tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7197859052842728612024-03-12T22:25:21.196-05:00Heresy & HumorA blog for posts that don't belong anywhere else!TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-86293097042902846252013-07-02T09:37:00.000-05:002013-07-02T09:41:05.523-05:00Habakkuk's Warning<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
An alcoholic face. A narcissistic smile. And, not surprisingly, the slippery slope - the hypocrisy - <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/02/us-usa-milwaukee-church-idUSBRE96103M20130702" target="_blank">coming to light</a>.<br />
<br />
As Pope Francis said recently, "<i>St. Peter did not have a bank account</i>."<br />
<br />
How long till Dolan resigns? Or is replaced?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://biblehub.com/habakkuk/1-2.htm" target="_blank"><i>How long, O Lord, how long</i></a><i>?</i><br />
<br /></div>
TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-78288118715256573482013-03-14T09:12:00.000-05:002013-03-29T08:45:40.027-05:00Pope Francis and a Plenary Indulgence<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
To all those of goodwill, the new Pope, Francis, offered a "plenary indulgence" along with his first Papal Blessing. "What in the world is that?" you may be asking. Or maybe not. But simply by watching, you already <i>received</i> one, or so the church teaches: <i>You received the Powerful Blessing. Of a <a href="http://wisdom4nothing.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-great-brotherhood-in-world.html" target="_blank">Humble</a> and Holy Man. </i>(The whole idea of an <i>indulgence</i> actually turns on whether or not you believe in <i>Purgatory</i>, a concept which has no basis, to my mind, in scripture - thereby making this statement <i>heretical </i>and worthy of this blog!) <br />
<br />
<u>For a fun consideration of indulgences</u>, you can read my <a href="http://therapysblog-fromtpm.blogspot.com/2010/09/free-indulgences-over-here-please-11009.html" target="_blank">blog </a>on that topic from several years back. The original blog was posted at TPM and when they closed their reader blogs, I selected about a third of them and posted the blogs - along with comments. Some of the comments are priceless, so if you have the time, read the blog <a href="http://therapysblog-fromtpm.blogspot.com/2010/09/free-indulgences-over-here-please-11009.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Otherwise, right <a href="http://heresy4nothing.blogspot.com/2009/07/free-indulgences-over-here-please.html" target="_blank">here</a> where it's heretical nature belongs.<br />
<br />
Of course, <i>heresy is in the eye of the beholder...</i></div>
TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-9046763754099487042013-02-11T07:51:00.000-06:002013-02-11T07:58:55.819-06:00Employers "in loco parentis"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Long ago there was a debate: To what extent were colleges in a parental role <i>vis a vis</i> their students? Seems to me that pretty much got settled. Grades are no longer sent to parents, but not students. (Now it's the reverse.) Smoking is allowed. Drinking is allowed. Cutting classes is allowed. Students are no longer required to live on campus, nor monitored for how late they stay out at night. <i>Students are considered adults, responsible for their own behavior. </i><br />
<br />
<u>But here we are again</u>: Employers <i>in loco parentis! </i>Employers, indeed, claiming to take over a religious role for employees, claiming... <i>do you believe it? </i>... to take over the role of <i>conscience</i> for their employees.<br />
<br />
All because <i>some</i> employers cannot abide that employees exercise their <i>own</i> consciences. Exercise responsibility for their own <i>private </i>lives. In one area <i>only</i>: <b>contraception. </b>(Which means <i>controlling women's behavior</i>, mind you. For I've heard no uproar over limiting drugs like <i>Viagra</i>.)<br />
<br />
Now, colleges, for example, still consider themselves responsible for the <i>safety</i> of students. They can't just leave patches of ice in the parking lots. They can't just let gun-toting murderers run rampant on campus. So, with the exception of some very conservative religious institutions which require students to agree to adhere to a strict code of conduct, most colleges today are able to draw lines between the <i>public </i>and the <i>private. </i>(They provide safety within the college environment. And they allow wide latitude with regard to student's private lives, so long as their behavior does not endanger the safety of others.) <br />
<br />
But some employers, claiming consciences<i> which speak for all</i>, claiming a kind of <i>infallibility</i>, based (it would appear) on a claim to <i>extreme holiness</i> - now assert a <i>right</i> to a <i>parental role</i> with regard to their employees. <i><b>With regard to their female employees.</b></i> <i>With regard to their family planning or their medical care. </i>In effect they want to <i>punish</i> women for private decisions they make with their doctor, decisions which <i>have nothing to do with the workplace.</i><br />
<br />
<u>The mind reels</u>!<br />
<br />
It seems to me that today the root of so many problems in our society relates to a lack of logic, bordering on insanity. <i>Think about it</i>. How of many of our problems relate to a desire (by some) to control the private lives of others? Or a desire to punish others for private behavior? Or a desire to relieve themselves of any responsibility for the welfare of others?<br />
<br />
<i>Social Security</i>, <i>Medicare</i>, <i>Medicaid</i>, unemployment insurance, disability, food stamps - no one forces us to use them. But they certainly should be <i>available</i> for those of us who need them or who qualify for them. As should <i>contraception </i>- as a <i>covered medical </i>option. With fairness and equity for all.<br />
<br />
We don't exempt <i>some</i> employers from paying taxes to social welfare programs. We don't exempt <i>some</i> from laws requiring worker safety, hours worked, or the minimum wage. So why is medical care <i>different?</i><br />
<br />
<u>So why meddle in the medical</u>?<br />
<br />
<i>Employers, is it so difficult for the professedly holy among you to understand? </i>Is it so difficult to accept that <i>free will </i>is a gift from God?<br />
<br />
Honestly, I'm tired of the insanity!<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">[Cross<span style="font-size: x-small;">-</span>posted <a href="http://therapysblog-fromtpm.blogspot.com/2013/02/employers-in-loco-parentis.html" target="_blank">here</a>.]</span></span> </div>
TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-65429440329335866032013-01-09T11:15:00.002-06:002013-01-09T11:35:09.147-06:00OMG!!! My checks don't weigh what they say!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Just think. If the republicans are <i>right, </i>then what's to become of the checks I use to pay bills? And god forbid if <u>you</u> use <i>virtual checks </i>and pay your bills via the web!<br />
<br />
Because after all, a <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/9-faces-platinum-coin-1-trillion-debt-ceiling.php" target="_blank"><i>platinum coin</i></a>, according the R's, would have to <i>weigh</i> in platinum <i>its own face value. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
So when I <i>mint money </i>via paying a bill with a check... these bozos think my actual, <i>physical check</i> should be worth what I write it for? Even worse, if <u>you</u> pay your bills over the web... your <i>virtual check <b>weighs nothing! </b>Credit cards? OMG!</i><br />
<br />
Politics - conservative style (<i>Gangnam Guy, where are you?)... </i>is now interchangeable with this blog!<br />
<br />
<i>It seems to me that the repubs are going to bury themselves in craziness. </i>They are so far round the bend.... in an effort to try and defend insane policies!<b> </b>And these are the folks pushing gun ownership??? <br />
<br />
<b>Ban Nonsense!</b> <i>And ban those who spout nonsense - from purchasing, owning, using, even carrying a gun!</i></div>
TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-91652732675055321632013-01-09T09:08:00.001-06:002013-01-09T10:08:49.421-06:00Desmond Tutu: God (she's) not a Christian.<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
What a wonderful, wonderful treat is in store for you! <a href="http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2013/01/god-is-not-christian-desmond-tutu-and.html" target="_blank">Here</a>. Oh, the joy of being old and telling it like it is! The joy of being famous and holy and old and getting away with it!<br />
<br />
Here's a flavor:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">The
two elderly spiritual leaders, for one short, unforgettable moment,
became kids again, horsing around and thoroughly enjoying each other’s
company. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">At one gathering in Oslo, after a particularly rambunctious
episode, Tutu admonished the Dalai Lama in mock seriousness, “Look
here—the cameras are on you, stop behaving like a naughty schoolboy. Try
to behave like a holy man.”</span></blockquote>
Now Tutu tells it like it is:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">“The glory about God is that
God is a mystery. God is actually quite incredible in many ways. But
God allows us to misunderstand her”—at this, the audience went wild; the
applause was loud and spontaneous—“but also to understand her.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">“I’ve frequently said I’m glad I’m not God,” Tutu continued. “But I’m
also glad God is God. He can watch us speak, spread hatred, in his
name. Apartheid was for a long time justified by the church. We do the
same when we say all those awful things we say about gays and lesbians.
