2010 April archive at Being Frank

Archive for April, 2010

Apr

“As long as I’ve got my health, and my millions of dollars and my gold house and my rocket car, I don’t need anything else.”

Categories: Being Frank...

I wrote a post last week I really did. It was perhaps the best piece I have ever written. Full of cutting wit, deep thought, and interesting ruminations. Unfortunately due to some system quirk (or perhaps my forgetting to push the ‘publish’ button) the Greatest Post of All Time is now lost in the ether.

This week I’m using the lazy bloggers approach and linking to another blog – here. I can’t even claim credit for the link as someone else had mailed it in.

After reading said article, I find that I rather ashamedly sometimes fall into the ‘zero is enough’ bucket. I don’t mind doing good deeds, in fact I welcome the opportunity to. But when said deeds involve giving money away, I really struggle. I once tried to donate money to a disaster relief fund but my credit card declined. I didn’t try again but I did get a good feeling from the knowledge that I was willing to help out. There’s been a drive recently at Westminster Cathedral aimed at trying to get people to donate more money to the Cathedral as it is constantly running in the red. It’s sad in a way that they are almost begging for more money. But how do you make people part with their money. Appeal to their philantropic side? (no doubt spelt incorrectly) Try and guilt trip them into parting with money? Hope you nag at people enough that they’ll make a one off large donation? I think sometimes it’s almost easier to think someone else will solve the problem, and just do nothing unfortunately.

Apr

A Peter-like Paradigm of Perpetual Conversion…

By Tuppence 122 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

Peter is definitely one of my favourite disciples…and last Sunday’s Gospel brings that home to me again. I was chatting a friend saying how I find so much to relate to in Peter…the overestimation of how much I love Jesus, of how committed I am to following His will and the often disappointing reality of sin…and yet the unchanging determination of God’s love and his call on my life to be a witness, to participate in His Kingdom.

To paraphrase my favourite daily Gospel meditation…
“Peter has a profound love or Jesus, but not deep enough. On the night of the Last Supper, he was convinced he was capable of dying for Jesus, but he was wrong. When the test came round, he fled. Like Peter, we have a tendancy to overestimate our desire to follow Jesus. In everyday circumstances, we tend to do fine, but when the difficulties come – temptations, opposition, even persecution – we often fail. Like Peter, we often flee. We love our Lord, but not enough. Yet, Jesus’ reaction towards us is one in the same: he doesn’t lose confidence in us. He doesn’t abandon us. He waits patiently that we return to him.”

All this seems to remind me of a passage in Dives en Misericordia (“On the Mercy of God”JPII)
“Authentic knowledge of the God of mercy, the God of tender love, is a constant and inexhaustible source of conversion, not only as a momentary interior act but also as a permanent attitude, as a state of mind. Those who come to know God in this way, who “see” him in this way, can only live in a state of being continually converted to him. They live, thereore, in statu conversionis and it is this state of conversion which marks out the most profound element of the pilgrimage of every man and woman on earth in statu viatoris.”

Christ isn’t about to let us drift off indefinitely into the netherwoods of mediocrity and sin…despite the strong currents within us constantly threatening so. So I don’t know about you guys, but I think I’m gonna try work on that permanent attitude of conversion. We’re in it for the long haul, so might as well have the right mindset!

Apr

It seems that killing is Obama’s business, and that business is good

By The Dumb Ox 33 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

While the mainstream media has been caught up in a Pope hating frenzy, other more important news has been slipping under the public radar, like, for example, the news that Obama has ordered the CIA assassination, without trial, of a US citizen because he happens to be a terror suspect.

The following comes from an article that was published on Salon.com two weeks ago…

“Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they’re sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind. I won’t repeat those arguments… but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.

Just consider how the NYT reports on Obama’s assassination order and how it is justified:

“The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday. . . .

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president. . . .

“The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family). None of that.

Instead, in Barack Obama’s America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens — and a death penalty imposed — is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone’s guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America’s newspapers — cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they’re granted — to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist.

