IMPROPER POLITICAL DISCOURSE, YES, THAT MEANS EVERYONE

The shooting spree that took place this week in Arizona has awakened in me a deep conviction that I have had since my teen years when I was in a Roman Catholic seminary in formation for the priesthood.  It was there that I heard for the first time the proposition that the behavior of the priest must be above reproach to the degree  that even the “weakest” among the members of the faithful would not be induced into immoral or even, unbecoming behavior.    This rule of clerical behavior was given to us based on the admonition of St. Paul to the Corinthians, in his first letter to them, chapter 8.

In more general terms and as a definition of what I mean by “scandal of the weak”  I put before you you the following definition:                                  

SCANDAL OF THE WEAK:

Disedifying morally weak persons by permissible conduct. Circumstances determine the duty in charity to avoid giving scandal to the weak. The existence of such a duty is clear from the teaching of St. Paul, who would not eat meat that had been offered to idols lest he scandalize the weaker brethren. He warned the early Christians not to rationalize their conduct but to follow his example, lest "by sinning in this way against our brothers and injuring their weak consciences, it would be Christ against whom you sinned" (I Corinthians 8:12). This obligation in charity is such that one may licitly refrain from fulfilling even a grave positive precept that is not necessary for salvation in order to prevent serious scandal to the weak. Behind the obligation is the mandate of selfless love that seeks not only to help another in obvious need but also by self-restraint to protect another from spiritual harm.

(All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.  Taken from Catholic Culture.org)

For those of you who do not believe in the Bible as a whole; those who don’t believe in the Christian part of the Bible, I offer this generally accepted, verifiable analogy of fact.

In an epidemic, or a pandemic, it is the weak (the very young and the old) who suffer most and who generally die first.  Those who are more likely to withstand the ravages of the illness do all they can to protect those who are most susceptible to be damaged.  In fact, in such cases behavior that is perfectly legal will in many cases not be exhibited in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the afflicted community.  I once lived in a community that was being ravaged by El Tor (a kind of cholera).  Everyone was warned to boil all water, even water that was not destined for drinking or for the kitchen.  Some of the people had access to bottled water from the Coca Cola trucks, but they would boil that water too so that even (especially, I might say) the less initiated into the ways of the world would not be shocked and perhaps induced to not boil all the water that they had to use.

I submit to you then that the same type of behavior should be practiced by us all when we speak in the public arena.  It is clear to me that some will not agree.  I have already heard some say that they are sure that this event in Arizona will be “demagogued” (sic) by some.  The perpetrator of this act is a lunatic who has taken to understanding political speech in his own way.  This understanding that he gave to what he heard and read was away from the metaphorical meaning that was in the mind of the speakers and/or writers.  The people who uttered or wrote these words are therefore not culpable for the actions of the attacker.  

I am sure that we are going to hear this line of reasoning aplenty as the days go by.  

This is the thinking of people who equate their moral life with the exercise of their civil law rights.  The freedom of speech is really a wonderful thing.  But any defined freedom, even this one, is not infinite in its reach.  It is never permitted to use a freedom to do evil or to induce others into doing evil.  The level of violent political speech, both on the literal side and the metaphorical side has escalated in the past twenty-four months.  There can be no denial of that fact.  The examples abound.  It is time that we recognize that we have to tone it down because it is not morally correct.  It is an abuse of the freedom of speech.

I say this because it does indeed induce the “weak” into acting immorally.  The purveyors of such speech cannot hide behind the fact that they have the freedom to say what they want.  In fact, they do not have that freedom when it becomes clear that the mode of speech that they employ  is dangerous for the common welfare.  No one is free to inundate the weak with speech that can influence them and cause them to act in a nefarious way. Those who persist in using speech with violent pictures cannot exculpate themselves from the effects of what they have put out into the community atmosphere under the guise of freedom of speech.  

It is not morally correct to hide behind the notion that the vast majority of the population understands what is being said, in metaphor and in literal meaning.   It is not always permissible to use the words that are deemed to be the most powerful for the moment.  Morality is not a democratic concept.  If what is done or said is dangerous for one person, even if not for the many, it must be withheld from those who would be adversely impacted by it for the welfare of the community.  

I have said my piece.  I am convinced that I am right, even though there will be those who will disagree.  It matters not.  I will bring this conviction of mine all the way to the grave. Whether I go today or tomorrow or next year.  Stop your foolishness, already!