We speak on behalf of a God of love.</span><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"> The God that I worship is an omnipotent God,” Tutu intoned, opening
his arms wide. He paused to let this sink in. Then he said, sotto voce,
“He is also incredibly, totally impotent. The God that I worship is
almighty, and also incredibly weak.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"> </span>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"> “He can sit there and watch me make a wrong choice. Now, if I was
God,” he said as the hall burst into laughter, “and I saw, for instance,
this one is going to make a choice that is going to destroy his family,
I’d probably snuff him out.</span><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"> But the glory of God is actually mind-blowing. He can sit and not
intervene because he has such an incredible, incredible reverence for my
autonomy. He is prepared to let me go to hell. Freely. Rather than
compel me to go to heaven.</span><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"> He weeps when he sees us do the things that we do to one another.
But he does not send lightning bolts to destroy the ungodly. And that is
fantastic. God says, ‘I can’t force you. I beg you, please for your own
sake, make the right choice. I beg you.’</span> <span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">When you do the right thing, God forgets about God’s divine dignity
and he rushes and embraces you. ‘You came back, you came back. I love
you. Oh how wonderful, you came back.’”</span></blockquote>
I agree with all of it, except the concept of <i>going to</i> hell. <br />
<br />
Whatever/wherever "hell" might be, to me it's an eternity of <i>knowing (</i>the consequences of one's choices), but with no possibility - any longer - of making good on wrong choices. So an eternal anguish for those who've harmed others - children and women and gay people and people of different religious faiths, colors, political views.<br />
<br />
I, being idealistic, hope it includes some way to mourn and grieve and find ultimate compassion.</div>
TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-72907334664153230852013-01-07T09:46:00.000-06:002013-01-07T09:48:39.899-06:00People of Conscience Should Boycott Bigotry<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This <a href="http://www.bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-years-advice-to-young-people.html" target="_blank">blog</a> by Bill at <i>Bilgrimage</i> together with <a href="http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2013/01/oh-that-i-had-written-this-comment-in.html" target="_blank">these thoughts</a> from Colleen at <i>Enlightened Catholicism </i>prompted the following musings:<br />
<br />
The time is coming, perhaps it's already here, when catholics of good
conscience will simply refrain from attending masses where their
beloved brethren are not welcome. Where they are are instead preached
against and expected to adopt the masochistic role in a sadomasochistic (church?) relationship with those
who castigate them. Wherein to "attend" or "belong" means to disown
themselves and be disowned by their detractors.<br />
<br />
It's time for the baptized to claim the priesthood of that baptism
and to stand up, shake the dust off their sandals, and abandon a church
where its hierarchy practices apartheid. A boycott is not only
called-for. It's a matter of conscience!<br />
<br />
One of the things that drew me to my present little parish was its subtitle: <i>A Church for all people.</i>
I rightly assumed that meant gay people too, though I'm not gay. But
that was important to me. We are also one of the few churches on a
Sunday where blacks and whites worship together (about 40% black, mostly
Ethiopian - with the Gospel read in Ethiopian in addition to English).<br />
<br />
Those people who oppose gay marriage are deeply in trouble. For they
imagine they can hold back a tsunami (of justice) - simply by ranting
and raving that tsunamis are coming! Let them take cover if they're
scared! But they have no right to restrict or admonish me for
delighting in Life in Abundance.<br />
<br />
I am horrified when our gay brethren are asked to suffer due
to self-righteous bigots who expect them to take on a submissive role in
an S&M ritual conducted by a church! Really... that's what it
is!!!<br />
<br />
Shun all parishes that conduct such perverse rituals! This has
nothing to do with Jesus - who ate with ANYONE! This has nothing to do
with a feast where all are invited to partake.<br />
<br />
We Orthodox sing a lovely hymn at communion time. And recently I
understood it in a new way - which pertains to what I've said. We sing
over and over: <i>"Receive the Body of Christ.</i>" I looked around. And I <i>understood</i> this as a commandment: To <b>welcome</b>
each and every person. To "receive" each one. THAT is what communion
is! And THAT is what the pope (and his minions) have FAILED to learn.<br />
<br />
If you are a person of conscience, can you simply <i>stand by</i> as fellow human beings, fellow Christians, fellow baptized persons are castigated, cast out, or expected to be masochists?<br />
<br />
Consult your conscience! Shake off the dust from your sandals! <br />
<br />
<b>End Gay Apartheid in the RCC!</b> </div>
TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-10706156693757958212012-08-23T09:20:00.000-05:002012-08-23T10:29:03.721-05:00Dolan: Blessing but not Endorsing ... Yeah, right!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
So I wake up this morning to the news that red-faced Cardinal (!) Dolan will <b>bless </b>a presidential candidate on the night of his acclamation as <b>official </b>candidate. <i>But that's not an endorsement... </i>the Cardinal's office assures us.<br />
<br />
Look... If Jesus had blessed a Roman emperor.... If Moses had blessed the Pharaoh... <i>Do I need to go on?</i><br />
<br />
Did Dolan's mother never tell him: <i>Actions speak louder than words?</i><br />
<br />
Did Dolan never consider the principle: <i>Lex orandi, lex credendi?</i><br />
<br />
When it comes to ethics it is hugely important to make sure that one's actions do not even give a <i>hint </i>or a <i>whiff </i>of impropriety.<br />
<i> </i><br />
<i>Ok, what's gonna be the result of this <strike>blessing</strike> genuflection?</i><br />
<br />
I seriously doubt it will sway any worldly votes. Though it may energize some Romney supporters. On the other hand... it is just <i>one more nail </i>in the lengthening list that should be nailed to the Vatican wall or hammered onto the Vatican's rusty coffin of misbehavior.<br />
<i> </i><br />
<i>Are there no good men left? </i>Men, who are humble. Men who avoid the limelight. Men, who, upon being asked to <b><i>bless </i></b>a candidate - at a national convention - likely with TV cameras running... would say, without hesitation: <i>It would be inappropriate for me to give the appearance of endorsing... </i><br />
<br />
But no... the good men are never asked! Or if they are, they refrain so quietly we never even know about it.<br />
<br />
<i>So what's gonna be the result of this blessing? </i>A serious backfire. More folks heading for the church doors. A sense of something gone terribly wrong.<br />
<br />
RCC to the <i>faithful</i>: No pastoral care for <i>thee</i>. Alliance with worldly power for <i>me. </i></div>
TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-47209226188527384662012-08-11T11:00:00.000-05:002012-08-11T11:00:07.506-05:00God Bless you, SISTERS!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Sisters have voted to continue their mission - to stand with the Laity and follow God's leading in their religious life. We can do no less. It behooves us all to seek - in our deepest depths - the call of God and its meaning for our lives. <br />
<br />
The sisters have concluded that their discussions with the bishops will not start with doctrine but with their understanding of religious life. This, to me, means that their identities (hidden in God) are on the line. And that their responses will be in line with their vows to God and their ongoing discerning of the "signs of the times" with regard to God's call.<br />
<br />
I can do no more than to suggest for all of us what I suggested when I first learned of the Vatican's <i>crackdown </i>on the LCWR: <b><i>Where they go, we should go.</i></b><br />
<br />
I urge all who read here to search your consciences and lend every possible support to the sisters. They need our prayers. They need a continuing groundswell of encouragement: verbal; written; and financial.<br />
<br />
In my view their response to the Vatican is prophetic. It includes a concern for the laity and particularly for the role of women in the church. I thank God for their witness and their leadership!<br />
<br />
Glory to God!!! </div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-77587252121429869232012-08-09T15:28:00.000-05:002012-08-09T15:40:21.478-05:00Vatican vs LCWR: A Trinitarian Controversy?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I've been praying for the nuns. And as I pray, I've been pondering how this current crisis is a clash of <i>differing assumptive worlds</i>. Differing ways of living. Of praying. <br />
<br />
We are led to question: What is<i> church? </i>How does one <i>lead</i> (or exercise <i>authority</i>)? And at an even more basic level: How does this relate to - even <i>spring from</i> - the <i>Trinity?</i> Who is this <i>God of Mystery</i> whose <i>Divine Life </i>we are invited to share? In whose <i>image</i> we are made.<br />
