2011 January archive at Being Frank

Archive for January, 2011

Jan

Lunchtime conversations

By Joan of Arc 5 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

I’m really blessed to work in an office with good lunch-table conversation! Somehow over the last few years I’ve managed to lose interest in small talk (weather, sports), gossip, news about celebrities, etc. A lot of the conversation at my current workplace is also good for me because it makes me look up the Catholic viewpoint and think more deeply about my own opinions and where they have come from (as does Being Frank!). I thought I’d just share some of the topics from around our lunch table in the past week…

1) The girls at work have learnt how to get me worked up – just mention Hells Pizza! It annoys me when fellow Christians think there’s no big deal about naming pizzas after deadly sins and romanticising these sins (not to mention the condoms in the letterbox marketing). It is even worse when they agree with me that Hells Pizza and its marketing are offensive but then follow with the statement: “but it tastes so good so we still buy it”. Aarrgh! We had a reasonable debate this week about how lightly we should take things like this. They thought I should calm down a bit about it all, but it’s good to be passionate, right? I’m still not sure who won that debate. I was quite outnumbered.

2) One of my Catholic colleagues was telling us about a client of hers who is terminally ill and has worn-through her set of rosary beads. I offered some water from Lourdes or some blessed oil but to my surprise my Catholic colleague said that she’s not really keen on stuff like that because she thinks it’s superstitious. Our protestant colleagues sat at the table in silence – they weren’t willing to wade into this discussion (also to my surprise!). This whole conversation took me off guard as I didn’t even realise there were Catholics out there who thought about these things as superstitious. I didn’t even know what to say in the moment. That conversation died a pretty sudden death.

3) We were talking about praise and worship songs and I mentioned that I had seen a T.V programme where a pastor had called some of these songs ‘I love my boyfriend songs’ – those songs where you could replace ‘God’ or ‘Lord’ with a person’s name and it could turn into a love song to anyone. At first the pastor’s name for this sub-group of songs made me laugh, and then it made me think. Then we started talking about the reverse of the ‘I love my boyfriend songs’ in the way that I often sing along to love songs on the radio, but singing them to Christ (although modern love songs are getting less and less appropriate to do this with). Is this wrong? We all stopped to think. No answer yet. One of my workmates said that he sings his own words at one part of the song ‘Lord I lift Your name on high’ because it misses out the resurrection so he adds that part in himself (You came from Heaven to Earth to show the way, from the Earth to the cross my debt to pay, from the cross to the grave, from the grave “via a little extra time on Earth” to the sky, Lord I lift Your name on high). Interesting the things people pick up on!

Well this has seemed like about 3 BF posts at once so I’ll stop there for now (I had a few more on the list but I’ll save them for another time). I’m looking forward to this coming week’s lunchtime conversations.

Have a great week.

Jan

Action for life…

By Voice in the wilderness 1 Comment

Categories: Being Frank...

This week in America saw the anniversary of Roe v Wade, the landmark and controvertial decision by the Supreme Court of the USA concerning abortion. It basically paved the way for the abortion industry to become a mainstream and accepted industry.

This week will also see the response to this decision - The U.S March for Life. The goal of which is to overturn the Roe v Wade decision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw5HMp9FrYY&feature=sub

The exciting thing is that NZ has started its own March for Life movement, which started small last year, but will hopefully grow into something incredible in the future. I know that there is already a team of people meeting and organising April 2011′s march.

Do you think NZ is ready for a nationwide March for Life? Or do you think apathy reigns, even among prolife Catholics?

Do you think holding an annual march is actually worthwhile?

Jan

“What’s with this place? It’s so manly, yet scented.”

By Methuselah's Beard 40 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

While I was catching up on the news this week, I couldn’t help but notice this story about ‘Alien Hand syndrome’ especially when it had the headline ‘Alien Hand Syndrome sees women attacked by own hand’. It’s no laughing matter of course, just another quirk of the human body. Oh ok I had a little giggle when I read the headline.

Anyhow, I was scouring the news this week for this story in particular. In summary, a Christian couple own a bed and breakfast and usually only allow married couples to share a room. They got into trouble for denying a gay couple (who are civil union) a shared room. A judge recently ruled that the B&B owners were in the wrong, as a civil union should really be recognised on the same level as marriage.