It is simply asserted that Awlaki has converted from a cleric who expresses anti-American views and advocates attacks on American military targets (advocacy which happens to be Constitutionally protected) to Actual Terrorist “involved in plots.” These newspapers then print this Executive Verdict with no questioning, no opposition, no investigation, no refutation as to its truth. And the punishment is thus decreed: this American citizen will now be murdered by the CIA because Barack Obama has ordered that it be done. What kind of person could possibly justify this or think that this is a legitimate government power?”

A very concerning development indeed, and it might be a sobering reminder for Obama fanatics to know that not even George Bush went this far.

Apr

How little we know

By James the Least 87 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I had the pleasure of attending a birthday celebration the other night, and spent most of the evening sitting beside an older priest who has been a family friend from…well, since before I was born. We talked about all manner of topics – the challenges the Church is facing, our approach to evangelisation, the loss of the Catholic culture – and it made for some very lively conversation.

Towards the end of dinner, we started to talk about some of the changes since Vatican II, and the resulting differences in our liturgy and what it means to be Catholic today. And I was stunned by how little I know. I mean, I’ve always known that I don’t know much, but when it comes to the history of the Mass, I really don’t know much at all.

See, of recent, I have had other friends and colleagues (who know a lot more about such matters than I) pass on information and bits and pieces about the changes I was only dimly aware of. Things like altar rails and other changes to the physical layout of our churches, or some of the practices – like the praying the Angelus – which have as good as disappeared in New Zealand these days. So, I figured that I knew enough to debate the merits of some of these changes with this priest – a man who has been a priest for longer than I have been alive, and one who saw and participated in the changes post-Vatican II.

Shows what I know (or don’t). :)

Now, we can debate the merits of the Catholic education system later, but what I found most fascinating is how complex our recent history has been, and how little attention is seemingly placed upon it. For example, I had recently been discussing with some other friends the merits of ad orientem. For those not in the know, the Mass is today usually celebrated with the priest facing the people. Depending on how you want to phrase it, the Mass used to be celebrated with the priest’s back to the people (or, some would argue, facing the same way as the people). So, knowing nothing about Latin, I assumed that “orientem” meant like “oriented” – as in facing a specific direction.

However, as this priest pointed out, “ad orientem” means “to the east”, and reflected that the priest used to face East, as that is where the sun rises. Obscure? A bit, but the theological context seems to be that the sun rises in the East, reminding us that the “Son” rose as well. Okay.

So I responded with what I had been told – that Vatican II had no document saying that the priest should face the people, and in fact the GIRM says at one point that the priest “turns to the people”. This is used by fans of ad orientem to say that the implication is that the priest has to turn around to face the people. However, a little wikipedia’ing says that the Girm instructs:

The altar should be built apart from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated at it facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible

Hmmmm.

This theme continued on other matters: such as the role of the Tabernacle (i.e. not as a primary point of worship, but as the store for the reserved Sacrament – reserved for the ministry to the sick). Strictly speaking, if all of the Blessed Sacrament consecrated in a Mass was consumed, there would be no need for a Tabernacle in the church. The concept was quite a challening one for me to accept.

And this is what I’m getting at – all of this was news to me. Just like all of the countering points were news to me when my friends pointed them out. But, as my exasperated priest responded at one point “your generation has no concept of the history of the Mass!” And I responded “I agree! So why don’t you teach us?”

Why haven’t we been taught this? Why do I need to have Wikipedia, or a friend who’s read the right books or done theological study, or a priest who knows this stuff inside and out? Why can’t all Catholics be educated on our culture, our history, our customs, in a solid, consistent fashion? The risk of not doing this seems pretty clear to me – a whole bunch of confused Catholics who just go along with the motions of the masses.

That’s not who I want to be. So, I’m open to any ideas on how to fix this problem. Anyone?