<br />
It seems to me that the Vatican and the LCWR are literally working from different theologies. And I think it boils down to the very basics of the Creed. The nuns are working from one play-book. The hierarchs from another. In how decisions are made. In how relationships are structured. <i> </i><br />
<br />
Key here, I think, is the role of the <i>Holy Spirit. </i>How the <i>Spirit's <b>procession</b></i> is conceptualized. How the Spirit's guidance is sought and implemented.<br />
<br />
The Vatican uses a top-down process. Guided by the assertion of <i>infallibility. </i>And apparently by a view of God as someone who demands <i>unquestioning</i> submission to his <i>agents </i>in Rome. <i>Think back to the Roman Empire and it's dictatorial oppression of dissent</i><i>. </i>Think back to Saul as a complicit bystander of the stoning of Steven, a disciple who saw <i>heaven open </i>as he was martyred. Recall too how Jesus <i>later</i> asked Saul: <i>Why are you persecuting<b> me</b>?</i> <br />
<i> </i><br />
Somewhere along the way the Vatican took <i>Imperial Rome </i>as its <i>Icon</i>. Rather than the <i>We-Community </i>of Triune <i>Holy Mystery</i>. <br />
<br />
The LCWR, on the other hand, uses a <i>communal process</i> of leadership and decision-making. Following the edicts of Vatican II, a council which took the <i>Spirit</i> as it's guide and model, the LCWR views <i>each</i> of its members as integral to <i>communally discerning</i> the <i>Spirit's </i>guidance.<br />
<br />
<u>So <i>which group</i> better images the <i>We-Community </i>of the Trinity</u>? <br />
<br />
This question leads us back centuries and centuries into the distant past. To 325. To conflicts over the Creed. Conflicts, which, I now believe, have bearing on the<i> nun crackdown</i> of our day. <br />
<br />
As you may recall, the Council of Nicaea painstakingly hammered out a<i> creed</i>. And one of the tenets of this Creed, a tenet still recited by the Eastern Church, relates to the <i>procession of the Holy Spirit</i> <b>"from the Father</b>." Some time later, in the Iberian Peninsula, there arose a change in the creed, which later made its way to Rome - where it stands to this day. The Roman version has the <i>Holy Spirit </i>proceeding from the Father <i>and the Son.</i><br />
<br />
Now this may seem like a small thing. But consider the image of the Trinity as described by Irenaeus (late second, early third <i>century</i>): the Son and the Spirit as "<b><i>the two hands of God.</i></b>" That's a pretty understandable image. <i>Unless you recite the Roman version of the creed.</i> When the image of the "two hands of God" turns into an image of one hand... and then what? I don't know about you but it's pretty hard <i>for me </i>to wrap my mind around an image of the <i>Spirit </i>(hand) as proceeding from both the Father <i>and the Son </i>(hand). While it is <i>so easy </i>to take Irenaeus at his word, envisioning the Trinune God as <i>Our Father </i>extending to us his <i>two hands. </i>Directly!<br />
<br />
Our Baptismal Calling is to <i>participate in the Divine Life. </i>To be immersed in <i>Holy Mystery. Once </i>christened <i>other Christs, </i>we are members of a <i>Holy Priesthood - </i>guided by the <i>Holy Spirit. </i>It is our task to <i>transfigure the world.</i><br />
<br />
<i>This is what the sisters are doing! </i>And what the Vatican seeks to undo! <br />
<i> </i><br />
And if you ponder the <i>Mystery, </i>it makes me wonder if the <i>Holy Spirit </i>is doing way more than <i>animating</i> the nuns to do good works. Something much larger - which bears on our understanding of the <i>Trinity </i>may be at stake here.<br />
<br />
I've merely sketched this out. But you can do your own research. And ponder this for yourself. I hope you will!<br />
<br /></div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-21191818585594430472012-07-16T20:10:00.001-05:002012-07-22T10:27:42.933-05:00Mitt-in-a-box<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitW7UIKDAIO0YlPZKLGVKj130RWdK6N8rwv5KyXMVhEdHartUKpc6GB09bKV7MHS36dyhNXMgngW9aHGqKboNEEA2XViAa177l4jjAVypym0EFPEfADPu0Mp-gRZlP5HmDmRWcuJHeNmri/s1600/Jack-in-the-box.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitW7UIKDAIO0YlPZKLGVKj130RWdK6N8rwv5KyXMVhEdHartUKpc6GB09bKV7MHS36dyhNXMgngW9aHGqKboNEEA2XViAa177l4jjAVypym0EFPEfADPu0Mp-gRZlP5HmDmRWcuJHeNmri/s320/Jack-in-the-box.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Unlike Mitt's taxes - <b>This </b>is in the Public Domain</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
Mitt's box is <b>closed.</b>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Mitt has a <b>LOCK</b> on the box.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Is the box <b>off-shore</b>?</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> Why</b> won't Mitt turn the handle?</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> What is in the Box?</b> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMo5pykT4uw&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">Inquiring Minds want to know</a>.</i></div>
<br />
**Cross posted with <u>more Mitt humor <a href="http://therapysblog-fromtpm.blogspot.com/2012/07/mitt-in-box.html" target="_blank">here</a></u>.**</div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-12477089534360027362012-07-11T15:07:00.000-05:002012-07-16T00:17:59.113-05:00House of Cards<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Wish I knew Hebrew.<br />
<br />
I know that <i>Bethlehem</i> means <i>House of Bread. </i>And isn't it interesting that Jesus, born in <i>Bethlehem</i>, later announced: "I am the <i>Bread - of </i><i>Life."</i><br />
<br />
But how would you say <i>House of</i> <i>Cards? </i>I wonder if the Hebrew would sound something like <i>Vatican. </i>Or an equivalent term: <i>Vat-I-can.</i><br />
<br />
For those who were young during the Vietnam War, there was a theory called the <i>Domino Theory</i>: why we <i>had to stay</i> in Vietnam. It was similar to the theory for why we <i>had to stay</i> in Iraq. To fight them <i>over there </i>so we wouldn't have to fight them <i>here. </i>"Them" was communists during Vietnam and the theory was that if that country fell (to the communists), it would set off a chain reaction... like a bunch of <i>dominoes falling.</i> Never happened! Theory didn't work this time either (although no one dared mention <i>dominoes</i>). All we did was <i>create</i> terrorists, where none existed...<br />
<br />
The Vatican must have some theory going. For why they're <i>fighting nuns </i>here. Do they think if the nuns fall, it will set off a chain reaction.... with <i>dominoes falling? </i>Somehow increasing church attendance? Or decreasing contraceptive use?<br />
<br />
I don't think it's gonna work...<br />
<br />
Instead... like a <i>House of Cards</i> ... something like the <i>house built on sand </i>(instead of rock), I think there's gonna be a <i>fall. </i><br />
<br />
Ok, it might take years. Vietnam did. Iraq did. But when you get your theory wrong, and you put a lot of time and money and propaganda into something, and it doesn't yield results... you get <i>troop withdrawal. A</i> <i>parade</i>. <i>Victory </i>is declared. And a lot of folks suffer <i>PTSD. </i><br />
<br />
Jesus preached <i>Good News. </i>He suggested his disciples learn to read the <i>signs of the times.</i><br />
<br />
When the <i>House of Cards <b>falls</b></i>... remember: <u>You heard it <i>here</i> first</u>!<br />
<br />
<i>Addendum: </i>Now <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/sunday-school-teachers-balk-at-oath-agreeing-to-all-church-teachings/2012/07/11/gJQAcAvGeW_story.html" target="_blank">this</a>... "loyalty oaths" for religious ed teachers... who are <i>resigning. </i>Hmm... seems Vat-I-can has spawned: Vat-I-<b><i>can't</i></b>. <i>Troop withdrawal...</i><br />
<br /></div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-39435650315092076642012-06-28T10:14:00.000-05:002012-07-21T13:32:59.271-05:00Chief Justice tips over conservative tables!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Did Chief Justice, John Roberts, suddenly find Jesus? Or at long last discover his balls? No matter, this is a day for rejoicing!<br />
<br />
For sure he is now headed for a confrontation with the virtue (and the suffering) of the <a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=207895852" target="_blank">Eighth Beatitude</a>. And as someone wrote, his "apostasy" will <i>plunge the conservative movement into deep gloom</i>. <br />
<br />
<u>I had no idea this <i>news </i>would move me to <i>tears</i>...</u><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h2 class="plus-S">
Praise for God’s Surpassing Greatness</h2>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
[<a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=207895966" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Psalm 150</span></a>]</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Praise the <span class="sc">Lord</span>!<br />
Praise God in his sanctuary;<br />
praise him in his mighty firmament!
<br />
Praise him for his mighty deeds;<br />
praise him according to his surpassing greatness! </div>
<br />
Praise him with trumpet sound;<br />
praise him with lute and harp!
<br />
Praise him with tambourine and dance;<br />
praise him with strings and pipe!
<br />
Praise him with clanging cymbals;<br />
praise him with loud clashing cymbals!
<br />
Let everything that breathes praise the <span class="sc">Lord</span>!<br />
Praise the <span class="sc">Lord</span>!
