I think I've mentioned this a time or two before. Knitting for me is a hard won skill. It's been hard won every step of the way, and even now when I can knit socks without a pattern, make variations of Jackie Fee's sweater that aren't in the book, and change out yarns without a second glance, there are some things that still elude me. The current pattern I'm knitting is one my daughter found on Ravelry. It's a cute short sleeved cardigan that I've loved on her. I haven't knit anything big for myself in a couple of years, and I'm short on sweaters. She said this one took like two days, so it looked like a go.
Well the first problem was that the designer has the pattern in a small/medium only. I'm definitely not a small/medium. However, on Ravelry there were loads of people who'd modified the pattern so that it was my sized. So I cast on and used one of the most frequently mentioned modifications, only to discover that the directions for the very first increase row were wrong (as in you didn't end up with the number of stitches that it said you would). Now this is not because I did it wrong. I sat down with pencil and paper and figured it out. The directions were actually wrong. They were also wrong on the second increase row, and the third. So I figured out the increases to get to the right number of stitches and blithely went on my way. Then, having decided that I liked the idea of shaping (the first modification didn't do that) that I'd pick up with the second modifier's directions for shaping. She had supposedly followed the first modifier to that point. Uh, well, she'd almost followed to that point. Her first step was five stitches off the first modifier's numbers at that point. I couldn't figure out how to get to her numbers without going back and ripping out a bunch of rows that I didn't want to. So I went back to the first modifier's pattern and figured I'd just make the thing with no shaping. My daughter said that everyone was fooling around with how many stitches to cast off at the sleeves because the various ways made a different sort of sleeve. She even told me that she was going to do it differently the next time (she's made two or three of these). Well I couldn't see the benefit of each different sort of cast off.
The people on Ravelry who modify these patterns are much more like my daughter than they are like me. While I may not always be a "blind follower," I probably do need to have pretty accurate directions the first time around. Hence, my struggle with Elizabeth Zimmerman's Baby Surprise Sweater. Without the additional instructions I found online, I never would have finished even one of those. I wish I could just simply do modifications like that. I wish that when a designer says just add extra stitches (you figure out the math) to make a bigger sweater, I could consistently do that, but I can't. I can make the yoke of a dress longer, I can make a toddler dress with a size 2 chest and a size 4 length, but I can't do the sorts of modifications that some of these people seem to manage in their sleep. When the Yarn Harlot talks about grafting lace stitches together in the middle of a scarf it's almost enough to make me break out in hives.
I can't really "see" what things are going to look like until I've actually done them. Once I have I can then at least some of the time figure out a modification that I like, but it's got to be there in my hands. The funny thing is that when I'm learning a new stitch, just showing me isn't necessarily going to work, or at least not the way my daughter "shows" me. She's very much of the "you do this, this, this" (all accomplished at lightening speed) type of demonstrator. I need to either read the whole thing out and put my own hands through it, or watch the steps interminably on U-Tube.
She's a natural knitter. Knitting is like a second language to her. She learns new stitches easily and quickly and enjoys the challenge of it. I learn new stitches slowly with some difficulty and give a sigh of relief when I get back to just plain knit. It's pretty much the same way with sewing. I can sort of follow a pattern, and I do occasionally make something, but I don't love to sew and I avoid altering patterns. My daughter, like my sister can simply see the way something will work, and make changes as she goes along. The odd thing is that I taught her to knit, and with the exception of a very few things, taught her the basics of sewing. My sister lived far away, but gave her a couple of lessons, my friend Chris taught her to put in a zipper, and someone else taught her a swing tack. Other than that she learned from books. Of course, her father is an engineer, her grandfather was a carpenter, and her great grandfather also had the ability to make stuff up as eh went along. Too bad all of that skipped me.
I do think that not being a natural at all of this may make me a better teacher of it, however. I understand some of the problems that a beginner knitter has because I've had them. It's much easier to identify with the frustrations of the beginning knitter when your stuff still doesn't always go the way you want.
I now know that designers don't always get all the numbers right, that sometimes the way a designer has done things can actually be improved on, and that sometimes the best thing you can do is rip a row back.
This morning I figured out that yesterday I'd made a truly boneheaded mistake. Somehow I'd managed to knit in the wrong direction (i.e. I was knitting back and forth and somehow switched directions in the middle of a row (obviously I'd put the knitting down, lost a few stitches off a needle and when I picked them back up headed in the wrong direction. This meant a frustrating hour of tinking (which is much slower than knitting).
What I also realized yesterday is that a small medium of this sweater may take only a couple of days, but an extra large takes somewhat longer than that. Even though I knit all afternoon I only made about three inches worth of progress (which of course had nothing at all to do with the fact that at that point in the sweater the small had about 107 stitches to the row while I have over 160 stitches to the row!). So the sweater I hoped to wear to church today will have to wait until next week for its debut.
So for all of you non-natural knitters out there, take hope. When you see me knitting socks without a pattern, realize that it comes after years and years of knitting socks. Realize that I still don't know how to knit from the toe up. Every time I read about knitting socks with the magic loop it makes no sense to me and I'm glad to be knitting mine on double point needles (even if the stitches do frequently fall of in my knitting bag). Want to learn to knit? Don't go to the experts. Come to someone like me who is no expert, who frequently makes dumb mistakes, and who understands the problems of beginners. You'll probably find that once you've mastered knit and purl that you're more like my daughter than you think. Maybe it will turn out that you, unlike me, are a natural knitter after all. After all, that natural knitter daughter of mine -- I taught her every thing about knitting she knew before she was fifteen.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Life Among "Arians"
In my last post I talked about the word "consubstantial" and how people like St. Basil and St. Athanasius fought against the Arians to retain that concept. Life among the Arians wasn't easy. Catholics who fought for the doctrine that all orthodox Christians now hold to were martyred, persecuted, and exiled. Today we are beginning to see what it's like to live in a culture where orthodox Christianity is reviled.