There’s the whole civil union vs marriage thing we could get into. But I wonder how the courts can prevent the B&B owners from effectively practicing their faith, or telling them when they can and can’t practice. Or the arguement could be that maybe they shouldn’t be running a B&B if they wanted to be staunch Christians, because surely we shouldn’t impose our beliefs on others who don’t share them.

Jan

In the words of Bob Dylan, “I’m on the pavement thinking bout the government”

By Filia Day 3 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

Last week in the States for me – I’ll be returning to little old New Zealand mid-next week. On that note we have been doing the dinner rounds. I like politics, particularly American politics, so it’s definitely on the dinner party agenda (particularly if I don’t know the person very well – it’s a great way to make conversation). I was a little shocked though with my first attempt to talk politics with Americans. A group of around five of us were out to lunch and I wasn’t quite comfortable enough with these particular people to endure long silences. I thought. “I know!!!”, I’ll bring up the Tea Party…that’ll be fun”. But no, it was nothing like the political fun I had become accustomed to back home. In fact, it was just darn awkward. One couple quickly made it clear where they stood on the issue, stating the Tea Party were a nutty group of right wing fundamentalists. I thought, please, do you ind not being the spokesperson for the NY Times. Then from left field (not literally though :P) one other girl made it clear that she totally supported the Tea Party (not all that common for a New Yorker, I gathered). There was a hiss from the Democrats in the corner. She quickly attempted to get her argument across in sound bite fashion stating more or less that the leftist media has made them out to be a bunch of southern hillbillies and that it wasn’t entirely fair but made sure she premised her sentence with “I really don’t want to get into politics”. She went on to state that she thought they had some good points but again stated she didn’t want to talk about it. I was too intrigued by her position to get the hint. “What exactly about their position do you like?” She stated, “I believe that family is important”. She didn’t strike me as the stereotypical someone interested in “family” (you have to admit it has connotations these days). What did she mean? Did it have anything to do with God or Christianity? There was an endless stream of questions running through my head at this point in the conversation. Polarisation and the frustratingly vagueness of her position meant I couldn’t resist fishing for more dialogue on this issue. But the lefties in the corner, sensing a meaty debate on the horizon, quickly changed the topic. Grrrrrr…..I was left so intellectually unsatisfied.

A couple of days later, we went to another friends place for dinner. I never meet this guy before but I quickly got a sense her was an avid Democrat. I thought I’d test the waters again. This time I thought I’d try Sarah Palin. Surely a democrat couldn’t resist this type of bait. It worked a treat, and we were off. This guy had no problems talking about Palin, the Tea party, the Healthcare bill, and the recent shootings in Arizona, abortion, feminism. Mid-conversation, I had to ask whether he thought the run of the mill American had an aversion to discussing politics. He said yes because voting has always been considered something very personal to a lot of people, something that many Americans believed could be compromised if they were to wear their political heart on their sleeve. I’m not so sure though. Could it be that because of the way that the media presents the Tea Party, the Republicans, and Sarah Palin that they might be afraid of being similarly labelled and socially stereotyped? I don’t know.

Very generally this is where I stand.

Don’t like Sarah Palin – her politics are too right-winged for me. Good on her for being prolife and all but I don’t personally think she’s the best pin up girl for the pro-life feminist movement.

Healthcare – great idea (minus the provision for Abortion).

Tea party – I think there is a mixture of complete nutters and right-wing sane people involved in this movement. Pity the media generally isn’t interested in covering the sane people. Sane and nutty aside, I’m generally not a fan of their politics.

Arizona shootings. I hope that would be obvious. I’m not too convinced that linking Palin to the shootings was very justified though.

What do others think about these issues – doesn’t anyone want to have a go a defending Palin and the Tea Party? I didn’t get my debate in the states, so hopefully I can rely on the New Zealand blogging community.

One other thing I found astonishing is how big a debate the death penalty is. Seriously, it’s huge. It’s almost a non-issue is New Zealand, so perhaps it was just a bit of a culture shock for me.