</blockquote>
</div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-78191534652320778002012-06-26T10:27:00.000-05:002012-06-28T10:51:07.458-05:00God has a Sense of Humor (Psalm 2)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Psalm 2 underscores this blog's basic premise (see sidebar). Well, actually Psalms 1 and 2 together. I dealt with them previously as "gate posts" to the <i>Psalm Garden </i><a href="https://castingwordstothewind.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/gateway-to-the-psalms/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
But I'd like to point out now that Psalm 2 specifically tells us that <i>God has a sense of humor</i>. Which I always suspected. But one never tires of finding little scriptural signposts indicating that one's suspicions are actually supported and even extended. It's that second aspect that prompts this post.<br />
<br />
Psalm 1 opens with a blessing on the <i>One </i>who (courageously) ignores: the path of the wicked; the siren call of the wicked; or the (unceasing) attempts of the wicked to <i>mock</i> them. And <a href="http://www.giamusic.com/sacred_music/RGP/psalmDisplay.cfm?psalm_id=214" target="_blank">Psalm 2 </a>picks up this <i>theme of mockery</i> as it pertains to worldly rulers contending for control of what, this psalm makes clear, is not theirs to control or contend over. For:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<sup class="ii" style="display: inline;">4</sup> He who sits in the heavens laughs;<br />
<span class="verseNumbers"> </span>the LORD derides and mocks them.</blockquote>
Humor is very powerful. <a href="http://www.giamusic.com/sacred_music/RGP/psalmDisplay.cfm?psalm_id=213" target="_blank">Psalm 1</a> sees the wicked as using it <i>against </i>the <i>just one</i>. There <i>a single self</i> is depicted, contending against the <i>wicked many</i>, but nevertheless <i>planted beside the waters of Life</i>, flourishing (in spite of evil efforts to lure or mock). Psalm 2 turns the tables. Telling us that God himself mocks <i>evil</i>. That <i>God laughs</i> at the wealthy and the powerful. Just before venting fury upon <i>those who would devour and plunder</i> the <i>good earth</i> and the people created in his image. <br />
<br />
Yes, we should not judge. Ultimate judgment belongs only to God. But we are nevertheless required to discern. And point out. And sometimes... God help me, I do that with humor.<br />
<br />
Before signing off, I'd like to make a plug for the first two psalms. And their overall importance in a very <b>serious </b>sense (which relates to <i>discernment</i>). So I'll quote just a paragraph from that post I <a href="https://castingwordstothewind.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/gateway-to-the-psalms/" target="_blank">linked</a> at the beginning:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Just as Genesis begins with separating light from darkness, Psalms 1 and
2 also remind us of “separation” – in terms of good from evil. As in
Genesis morality enters along with the awareness of being a single self –
in the company of other selves. We emerge into a world where choices
have been made long before us. Choices we must contend with, whether we
like it or not. Choices we ourselves must make. Consequences we must
face. We are given advice. We can choose which advice to follow, which
company to keep. Psalms 1 and 2 deal with the separation of good and
evil – the discernment that morality requires: individually; socially;
the anguish of one’s need to choose; the question of one’s relationship
with <i>Ultimate Mystery, </i>with one’s inner self, with the mysteries of evil and suffering.</blockquote>
</div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-30147630524679517922012-06-23T19:49:00.003-05:002012-06-24T12:14:51.525-05:00Vatican Concession<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Now the word "concession" above has two connotations. It means the Vatican has "conceded" - that it lacks the <i>mojo</i> of "authoritative communication" it has previously asserted. A line going directly back to Christ. Or so they claim. Concession also means a form of purveyance, to coin a term. Like a little kiosk - hawking wares. It's an <i>Opus Dei</i> kiosk. As it turns out. So the "keys" to the Kingdom have been turned over to a secretive group with fingers in so many pies it gives me heartburn.<br />
<br />
Am I making sense? Well, after all the Vatican has now conceded that <i>it </i>cannot make sense! By appointing a <i>spokesman. </i>Someone to <i>shape </i>and <i>mold </i>the message. (Yes, those exact words were used!) Which, if you consider what Jesus said about this very topic, is a little like <i>shaping </i>and <i>molding </i><u>fruit</u>. (As in: "<i>You will recognize them by their fruits...</i>") Which is a rather like finding <i>moldy</i> fruit (at the PR kiosk) actually. (I hope you're finding this humorous...)<br />
<br />
So the long and the short of it is this: <a href="http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE85M0HI20120623" target="_blank"><i><span style="font-size: small;">Vatican hires U.S. journalist to help media relations.</span></i></a><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The journalist, to my mind, is <u>doubly</u> <i>experienced </i>in the <i>purveying of propaganda. </i>Being <i>Opus</i>, for one thing. And former <i>Fox </i>for another. A perfect choice for a tiny piece of real estate that claims to be a State and a Religion - a type of religious <i>Dick</i>tatorship, which means it's <i>male </i>and <i>authoritarian </i>and merges spiritual with temporal, especially temporal power and money. Part of an effort to </span>"<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5g3ubkBriQvlDdTg3ldN4YpPwHJZg?docId=N0059971340472452945A" target="_blank">restore a climate of serenity and trust</a>" ...<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">So you have a Vatican <i>concession</i>. A little kiosk of PR. Totally different from <i>a</i> <i>voice crying in the wilderness </i>who came as a witness to the <i>WORD.</i></span></div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-25753427247131733062012-06-20T12:01:00.000-05:002012-06-20T14:16:42.177-05:00What does "shocks the conscience" mean?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Yesterday I read that the pope is mystified by the fact that priests
(and on up) have sexually abused little children (and on up). Actually
he said it is a "<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/17/pope-declares-child-abuse-mystery.html">mystery</a>"
how someone could participate in the sacraments (he mentioned
specifically Eucharist and Confession) at the same time as they were
engaging in such horrific crimes. Well, he did not use the words
"horrific" or "crimes" - instead he used euphemisms, a bland manner of
speech, which led some people to humorously describe his words as
enunciating a "new Mystery" for the faith.<br />
<br />
Now today I happened to reread <a href="http://therapysblog-fromtpm.blogspot.com/2010/09/post-i-didnt-write-42309.html">an old blog of mine</a>, related to torture, which addressed the question: <i>What does <b>"shocks the conscience</b>"<b> </b>mean?</i> (A question related to the constitution's protections against <i>cruel and unusual punishment.</i>) My words at the time were an attempt to try and get folks to <u><i><b>SEE</b></i></u> something many prefer to rationalize away. But if you<a href="http://therapysblog-fromtpm.blogspot.com/2010/09/post-i-didnt-write-42309.html"> read them now</a>, in light of things going on in the RCC, it illuminates, I think, a <i>tone deafness</i> at the top of the Vatican, in its recent <i>vendettas,</i> that drives many of us crazy. Not just an inability, perhaps, to really <i>get </i>the degree of <b>egregiousness</b> and the horror evoked in us at the thought of a <i>priest </i>damaging the <i>soul </i>of child through <i>rape. </i><u>But equating that to the ordination of a <i>woman</i> to the <i>priesthood</i></u><i>?</i><br />
<br />
<i>What does <b>shocks the conscience </b>mean? </i><u>Certainly rape of a child</u>!<br />
<br />
But <i>ordination of a woman?</i> <u><b>That</b> is cause for REJOICING</u>!<br />
<br />
And that, I hasten to add, is one more reason for these thoughts from <a href="http://heresy4nothing.blogspot.com/2012/06/holy-spirit-and-fathers-trump-abstract.html">a post below</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Somewhere along the line [the pope] has entered an alternate universe...</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[or
is] yearning for an alternate universe. Of abstractions. I can
imagine Euclidian Geometry would really please him. Those neat proofs.