For a long time it's been possible for us to co-exist with people whose version of Christianity is little more than a warm fuzzy memory. Recently, however, things have gotten a whole lot dicier. In my own extended family there are those who are pro-gay marriage, and vocally so. These views are expressed with absolute contempt for people (especially Christians) who hold any other view. We are not held to be merely of differing opinions (which was how my mother would have been treated by my Methodist pastor cousin's family). We are held to be wrong, evil, uncharitable, monstrous. This morning there was a pretty nasty post on a social network by one of my family members. That's what really inspired me to write this.
Now I realize that my cousins don't really hate me. If we sat down in person and avoided controversial topics they would treat me as kindly as they ever did. I suspect that even if we spoke about the controversial topics they would still treat me kindly. However, in other arenas with broad brush strokes they paint those of us who believe what has always and everywhere been believed by Christians as somehow less than Christian. They have, like those who followed Arius, bowed to the popular culture. The "emperor" is "Arian", thus being "Arian" is not only the safe thing to be, the popular thing to be, but in their eyes it is the obvious and right thing to be.
I'm sure they would see it differently. I'm sure that those Methodists, Congregationalists, Episcopalians etc. who embrace gay marriage don't see themselves as walking away from Trinitarian faith. Yet, they seem to forget that it was Jesus who spoke very definitely of what marriage was. If Jesus was wrong there, if He, who never bent to popular culture, was merely bending to popular culture then, what does this say about His omniscience or His honesty? It's far easier at this point in time to bend to the popular will. It was far easier in St. Athanasius's time to be an Arian.
I'm about to read Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman's book about the Arian period in history. It seems to me a good way to remind myself that it's not the first time that orthodox doctrine has been ridiculed. Standing with St. Basil, St. Athanasius, and St. Nicholas may not be popular today any more than in their day. I'm pretty sure, however, that this is where Christians who hold to the historic faith are standing.
Some nearly 25 years ago now I made the observation that it looked as if in my grandchildren's time only the Catholic Church would stand for historic Christianity. I made that observation when I would have still identified myself as solidly evangelical Protestant. I had no interest in becoming Catholic, and I was rather annoyed that it seemed to me that this would be the only option for my grandchildren. Less than 10 years later I found myself standing in the front of a Catholic Church being received as a convert. Now I am thrilled that my grandchildren will be Catholic and I am doing my very best to help my daughter and her husband pass the Catholic faith on to their little girl. I may not always like some of the actions of the hierarchy. I may get very annoyed at the way in which some bishops don't actually follow all of the teachings of the Church. I may be profoundly tired of diocesan flunkies who sometimes are more concerned about the way they look to the well heeled among us, than about following the teachings of the Church about a just wage. Believe me I don't have blinders on. At the end of the day, however, I still know that the Church teaches faithfully, even when some of her shepherds fall down on the job.
I'm sure that for a lot of my extended family, as it is for the culture at large, to stand with all of those Church fathers is simply to be old fashioned, and out of touch. They believe that the Church must move with the times, must interpret the faith in a new way. They believe they are acting with compassion and that those who oppose them are acting out of hate. They cannot see the concern for souls that our opposition includes.
My petition for this week is St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Nicholas pray for us. We need your prayers because our culture is in deep deep trouble, and unfortunately much of my family has embraced the culture rather than the faith.
For a long time it's been possible for us to co-exist with people whose version of Christianity is little more than a warm fuzzy memory. Recently, however, things have gotten a whole lot dicier. In my own extended family there are those who are pro-gay marriage, and vocally so. These views are expressed with absolute contempt for people (especially Christians) who hold any other view. We are not held to be merely of differing opinions (which was how my mother would have been treated by my Methodist pastor cousin's family). We are held to be wrong, evil, uncharitable, monstrous. This morning there was a pretty nasty post on a social network by one of my family members. That's what really inspired me to write this.
Now I realize that my cousins don't really hate me. If we sat down in person and avoided controversial topics they would treat me as kindly as they ever did. I suspect that even if we spoke about the controversial topics they would still treat me kindly. However, in other arenas with broad brush strokes they paint those of us who believe what has always and everywhere been believed by Christians as somehow less than Christian. They have, like those who followed Arius, bowed to the popular culture. The "emperor" is "Arian", thus being "Arian" is not only the safe thing to be, the popular thing to be, but in their eyes it is the obvious and right thing to be.
I'm sure they would see it differently. I'm sure that those Methodists, Congregationalists, Episcopalians etc. who embrace gay marriage don't see themselves as walking away from Trinitarian faith. Yet, they seem to forget that it was Jesus who spoke very definitely of what marriage was. If Jesus was wrong there, if He, who never bent to popular culture, was merely bending to popular culture then, what does this say about His omniscience or His honesty? It's far easier at this point in time to bend to the popular will. It was far easier in St. Athanasius's time to be an Arian.