Apr

Christian Legal Centres Busy in the UK

By eyeWitness 36 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

It appears (always from cases in Great Britain for some reason – is it really that bad or do we just hear only the bad?!) that many Christians are utilisising specialist legal services to help them defend their right to practice their faith.

There was the dismissal by Islington Council of Lillian Ladele, a registrar who would not conduct civil partnership ceremonies, the disciplining of Somerset nurse Caroline Petrie after she asked an elderly patient if she would like a prayer said for her. Last week a tribunal heard the case of Shirley Chaplin, a Devon nurse taken off the wards because she refused to remove a cross she had worn for 38 years. Teachers, foster carers, paediatricians, a DJ, social workers, journalists, clerics and pensioners have also featured among those penalised for daring to challenge fashionable diversity and equality policies from a Christian perspective.

Is a new morality being imposed by the State? If not, we are certainly moving towards it. Andrea Minichiello Williams, the founder of a Christian Legal Centre in Great Britain says: “We are a civilised and democratic society but we are walking into something which is profoundly uncivilised.” Is it that Western Governments are so accepting of everyone’s beliefs that they effectively don’t let anyone practice their beliefs? There does always seem to be the undertone that all ‘normal’ people are agnostic-like. It is nice to have faith, but not to believe it above any other idealogy – that would be a bit ‘extreme’ and unaccepting.

Williams’ centre successfully sued Lancashire Police and Wyre Council for investigating pensioners Joe and Helen Roberts for disagreeing with the local authority’s gay rights policy. It also successfully sued Brighton Council when it withdrew funding from Pilgrim Homes, a Christian care home whose staff refused to ask elderly residents about their sexual orientation every three months, and successfully defended Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, Liverpool hoteliers prosecuted under public order laws for allegedly offending a Muslim during a discussion about religion.

Another legal advice service has also been set up three years ago by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in response to attacks on the “right to be pro-life”. John Smeaton, the director, says the service has been approached not only by medical professionals but also by teachers who will not refer children to contraceptive and abortion services without parental consent.

Will we soon need such legal services to defend Christians who wish to live out their beliefs? I hope not!

Apr

Physical Littleness and Mental Littleness

By On the Road 9 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I am reading a book by the legendary Archbishop Fulton Sheen called the ‘Eternal Galilean’, a book about the life of Jesus. In it he compares our call to have faith like a child to ‘mental littleness’, or humility. He says, ‘ we cannot always be children, but we can always have the vision of children, which is another way of saying we can be humble’…..’If man magnifies his ego to the infinite, he will discover nothing, for there is nothing bigger than the infinite.’

He goes on to relate how this would play out in the cave where Jesus was born:

To grasp this truth, imagine two men entering the cave where the Babe is born – one a proud man, the other a humble man. First, let the proud man, intoxicated with pride, and full of a smattering of knowledge gleaned from some handy Wellsian history of the world, enter the cave of Bethlehem. Do you think he would ever discover the immense God?”

Why he is so big that he thinks there is nothing bigger than himself, and so wise that there is nothing wiser than himself, and so self-sufficient that nothing could ever add to his sufficiency. He is so big mentally, that to him everything else is little. To him what is really bigger than the universe is only a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and what is really a King is no bigger than the head of an ox, and what is really eternal Wisdom is only a speechless organism. He smiles at the credulity of the shepherds who believe in angels, and at the ignorance of the Wise men who believe in the Providential guiding of a star. He lifts his eyebrows at the Virgin Mother, vaguely remembering an Egyptian legend about Krishna. He condescends a glance at Joseph, the man of rags, to whom the innkeeper rightly denied entrance. He thinks of all that science has done to master the earth, and then how foolish it is to think of that Babe as a Creator; he dwells on Relativity, and then on the absurdity of calling a glorified amoeba the Lord of Heaven and earth; he recalls how much Birth Control has done to keep the poor from bringing children into the world, and then how foolish was the Mother of that Child who could offer Him only a stable and a few straws from a threshing floor. He missed the infinite because he was proud; he missed discovering God because he was too big. For it is only by being little that we ever discover anything big, even God.