No sex. Triangles and Squares <i>being</i> their different "genders" so to speak, each with their different "roles" so neatly laid out, nothing amiss. </blockquote>
Apparently, something is <i><b>deeply</b> amiss.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
And it all seems to turn, I now see, on what <i>shocks the conscience. </i>Or not.... What <i>undermines the faith. </i>Or not.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://therapysblog-fromtpm.blogspot.com/2010/09/post-i-didnt-write-42309.html"><u><b>Could the nation bear to watch</b></u></a><b>?</b> <i>That question is very important</i>.<br />
</blockquote>
<i>In our case</i>: Could a church congregation <i>bear to watch? </i>(Rape of a Child vs Ordination of a Woman - to name just one example) <br />
<i> </i> <br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i>I hope that settles the question!</i></div>
<u></u><br />
<u></u><br />
<u></u><br />
<u></u><br />
<u></u><br />
<u></u><br />
<u></u><br />
<u></u></div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-91988623953765857252012-06-13T20:54:00.001-05:002012-06-14T02:40:41.479-05:00The Numbers Game<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
In the Middle Ages it was: <i>How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?</i><br />
<br />
Today, it's a numbers <i>contest </i>- <b><i>as if</i></b> a religious order's average <i>age</i> or total number of <i>members</i> or number of <i>habits</i> worn is a <i>PROOF</i> of <i>something. </i><br />
<br />
Jesus never did speak much about angels. Though we hear that angels were instrumental at certain points in his life, death, resurrection and ascension.<br />
<br />
But Jesus did in fact speak about <i><b>PROOF</b>. </i>And his words said <i>nothing</i> about <i>numbers</i> proving <i>anything</i>. He taught us instead: <br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=206368019"><i>You will know them by their fruits.</i></a></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
So let's have a little humility and assume God knows whom he's calling and for what purpose.<br />
<br />
Could it be that right now God is calling so many conservatives to contemplative life so that their prayers may assist the sisters under scrutiny? Or maybe such prayers are needed for those women whom God has called as priests. Or perhaps for those who have suffered for righteousness sake due to loving someone of their own sex. Or any number of reasons that: <i>Only God knows. </i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i></i></blockquote>
</div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-15242352529913238612012-06-08T23:04:00.000-05:002012-07-21T13:41:59.800-05:00Pope's Pet Peeves Proclaimed ~ in Abstract Drivel<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This post is a rejoinder to a <a href="http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2012/06/cardinal-ratzinger-made-speech-in-1989.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EnlightenedCatholicism+%28Enlightened+Catholicism%29">speech</a> given by the current pope in 1989, posted at <a href="http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2012/06/cardinal-ratzinger-made-speech-in-1989.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EnlightenedCatholicism+%28Enlightened+Catholicism%29"><i>Enlightened Catholicism</i></a>. (Read it, please, <i>if</i> you can.)<br />
<br />
With all due respect to an elderly bishop and theologian, <i>to me</i> his <i>musings</i> on the dynamics of the psyche, his diagnosis of modern man's psychopathology, and his proposal of a <i>cure</i> via <i>philosophical evangelization </i>- all presented in abstract language <i>void</i> of <i>any</i> concrete basis in Scripture or the Fathers - leave the reader <i>awash</i> in a sea of <i>airy abstractions</i>, punctuated by <i>fanciful </i>conceptual <i>leaps. </i><br />
<br />
Driven by the <i>same</i> pet peeves we see today - an agenda with<i> no discernible resemblance to the Gospel</i> - the pope is clearly <i>on a mission </i><u>laid out 23 long years ago</u>. <i> </i>And to this <i>clinical psychologist, </i>the speech<i><b> </b></i>reads as little more than <i>abstract drivel<b> </b></i>-<b> missing a human touch</b> - but tinged, <i>I hate to say this,</i> with something akin to <i>nuttiness</i>. As Shakespeare might have opined: "<i>Sound and Fury. Signifying nothing.</i>"<br />
<br />
Sorry to assign reading, but I beg you, if you haven't already done so, to <a href="http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com/2012/06/cardinal-ratzinger-made-speech-in-1989.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EnlightenedCatholicism+%28Enlightened+Catholicism%29">go and read the speech</a>. As I want to be fair and allow you to form your own opinion, despite my opening remarks. But folks... <i> I am aghast!</i><br />
<br />
Here are some initial parts of the speech (<i>all I could bear to closely analyze</i>), which set the scene for my remarks below (<u>but feel free to skip over 1-19</u>, a tedious necessity, to ensure a careful analysis):<br />
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li><b><u>General Pet Peeve</u>: </b>People in the pews are <i>questioning</i> <i>papal authority</i>. He calls the laity's concerns "<b>difficulties</b> with <i>the faith</i>" = "a litany of objections to the <i>practice </i>and<i> teaching</i> of the Church" (However, you will <i>notice below</i> that the difficulties have<b> <i>nothing</i> to do with <i>basics</i></b> defined in the creed!)<u><br /></u></li>
<li><u><b>Specific Burrs under pope's saddle</b></u>: "principal elements of this litany" = <i>pelvic/gender issues</i> (birth control, same-sex attraction) and <i>"sacramental order" </i>(divorce/remarriage & admission to Eucharist, women's ordination) - in other words, our "faith" somehow stands (or <i>falls</i>) on these crucial (<i>Gospel</i>?) gender/sex/marital issues! </li>
<li><b><u>Bottom Line Pet Peeve</u></b>: <i><b>People should not think</b></i> for themselves, since "individual conscience"or "freedom" (of "conscience") = <i>bad, bad, bad ... </i>(This in spite of Vatican II pronouncements to the contrary, not to speak of our God-given <i>free will.</i>) </li>
<li><u><b>Concluding Diagnosis</b></u>: "They [laity's <i>concerns</i> - #2 above] spring from one and the same <i>vision of humanity </i>within which there operates a particular<i> notion of human freedom</i>."[#3 above] (<i>How right he is</i>, except most people do not view this as a <i>pathology. Here</i> we enter different worlds.)</li>
<li><u>Stop and Notice</u>: <i>Nothing about the Gospel. No scripture. No Patristics. </i>(Pet Peeves of a pope.)</li>
<li><b>Broad generalization</b>: "modern man would find it difficult to relate to the Church’s traditional sexual morality" = <i>lumping everything together</i> as if people are endorsing prostitution, child abuse, bestiality, polygamy, adultery, promiscuity, etc. (<i>Sexuality and Authority = the Gospel?</i>)</li>
<li><b>Broad assumption</b>: "<i>the Church’s traditional sexual morality</i>" is being critiqued "no matter how <i>meaningful</i> [it] may have been <i>under past historical conditions.</i>" (No history cited and history might offer a very different view here... Plus, <i>how dare we question?</i>)</li>
<li><u><b>Reformulated </b><b>Diagnosis</b></u>: "we are no longer prepared to subordinate [our conscience] to some external authority" = let your fingers do the <i>walking </i>and we'll do the <i>talking. </i>(There's that dreaded <i>God-given freedom.</i>)</li>
<li><i>Prescribed <b>Treatment</b> = </i><u>We will think for you!</u> (Conscience as a sort of <i>robotic method </i>issued from <i>on high</i> = Rome.)</li>
<li><u>Stop and Notice</u>: <i>The proposed <b>robotic method</b> has nothing to do with the Gospel. </i></li>
<li><u><b>Reformulated </b><b>Diagnosis</b></u>: "aura of morality" [our choices] = "surrender of moral integrity, the simplifications of a lax conscience." (Laity's failure to bow to Rome's sexual fixations has led us to a point of <i>total depravity</i> across the board<i>.</i>)</li>
<li><i>Prescribed <b>Treatment </b></i>= "<i>conscience understood as that knowledge which derives from a higher form of knowing." </i>(Conscience trickles down <i>from on high</i>: <u>We will think for you</u>!)</li>
<li><b>Broad strange assumption</b>: One's relationship to one's body "changes" <i>if we think for ourselves</i>, if we don't follow these norms from on high "as the ultimate arbiter of one’s obligation." (Termed an "assumption" as this appears to be an <i>important part</i> of his "argument" - but no evidence or reasoning is mustered to support the<i> claim</i>.)</li>
<li><b>Strange logic: </b>Body now being discussed as if it were an appendage - instead of us! (Is he delicately referring to the male sexual organ?? Or perhaps due to "robotic" view of how people should or do make choices?)</li>
<li><b>Strange logic</b>: "No longer does man expect to receive <i>a message from his bodiliness</i> as to <i>who he is</i> and <i>what he should do</i>..." (You got me, folks! <i>Where this comes from</i> ... I cannot fathom.)</li>
<li><u>Stop and Notice</u>: <i>Nothing about the Gospel! No scripture at all. No Patristics. </i>(In this supposed anthropology or psychology which bears no resemblance to Jesus!)</li>
<li><u><b>Reformulated</b> <b>Diagnosis</b></u> (phrased in <b>strange logic</b>): So <i>perverse</i> [my word] have we become, <i>apparently</i>, that "the body no longer expresses being at all, on the contrary, it has become a piece of property." (Dualism. <i>At best!</i>)</li>
<li><b>Strange logic and assumptive leap</b>: "this way of thinking first became an actual possibility through the fundamental separation—not a theoretical but a practical and constantly practiced separation—of sexuality and procreation." (Translation: Birth control has <i>deranged humanity.</i>)</li>
<li><u><b>Strange logic</b></u><b> leading to </b><u><b>Weird Bottom-line Diagnosis</b></u><b> and </b><u><b>Plan to Assess for Treatment</b></u>: </li>