I'm about to read Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman's book about the Arian period in history. It seems to me a good way to remind myself that it's not the first time that orthodox doctrine has been ridiculed. Standing with St. Basil, St. Athanasius, and St. Nicholas may not be popular today any more than in their day. I'm pretty sure, however, that this is where Christians who hold to the historic faith are standing.
Some nearly 25 years ago now I made the observation that it looked as if in my grandchildren's time only the Catholic Church would stand for historic Christianity. I made that observation when I would have still identified myself as solidly evangelical Protestant. I had no interest in becoming Catholic, and I was rather annoyed that it seemed to me that this would be the only option for my grandchildren. Less than 10 years later I found myself standing in the front of a Catholic Church being received as a convert. Now I am thrilled that my grandchildren will be Catholic and I am doing my very best to help my daughter and her husband pass the Catholic faith on to their little girl. I may not always like some of the actions of the hierarchy. I may get very annoyed at the way in which some bishops don't actually follow all of the teachings of the Church. I may be profoundly tired of diocesan flunkies who sometimes are more concerned about the way they look to the well heeled among us, than about following the teachings of the Church about a just wage. Believe me I don't have blinders on. At the end of the day, however, I still know that the Church teaches faithfully, even when some of her shepherds fall down on the job.
I'm sure that for a lot of my extended family, as it is for the culture at large, to stand with all of those Church fathers is simply to be old fashioned, and out of touch. They believe that the Church must move with the times, must interpret the faith in a new way. They believe they are acting with compassion and that those who oppose them are acting out of hate. They cannot see the concern for souls that our opposition includes.
My petition for this week is St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Nicholas pray for us. We need your prayers because our culture is in deep deep trouble, and unfortunately much of my family has embraced the culture rather than the faith.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
That's a Fighting Word
This morning I finished reading a slightly fictionalized biography of St. Athanasius on my Kindle. Towards the end of the book there was a conversation between St. Basil and a man named Modestus. Modestus says to St. Basil "Would you not like to have the emperor in your congregation. It would be so easy. You have only to strike that word "consubstantial" out of your creed."
St. Basil's reply is not harsh, but it is courageous: "Gladly would I see the Emperor in my church; it is a great thing to save a soul; but as for changing my creed, I would not alter a letter for the whole world."
St. Basil and St. Athanasius lived in a time when the Arian heresy was popular in many parts of the empire. As a matter of fact the emperor himself, at that time, was an Arian. St. Basil and St. Athanasius understood how important to the faith a correct understanding of the nature of Our Lord is.
Recently the English version of the Mass has been retranslated to more closely reflect the Latin text. One of the changes in the translation occurs in the creed. Previously we said "one in being with the Father." Now we say consubstantial with the Father. Some people are most upset about this. They aren't familiar with the word. Perhaps they don't understand the concept. What they don't appear to know is that this was a word that Christians in the years following the Council of Nicea fought over. Blood was shed, Catholic Christians were martyred because they insisted that the Son was eternal, just as the Father was eternal.
Today there are lots of sects where the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son is either denied (as in the Mormon religion, or the Unitarian religion) or in many cases merely glossed over. There are lots of members of the United Church of Christ (some of them pastors)for example who don't view Jesus as much more than a great teacher (the followers of Islam see Him as the last of the great prophets, second only to Mohammed). Orthodox Christian believers, however, are still creedal and they still proclaim Jesus consubstantial with the Father. I don't want to pick on the UCC, it just happens that I know some of those parishoners, and I've met some of those pastors. So I can speak from personal knowledge there.
I think that it's an extremely good thing that people are now being forced to have their tongues stumble over consubstantial. I hope that some of them will actually decide to look it up and see what it means. I hope that people will actually become better catechized as a result.
We don't belong to an individualistic faith. We don't belong to a Church where everyone gets to write their own definition of what it means to be a Christian. Yet we live in a world where that very practice is not only common, but popular. "Mega churches" feed into that very practice. In attempting to be "seeker friendly" they water down the message of the Gospel in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They think of things like communion as times where people can declare a commitment not as sources of grace. Now since they don't have a valid Eucharist, that truly is pretty much all they can offer, but unfortunately there are those even within the Catholic Church for whom individualistic approaches to faith really has an appeal. They don't like the priests who discuss doctrine in their homilies, much less the ones who are tough on sin. What they prefer are the ones who tell nice stories with a Hallmark greeting card, or Helen Steiner Rice soothing message. The Christians of St. Athanasius's day weren't like that. They knew what was at stake if you watered down the truth of the Gospel. That's why for them consubstantial was a fighting word. Today when it's a fighting word it's merely because people don't understand it, or perhaps it's because when they do come to understand it they realize that it wasn't exactly what they'd been believing all this time.
There are no new heresies, there are only old heresies with new names. Let's embrace the new translation and be happy that people may actually become acquainted with both the fighting word and the doctrine it makes clear. Oh, in case you'd like to read that book about St. Athanasius the title is Saint Athanasius: The Father of Orthodoxy, the author is Francis Alice Forbes and it's available for a click of a button on your Kindle.
St. Basil's reply is not harsh, but it is courageous: "Gladly would I see the Emperor in my church; it is a great thing to save a soul; but as for changing my creed, I would not alter a letter for the whole world."
St. Basil and St. Athanasius lived in a time when the Arian heresy was popular in many parts of the empire. As a matter of fact the emperor himself, at that time, was an Arian. St. Basil and St. Athanasius understood how important to the faith a correct understanding of the nature of Our Lord is.
