. Many scoffed at the dire consequences that Pope Paul predicted if the use of contraception escalated. Among his predictions were: 1) increased marital infidelity; 2) a general lowering of morality, especially among the young; 3) husbands viewing their wives as mere sex objects; and 4) governments forcing massive birth control programs on their people. Thirty-five years later the moral landscape is strewn with the following stark reality: 1) The divorce rate has more than tripled. 2) The number of sexually transmitted diseases has expanded from six to fifty. 3) Pornography grosses more than all the receipts from professional sports and legitimate entertainment combined. 4) Sterilization is forced on unsuspecting women in third world countries, with China’s one-child-per-couple policy in the vanguard. Today, even critics of Humanae Vitae admit that its teaching was prophetic.

11. Many Catholics who make use of contraceptives claim that they are doing nothing wrong since they are merely obeying the dictates of their conscience. After all, doesn’t the Church teach that we must follow our conscience to decide if a behavior is right or wrong? Yes, that’s true—provided that it’s a properly formed conscience. Specifically, we must all conform our individual consciences to the natural law and the Ten Commandments, just as we have to adjust our clocks to sun time (Greenwich Mean Time). If a clock goes too fast or too slow, it will soon tell us that it’s bedtime at dawn. And to say that we must accommodate our individual conscience to behavior that clearly contradicts God’s law is to say that we must rule our lives by the clock, even when it tells us that night is day.

IV. NFP: Speaking the Truth with Our Bodies
12. I fear that much of what I have said seems harshly critical of couples using contraceptives. In reality, I am not blaming them for what has occurred during the past four decades. It was not their fault. With rare exceptions, because of our silence we bishops and priests are to blame. A letter I received from a young father last year is characteristic of many others: “Early in our marriage, Jan and I used artificial contraception like everybody else. Today’s culture was telling us that this was the normal thing to do. We knew the ‘official’ Church teaching was against it, but we were not taught why. We even had priests tell us that it was a personal decision; so if we felt the need to use contraception, it was okay. But couples need to be taught why contraception is wrong. We were never taught that the Pill is an abortifacient, that can possibly abort a (newly conceived) child without us knowing it. We were not taught that artificial birth control is a hindrance to building a healthy marriage. We did not know that there is a healthier, Church-approved alternative to artificial birth control.”

13. While contraception is always wrong, there is a morally acceptable way for married couples to space their children—Natural Family Planning (NFP). Couples may regulate births by abstaining from the marital act during the wife’s fertile period. NFP instructors teach couples how to identify the fertile days, which can last from seven to ten days per cycle. NFP has a number of benefits: It is scientifically sound, it involves no harmful side effects, and it entails no cost after the initial fee for materials. Studies have shown that NFP, when accurately followed, can be 99% effective in post-poning pregnancy. That’s equivalent to the Pill and better than all the barrier methods. Best of all, while complying with God’s will, husband and wife discover the beautifully designed functions of their fertility, enhance their intimacy, and deepen their love for each other.

14. But how does Natural Family Planning differ from contraception? And why bother, if their objective is the same? To understand the difference, one must realize that having a right intention for an action does not always justify the means. For example, two separate couples want to support their families. The first couple does it through legitimate employment, while the other couple does it by trafficking in illegal drugs. Or two persons want to lose weight. The first accomplishes the objective by adhering to a strict diet, while the other person grossly overeats and then induces vomiting. Or to return to our analogy of the language of the body: To say that NFP is no different from contraception is like saying that maintaining silence is the equivalent of telling a lie. Paul VI expressed the same idea more poetically: “To experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not master of the sources of life, but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator.”

15. What would you think of a scientist who discovered the cure for cancer but refused to divulge it? Confronted with the spiritual cancer attacking the family today, how can one explain the reluctance of us bishops and priests in spreading the good news of the Church’s full teaching on married love and life? Consider this statistic: Today at least 30% of all marriages end in divorce, compared with only 3% of NFP users.15 Since the use of contraception burgeoned in the early 1960s to the present, there has been a corresponding increase in the incidence of divorce. How does one account for such a dramatic increase in failed marriages? As we saw in paragraph #4, to separate what God joined together in the marital act through contraception is bound to have repercussions on what God joined together in the marriage union—namely, divorce. The solution is clear. What’s needed is courage.