</ol>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It would be interesting to follow in detail this <i>revolutionary vision</i> about man which has appeared behind our rather haphazardly concocted litany of objections to the Church’s teaching. Without a doubt this will be one of the <i>principal challenges</i> for<i> anthropological reflection</i> in coming years. This reflection will have to <i>sort out meticulously</i> where quite meaningful <i>corrections</i> to traditional notions appear and where there begins a truly fundamental opposition to <i>faith’s vision of man</i>, an opposition that admits no possibility of compromise but places squarely before us <i>the alternative of believing or not</i>.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<a name='more'></a>It is exceedingly difficult for this reader and would-be respondent to even make sense of the abstractions and illogical leaps which I have detailed above. And that's before he even gets to points 1, 2, and 3. Nevertheless, it would appear from the paragraph I've just flagged that the pope views <i>faith </i>as unquestioning acceptance of <i>abstract philosophical principles</i>. In contrast to a <i>relationship</i> with the <i>indwelling Trinity.</i> In contrast to the Gospel. And the <i>Good News </i>- to me - is twisted into <i>Bad News. </i>A dark vision. <i>Simply to be believed. </i><b>Or not. </b>(<i>As he makes clear.</i>)<br />
<br />
Somewhere along the line this man has entered an alternate universe. Unmoored from the Gospel, so far as I can see. Taking for "<i>faith</i>" a sort of abstract, philosophical compendium, placed into a blender, poured out as <i>pablum to be swallowed whole</i>, it would appear. Making of the <i>faithful<b> </b></i><u>puppets on Vatican strings</u>. For I see nothing of this in the words or actions of Jesus or the hammered-out doctrines of the Creed or the close spiritual/scriptural reasoning of the Fathers, or the concept of faith as a <i>relationship</i>. <br />
<br />
Only in point #1 does he cite actual publications. Not for what they contain, but for <i>what's missing</i>: The "doctrine of creation" <i>he asserts</i> has disappeared from the theological radar screen. (Restoring this doctrine, apparently, is the basis from which our <i>pablum conscience</i> is to be formed?) Next come abstract leaps of "logic" yielding this sentence: "In a time when we are experiencing the agonizing of creation against man’s work and when the question of the limits and standards of creation upon our activity has become the central problem of our ethical responsibility, this fact must appear quite strange." <i>Strange, indeed, is that sentence</i>. Nevertheless, it gives a flavor for how he mistakes <i>the signs of the times,</i> while revealing a strange tendency to <i>empathize </i>with <i>creation, </i>but <b>not</b> with actual persons.<b> </b>Followed by a lament that we, <i>as he views it</i>, are unable to read a spiritual message in nature (he calls it the "material world") and he mourns an imagined "demise of metaphysics" which <i>somehow "</i>relates" to a perceived lack of teaching on creation.<br />
<br />
<i>I must admit, if this man were in my office, at this point I'd be wondering about hospitalization.</i><br />
<br />
Now, I could go on... quoting and trying to parse the abstractions he seems most comfortable dealing with, the abstract assumptions and generalizations and so on, all of which seem so far afield from Jesus or the Old Testament for that matter. So far from the blessed wonder of <i>concrete,<b> </b>nitty-gritty</i> <i>reality</i> throughout the Bible. <i>Instead,</i> Benedict seems hung up on yearning for an alternate universe. Of abstractions. I can imagine Euclidian Geometry would really please him. Those neat proofs. No sex. Triangles and Squares <i>being</i> their different "genders" so to speak, each with their different "roles" so neatly laid out, nothing amiss. No need for freedom or rights. <br />
<br />
With all due respect for this man's age and years of study and prayer, he seems unable to <i>reach out and touch someone. </i>As Jesus did. So I simply can't see how his reasoning is likely to reach those of us he clearly views as degenerates. Indeed, his thinking, to me, sounds <i>Calvinistic</i> - as if we were <i>utterly depraved</i>.<br />
<br />
Let's take a moment to consider: Where is the <i>Lord of Love?</i> Where is the <i>Good Shepherd?</i> Are we not the <i>People of God?</i> Have we not been baptized into a <i>Royal Priesthood?</i> <i></i><br />
<br />
Instead (in point #2) we get: "The decline of the doctrine on creation includes the decline of metaphysics, man’s imprisonment in the empirical." Yes, it actually appears that he wants <i>everyone </i>to leave the <i>everyday </i>(as Rahner lovingly describes the world) and join him in his beloved abstractions. Greek metaphysical abstractions instead of <i>grassroots imagery, </i>so vivid in Hebrew scriptures (<i>mountains leaping like rams</i>) and the Gospels (<i>Jesus feeding the multitudes</i>) . Instead of faith as a relationship ("<i>Come to me all you who labor and are burdened..."</i>)<br />
<br />
Dear God! <i>Please</i>, send someone who is a true theologian, to help me here! A <i>true theologian</i> as the Fathers viewed it. Someone whose years of prayer have so melted into <i>humility </i>that the <i>Living Presence </i>of God flows through him or her. Someone to whom God has granted <i>insight </i>and <i>wisdom </i>and an ability to <i>reach out and touch someone. </i>With <i>Divine Love </i>and <i>Compassion </i>and <i>Mercy </i>as Jesus demonstrates so movingly.<br />
<br />
It's hard for me to comprehend, from this speech, that the pope is <i>actually</i> a theologian. And heaven knows he is <i>no</i> psychologist - but has deigned to
"diagnose" European "man's" current psychic state ("<i>the deep desperation of mankind today"</i>) and, without citing
either scripture or the Fathers, he deigns to propose a solution to his
personal diagnosis - as if we all had been infected by a common brain
disease and he alone knows the treatment to alleviate the symptoms he
believes we ALL manifest! (Is this the source of the famous "many"
change?) And why foist the treatment on the US/sisters, when he's diagnosed
"European man" - oh, well...<br />
<br />
It's clear Benedict has his <i>betes noires</i>. You could make a list. Easily. From just this speech. The various <i>vendettas</i> going on today ~ laid out 23 years ago. What is not clear, however, is <i>how in the heck he imagines reaching anyone with this agenda?</i><br />
<br />
Forgive me, Father, but this is <i>abstract drivel. <b>Sound and fury. <u>Signifying nothing</u></b></i>. <br />
<br />
Makes you yearn for a blade of grass. A flower. Give me <i>Psalm 1</i> any day. The blessed <b>Realities</b> of Scripture: <b> </b>Creation. God's calls. God's visitations. The Psalms. The Prophets. The Gospels. <br />
<br />
<i>Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!</i><br />
<br /></div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-31486332725647482152012-06-07T20:15:00.001-05:002012-06-08T11:42:40.791-05:00Holy Spirit has Hierarchy on the Ropes!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Things keep backfiring for the Vatican. Bishops sue the govt and the <i>faithful</i> see politics at work. Papal commissions go after nuns and the <i>faithful</i> rise up - in favor of the nuns. Vatican bans a book; it soars on Amazon! Vatican tries to herd cats... er <i>catholics</i>; and the <i>sensus fidelium</i> takes over instead.<br />
<br />
The <i>Baptized</i> are seizing their <a href="https://castingwordstothewind.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/everything-she-is-called-to-we-are-called-to/"><i>Spiritual Priesthood</i></a> as never before and the prelates simply can't figure out what to do... <i>what to do.</i><br />
<br />
It's comical really. It's like the hierarchy has entered a ring for
a prize fight. A fight chosen by them alone. With all the swagger of one of those comic wrestlers, they throw a powerful punch! <i>Into thin air! </i>Without anyone else really punching back, <i>without anyone else even in the ring</i>, the crowd begins to jeer, and another hierarch topples over - onto the ropes! Then they all get
busy telling the <strike>referee </strike>press how unfair it all is....<br />
<br />
So picture them... <i>They</i> choose the fight. <i>They</i> throw a punch into the air... The crowd
jeers. And they are so stunned by this, that they flop over onto the
ropes!<br />
<br />
Or maybe they're just getting into the <i>Spirit.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Because apparently this is just a <b>warm-up. </b></i>For this Fall's <b>Evangelization <i>Extravaganza!</i></b><br />
<br />
<br /></div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-7636986981782197712012-06-07T11:51:00.002-05:002012-06-07T12:11:40.698-05:00Who am I? Who are you? Who is God?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="dsq-comment-message" id="dsq-comment-message-549971606">
<div class="dsq-comment-text" id="dsq-comment-text-549971606">
<br />
Catholic <a href="http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2012/06/catholic-identity-debate-when-politics.html#disqus_thread"><i>identity</i></a>.
This whole idea gives me problems. As the Vatican appears to be
promoting a kind of uniformity. A type of <i>robotic</i> thought and
behavior. Controlled from Rome! (Even the unearthed Chinese <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army">army of clay soldiers</a> has each one manifesting uniqueness!)<br />
<br />
I think we have to start with the assumption, amply validated in scripture, that our <i>identities</i>
are <a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=206088542">hidden with Christ in God</a>. That the Holy Spirit dwells within each
of us, immersed in constant prayer (whether we know it or not). That
our task is to gradually live out the Image of God, allowing the Spirit
to form us in God's VERY <i>Likeness.</i><br />
<br />
Uniformity has no part in this! And the Gospel is a call within the
heart of each person. It calls us to a unique "identity" - yes, formed
in God's likeness - but God <a href="http://wisdom4nothing.blogspot.com/2011/02/holy-mystery-in-search-of-us.html">reaches out</a> to each of us in a unique
relationship.<br />
<br />
Catholic identity? Honestly, I'm not sure what that means. Unless it means a <a href="http://wisdom4nothing.blogspot.com/2011/07/capstone-of-holiness.html"><i>humility</i></a> which few, if any of us, ever achieves.<br />
<br />
To manifest the <a href="https://castingwordstothewind.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/presence-and-spiritual-priesthood/">Presence of God</a>, <b>this</b> is our <i>calling</i>. And God's <a href="http://wisdom4nothing.blogspot.com/2009/07/it-is-just-ordinary-grayish-rock.html">presence</a>, I submit, is so personally overwhelming, it could NEVER be uniform.<br />
<br />
To me the question should <i>never</i> be: Who are you <i>as</i> a Catholic?
