For your nerding pleasure...

I know I haven't written in a little while; summer, you know?  Stuff gets busy.  Anyway, I don't have time to write a proper post right now, but I saw this and it is awesome, so I thought I would share.  One of these days I will post about how there is not a contradiction between science and religion, but for now, there is this.

On the plus side, I am fairly confident that my nine-month-old knows what HHS stands for.

Hey!  Obamacare was ruled constitutional!  That is great...kind of...
No, it is good, definitely.  I totally believe in health care for all.
Okay, I am a little bummed because I was kinda hoping that it wouldn't pass and the Dems would try to pass a bill with the public option but... health care for all!  Yeah!


     There is just this one tiny thing, that is actually kind of a big thing for the Catholic Church.  It's that Health and Human Services mandate.  See, mandating that employers cover contraception is a huge deal for the Catholic leadership, and they are just beating us lay people over the head with it.  It is kind of hard to ignore.  I mean, that is the point really is for the leadership: to get the laity to take notice and to stand up to politicians.  So they do homily and brochures and the Fortnight for Freedom, which is supposed to be a time of education and prayer and get us Catholics all engaged and in a tizzy.
     I guess the whole thing is working out for them pretty well, because I have been reading and thinking about it a lot, and despite being fairly liberal, pro-choice, and pro contraception, I do not know what to think about this HHS mandate.
     So the deal with the mandate is that Catholic institutions, like hospitals and schools, are required to provide insurance that covers contraception.  There are a couple issues with this:
     1.  First of all, while contraception is a very controversial issue within the Church, and most lay people side in favor of it being just fine, that is not the point.  The point is that Church leaders resent having to provide to their employees something that the Church officially views as wrong.
     2.  Now truthfully, actual churches are granted exceptions to the mandate; it is only the religiously affiliate organizations that would have to comply, because the state has decided they aren't really religious, just "affiliated".  The Church does not appreciate being told that their organizations are not really religious.

I have seriously been very close to obsessed with this issue to the degree that I often will be drifting off to sleep at night mumbling to myself about tax law exemptions.
It just seems like both sides have valid arguments.

• On one hand, it is not right to make a supposedly Catholic organization do something that they are clearly against.  Regardless of whether or not I agree with the Church's stance on this, there are people who feel that some forms of contraception are tantamount to murdering your children, and if I felt that way about an issue, I wouldn't want the government forcing me to PAY for other people to engage in it.  No one should have to sponsor behavior that is against their religion.
• On the other hand, no one should be denied a medical care they need just because their employer believes it is wrong.  That also would be an infringement on freedom of religion.
• Then again, the Church will pay for contraception if it is a case of medical necessity for the woman in the case of hormonal issues or cysts or something.  Plus, contraception is not really that expensive, and is fairly easy to get, sometimes even free.  So the Church is not exactly preventing a person from accessing contraception just because they don't cover it with insurance.
• Then again, a lot of these Catholic organizations take in a lot of money from the state, so if they are going to be taking tax money, they should probably provide the care that all other employers are expected to provide.
• But the Catholic institutions argue that the money from the state is just compensation from the community for a service the state would otherwise have to provide: care for the sick, homeless, orphaned and elderly.  The Church argues that they are happy to help the state- as these efforts are part of their Christian duty- but they will be forced to stop helping if the state mandates the distribution of contraception.
• However, when you think about it, the Church is paying for contraception either way.  They are either giving money to the insurance company who then gives contraception to the employee, or the Church is giving money to the employee who then uses some of their money to buy contraception. So, one way or another, Church money is going towards something the Church doesn't like.

I am going to be honest with you on this, and I am kind of leaning towards the Church with this one.  I know.  I know.  I feel like a bad woman even thinking about siding against anything that has to do with access to contraception, but I feel like the whole you-can-get-contraception-anywhere-for-really-cheap argument is a really good point.

But convince me otherwise.  I want to be convinced.

Do not practice theology while operating heavy machinery.

     So I have been reading this book by Tim O'Connell, Principals for a Catholic Morality.
     And when I say I have been reading it, I have been reading it in the way that one might read a book that has been sitting on their bedside table since high school and yet he or she has only reached page 70.
     That kind of reading.
     It is a good book, but it covers 2000 years in the history of moral theology in the first 19 pages.
     And then it starts to get dense.
    You could seriously reflect on any single sentence for weeks at a time.
     And during that time you might get distracted and start reading Harry Potter.

     Anyway, I though that maybe if I start blogging about some of the more interesting sentences it might help me stay focused.
     The book begins with the idea that theology is the constant interpretation of God's continual revelation.
     Were you able to get through to the end of the sentence?  Because if not, I totally understand; this book definitely has that effect on people. I get towards the end and I am like "Okay, long word, long word, blah blah, blah...I wonder what I will make for dinner..."
     And that's even when it is saying something as exciting as "God's continual revelation".
     That's not a direct quote, of course, because typing the direct quote would immediately make me go to sleep.  But despite its inscrutability, it is a refreshing idea:
     We are always learning about God.  Time and cultures change, and we are always needing to figure out what to do in new situations.
     That's what it means, and it is so nice to hear.  It flies in the face of all this "eternal and unchanging Word of God" nonsense that conservatives use to fight against social issues they don't like.  (Truthfully, if you were to press them on it, they know the Word of God changes at least SOMETIMES. Very few people consider it a sin to wear garments of mixed fibers, for example.)
     So what does that mean ultimately?  It means that, if we follow Tim O'Connell's  ideas about theology, then we need to THINK about God, and the universe, and what it all means for our daily lives, then make decisions for ourselves, in our time and our situation.