16. In order to counter the silence surrounding the Church’s teaching in this area, as your bishop, I ask that the following guidelines be implemented in our diocese:

• All pastoral ministers should study the liberating message of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body in order to share it with others.16
• Confessors should become familiar with the “Vade Mecum for Confessors concerning some aspects of conjugal morality.”
• When appropriate, priests and deacons should present in their homilies the Church’s teaching dealing with marriage, including why contraceptive behavior is wrong.
• Adequate instruction in NFP is to become a part of all marriage preparation programs.
• Instruction in our high schools, the upper grades of Religious Education classes, and RCIA classes should clearly teach the immorality of those forms of sexual behavior condemned by the Church, including contraception.

17. In closing, I would like to quote from an article by Roberta Roane that appeared in the National Catholic Reporter. She began by asserting: “Yes, I was alive and fertile in 1968. I was 19 and I knew the Pill was a gift from God and Humanae Vitae was a real crock. The Pill was going to eliminate teenage pregnancy, marital disharmony and world population problems…” After recounting her odyssey of bearing three children while switching from the Pill, to the IUD, to condoms, she continues: “Finally, my husband and I reached a turning point. At a very low point in our marriage, we met some great people who urged us to really give our lives to the Lord and be chaste in our marriage. “That blew our minds. We thought it meant ‘give up sex. ’That’s not what it means. It means respecting bodily union as a sacred act. It meant acting like a couple in love, a couple in awe, not a couple of cats in heat. For my husband and me, it meant NFP…and I won’t kid you, it was a difficult discipleship. NFP and a chaste attitude toward sex in marriage opened up a new world for us. It bonded my husband and me in a way that is so deep, so strong, that it’s hard to describe. Sometimes it’s difficult, but that makes us even closer. We revere each other. And when we do come together, we’re like honeymooners. “Sad to say, I was past 35 when I finally realized that the Church was right after all. Not the grab-your-sincerity-and-slide Church of Charlie Curran, but the real Church, the Church we encountered in the Couple to Couple League, the Catholic Church. The Church is right about contraception (it stinks), right about marriage (it’s a sacrament), right about human happiness (it flows—no, it floods when you embrace the will of God). It gave us depth. It opened our hearts to love.”

Roberta Roane is merely echoing what St. Paul said many centuries ago: “Don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own. You were bought at a great price. Therefore, glorify God with your body!”

24
Jun

Hands-down, it’s Hans for Holy Saturday…

Reading back over my notes from the Christology paper at Good Shepherd College (ACGC)…I found this extraordinary extract from Hans Urs Von Balthasar’s book ‘The Heart of the World’ expressing his theology of Holy Saturday. It’s a classic example of the way creative expression can often penetrate the beauty of a truth in a way that academic, intellectual language cannot…