SOLD DOWN THE RIVER

Ten years ago Republicans passed a law that they knew had an expiration date of December 31, 2010.  Now they cried, spilled tears and threatened economic damage on jobless citizens and instead of letting the law expire, the president of the United States "cut a deal" and paid the ransom.  That's what he does best, "cave."
Now we are being bombarded with waves of disingenuous rhetoric telling us how good this whole thing has turned out to be.  I am not sold.  Here's what I want to propose.
Because Washington cannot ever either tell the truth nor live the truth,  propose that every law passed should  have a ten year term.  After a while, say over fifty or more years, law makers would spend all their time looking at the laws that they considered to be impossible to let expire.  Then all they would have to do is to argue a bit over how to "tweak" them, vote them up or down and move on.  This is really not such a bad idea because after about 75 years or so, there would not be any new laws to pass, since all the laws being argued would be past constructs.  
The lobbyists would then have nothing to do because they would all know what is expiring and what is going to be either dead or alive, depending on the mood.  
Frankly, if I were president, I would have let them talk all they wanted and then just write "no" on it if they voted to keep it alive.  My only question is, "How hard can it be to enforce the law?  Just do it, damn it!

OBAMA'S A WIMP

LOOKIN' PRETTY JUST HANGIN' THERE

I didn't want to vote for this guy because he caved in to George Bush and the big telecoms on the wiretapping flap.  You know, "we can snoop on our citizens with impunity."  Surely you remember that!  When B.O. did that I swore then, that I would not vote for him.  Sadly, after that, the campaign got longer and McCain got more and more senile and nastier and nastier so I started to have second thoughts.
One of my second thoughts was, "five years in a Vietnamese war prison surely has not trained this guy for public service.  He sure is not ready to do this job."  Then he proved me right, he took Sarah Palin as a running mate.  So, after eight years of a president who can't even speak the English language, who only wants to play war rather than govern, I decided to vote for B.O.
Yup, I can smell it from here.  Health care?  A total disaster.  Compromise after compromise until it got whittled down to next to nothing without a whimper.  Don't Ask, Don't Tell?  Huh?  What's that?  Guantanamo?  Did I hear you say something about that?  Is that in the northern hemisphere somewhere?  Jobs?  What's the problem?  I got one?  Taxes on the rich?  "Read my lips"...yeah we're reading..."well, we can talk about that."  Bullshit!
We can't talk about that, and here's why.   Ten years ago the Republicans knew that  the sun would set on this one on this date certain, 12/31/2010.  They did it anyway.  They gambled. Teach them to be accountable for their actions.  Let the sun set on it and on them too.  Never mind all the fancy talk about 700 billion dollars' debt over ten years.  Talk about, "you knew the consequences of what you did when you did it.  Now jam your consequences and bring them to hell with you."  What's so hard about that?
Talking about consequences.  One of the consequences of being president is that your hair gets grey fast.  Check yourself out in the mirror tomorrow, sir. You can't compromise that.  One other consequence of your compromising habit is that you have only two more years left in office.  You can't compromise that either.  You want to keep your job?  Start playing hockey and stop playing that girls' game of basketball that you love so much.  All we've had for two years is "jukin' 'n jivin around in our shorts and tanktops."  It's time to strap on the pads and and start cracking some bones against the boards.
Yeah, O.B., you're close to done in my book.  Unless Sarah is running against you in 2012, I'm voting for the other side 'cause you ain't showed me nothin'.
After tonite, yer done, hot dog.  You just compromised yourself outta my life.

MISSIONARIES AND LANGUAGE

Not too long ago I got the news that from now on the priest missionaries from a certain missionary religious community who come from the Philippines to work in parishes that are heavily dominated by Spanish speaking faithful will have to learn the Spanish language.  It's about time.  After all they have been entrusted to at least one Southern California parish that I know of  for 20 years now and they are still assigning priests there who know no Spanish at the beginning and leave after years with no ability to minister in Spanish.  The three who are assigned there now have been told that they have to learn it.  The pastor promised two years ago that after one year he would be up to speed in the language.  NOT!  He's too busy rearranging the furniture and stretching out his hand for ever more money to spend time learning a language  that is essential to doing a good job in the parish.

I shake my head at the way the decision was announced.  Like it was good news.  Like, Hey, there is something you have to know.  From now on priests who will come here will have to learn Spanish.  Of course this was communicated through an interpreter.  Now let me get this straight.  It's good news that it took 20 years for someone to make a decision to force missionaries to learn the dominant language of the mission?  It's good news that all the bozos between year one and year twenty didn't have enough zeal and courage to take it upon themselves to learn how to communicate the Good News in the dominant language?  It's good news that it took a community law to achieve this?  Didn't anyone remember that Peter had to learn Latin if not before, at least after, he moved to Rome?  Didn't anyone remember that the missionaries who founded the seminaries in the Philippines learned the local languages?  Why did it take a decree to make it happen here?  Is it that there isn't enough missionary zeal in the hearts and souls of these priests?  