 I can tell you guys are excited about this as I am.
Those of you who are awake, anyway.

Okay.  Next paragraph...

Kick Ass Catholic of the Day: Mary E. Hunt

The Roman men are hell-bent on reining in American nuns, if only to prove that they can rein in somebody in a world that pays them increasingly little heed. They fear that such intellectually powerful and theologically persuasive women, who identify with the institutional Roman Catholic Church through their membership in canonical communities, will trump them in the public arena.

Dear Mary E. Hunt: You rock my world. Please keep being fiesty and awesome. Love, Me

Why I am raising my children in the Catholic faith: Part I

First reason why I am raising my kids Catholic:  Math

Oh, you heard me.

I am terrible at math, and not very good at Catholicism, but I still really like them both. Both math and Catholicism take a lot of thinking because they are things, but not in the way regular things are things.  It's pretty fun.

I promise you that does actually make sense.

Okay, so let's start with math.  Math isn't a regular thing.  You can't see it, or touch it, or even explain it without using more math.
Try it.
Prove the number two.
Okay, so maybe you can write down the number two, but that is not actually two; that is the symbol for two.
Maybe you can show me two fingers, but those aren't two.  Those are fingers.  There is no such thing as two in the traditional sense of "such thing".  Two is an understanding of a relationship.

But math isn't just simply relationships.  Triangles and algebra and the quadratic equation: they are real things.  It's not just how you look at the world; math is a universal truth that you either get or you don't.

This has never happened to me.

God is similar.  When I say God, I don't mean a man in the sky with a flowing beard.  I don't really understand the whole man in the sky thing: I have never witnessed the clouds part, or had any beatific visions.  I can understand it as a metaphor, but taking it literally sounds a little like a children's story to me.  I am not saying it is impossible; I just have never experienced anything like that.
For me, God is the connection between man and his community, man and nature, music, science, math: basically everything.  And it is not just my personal perception of these connection; it is an actual connection that people have to be taught to see, and have awe for.

He knows what I am talking about.

They are both very cerebral, and kind of mysterious, both God and math, and even if you have been taught to understand both of them, they can still be kind of hard to grasp.
Plus, for both, people who aren't very good at understanding them get really frustrated by people who do understand them, sometimes to the point where the other person is kind of embarrassed to admit they understand.
But if no one on Earth could see math or God, they would still be there.  Neither needs humanity to perceive them for their existence.  They just are.

This isn't just me and my enlightened sense of religion.  This is Catholicism, Baby.  We refer to it as a sacrament (with a little 's') meaning that Catholics see God in everything, from sunsets, to math, to music, to each other.  Other religions rely very strictly on the their texts and priests, but we Catholics see God everywhere.

Who wouldn't want that for their kid?  Who wouldn't at least want her to be able to understand that mystery and awe can be found in everything?