Recently the English version of the Mass has been retranslated to more closely reflect the Latin text. One of the changes in the translation occurs in the creed. Previously we said "one in being with the Father." Now we say consubstantial with the Father. Some people are most upset about this. They aren't familiar with the word. Perhaps they don't understand the concept. What they don't appear to know is that this was a word that Christians in the years following the Council of Nicea fought over. Blood was shed, Catholic Christians were martyred because they insisted that the Son was eternal, just as the Father was eternal.
Today there are lots of sects where the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son is either denied (as in the Mormon religion, or the Unitarian religion) or in many cases merely glossed over. There are lots of members of the United Church of Christ (some of them pastors)for example who don't view Jesus as much more than a great teacher (the followers of Islam see Him as the last of the great prophets, second only to Mohammed). Orthodox Christian believers, however, are still creedal and they still proclaim Jesus consubstantial with the Father. I don't want to pick on the UCC, it just happens that I know some of those parishoners, and I've met some of those pastors. So I can speak from personal knowledge there.
I think that it's an extremely good thing that people are now being forced to have their tongues stumble over consubstantial. I hope that some of them will actually decide to look it up and see what it means. I hope that people will actually become better catechized as a result.
We don't belong to an individualistic faith. We don't belong to a Church where everyone gets to write their own definition of what it means to be a Christian. Yet we live in a world where that very practice is not only common, but popular. "Mega churches" feed into that very practice. In attempting to be "seeker friendly" they water down the message of the Gospel in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They think of things like communion as times where people can declare a commitment not as sources of grace. Now since they don't have a valid Eucharist, that truly is pretty much all they can offer, but unfortunately there are those even within the Catholic Church for whom individualistic approaches to faith really has an appeal. They don't like the priests who discuss doctrine in their homilies, much less the ones who are tough on sin. What they prefer are the ones who tell nice stories with a Hallmark greeting card, or Helen Steiner Rice soothing message. The Christians of St. Athanasius's day weren't like that. They knew what was at stake if you watered down the truth of the Gospel. That's why for them consubstantial was a fighting word. Today when it's a fighting word it's merely because people don't understand it, or perhaps it's because when they do come to understand it they realize that it wasn't exactly what they'd been believing all this time.
There are no new heresies, there are only old heresies with new names. Let's embrace the new translation and be happy that people may actually become acquainted with both the fighting word and the doctrine it makes clear. Oh, in case you'd like to read that book about St. Athanasius the title is Saint Athanasius: The Father of Orthodoxy, the author is Francis Alice Forbes and it's available for a click of a button on your Kindle.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Forgotten Author
I mentioned RH Benson in my last post. I have been so enjoying some of his books on Kindle. This morning I stayed in bed about 20 minutes extra so that I could finish The King's Achievement. It's a wonderful story about the period of time in England when Henry VIII is dissolving the religious houses, and insisting that the English Church answers to him. The family at the center of the story has two daughters and two sons. One son becomes a trusted aid to Cromwell, and the other becomes a monk and then a priest. One daughter becomes a nun, the other marries another faithful Catholic (albeit a fairly hot headed one). The father remains faithful to the Pope, his wife is inclined to be faithful only to the king. Tension thus arises not only in the country, but in the family as well. It's a beautifully told story, and really highlights the difficulty faced by those people who found themselves suddenly seen as traitors for merely living the faith in the way it had been lived for centuries. If you want to see English history of that period through the eyes of characters who are living in it, this is an excellent read. You'll find well crafted characters, and get some good historical perspective at the same time.
Benson is better known for his novel The Lord of the World. This is actually one of the first of the dystopia novels of the 20th century. I actually did this one with a group of homeschoolers a few years back and we all enjoyed it thoroughly. Benson sort of contrasted his end of the world scenario in this one in his book The Dawn of All, but The Lord of the World seems to be the better known book.
I don't remember which of the Benson books were free and which ones cost a pittance. I just know that they are helping to make this Advent season an enjoyable one.
Benson is better known for his novel The Lord of the World. This is actually one of the first of the dystopia novels of the 20th century. I actually did this one with a group of homeschoolers a few years back and we all enjoyed it thoroughly. Benson sort of contrasted his end of the world scenario in this one in his book The Dawn of All, but The Lord of the World seems to be the better known book.
I don't remember which of the Benson books were free and which ones cost a pittance. I just know that they are helping to make this Advent season an enjoyable one.
Monday, November 28, 2011
The Marvels of Kindle
When I first became Catholic I got interested in reading older Catholic literature. I heard people talking or writing about authors like Robert Hugh Benson, G.K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, Maurice Baring and others and I went in search for books. What I found was that the local library had none, Amazon had very few (generally expensive), and that the UVM library had a smattering (all in the annex which was difficult to access if you lived nearly 70 miles away). This summer I gave myself the gift of a Kindle. What I've discovered to my great delight is that the books I could never find (or never afford) are now available to me cheap. Many of them can be downloaded for free, some cost up to $5. Now I'm sure that I'm not alone in loving RH Benson, etc., but I'm also sure that probably they don't make the Kindle best seller's list (they don't even appear in the top 100 list on free Kindle books). I have to say though I am now drowning in riches. I just read Benson's conversion story, have downloaded his By What Authority (and am part way through it), have Newman's Callista waiting for me, etc., etc.