Sorry boys.  I'm far from impressed.  When you arrived here almost three years ago I told you that your missionary group was not doing a very good job in the parish, and this not just by my standards.  It hasn't gotten any better, maybe even deteriorated a bit.  Deteriorated to the point where the executives have to force you to learn the language that you promised to learn, but didn't.

I have but one question more:  Now, are you going to learn English too?

MIDNIGHT, DECEMBER 31, 2010, BYE, BYE, TAX BREAK

I'M SO GLAD THAT I'M NOT A POLITICIAN

I am so glad that I am not a politician.  Somehow I couldn't get used to having to wash two faces, shave two beards, have four cataracts, 64 teeth, two runny noses and so many other things.  I am not going to start by saying, "If I were a politician I would say this,or I would do that.  I know what I would do because I know what I have done along the course of my life.  I have made myself accountable to the factual truths of life.  It's a lot easier to live that way.  You do something right, you rejoice.  You do something wrong, you fix it, apologize, make restitution and move on.  

As a country we are now confronted with a reality that is so simple and clear-cut that it turns my brain to mush when I hear discussions about what to do about it.  Here it is in all its simplicity.

Ten years ago congress passed a tax law under circumstances that made it mandatory for the law to sunset ten years later.  Ten years have almost passed.  The tenth year of the law's life will be complete at midnight of December 31, 2010.  That is a fact.

This is also a fact.  Passing a law under these conditions was a gamble.  The gamble was not that the law would escape the sunset.  It was that the sitting congress at the time of sunset would renew the law.  

Another fact that we know is that the present President of the country says that the country cannot carry the debt burden that renewing the law would create.

This is where I say, "No problem."  Let the animal die a painless death.  When the losers of the gamble cry, don't engage them.  Give them a handkerchief for their tears and move on.  When they throw your handkerchief back at you in anger, don't engage them.  Pick up your hanky and move on to the next thing.  Either the president is convinced of the correctness of his position on the matter or not.  As far as I am concerned, this situation is easy to resolve.  The law is on the president' s side.  Use it and let the tears of the other side irrigate your garden. 

I swear, I don't know why the democrats, the president at their head still continue to court conversation about the matter.  To what end?  Shut up and let it die.  

Mr. President, let it go.  If they vote and it passes, so what?  When it hits your desk, burn it in the veto stove.  Somebody, somewhere has got to have only one face about the stuff that goes on in Washington.  

Oh yeah, and two cojones swollen with the testosterone it takes to face reality and to get things done and may the devil take the hindmost.

DON'T BURN MY BIBLE

DON'T BURN MY BIBLE

I quote you the opening sentences of an email I just received:

I believe that this is what America should do.
Does anybody know how Ishmael was conceived as per the Bible?  His mother pretended to Abraham that she was Sarah, an act of deceit at the outset.  And then Mohammed was begat on the succeeding generations from Ishmael.
I have met a few Muslims in my life. They don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  They believe that marrying multiple women is okay.  Their new law, the Sharia, is intolerant of other religions.  They believe that women are inferior to men.  They believe that killing Christians earn them Virgins in the afterlife.  Their way is the only correct belief.  And yet we are helping them in Iraq and Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East countries, and yet they won't allow our troops to bring Bibles?  The answers are very obvious; those who are against the Bible and don't believe in Jesus Christ are lost and in the dark.  For the Bible preaches that no one comes to the Father but through Jesus Christ.  The Moslems and other non-Christian nations in the world (Japan, China, North Korea, Thailand, etc...) can't deny the existence of God because the Bible teaches that "For the truth about God is known to men instinctively."  Click here to read the Biblical account of how Ishmael was born.
I do not want to believe that I received this from a person whom I trust and respect.  She was student in the mission school where I was the Director.  True, that was over 40 years ago.  I wonder what happened in between.