(<i>Recall</i> that <i>many</i> Christians recite the Creed! Not just Roman
<i>catholics</i>.)<br />
<br />
<b>The question</b>, it seems to me, is: Who are you<i> in your deepest
heart?</i> Who are you <i>in the eyes of God</i>? Who is any of us <i>when most
present to the Holy Trinity</i> flowing/dwelling within? Or to the Trinity
met in every person? In every aspect of nature?<br />
<br />
See this <a href="http://blueeyedennis-siempre.blogspot.com/2012/05/blogging-break.html">wonderful interview</a> posted at <i>Blue Eyed Ennis</i> during her blogging break - which leads exactly in the direction I'm discussing:<br />
<br />
Catholic identity? <a href="http://blueeyedennis-siempre.blogspot.com/2012/05/blogging-break.html">This Abbot</a> has got it!!!</div>
</div>
</div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-4749274493285270962012-05-21T09:06:00.000-05:002012-05-22T06:51:20.793-05:00Rest<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
This blog is taking a <i><a href="https://castingwordstothewind.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/and-i-will-give-you-rest/">Rest</a>.</i><br />
<br />
<i>May the <a href="https://castingwordstothewind.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/and-i-will-give-you-rest/">Author of Rest</a> guide and protect the persecuted sisters. </i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Peace be with you.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-76698974338734620032012-05-17T12:03:00.001-05:002012-05-17T16:13:12.724-05:00The Big Tent<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
Do you believe it? <i><b>I</b></i> hardly believe it! <u>Bishops run amok</u>... <i>The meddling in politics. The meddling in service organizations. The meddling in speakers or <b>thinkers </b>at<b> </b></i><i>any RCC college or sisterhood or... The meddling in bedrooms. The meddling.... </i><br />
<br />
Today's Vatican hierarchy looks like: <b><i>A bunch of busy-bodies!</i></b><i> </i><br />
<br />
The need for turning over of tables <b><i>in the Temple</i></b> has never been greater! <i>Due to RCC bishops' need to look <b>under </b>every table. And inside <b>Mother Church's </b>every skirt! </i>Dictating. Dictating. <i> </i><br />
<i>Dick</i> - Tating! <i>(Yes... you read that right.)</i><br />
<br />
Whatever happened to the Big Tent? Christianity as whole. <i>The Big Tent</i>. With a simple <i>rule of faith, </i>its tenets functioning like tent posts. Its boundary lines, <a href="http://liturgy.co.nz/the-creed/9665"><b>The creed</b></a>. <br />
<br />
So I picture this Big Tent. All of the baptized. With <a href="http://liturgy.co.nz/the-creed/9665">the creed</a> as our basic commonality for gathering under the Tent. The Gospel as our guide. And beyond that... REALLY, we should allow a flourishing!<br />
<br />
And the tent is pitched in this wonderful pasture... <i>Why try and
control the pasture??? </i> <b>Let the sheep graze! </b> <u>Where they will</u>. <i>Couple up</i> with whom they will.<i> Live </i>as they will. Let them listen to the speakers they will. Read/write as they will. <i>Think</i> as they will! <i> </i><br />
<i>Follow the Gospel. Without hindrance! <b> </b></i><br />
<br />
I am so, so tired of busybodies... <i>men</i> dressed in absurd <i>feminine</i> clothing - <b>hectoring </b>like so many <i>schoolmarms</i> <b><i>run-amok!</i></b> It's getting old. It's getting tiring. And it <i>looks</i> not only silly - but ridiculous. Bordering on insane! <br />
<br />
<u><i><b>Can we have some sanity now, <a href="http://www.usccb.org/bible/psalms/23">please</a>?</b></i></u> <br />
<br /></div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-69339329386927228182012-05-13T08:23:00.001-05:002012-05-13T19:59:32.113-05:00Mirror, Mirror on the Vatican Wall...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Have you ever wondered about those civilizations that suddenly vanished? Those ruins that show up in the middle of a jungle maybe. Whole cities with temples and buildings and roads. All covered with vines and monkeys, maybe some parrots. And no people! A whole civilization gone. A whole population vanished. Culture, religion, civil institutions... all gone.<br />
<br />
And you wonder... how did that come about? What factors were behind the decline of this civilization? Did it happen all of a sudden? Or did they have <i>warning signs</i>?<br />
<br />
Have there ever been people who actually <i>wanted </i>a decline? Could a desire like that get out of hand?<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Smaller.... purer...." <i><b>Where</b> have I heard that before?</i> </blockquote>
<br />
It's this latter <i>desire</i>, I think, that is a <i>warning sign.</i> Could even be <i>a sign of coming decline</i>. <br />
<br />
<i>Here's my fantasy:</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You know that childhood fairytale. The one where the witch has a magic mirror. And she looks into it... wanting to be assured that <i>she </i>is the fairest of them all. But, unfortunately the mirror tells her the <i>truth.</i> Which puts her on the warpath. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Well, my image is of the bishops and cardinals and pope. Each of them, so full of ... <i>something, </i>that they need to wear these really fancy outfits. Ones that are getting more and more fancy all the time. <i>Strange, weird costumes.</i> Very costly ones, I might add! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So I picture all these people... needing to look into a mirror... <b>Often</b>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>If only there were<b> </b>a magic mirror - that would tell these people the <b>Truth</b>!</i> </blockquote>
But, you have to ask yourself, at this point in the story: <i>What is the Question?</i> Do they ask if they're the "fairest"? <i>I doubt it</i>. Do they ask if they look like a candidate for "next pope"? <i> Maybe.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Here's what I picture:</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Mirror, mirror on the wall.... <i>Who's the <b>purest</b> of us all?"</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Each one of the <i>pure hands, fancy dress </i>club, especially the ones <i>special enough </i>to ordain others (to <i>pure hands). </i>Especially those who get to vote the next <i>White-Garbed Pope</i>. Each one clothed so <i>weirdly</i>... looking into the mirror, all hoping to become <i>the one.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I call it the<b> </b><i><b>purity trap</b>. </i>Cuz, one by one, they don't get the answer they're looking for. Instead, the mirror shows them <i>nothing</i> but <i>tarnish </i>or else <i><a href="http://wisdom4nothing.blogspot.com/2009/10/merton-on-nothingness.html">pure nothingness shining brightly</a>... </i>So they all begin to vie with each other.</blockquote>
Do you have any idea what happens when a big bunch of people have a
lot of status and power and you gather them all together? I've seen
it in colleges and universities. <i>All chiefs and no Indians</i>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
So, each of them, tries to become <i>more and more pure. </i>Indeed <i>most </i>pure. They vie for being <i>the most doctrinaire</i>. Or maybe for sporting the <i>purest gold</i> or the <i>purest silk</i>. Saying the <i>purest Latin. </i>Giving the <i>purest dictates </i>for more and more control <i>of the faithful.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And little by little they exclude one another - indeed <i>everyone</i> they deem <i>less pure. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There's no end to it! There's <u>no end</u> to <i>the purity trap. <b>No end.</b></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The supposed search for <i>purity of orthodoxy </i>or could be <i>orthodoxy of purity </i>just <i>trails off</i>, I think, like the ending of <a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=157920808oremus%20Bible%20Browser">Psalm 1</a>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>One of those <b>lost </b>civilizations...</i></blockquote>
<br /></div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-43495410859946722292012-05-12T12:04:00.000-05:002012-07-21T13:43:33.023-05:00Hubris and Risk Management<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Now you <i>might</i> think, from the title, that this is a post related to the stock market or hedge funds or banks losing billions. <i>But you'd be wrong</i>. It's actually about hubris in another area entirely. But the insight, yes, came when I was reading a brilliant blog, which I'd describe as <a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2012/05/the-tale-of-a-whale-of-a-fail/"><i>hedging for dummies</i></a>.<br />
<br />
As I was reading, a little light bulb came on: <u>All of life is basically <i>risk management</i></u>. From cradle to grave we're learning. How to do <i>this </i>or <i>that</i> - without making a mess or toppling over. School. Career. Marriage. Parenting. Same thing. Till we get to old age when suddenly we go into reverse gear, maybe needing a cane or a walker. All to manage risk. <br />
<br />
Now risk management, I've concluded, relates to <i>unpredictability</i>. Trying to manage that or reduce it if possible. If something is totally in the hands of <i>one</i> person, you've reduced the risk of having to negotiate decisions, <b>but </b>you may magnify risks, if you have failed to consult those you're trying to manage. On the other hand, the more people who are involved, the more difficult the decision-making process, <b>but </b>the greater likelihood those involved will sign on to the decision.<i></i><br />
<br />
This insight not only explains one's own life. It explains <i>everything</i>. Suddenly I can see why politics is so polarized. It gives us insight into history. We see, for example, St. Paul concerned about "factions"- urging people to cooperate - presumably to reduce the risk of his little churches breaking up. Once upon a time, for example, the Catholic Church insisted that everywhere in the world Masses would be in Latin. Similar strategy to what Paul was doing. Probably for the same reasons.<br />
<br />