It's really neat when the books you most wanted to read are in the public domain and available literally at the touch of a finger. I still love actual print books, but I must say that I've become a huge Kindle convert. I can take it with me places where I wouldn't want to carry a stack of books, it's making my book addiction that only more affordable, but one that doesn't cause quite so much clutter around the house.
Of course current books are available as well, and I do occasionally spring for something that costs more than $5. However, I must say that this is becoming more and more rare, and that I am really enjoying the riches of literature written before 1950. I know that I already have more than saved the cost of my Kindle in books that I wanted to buy, and would ultimately have purchased.
I don't usually like to sound like an advertisement, but I really hope people are aware that they can find some really, really great stuff that's practically unavailable except in rare book form otherwise. Even the current books are generally less expensive in Kindle format.
It's really neat when the books you most wanted to read are in the public domain and available literally at the touch of a finger. I still love actual print books, but I must say that I've become a huge Kindle convert. I can take it with me places where I wouldn't want to carry a stack of books, it's making my book addiction that only more affordable, but one that doesn't cause quite so much clutter around the house.
Of course current books are available as well, and I do occasionally spring for something that costs more than $5. However, I must say that this is becoming more and more rare, and that I am really enjoying the riches of literature written before 1950. I know that I already have more than saved the cost of my Kindle in books that I wanted to buy, and would ultimately have purchased.
I don't usually like to sound like an advertisement, but I really hope people are aware that they can find some really, really great stuff that's practically unavailable except in rare book form otherwise. Even the current books are generally less expensive in Kindle format.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Just Like Teenagers
One of the pronounced tendencies of teenagers is to go along with whatever the in crowd is doing. I've never been sure how the in crowd becomes the in crowd, or who decides what the latest fad is, but I've sure known when I was behind the times, starting with not wearing pencil skirts in 3rd grade, or not knowing who Fabian was in 5th. The tendency doesn't go away for a lot of people when they become grownups. It's hard to buck the crowd. It doesn't even matter which crowd you're bucking. It wasn't easy to become Catholic when it meant listening to someone tell me I would go to Hell as a result. There have been a lot of those moments in my life. The odd thing is that when I was in high school I wanted more than anything to be acceptable to the in crowd. I had parents that forbade a lot of the activities the in crowd was doing, and I went to a Pentecostal church that pretty much guaranteed that I'd never have in crowd status, but, man, it's what I wanted.
Somewhere in my late twenties or early thirties something flipped in my brain. I'm not sure whether it was marrying into the weird Swift family (known for being not exactly conventional in some respects), deciding to breastfeed for longer than 3 months, or deciding to homeschool. However, something happened, I became no longer quite so concerned about what "they thought." Well, that is, I wasn't quite so concerned what the general public thought, I still wanted to fit in my nice evangelical community, in my nice LLL group, and in my friendly homeschool support group. Over the years, however, I've had moments where I've had to become a pariah in each of those communities as well. Increasingly, I've become less and less concerned about what any of "them" think and more concerned with what God wants me to be doing. Sometimes that means standing up for unpopular ideas with a minority of people, sometimes it means flat out standing alone.
Recently, I sent some book suggestions to my Methodist minister cousin who was about to chair a forum on how Christian churches should respond to the gay marriage law in NY state. They weren't about gay marriage, but they were about how to figure out what orthodoxy means. Not unremarkably he didn't respond to my suggestions. I hope that doesn't mean what I suspect it does. However, I was even more bothered to find that the Cardinal of our own archdiocese apparently is beginning to figure out how to make some accommodations with the Rainbow people as well. Good to know that we don't have to believe that Cardinals always make the right decisions.
It seems to me that the Protestant churches and even the Catholic clerics who are trying so hard to nuance things so they don't sound like fuddy duddies are just like I was in high school. They're desperately trying to hold on to who they are while trying to still be socially acceptable to the in crowd. Back in the 1970's when the in crowd was declaring pedophilia to be a mental defect that could be treated with counseling (or in the case of at least one of the guests on one Phil Donahue show, simply something that was being treated with prejudice while adult/child sex was not harmful at all), the bishops went along with the in crowd. They sent their "kiddy loving" priests off to counseling and then on to a new assignment. Well that worked out really well. They also allowed their priests to teach parishoners that their own conscience should inform them as to whether they could use artificial contraception or be divorced and remarried. Now we have a panel justifying its decision that contraception should be required in all insurance plans by the observation that 98% of Catholics in the U.S. contracept. That worked out really well also.
We have young Catholic couples who are trying so hard to keep up with the secular world and its standards that they are losing track of what the Church really teaches about openness to life and the value of sacrifice. Pre-Cana classes are convincing couples that using NFP will guarantee them the same sort of spacing that their secular counterparts are achieving with a combination of artificial contraception and sterilization. When that doesn't happen some couples are feeling like the Church has sold them a bill of goods. In some respects, they're right. Telling couples that NFP will allow them to have the same frequent sex and no babies as their contracepting counterparts isn't always accurate. In some cases it means less sex to have no babies, in other cases it means more sex, but more babies as well. Better that the Church should be honest and say that marriage entails sacrifice. It may be the sacrifice of a significant amount of abstinence if you have a serious reason to delay pregnancy, or it may mean the sacrifice of serving a little person when you'd rather be enjoying a high power career or dinners out at a fancy restaurant. But to be honest like that is to admit that to be a serious Catholic means to not follow the in crowd. It requires carrying a cross, it requires remembering that the way to destruction is broad and the way to life is narrow.