Jan

The Pillars of the Earth…

By Inkling 2 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

The European parliament has just installed a giant Hungarian carpet in their atrium to mark the start of the EU presidency; 202 square metres in size, and raising a little controversy over one of the pictures it features; a historical map of Hungary with its borders somewhat greater than it boasts today. But neatly side-stepping the potentially ridiculous argument that might ensue from a debate about historical maps on carpets, I think this raises another issue that is well worth discussing.

State powers go to great expense to deck out the halls of parliament, national meeting places, and so on. I think the degree of expenditure on such things should be kept somewhat in check, but I think impressive (not oppressive) government buildings are necessary; their grandeur is a sign of prestige, symbolic of earthly power, you could say, but it’s also symbolic of the country; something for a country to be proud of; for people to look up to; a place you’d be proud to bring foreign guests to, and a place you’d want to preserve for posterity and history, a legacy to hand down to your children and children’s children.

Certainly, there is something wrong with excessive opulence born of corruption and greed – but then this is quite different to people willingly giving money, time and talent to create something unique, special, and treasured, that inspires and uplifts those who see it.

If, as I believe we do, have valid reason for wanting our halls of earthly power to be magnificent and beautiful; we then have even more valid reason for wanting our halls heavenly worship to be magnificent and beautiful. Our Churches and Cathedrals should be places of striking, breathtaking beauty, places worthy of housing the Blessed Sacrament and celebrating Holy Mass; places that uplift, inspire, and bring mass-goers to ever-greater contemplation of the holy mysteries. Creating a house for God on earth is a great calling, a great honour and a great responsibility for its designers, architects, artists, engineers and builders, but also for parishioners.

Some say that beautiful churches in the midst of poor parishioners are a sign of opulence and corruption in the Church; but I do not think so. Consider the workers who laboured to build the great cathedrals of the world, most never seeing the building they were working on completed in their lifetime. I’m sure if you asked most of those people if they would rather celebrate mass in a building like a cathedral, or a building like their home, it would not be difficult to guess their reply.

When we imagine our great-grandchild sitting in the back pew of our own parish Churches, looking up at the altar and the décor of the Church, if they will be pleased with what they see, if they will be uplifted and inspired to greater holiness, and most of all, if they will want to preserve what they see before them for their own great-grandchildren to gaze upon as well.

Jan

Clerical Continence

By Marty Rethul 171 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

Beginning as we mean to go on:

Can. 277 §1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

§2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.

§3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

Noted canonist, Dr Edward Peters, looked at this question in a Studia Canonica article from 2005. His main thesis is essentially this: that all clerics in the West, even those married, are canonically obligated to observe perfect and perpetual continence. He bases this on the first section of Canon 277. You can find a full account of his thesis here.

Naturally this has caused some concern in certain circles.

Dcn. Greg Kandra, webmaster of the respected “Deacon’s Bench” blog, asks: “Does anyone seriously think that tens of thousands of married deacons — not to mention the hundreds of married priests — are now suddenly going to commit to stop having sex? If that’s the case: gentlemen, ask your wives to add more saltpeter to your diet.”

Dr Edward Peters responds:

I assume Dcn. K’s read my article, so he knows that “suddenly stop[ping] having sex” is not my suggestion to Western married clerics. His tendentious phrasing, therefore, can only be rhetorical, in which case, though, he is implying that I do, in fact, hold that married clerics must “suddenly stop having sex”. That’s disappointing, coming from one of obvious good sense on so many other topics; worse, it’s distracting from the real discussion that needs to take place.

Canon 277 (and the immemorial tradition behind it) either means what I say it means, or it doesn’t. My arguments are open to rebuttal, but I don’t think they should be subjected to ridicule. If a sexually active (married) diaconate, and a fortiori, a sexually active (married) priesthood is, in the end, a contradiction of canon law and Western tradition—and neither I nor Dcn. K get to decide that—then only two choices will ultimately be available: (a) change the law and abandon the tradition, or (b) accept the law and observe the tradition, in which case, obviously, reasonable accommodation must be made for the thousands of men who were ordained without being advised of the requirements of their state. Those are important questions, not trivial ones.