So where does<i> hubris</i> come into this? Let's go back to that blog I read: <i><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2012/05/the-tale-of-a-whale-of-a-fail/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to The Tale Of A Whale Of A Fail">The Tale Of A Whale Of A Fail.</a> </span></i>JP Morgan Chase just lost 2 billion dollars (and counting) due to one big risk management trader (they call him a <i><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/may/11/jp-morgan-trader-london-whale">whale</a> </i>due to his HUGE financial bets). This guy apparently backed himself (and Chase) into a corner they can't get out of. Not till all the <i>hedging contracts</i> he bought and sold expire... And no one knows the ultimate outcome here, since the <i>market </i>for such contracts has now dried up. <i>Something they never expected!</i> <b>Due to hubris </b>- since they believed they had a <i>sure bet</i> (and the market cornered) to <i>make</i> a bundle of billions! Except their bet was <i>so big </i>other people noticed... and took precautions (risk management!). And now no one will help them get out of the corner they've backed themselves into.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">I think something very similar is happening in Rome. Let's take a look:</span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The Vatican prefers it when one person, the pope, makes all the decisions <b>and</b> when everybody follows suit and gets into line - like <i>good little soldiers.</i> To accomplish this feat, the Vatican came up with something called <i>infallibility. </i>Infallibility is a <i>risk management policy</i>, which is supposed to <i>never expire. </i></span><span style="font-size: small;">The RCC <i>faithful </i>(everybody except the pope) are expected to <i>follow</i> whatever the pope decides. <i>Even if he makes a mistake.</i> To ensure this, they came up with one more risk management strategy: Any <i>dissenter</i> would be <i>silenced </i>or <i>excommunicated </i>or branded a <i>heretic. </i>And the <i>threat of that happening, </i>it<i> </i>was <u>assumed</u>, would result in <i>good little soldiers </i>getting into line and <i>faithfully </i>following the pope. All of this is <i>supposed </i>to reduce the Vatican's risk and make things more predictable. <i>For them.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Except it's <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/catholic-rebels-v-the-vatican.17575388">not working</a>....</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Something akin to JP Morgan <i>in a corner</i> seems to have happened in Rome. <i>Vatican Hubris</i> <u>assumed</u> that its risk management strategies (<i>infallibility </i>and <i>threats) </i>would <i>always</i> keep the troops in line. And <i>Vatican hubris</i> believed it had <b>control</b> of the sole <i>market </i>for Catholic <i>thinking</i> - which was <u>assumed</u> to exist only <i>in</i> Rome. Or <i>from </i>Rome.<i> </i>Or <i>under</i> Rome's <i>approval.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Oops! <b>Hubris Fail. </b>Vatican in a corner!</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">You see, people are <a href="http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/carol-hunt-innate-deference-to-rome-still-continues-even-now-3105627.html">no longer frightened</a> of the Vatican's threats. They're educated. They <a href="http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/05/the-vaticans-fundamental-problem-eddie-molloy/">think</a> for themselves. <i>They don't need anybody to do their thinking and deciding <b>for </b>them. </i>And we're getting to the point, where <u>no matter how many priests or nuns or lay people they try to browbeat or silence or brand as heretics, </u><u>the very effort to do so is backfiring</u>. <i>As the Vatican backs itself - more and more - into a corner. </i>Plus, like JP Morgan, their <i>stock is falling.</i> Their <i>shareholders </i>are revolting. As some of their <i>most precious </i>policies go unheeded. By millions! Maybe even billions... And no one can predict where this will end....</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Because, <i>unless</i> the Vatican arrives at the point where they can <i>admit mistakes </i>(as Chase has <a href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/11/loss-stains-jpmorgans-chief-one-of-bankings-top-risk-managers/?hp">done</a> - <i>its reputation severely damaged</i>)<i> </i><u>the pope has put himself in a corner</u> - complete with papal <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitre"><i>dunce cap</i></a>. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>Hubris. </i>It all comes down to <b>hubris</b>. The delusion one is <i>always right. </i>Together with the desire to inflict that on others.</span><br />
<br />
It's humility versus hubris. One strategy builds. The other destroys.
Once you get the simple insight, you can see it <i>everywhere</i>! <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Let this be a lesson to us all: <i>Humility. Compassion. </i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">As <a href="https://castingwordstothewind.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/their-call-goes-out-to-all-the-earth/">taught</a> so well by Jesus. </span></div>
<br /></div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-87628238606874982442012-05-11T11:10:00.000-05:002012-05-11T11:10:27.428-05:00Enforcer of Conformity<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Interesting description of a public figure. Especially in today's world. If you hear such a description, who springs to mind?<br />
<br />
Actually, I read the term <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/11/more-on-the-not-actually-debunked-bully-story.html">here</a>. But you might easily have wondered if you'd find it <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/19/nation/la-na-vatican-nuns-20120420">here</a>.<br />
<br />
One thing is for sure. You will not find it <a href="https://lcwr.org/">here</a>! And that's because you won't find it <a href="https://castingwordstothewind.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/more-musing-on-the-footwashing/">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Current events are challenging us. Questioning us. Jesus was comfortable enough to pose the question: <i>Who do you say I am? </i><br />
<br />
It is instructive to use our own answers to that question. As a <i>measure. </i>Of any leader. We might choose. To follow. <br />
<br />
My own answers? For <a href="http://wisdom4nothing.blogspot.com/2010/10/where-are-you-from-thats-question-ive.html">long</a>. For <a href="http://wisdom4nothing.blogspot.com/2011/02/holy-mystery-in-search-of-us.html">short</a>. <i>For <a href="http://wisdom4nothing.blogspot.com/2009/07/it-is-just-ordinary-grayish-rock.html">starters</a>...</i><br />
<br /></div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-719785905284272861.post-10831458243001749372012-05-08T09:16:00.002-05:002012-05-08T14:43:38.213-05:00Vatican, Take a Lesson from Exxon's Mistakes!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A little light bulb went on for me this morning, when I read an article at Reuters, analyzing how Exxon's corporate "religion" and bullying tactics are now affecting its bottom line:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h1>
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/us-exxon-way-idUSBRE8470FC20120508">Insight: When the Exxon way stops</a> </span><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/08/us-exxon-way-idUSBRE8470FC20120508">working</a></span></h1>
</blockquote>
It's instructive to read the article and see the many ways in which the Vatican hierarchy is caught in the same trap, down to the insistence on all dressing alike and maintaining inherited corporate dogma - despite changing times and against all obstacles (<i>it tries to squelch - rather than adapt to</i>). <br />
<br />
Here are some conclusions the Vatican resists (just like Exxon):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="articleText">"The game has changed. You can't act like you
have all the power anymore," said the chief executive officer of a close
competitor.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="articleText">Or as Joe Tatusko, fund manager ... who holds Exxon stock, put it: "You
have to share".</span></blockquote>
In a section of the article, Reuters calls, "<i><span id="articleText">THE RELIGION OF COMPLIANCE," </span></i><span id="articleText">Exxon's way of doing</span><span id="articleText"> things rings so reminiscent of the Vatican:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="articleText"></span><br />
That buttoned-down culture, underpinned by a
disciplined, top-down management system, has long been credited with
making the company the most efficient operator in the business: strict
standardization means it can employ the same business approach around
the world and save money. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span id="articleText"><span id="midArticle_14"></span></span><br />
Its
uniformity of thinking extends even to dress sense - the CEO of one
rival oil firm joked that male Exxon staff invariably turn up for
meetings in blue suits, white shirts and red ties.</blockquote>
Sticking to the "compliance manual" (so to speak) the Vatican (and Exxon) have put themselves in straight jackets. But every time the straight jacket effect kicks in, the "obstacle" they are trying to squelch into submission is blamed, rather than the antiquated "compliance manual" itself.<br />
<a href="http://www.stellarliving.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Monkey-Trap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="http://www.stellarliving.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Monkey-Trap.jpg" border="0" height="150" src="http://www.stellarliving.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Monkey-Trap.jpg" width="200" /></a>I'm thinking of the proverbial "monkey trap" where a piece of food is
left in a jar. A jar a monkey can put a hand into. But the jar opening is
so narrow that only an <i>empty hand</i> fits. Once the monkey gets
hold of the food, however, it will not let go. So, like the Vatican,
like Exxon, the monkey is stuck! An angry monkey, because it can't retrieve what
it wants and it <i>refuses</i> to let go. <br />
<br />
<br /></div>TheraPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17684120043427738135noreply@blogger.com0