For a lot of years in America anti-Catholicism wasn't all that evident. Oh, sure, not many people wanted to become Catholics, but Catholics had begun to be treated like just one of the many flavors on the Christian list. In towns all around, the Catholic priest was part of the local pastors' association, and there were lots of ecumenical services. Church Women United included Catholics as well as Protestants. And, you know what, the Catholics kind of liked it that way. They didn't have to feel so different anymore. But the times they are a changing. It's no longer the Calvinists and the certain Baptists who are anti-Catholic, it's not even the atheists. Mainstream Protestants are starting to level their guns at the Church as well. Gay marriage may well be the issue that brings back anti-Catholicism in full force. Or, it may be the call for priests to be required to violate the confessional as is being proposed in Ireland. There are those within the Catholic community who are still desperate to hold on to the "gains" they made. They really liked being part of the in crowd. They have already started clamoring for the Church to change with the times. They don't want to be different. They don't want to stand out. They don't want to be seen as the frumpy fuddy duddy when everyone else is dressed up in brand new stylish clothes. The fact that the clothes are really those of the emperor in the fairy tale doesn't even seem to occur to them.
Unfortunately, our bishops lost a lot of their credibility with the whole abuse scandal. Now there may have been fewer Catholic priests than school teachers guilty of abuse. There may have been no more Catholic priests than Protestant ministers, but the fact is the world expected more of Catholic priests. The world knew that Catholic priests and bishops were supposed to be different. Bishops made a major error when they used worldly wisdom to deal with pedophiles rather than the moral teaching of the Church. But in the same era worldly wisdom was being offered to problems like usury, contraception, divorce and remarriage, and the political stance on abortion by Catholic priests, and even bishops and Cardinals. It's no wonder that now some of the faithful feel that the bishops are only playing politics with the Eucharist rather than having a genuine concern for souls.
It's going to take a long time for the bishops to regain their credibility, but the only way that will happen is the way of the cross. They are going to have to cease any attempt to play ball with the in crowd. They may have to live with a loss of tax exempt status. They are going to have to stop running their dioceses like business entities with business men with secular ideas as their advisors. They are going to need to be radically Christian like the bishops of the early Church. Being Catholic may be about as popular as it was when Elizabeth Ann Seton became a Catholic or perhaps that's too hopeful. It may be as popular as it was in the time of Nero, or Mao. The numbers in the pews may well shrink if the bishops hold fast to what the Church teaches. The Episcopal Church may well gain members as the culture Catholics find it a more in crowd sort of place. The bishops and the faithful may find themselves having to be like Jesus Himself, who was spat upon and reviled by the in crowd.
If you grew up desperately wanting to be one of the rich kids, one of the popular kids, one of the kids with clout, the idea that you might choose to identify with a people who lack worldly power is a pretty scary prospect. It's a lot more fun to think you might actually play your cards right and become one of the movers and shakers of the world. It's easy to believe that you can have it both ways. It's easy to believe that you can be part of the in crowd and not lose your soul in the process. The time is coming soon, if it isn't already here when people are going to have to choose. It's hard to stand up against a lie. It's hard to be charitable and still speak the truth. It's hard to feel the criticism of those around you when you don't follow the culture. At the end of it all, however, it's not the culture that's going to judge us. Far better to be despised by the world and hear the words, "well done, good and faithful servant" than to be part of a crowd that hears, "depart from me." Simply being a Catholic isn't going to cut it, simply being a priest isn't going to cut it, simply being a bishop isn't going to cut it. There's a reason that Dante put some clerics in the Inferno. Only obedience is going to be enough and sacrificial obedience isn't popular with the in crowd.
Around 1987 (long before I really contemplated becoming Catholic) I had a day when I got a glimpse of the future. The thought went through my mind that my grandchildren might well have to be Catholic because only the Catholic Church was remaining faithful to so many of the clear teachings of scripture. Now my evangelical friends would doubtless argue that wasn't true, but I saw even then a shift in the attitude about divorce and remarriage, and a less than consistent teaching on abortion. In the past twenty years or so things have gotten worse. In 1987 I never imagined that ten years later I'd be Catholic. I was pretty upset at the idea that my grandchildren might need to be Catholic. Now I am immensely grateful to be Catholic, despite the problems, despite the truly bad bishops, or the less than wise ones. It's clear to me that despite the bumps in the road that the Church is still not backing down and denying the faith. There may be dissident priests, and dissident bishops. There may be those in the Vatican who play politics, but at the helm there's a Holy Father who's really trying to call all of the Church back to fidelity. It's not an easy job, it's as difficult as trying to rein in a household of rebellious teenagers who've gotten a taste of being part of the in crowd, but he's holding firm. I truly have no desire to go back to the drifting Protestant world where entertainment passes for worship or where political correctness trumps orthodox faith. It's not always easy to be Catholic, but at the end of the day I'll take the Church where Jesus is front and center at every Mass over any Protestant congregation where the Real Presence isn't there at all. And frankly, it's a lot more satisfying than trying to be part of that illusive in crowd.