Now let a humble man enter that cave – a man who believes he does not know everything, a man who is teachable, a man who is simple. He looks at exactly the same spectacle the proud man looked at, and yet he sees something different. He looks at the roof of the stable and sees the great canopy of stars; he looks at a Babe and sees the One whom not even the heavens or earth could contain; he looks at a manger, and sees that God became Man to be our food. To him, those baby eyes see through hearts and read secrets unto judgment; to him, the swaddling bands which now blind life are those which later on will be broken, for life cannot be held by death; to him, the ruddy lips are those whose kiss gives immortality and whose articulation carries the message of peace and pardon. To him, the tiny hands are those on which are poised all the nations of the earth as the least grain in the balance. The date is December twenty-fifth, but to this humble man, it is Christmas, the manger is a throne; the straw is royal plumage; the stable is a castle; and the Babe is God. He found Wisdom because he was foolish, Power because he was weakness, and the Infinite, Immense and Eternal God, because he was little – ‘For it is only by being little that we ever discover anything big.’

Let us ask ourselves, which do we relate to? In which areas of our life do we sneer at the infinite God in the manger?

Apr

Are you having a laugh?

By Filia Day 37 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I just wanted to share something with you all today that I had to have a little chuckle to myself about – hopefully lighten things up a little bit around the blogosphere :P

A few days ago, I rendez vous’d (bad, French I know) with an old university friend who recently moved away from Auckland. It’d been a while. In fact, I hadn’t seen her since just before she’d had her second, let say, “surprise” baby. Like me, she’s a catholic but we believe very different things about what the Church teaches – or rather what we can take and what we can leave. Despite our differences of opinion, I really enjoy her company (I think it’s mutual!) and there’s never any awkwardness afterwards if we do happen to stumble onto contentions topics over lunch or coffee. I suppose that’s the reason I can share the little scenario below – because I know that she wouldn’t have a problem with it and she wouldn’t take offence.

Now back to the babies….. The first piece of information she volunteered was interesting, to say the least. Knowing that I wouldn’t touch contraception with a barge pole, she stated with an air of confidence “you know, when I fell pregnant with (insert child’s name here), I was using natural family planning” – alluding to the methods ineffectivity. I said, (knowing a bit about natural family planning myself) “so at what time in your cycle did you fall pregnant, do you think?” She looked a bit guilty – as it turns out, she was very well aware of her cycle and well aware of her fertile days – what had happened was that she and her husband had decided to use condoms during the fertile period and THAT was when she fell pregnant. What I did find funny was that it wasn’t the failure of NFP rather it was the failure of the contraceptive device. I’d also supposed (wrongly) that she was an advocate of natural family planning but on digging a little deeper I discovered that she really didn’t have a whole lot of confidence in the method – she mentioned the anxiety she felt about using the method and falling pregnant and obviously wasn’t completely convinced over the periods of abstinance required. I wonder if people feel anxiety when they use artificial contraceptives (failure rates are apparently much higher than NFP)? I certainly have never meet anyone who has….

I read on the Family Life international website (I think??) that NFP is 99.8% effective, if used effectively. I wonder how many “surprises” arrive due to a lack of understanding or abiding to the principles of NFP?

While I never brought it up with my friend, I also thought hard and long about the contraceptive mentality after our meeting. i.e. legitimate and illegitimate reasons for contracepting within marriage (EVEN IF YOU ARE USING NFP). Of course, this is a highly personal decision for a couple but I wonder how well this teaching is transmitted. I haven’t really heard this discussed that much amongst catholic friends etc….what are other people’s experiences?

More and more I’m convinced it’s a frame of mind having talked to a number of other “catholic” friends who are contracepting. When I bring up natural family planning, it so difficult to talk about an openness to life because they’re not really open to being open to babies and normally they don’t have much faith when it comes down to it ( I would say they were more cultural catholic, than practicing catholic though) – in God’s providence OR the NFP method.