Gayest Week Ever*

In case you havn't noticed, everybody is talking about gay marriage.
     Of course, it's something people always do: talk about gay marriage. It's kind of a thing in our society. But this last week- or was it two weeks ago now?- what with the President and North Carolina and Mitt Romney being a bully; people are talking about it like it is going out of style.
       And this all makes the Catholic Church very sad.
     I get a kick out of them phrasing it that way, "It's not that we're angry, Barak. We're just so disappointed." God, could you GET more Catholic???
     For a while I thought maybe The Church's stance was just old men being homophobic and stubborn. And it kind of is, but I read a few articles on the Catholic position, and began reading Pope John Paul's "Theology of the Body" which incidentally is INSANELY dense, and I kind of think I see where they are coming from. It's not that I agree mind you, and my understanding on the Church's stance is still developing, but this is what I've got so far:
     One of the big differences between the Catholic Church and other Christian churches is that Catholics believe that humans can only receive the fullness of God's grace in communion with each other. We have to see God in our experiences with other people, or we cannot really know God. This is actually one of my favorite parts of Catholicism.
      Anyway, because the Church believes that we experience God through communion with others, the Church regards sex as the greatest expression way two people can experience God. Seriously. I know there is this thing that Catholics are afraid of sex, but that is absolutely wrong. Why do you think we have all these babies? Catholics LOVE sex. It is one of the truest ways Catholics get to God. One of the crucial reasons Catholics revere sex as sacred above other expressions of love is because through sex you can create life, just like God. Truthfully, it is harder to think of a way people could be more like God than by creating another life. Actually, for a Catholic, there is not other way for people to be more like God: sex is God's gift to us so we could be more like God. Now that it is possible to remove the creation element from sex, Catholics are "sad". How can you truly experience God if you are not thinking about the creative element? Catholics mourn the loss of that connection in secular society. This is why they have banned birth control; they are trying to keep the connection between creation and sex in the hearts of their faithful.   Now, that doesn't mean you have to conceive a child every time you have sex; it just means that Catholics don't want to totally eliminate the creation aspect from sex, because that is part of sex's awesome power.
     Now Catholics believe that sex should only take place between a devoted pair. I think there are all kinds of arguments medically and socially that support that argument. Hence, sex should only take place within marriage. It's not a particularly FUN perspective, but it is hard to argue that it is not a sound argument. Waiting until you get married to have sex probably avoids a lot of life's potholes. In an interesting twist, Catholics not only believe that sex should be reserved for marriage, but also that marriage should be reserved for sex. As in, if a person cannot have sex because of a physical disability, then the Church doesn't think they should get married. What would the point of getting married be if they can't have sex? (note that people who are infertile can get married because they can have sex, just not children. There is always the possibility that the couple may become fertile. Plus, it is not as though one couple's failure to have children will change the view of sex in the community at large.)
     So, Catholics hold sex sacred because it brings us closer to God, especially the creation part of sex. You see where this is going, right? Homosexuals cannot engage in sex that has creative power. To allow them to marry would change the Catholic view of sex as something that brings us closer to God through the creative force, and changes it into something that is strictly pleasurable for the two individuals. They do not necessarily see gay marriage as an abomination, as much as they see it as sad; they don't want society to lose that creation element within the relationship of marriage.
     I get it, but I don't agree. It seems to me that this doctrine was thought up by people who have not really been in a long term loving relationship. Sex within a committed relationship is amazing and does indeed bring you closer to God, but not because of the babies. Knowing that a couple has the power to create life is awe inspiring, but that creative power does not necessarily lead to the selfless gift of one's self during intercourse. No, the giving of one's self to your partner and to the community has to happen before the sex. Regardless of whether a couple is fertile, impotent or homosexual, when two people have surrendered themselves completely to one another, I believe they experience the closeness to God that Catholics so cherish, regardless of the physical details of the act.

* Title shamelessly stolen from Rachel Maddow. Love you, Rachel!

I would not be just a nothin'...

     This blog post, by John Greenleaf actually makes me want to sing. Sing, I tell you!  It makes me want to stand up like a spirited black woman in church, "Preach, Brother Greenleaf."  It addresses the rights of all Catholics to think for themselves on a variety of levels, along with the appropriate support from the Catechism.
     So fun, right?
     Well, maybe not "fun" in the traditional sense; it's more like "Bam!  Evidence to support what I thought to be true all along."
     Shut up; that is definitely a kind of fun.
     The post has all the Catechism stuff about "primacy of conscience": my absolute favorite part of the Catechism.  Here is a link to the Catechism blabitty blah, but let me give you the Cliff Notes.  In short, it means that a Catholic has the right to discern for themselves within their own heart what is right and what is wrong.  The leadership of The Church can advise and preach and declare all they want, but after carefully listening to wise and respected people, and prayerful consideration, each member of the Church must decide what is right and what is wrong for themselves.  Whats more we are then obligated to follow our own carefully considered consciences, regardless of what the leaders of the Church say.
     Of course!  Of course!
     You can't just have the leadership of the Church do all your thinking for you.  you can't just go along,      "Well, this is what some old man in Italy says, so I better do it".  That is completely cheating.
The leadership can advise, and warn and declare with all solemnity their views, but God gave us a brain so that we could use it; we each must choose our own path dependant on our situation.
     And I love, LOVE how this part of our faith can be used to silence the sanctimony parade.
The sanctimony parade, which I just made up just now, is the people who march through life pointing at all the sinners. Lying?  Sin!  Stealing?  Sin!  Abortion? Drugs?  Jealousy?  Sin-sin-sinny-sin-sin.  All they need are little flags and the whole thing becomes almost festive.
     Can you imagine a God who would behave in such a way.
"Well, little person, I am a all knowing and unknowable deity that for some reason am grievously injured by your well intentioned action.  Yes, you prayed, asking for my guidance, sought counsel, from respected people, read the Bible and did careful reflection.  You did your best to do what you thought was the right thing, but you thought wrong, so off to Hell you go!"
If I could forgive someone who was truly well intentioned, I think that God is probably okay with it as well.
     Now, I am not preaching moral relativism...exactly.  Rather, what I am saying- actually what the Catechism is saying, I am not making this up, is that intention rather than the actual act itself is the cause of moral decay. From the perspective that sin is a mindset, rather than a list of do's and do not's, it becomes impossible for another to judge.
     Is lying a sin?  Is killing a sin?  In most cases, yes, probably, but in individual cases, I don't know.       What was the intention?
     When you look at sin as a mindset of an individual, the meaning of "Only God can judge" becomes clear, and the sanctimony parade really becomes a bunch of pious people afraid to inspect their own hearts.
      Unless, of course, after careful discernment, their hearts are telling them to march around condemning people.  Then they definitely should.  Everybody loves a parade.