So soak up this one…

…Suddenly all of them standing around the gallows know it: he is gone. Immeasurable emptiness (not solitude) streams forth from the hanging body. Nothing but this fantastic emptiness is any longer at work here. The world with its shape has perished; it tore like a curtain from top to bottom, without making a sound. It fainted away, turned to dust, burst like a bubble. There is nothing more but nothingness itself.
The world is dead.
Love is dead.
God is dead.
Everything that was, was a dream dreamt by no one. The present is all past. The future is nothing. The hand has disappeared from the clock’s face. No more struggle between love and hate, between life and death. Both have been equalized, and love’s emptying out has become the emptiness of hell. One has penetrated the other perfectly. The nadir has reached the zenith: nirvana.
Was that lightning?
Was the form of a Heart visible in the boundless void for a flash as the sky was rent, drifting in the whirlwind through the worldless chaos, driven like a leaf?
Or was it winged, propelled and directed by its own invisible wings, standing as lone survivor between the soulless heavens and the perished earth?
Chaos. Beyond heaven and hell. Shapeless nothingness behind the bounds of creation.
Is that God?
God died on the Cross.
Is that death?
No dead are to be seen.
Is it the end?
Nothing that ends is any longer there.
Is it the beginning?
The beginning of what? In the beginning was the Word. What kind of word? What incomprehensible, formless, meaningless word? But look: What is this light glimmer that wavers and begins to take form in the endless void? It has neither content nor contour.
A nameless thing, more solitary than God, it emerges out of pure emptiness. It is no one. It is anterior to everything. Is it the beginning? It is small and undefined as a drop. Perhaps it is water. But it does not flow. It is not water. It is thicker, more opaque, more viscous than water. It is also not blood, for blood is red, blood is alive, blood has a loud human speech. This is neither water nor blood. It is older than both, a chaotic drop.
Slowly, slowly, unbelievably slowly the drop begins to quicken. We do not know whether this movement is infinite fatigue at death’s extremity or the first beginning – of what?
Quiet, quiet! Hold the breath of your thoughts! It’s still much too early in the day to think of hope. The seed is still much too weak to start whispering about love. But look there: it is indeed moving, a weak, viscous flow. It’s still much too early to speak of a wellspring.
It trickles, lost in the chaos, directionless, without gravity. But more copiously now. A wellspring in the chaos. It leaps out of pure nothingness, it leaps out of itself.
It is not the beginning of God, who eternally and mightily brings himself into existence as Life and Love and triune Bliss.
It is not the beginning of creation, which gently and in slumber slips out of the Creator’s hands.
It is a beginning without parallel, as if Life were arising from Death, as if weariness (already such weariness as no amount of sleep could ever dispel) and the uttermost decay of power were melting at creation’s outer edge, were beginning to flow, because flowing is perhaps a sign and a likeness of weariness which can no longer contain itself, because everything that is strong and solid must in the end dissolve into water. But hadn’t it – in the beginning – also been born from water? And is this wellspring in the chaos, this trickling weariness, not the beginning of a new creation?
The magic of Holy Saturday.
The chaotic fountain remains directionless. Could this be the residue of the Son’s love which, poured out to the last when every vessel cracked and the old world perished, is now making a path for itself to the Father through the glooms of nought?
Or, in spite of it all, is this love trickling on in impotence, unconsciously, laboriously, towards a new creation that does not yet even exist, a creation which is still to be lifted up and given shape? Is it a protoplasm producing itself in the beginning, the first seed of the New Heaven and the New Earth?
The spring leaps up even more plenteously. To be sure, it flows out of a wound and is like the blossom and fruit of a wound; like a tree it sprouts up from this wound. But the wound no longer causes pain. The suffering has been left far behind as the past origin and previous source of today’s wellspring.
What is poured out here is no longer a present suffering, but a suffering that has been concluded–no longer now a sacrificing love, but a love sacrificed.
Only the wound is there: gaping, the great open gate, the chaos, the nothingness out of which the wellspring leaps forth. Never again will this gate be shut. Just as the first creation arose ever anew out of sheer nothingness, so, too, this second world – still unborn, still caught up in its first rising – will have its sole origin in this wound, which is never to close again.
In the future, all shape must arise out of this gaping void, all wholeness must draw its strength from the creating wound.
High-vaulted triumphal Gate of Life! Armored in gold, armies of graces stream out of you with fiery lances. Deep-dug Fountain of Life! Wave upon wave gushes out of you inexhaustible, ever-flowing, billows of water and blood baptizing the heathen hearts, comforting the yearning souls, rushing over the deserts of guilt, enriching over-abundantly, overflowing every heart that receives it, far surpassing every desire.

23
Jun

The waterline is rising…

If anyone is wondering, the title for this week’s post comes from the title of a song by one of my favorite artists – Sage Francis.

This week’s post has nothing to do with Sage Francis, or water related issues per say, instead it’s a response to the Bradford Brigade, who have come out in force over the last week to try and undermine and discredit the outcome of the coming anti-smacking referendum long before the vote has even taken place.

Here’s a list of their most commonly chanted mantras (along with the appropriate responses)…

It’s a waste of money…

Well, whose fault is that?

It wasn’t the organisers of this referendum who wasted lots of tax payer money enacting a bad law, against the wishes of the majority of Kiwi parents who are now forced to suffer under it.

And let’s not forget that Aunty Helen was the one who decided to waste millions of taxpayer dollars by postponing the referendum until later this year, rather than holding it at the same time as last year’s election.

It was obvious that the red army didn’t want the voters reminded of one of their most monumental one fingered salutes to the people of NZ at the same time as the NZ people were deciding whether or not to leave them in office for another 3 years.

Besides, it’s only a waste of money if you’re someone who doesn’t care about this issue, or you are someone who is ideologically committed to this flawed piece of legislation.

It’s nothing more than a glorified opinion poll…

Once again, that’s not the fault of the organisers of this referendum, and it’s the completely separate issue of the legislation surrounding citizen’s initiated referendums which allows politicians to completely ignore the outcome of the vote.

Besides, this doesn’t have to be a glorified opinion poll, all that needs to happen is for the politicians to do something quite novel and actually listen to the voice of the people who put them into office – wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?

The Bradford law is working…

What?!

Working how exactly?!

It hasn’t stopped one single case of child abuse, but on the other hand it certainly has lead to a whole slew of parents being investigated for acts that are quite clearly not child abuse (unless you live in Sue Bradford’s ideological utopia).

The new law is a total arse, and even its grand architect, Sue Bradford, couldn’t actually explain the new law with anything remotely resembling clarity when she was interviewed about it last week on National Radio.