The answer to the first interrogatory sentence, according to this email, as highlighted above, is viciously erroneous.  Ishmael, the son of Hagar, the maid of Abram and Sarai, was not the result of his mother deceiving Abraham.  He was born of congress between Hagar, his mother, and Abram, the husband of Sarai.  This relationship was consummated in sexual contact on the suggestion of Sarai, who was barren and wanted Abram to have a descendant.  So the story goes, Sarai became bitter and mean towards Hagar and so Abram told Sarai to dismiss the maid and her son.  The two of them left.  There came a time during their flight from Sarah and Abraham (God changed their names to this) that they nearly died.  As Hagar was preparing to die, God intervened and blessed them.  He promised a rich and vast descendancy to Ishmael, just as he had promised Abraham.  Not only was there no deception on Hagar's part, she and her son received blessings and a promise from God Himself.
I want to know who gave the author of the email the right to "BURN MY BIBLE?"

The mean spirit and narrow-minded tenor of the first two paragraphs is akin to burning the Bible, an act just as malicious as burning the Koran.  Twisting the stories of the Bible to the degree shown above is, in my opinion, blasphemous and sacrilegious.  Using a twisted version of a Bible story to feed hatred and prejudice aimed at a whole population is the worst kind of personal attack.
To single out the Muslims in this fashion shows a particularly deep dislike of a nation that exists because the head of the descendancy received a special blessing from God.  This is a nation mainly composed of the descendants of Abraham, just as we are.  They are different than we are.  The have different beliefs than we do, but they are children of God, just as we
are.  It is also true that they have a different world view than we do, but it is always better to negotiate rather than to condemn in hatred.  It is always better to bring the God of Love to the table with us, rather than to bring the sword of hatred and reviling.  To single out the Muslims because they do not believe that Jesus is the son of God, and is, indeed God, is to forget that there are many religious people in this world who believe in the word of the Bible but who do not believe that Jesus is the son of God.  The Jewish people do not believe that Jesus is the son of God.  There are many people in the world who don't believe in God, period.  To single out the Muslims for these reasons doesn't prove anything but that the writer has a personal problem with Islam.

Is that a reason why my Bible is being burnt here?

Sharia is called "their new law..."  It is not a new law.  It is the law of the Koran.  It is intolerant to non Muslims, but it is also extremely strict for Muslims.  Islam permits polygamy, but within bounds.  Muslims may not practice polygamy in countries where it is forbidden.  So they may have something to say about that, right?  They are great believers in theocracy, and we are not.  In a theocracy, many of our "freedoms" do not exist.  So our soldiers cannot carry their bibles into Muslim countries.  We do not allow their Koranic law in ours.

Is that a reason why the author of this article burnt my Bible?

More flames -- "The Moslems and other non-Christian nations in the world (Japan, China, North Korea, Thailand, etc...) can't deny the existence of God because the Bible teaches that 'For the truth about God is known to men instinctively'."
Nowhere in the Bible, King James Version or any other is it written as is quoted above.  Nowhere.  What does appear in some writings is that the splendor of the world around us can lead us to the knowledge of the existence of God.  It is not said that the "truth about God is known instinctively."  It is taught by the Catholic Church that humans are endowed with a natural attraction to know the existence of God.  It is taught that knowing the existence of God and further and deeper truths about Him are rendered easier by outside help, like parental teaching, Bible reading, etc.
Furthermore, human beings can, and do, deny the existence of God all the time.  How can the writer of this email say that human beings cannot do that?  They do it every moment of every day, directly and indirectly, in words and in actions.  Retracing my steps, the author of the email includes "Moslems" in the list of people who can't deny the truth about God.  They don't deny the existence of God.  Seriously now, who do you think Allah is?  Is that the truth about God?  Who knows?  Does the author of this email know the truth about God?  Oh, perhaps Allah is a false God, and not the real thing?  Oh, before I forget, who might "Yahweh" be?  The Bible cannot be quoted as it has been in this email.

Stop burning my Bible.

It sends me through the roof when people wring falsehood out of sacred items.  I get perturbed when sacred objects are used to destroy good will and love among people.  The Bible is a Sacrament of Love, not a weapon of mass destruction.  If you are going to quote the Bible, do it correctly, word for word and in the proper context.  It is a sin to make the Bible say something that you want it to say, rather than to quote it accurately and in context so that what it is truly meant to say is apparent to the reader or the listener.


Do not burn my Bible.