In short, I welcome informed discussion of my thesis and its implications, but I hope we won’t have to spend too much time telling people to ignore quips about “saltpeter” and such along the way.

I wonder, has Bishop Dunn, or Bishop Browne for that matter, informed their candidates to the deaconate of the Church’s tradition and the requirements of Canon Law in this area?

Jan

A right to found and form a family?

By Kereopa 44 Comments

Categories: Being Frank...

The Human Rights Commission has issued its latest report into Human Rights in New Zealand. As usual it’s a thick, high-gloss, full-colour publication, which again raises questions around Quangos (quasi non-governmental organisations) using public money. The report, as no great surprise, is complete drivel.

Under the chapter “The Rights of Specific Groups” the HRC claims:

People of all sexual orientations and gender identities are entitled to the full enjoyment of all human rights

This quote isn’t from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) but The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in Relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, Article 1.

I did a bit of research on the Yogyakarta Principles (which I’d never heard of) and found they’re rubbish. According to the website the principles were

developed and unanimously adopted by a distinguished group of human rights experts, from diverse regions and backgrounds, including judges, academics, a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, UN Special Procedures, members of treaty bodies, NGOs and others.

Note that these principles have never appeared before any UN council, let alone been discussed, passed or ratified by UN member states. This means that the principles are as credible and relevant as any group who decides that my cat should enjoy the same rights as humans. It’s a view of a group of like-minded organisations, not a credible, international voice on human rights. That group are entitled to their views, but the HRC should be referring to them as some sort of trustworthy source of opinion.

I have no idea why the HRC is referring to an unofficial body as if it was speaking the gospel truth. The HRC is responsible for human rights, not sideshows.

Back to the report: I actually have no problem with the statement that people of all sexual orientations and gender identities (whatever that means) are entitled to the full enjoyment of all human rights. This explicitly means that regardless of sexual orientation, everyone has the right to life, freedom of expression etc, which is true. One may not agree with someone’s choices but as a human being, they are entitled to enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

But what gets my goat is their recommendation that:

New Zealand completes the legislative steps required for formal legal equality, including rights to found and form a family, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity (page 83).

What?

Under Article 16 of the UDHR only men and women have right to marry and to found a family, and further only without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion. There’s nothing about sexual orientation – rather the UNHR explicitly excludes it.

So why would we extend the right to family to sexual orientation or gender identity? It’s not even in the UDHR. The HRC, as the misguided, socialist organisation it is has decided that as homosexuals are a minority (albeit a highly vocal one) they’re entitled to get married and start a family.

This is code for gay/transgender marriage and gay adoption. If it advocates as much, the HRC should just come out and say it. It doesn’t. Instead it refers to a unofficial document put together by self-interested groups who are all pushing the same wheelbarrow, reinterprets article 16 of the UDHR and then muddles the water further by claiming that it also means that homosexuals and transgenders should be able enjoy similar rights.

Under the guise of ‘legal equality’ the HRC is saying that everyone has the right to form a family and get married – and that it should be enshrined in law by Parliament. This is without any research or opinion showing how this is the case or where they draw their opinions from.

This is sneaky and contemptuous. It’s also pretty much how the HRC makes progress.

This is in despite of the UDHR in Article 16, s2:

declaring the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

The intention of s2 is to defend exactly against this sort of mischievous, agenda-pushing, backdoor progress that the HRC is guilty of. The core family unit, not advocate for adoption into transgender couple.

This post is not intended to open the gay adoption debate (which I want to touch on later) but rather to emphasise how the White Knight of human rights in this country is deviously pushing for gay adoption as a right despite no evidence or substantiation as this is the case in human rights law. Its one of the reasons why most people are suspicious of human rights – because its used as a backdoor way of pushing an agenda that should be publicly identified and debated.

It also highlights that the HRC has very little to do. Its a watchdog on human right abuses. Clearly NZ isn’t doing too badly if its prepared to spend public money (in a time of financial pinch) on an irrelevent and largely unneccesary issue.

A new low for the HRC.

St. Anthony the Abbot, pray for us.