Somewhere in my late twenties or early thirties something flipped in my brain. I'm not sure whether it was marrying into the weird Swift family (known for being not exactly conventional in some respects), deciding to breastfeed for longer than 3 months, or deciding to homeschool. However, something happened, I became no longer quite so concerned about what "they thought." Well, that is, I wasn't quite so concerned what the general public thought, I still wanted to fit in my nice evangelical community, in my nice LLL group, and in my friendly homeschool support group. Over the years, however, I've had moments where I've had to become a pariah in each of those communities as well. Increasingly, I've become less and less concerned about what any of "them" think and more concerned with what God wants me to be doing. Sometimes that means standing up for unpopular ideas with a minority of people, sometimes it means flat out standing alone.
Recently, I sent some book suggestions to my Methodist minister cousin who was about to chair a forum on how Christian churches should respond to the gay marriage law in NY state. They weren't about gay marriage, but they were about how to figure out what orthodoxy means. Not unremarkably he didn't respond to my suggestions. I hope that doesn't mean what I suspect it does. However, I was even more bothered to find that the Cardinal of our own archdiocese apparently is beginning to figure out how to make some accommodations with the Rainbow people as well. Good to know that we don't have to believe that Cardinals always make the right decisions.
It seems to me that the Protestant churches and even the Catholic clerics who are trying so hard to nuance things so they don't sound like fuddy duddies are just like I was in high school. They're desperately trying to hold on to who they are while trying to still be socially acceptable to the in crowd. Back in the 1970's when the in crowd was declaring pedophilia to be a mental defect that could be treated with counseling (or in the case of at least one of the guests on one Phil Donahue show, simply something that was being treated with prejudice while adult/child sex was not harmful at all), the bishops went along with the in crowd. They sent their "kiddy loving" priests off to counseling and then on to a new assignment. Well that worked out really well. They also allowed their priests to teach parishoners that their own conscience should inform them as to whether they could use artificial contraception or be divorced and remarried. Now we have a panel justifying its decision that contraception should be required in all insurance plans by the observation that 98% of Catholics in the U.S. contracept. That worked out really well also.
We have young Catholic couples who are trying so hard to keep up with the secular world and its standards that they are losing track of what the Church really teaches about openness to life and the value of sacrifice. Pre-Cana classes are convincing couples that using NFP will guarantee them the same sort of spacing that their secular counterparts are achieving with a combination of artificial contraception and sterilization. When that doesn't happen some couples are feeling like the Church has sold them a bill of goods. In some respects, they're right. Telling couples that NFP will allow them to have the same frequent sex and no babies as their contracepting counterparts isn't always accurate. In some cases it means less sex to have no babies, in other cases it means more sex, but more babies as well. Better that the Church should be honest and say that marriage entails sacrifice. It may be the sacrifice of a significant amount of abstinence if you have a serious reason to delay pregnancy, or it may mean the sacrifice of serving a little person when you'd rather be enjoying a high power career or dinners out at a fancy restaurant. But to be honest like that is to admit that to be a serious Catholic means to not follow the in crowd. It requires carrying a cross, it requires remembering that the way to destruction is broad and the way to life is narrow.
For a lot of years in America anti-Catholicism wasn't all that evident. Oh, sure, not many people wanted to become Catholics, but Catholics had begun to be treated like just one of the many flavors on the Christian list. In towns all around, the Catholic priest was part of the local pastors' association, and there were lots of ecumenical services. Church Women United included Catholics as well as Protestants. And, you know what, the Catholics kind of liked it that way. They didn't have to feel so different anymore. But the times they are a changing. It's no longer the Calvinists and the certain Baptists who are anti-Catholic, it's not even the atheists. Mainstream Protestants are starting to level their guns at the Church as well. Gay marriage may well be the issue that brings back anti-Catholicism in full force. Or, it may be the call for priests to be required to violate the confessional as is being proposed in Ireland. There are those within the Catholic community who are still desperate to hold on to the "gains" they made. They really liked being part of the in crowd. They have already started clamoring for the Church to change with the times. They don't want to be different. They don't want to stand out. They don't want to be seen as the frumpy fuddy duddy when everyone else is dressed up in brand new stylish clothes. The fact that the clothes are really those of the emperor in the fairy tale doesn't even seem to occur to them.
Unfortunately, our bishops lost a lot of their credibility with the whole abuse scandal. Now there may have been fewer Catholic priests than school teachers guilty of abuse. There may have been no more Catholic priests than Protestant ministers, but the fact is the world expected more of Catholic priests. The world knew that Catholic priests and bishops were supposed to be different. Bishops made a major error when they used worldly wisdom to deal with pedophiles rather than the moral teaching of the Church. But in the same era worldly wisdom was being offered to problems like usury, contraception, divorce and remarriage, and the political stance on abortion by Catholic priests, and even bishops and Cardinals. It's no wonder that now some of the faithful feel that the bishops are only playing politics with the Eucharist rather than having a genuine concern for souls.
It's going to take a long time for the bishops to regain their credibility, but the only way that will happen is the way of the cross. They are going to have to cease any attempt to play ball with the in crowd. They may have to live with a loss of tax exempt status. They are going to have to stop running their dioceses like business entities with business men with secular ideas as their advisors. They are going to need to be radically Christian like the bishops of the early Church. Being Catholic may be about as popular as it was when Elizabeth Ann Seton became a Catholic or perhaps that's too hopeful. It may be as popular as it was in the time of Nero, or Mao. The numbers in the pews may well shrink if the bishops hold fast to what the Church teaches. The Episcopal Church may well gain members as the culture Catholics find it a more in crowd sort of place. The bishops and the faithful may find themselves having to be like Jesus Himself, who was spat upon and reviled by the in crowd.