"ONE DREAM, ONE FUTURE"

This is a case of mistaken identity, for sure.
It has become the sub-title of the Catholic Church that bills itself as a "RECONCILING MULTICULTURAL CHURCH."  The upper case is not mine, it is part of the parish logo.  This is the same church, "animated by the GOOD NEWS of Christ" where the pastor bills himself as the "Priest Moderator of Service and Temporalities Commissions."  Are we, the faithful congregation of this church to understand that "One Dream, One Future" is the everlasting kingdom of heaven, or something else?  Is this guy a Pastor or a Foreman?  This Kurmujjin thinks of him more as a secular foreman than a Pastor/Priest.  Besides, we recently got a graphic answer to the question.  There were three grainy pictures in the parish bulletin of the church buildings in progressive states of change, from past to desired future.  Plus, over the last two years we have seen highly qualified professionals in ministerial roles be side-stepped, blind-sided and/or terminated from
service or kept, but with slashed wages.  The reason is always that the parish cannot afford the expense.  It is rather difficult to participate in the regularly scheduled liturgies without having the offertory basket passed around.  A decision has also been taken to request weekly donations from catechumens.  Everywhere and at every moment there is the spore of the pastor around statues, pictures, fences, benches, carpets, paint, tile, name-boards on the buildings, sound system, computerized internal camera system inside the church and a dozen other material embellishments of questionable spiritual import.
Over the time of his reign, we have witnessed the ascendancy of a group who are focused on keeping the "Priest Moderator of Service and Temporalities Commissions" occupied with money raising projects.  Keeping true to form, these are not high powered, professional "developers" or "producers".  They are volunteers who are seeking to make a mark for themselves in the eyes of someone that they perceive to be an important and powerful person in charge of a large community.

Furthermore, there is but small effort from the resident clerics to assure the progress of the community towards being reconciled to its multicultural reality.  Through it all, not a single one of the residents of the rectory (parsonage) has made the slightest effort to learn the mother tongue of 80 percent of the faithful who make up the community (Spanish).  These same Spanish deprived sloths keep dunning the Hispanic community for more money.  This is what happened this evening at the end of the 7:00 PM Mass.

"Priest Moderator of Service and Temporalities Commissions" who had muddled his way through this Spanish language liturgy by reading the texts in his miserable Spanish devoted 15 minutes of "Post-Mass Altar time" to drum up the troops for generous donations to the "One Dream, One Future" drive.  The first five minutes were occupied by a Spanish language spokesman haranguing the congregation to get them to buy raffle tickets, 11 for $10.00 (such a deal!).  Then the "Priest Moderator of Service and Temporalities Commissions" got up, called forth his interpreter and began his part of the snake-oil pitch, in English, of course.  "This is my third year here and I have renewed and refurbished many things.  I am here tonight to make you a promise, in no uncertain terms, I will not stop working at making this property better.  I will continue to add, to refurbish and re-organize the plant."  At this point, I left.  I am not Hispanic, but I feel insulted for them because of this donkey's total insensitivity to the reality that he is manipulating.  When I came back onsite after about 7 minutes, he was still at it.  In 21st century, IM language, I guess I should be ROTFLMAO, but instead I turn to God and ask, "Can't you find someone to shepherd the spiritual needs of the faithful in this parish?"

You priest huggers reading this are saying, "respect the priest.  If you don't like it, do something about it."  I got you there "goodie-two-shoes", I am doing something about it.  I and my wife spend hours and dollars doing things that the "Priest Moderator of Service and Temporalities Commissions" and his two incompetent wing men can't or won't do while they are dunning people through an interpreter.

Due to the spending of at least a quarter of a million dollars on material things and the resistance of the ordained ministers to acculturate themselves to the community over the last six years, lay people with higher levels of education and broader and deeper real-life ministerial experience are alienated from the ministry because the clerics insist on calling all the shots.  Many "management" decisions are made in the absence of those who are the designated lay leaders, even in religious areas about which these same clerics know precious little.  The clerics make sure that the lay help is sycophantic and always willing to bow and acquiesce with a "reverent, 'yes, father'" for everything.

In this church, the "Priest Moderator of Service and Temporalities Commissions" is the Emperor and the laity, the vassals. The assistant pastors are Princes and the ONE DREAM, ONE FUTURE financial drive gets everlasting pulpit, PowerPoint and behind-the-altar time for months on end while spiritual realities are relegated to small print in the weekly parish bulletin.

This parish is in dire need of a conversion to "Weren't our hearts burning within us as He was explaining the Scripture to us?" (Luke 13; 32)  "Priest Moderator of Service and Temporalities Commissions" has to take heed of the words of the Master, "Foolish man, this very night your soul will be required of you."
(Luke, 12:20)
That would be a fitting event for the "Priest Moderator of Service and Temporalities Commissions" who seems to be building his own heavenly reward in the memories of the faithful who will remember him when they frequent the house that the "Priest Moderator of Service and Temporalities Commissions" built.