Oh, and for those who think that good parents aren’t actually being targeted as a result of this law, you need to read a bit more widely on this issue.

The referendum question is confusing…

Maybe it is confusing for people who can’t tell the difference between loving physical discipline and sadistic or rage-fueled chid abuse, but for the rest of us the question is perfectly clear.

And don’t get me started on Phil Goff (the political equivalent to John Hart – cause his team won’t be winning anything while he remains at the helm) and his crazy assertion that he can’t vote in the referendum because the question is too complex.

Give us some credit Phil – we’re smart enough to know that the real reason you aren’t voting in the upcoming referendum is because that would require you to actually take a position on the issue, rather than riding the fence and feigning support for both sides of the debate (depending on which group you happen to be speaking to that week).

For those who missed it, here’s the exact question that voters are going to be asked in the referendum…

“Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”

Anyone with half a brain can answer that question, in fact it probably couldn’t have been asked any clearer than that.

If someone does not support smacking, and they think that it should be outlawed in NZ, they can quite happily answer “yes” to the question.

If someone does not support smacking, but they think that it shouldn’t be outlawed in NZ, they can quite happily answer “no” to the question.

If someone does support the right of parents to smack their children, then they can quite happily answer “no” to the question.

It’s not rocket science, and anyone claiming that the question is impossible to answer is probably one of the people who thinks that beating a child to death is the same thing as giving a child a smack on the hand for sticking a fork into a live electric socket (oh, and apparently, killing kids is okay for many followers of the anti-smacking ideology, as long as they are in the womb at the time of the killing).

If it’s wrong to hit an adult, how can it be right to hit a child? (one of the anti-smacking group’s referendum posters)…

Oh please, spare me the unreasoned rhetoric.

Firstly, it isn’t actually always wrong to hit an adult – if an adult breaks into your house and lunges at you with a weapon it is perfectly acceptable, both morally and legally, to hit that adult in an act of defense.

Or if an adult tries to assault a police officer, it is perfectly acceptable, both legally and morally, to hit that adult to try and protect an innocent person from a violent assault.

Secondly, if you don’t understand that there is a huge difference between adults and children then you really are a bit lost.

Anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together can tell you that adults enjoy certain freedoms and rights that children don’t, merely by virtue of the fact that we recognize that there are huge differences between children and adults (like for example, the fact that young children cannot actually be reasoned with – which is precisely why parents have to discipline them in very basic ways when children engage in wrongdoing).

If we actually consistently followed this unreasoned rhetoric from the anti-smacking poster, then only the courts could put children in timeout when they were naughty (because only the courts currently have the right to place adults in timeout when they engage in wrongdoing).

Oh, and we wouldn’t be able to stop kids from buying cigarettes, firearms or obtaining a driver’s license at age 6, because after all, as the illogical rhetoric of the poster proposes: “how can it be right to treat a child differently to an adult?”

What happens when a little smack doesn’t work anymore? (another of the anti-smacking group’s referendum posters)…

One is immediately tempted to answer: “try a bigger smack”, but I won’t!

Instead, I’ll respond with a question of my own…

What happens when time out, or grounding doesn’t work anymore?

See what a total red herring this argument is?

It assumes that the next step, if a smack doesn’t work, is to resort to acts of criminal assault on your child, but this is just ridiculous in the extreme, and it shows how out of touch some of the anti-smacking ideologues have become.

That’s like assuming that the next step, if timeout doesn’t work, is to resort to chaining your child to an old engine block under the house, without food or water, for a couple of days.

A final word for Mr. John Key and Mr. Simon Barnett…

What the heck were you thinking John Key when you told the media that no matter what the outcome of this referendum is you wouldn’t be amending the current flawed law?

Did you not learn anything from your predecessor – i.e. arrogantly telling the NZ people that you don’t care about what they think is the very act of political suicide which cost Helen and her minions their place at the top table.

I really struggle to understand the resistance to follow the wishes of the NZ people on this matter, after all, all that is required is a simple amendment to the Bradford law to clarify in the crimes act that inconsequential acts of physical discipline are not illegal acts in NZ.

Don’t forget John, that the majority of your caucus oppose the current law, and they are smart enough to know that your arrogance on this issue is actually a liability for the future success of the National government.

Finally, huge props to Mr. Simon Barnett for putting his reputation and career on the line to oppose Sue Bradford’s ridiculous law.

In a predominantly strongly left-leaning media, Simon Barnett has done a bold thing by lending his celebrity to the worthy cause of the Vote NO campaign.