If you grew up desperately wanting to be one of the rich kids, one of the popular kids, one of the kids with clout, the idea that you might choose to identify with a people who lack worldly power is a pretty scary prospect. It's a lot more fun to think you might actually play your cards right and become one of the movers and shakers of the world. It's easy to believe that you can have it both ways. It's easy to believe that you can be part of the in crowd and not lose your soul in the process. The time is coming soon, if it isn't already here when people are going to have to choose. It's hard to stand up against a lie. It's hard to be charitable and still speak the truth. It's hard to feel the criticism of those around you when you don't follow the culture. At the end of it all, however, it's not the culture that's going to judge us. Far better to be despised by the world and hear the words, "well done, good and faithful servant" than to be part of a crowd that hears, "depart from me." Simply being a Catholic isn't going to cut it, simply being a priest isn't going to cut it, simply being a bishop isn't going to cut it. There's a reason that Dante put some clerics in the Inferno. Only obedience is going to be enough and sacrificial obedience isn't popular with the in crowd.
Around 1987 (long before I really contemplated becoming Catholic) I had a day when I got a glimpse of the future. The thought went through my mind that my grandchildren might well have to be Catholic because only the Catholic Church was remaining faithful to so many of the clear teachings of scripture. Now my evangelical friends would doubtless argue that wasn't true, but I saw even then a shift in the attitude about divorce and remarriage, and a less than consistent teaching on abortion. In the past twenty years or so things have gotten worse. In 1987 I never imagined that ten years later I'd be Catholic. I was pretty upset at the idea that my grandchildren might need to be Catholic. Now I am immensely grateful to be Catholic, despite the problems, despite the truly bad bishops, or the less than wise ones. It's clear to me that despite the bumps in the road that the Church is still not backing down and denying the faith. There may be dissident priests, and dissident bishops. There may be those in the Vatican who play politics, but at the helm there's a Holy Father who's really trying to call all of the Church back to fidelity. It's not an easy job, it's as difficult as trying to rein in a household of rebellious teenagers who've gotten a taste of being part of the in crowd, but he's holding firm. I truly have no desire to go back to the drifting Protestant world where entertainment passes for worship or where political correctness trumps orthodox faith. It's not always easy to be Catholic, but at the end of the day I'll take the Church where Jesus is front and center at every Mass over any Protestant congregation where the Real Presence isn't there at all. And frankly, it's a lot more satisfying than trying to be part of that illusive in crowd.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Suffering In Silence
Jesus talked about not letting the right hand know what the left hand was doing. We're not supposed to be parading our works before men, and I suspect that we aren't supposed to be parading our suffering either. The saints certainly didn't. Sometimes in an era when complaining about your lot in life seems to be the major content of blogs, tweets, Facebook statuses etc. it's hard not to join in. It's hard to not complain about things when everyone else is, particularly when your own particular complaints seem more worthy of notice to you than some of what is being yammered about. It's hard to watch people with more than you have complaining about how they don't have enough of this or that, or how their brand new house had to have the contractors come back and redo something, and how inconvenient that was. It's not ever easy to not compare and it's very easy to begin to feel very sorry for yourself that you don't even have what they don't even appreciate.
This week we've watched someone in the public eye refuse to take the course of Padre Pio and suffer in silence. Whether he was falsely accused is something none of us know, but the course of action he's choosing to take is more in line with a current secular attitude than it is with the life of the saints.
Silent suffering isn't popular these days. A couple of weeks ago I was at confession and a dear friend from the parish emerged from the confessional. I'd been dealing with a whole lot of lack of faith myself, and feeling very much like my prayers weren't getting any further than the ceiling. When I saw her, however, I was really ashamed of myself, because she's had a lot more unanswered prayers and heartaches in the past decade than I have. Not everyone knows about a lot of them, and I suspect there are probably some I don't know about either. She doesn't complain. My kids say she's a saint, and I think they're probably right in that assessment. I've watched her have to give up her home, have her kids turn away from the faith, her husband get his hours cut back while she was out of work do to surgery, etc., etc. Yet she keeps on trusting and she's faithful to the Sacraments.
If I have to have a role model who isn't already canonized, I think she's a good one. She's certainly a better one than some of the celebrity Christians who find submission to authority to be too painful a thing to suffer.
This week we've watched someone in the public eye refuse to take the course of Padre Pio and suffer in silence. Whether he was falsely accused is something none of us know, but the course of action he's choosing to take is more in line with a current secular attitude than it is with the life of the saints.
Silent suffering isn't popular these days. A couple of weeks ago I was at confession and a dear friend from the parish emerged from the confessional. I'd been dealing with a whole lot of lack of faith myself, and feeling very much like my prayers weren't getting any further than the ceiling. When I saw her, however, I was really ashamed of myself, because she's had a lot more unanswered prayers and heartaches in the past decade than I have. Not everyone knows about a lot of them, and I suspect there are probably some I don't know about either. She doesn't complain. My kids say she's a saint, and I think they're probably right in that assessment. I've watched her have to give up her home, have her kids turn away from the faith, her husband get his hours cut back while she was out of work do to surgery, etc., etc. Yet she keeps on trusting and she's faithful to the Sacraments.
If I have to have a role model who isn't already canonized, I think she's a good one. She's certainly a better one than some of the celebrity Christians who find submission to authority to be too painful a thing to suffer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
