Text characters, the ones used online at any rate, include symbols that aren’t letters of the alphabet, punctuation, or numbers.
So far, so obvious.
I was replying to comments this afternoon, and figured I’d use the emoji/dingbat/whatever “okay” hand sign. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
But I also figured that, since folks who don’t live in my part of the world read this, I’d better do a little research.
A gesture that means ‘I’m leaving now and had a good time’ in one culture can, I’ve gathered, mean ‘I reject you’ in another, and I’m wandering off-topic.
Anyway, I did a quick Google search to see if there were cross-cultural landmines hidden in that touch-the-thumb-and-index-finger gesture.
It’s a good thing I didn’t use Unicode character 128076. Seems that it’s now perceived as a white supremacist symbol.
Although I’m not “white” by some standards, which haven’t been current for several generations now, I’m definitely melanin-deficient.
So finding some symbol which wouldn’t be quite so likely to inspire alarm and revulsion seemed prudent. Since we had a (very) little snow earlier this afternoon — and because I like the shape — I used a snowflake (❄) instead of that (divisive?) gesture.
I talked about perceptions, labels, fear, and making sense last month:
City lights by the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Photo from the ISS. (2017)
Quite a bit has changed over the last couple millennia. And some things haven’t.
One of the things that hasn’t changed is human nature: which is good news and bad news, depending on how I look at it.
I’d started writing about that, when my oldest daughter and I ran into an all-to-common opinion about religion.
The narrator of a video we were watching said that religion was silly. Then he said something like ‘isn’t that an unforgivable sin?’
The phrase is fairly common in English-speaking cultures. It’s “Biblical” in the sense that it refers to a sentence in Matthew.
Since I’m a Catholic, I do not think the unforgivable sin is using the wrong fork at a formal dinner. I’ll get back to that.
At any rate, here’s my shorter-than-planned review of (comparatively) recent events, along with how I see sin (original, unforgivable and otherwise); and why Advent matters:
Politics, Ideas, and Technology: 20 Centuries in 138 Words
Giuseppe Becchetti’s “The Roman Forum”. (1893) Colorized.
The Roman Empire had two pretty good centuries, coasted along for a while, crumbled, and became a nostalgic memory.
Europe’s warlords eventually stopped trying to reconstruct the Roman Empire.
Upper crust western Europeans said they were really smart, and came up with some good ideas. Applying those ideas produced mixed results.
A remarkable number of us survived the 20th century’s global wars: or, as I suspect historians may call it in another century or so, the Colonial War.
That’s mainly political stuff.
At least as important, I think, we’ve been developing technologies that let most of us spend time doing something other than collecting enough food to survive the next winter.
I see that, and medical practice finally catching up with what folks like Hildegard of Bingen had been doing a thousand years back, as a good thing.1
After the Sixth Day: Still “Very Good”
Earth, seen from the Rosetta spacecraft. (2009)
On a cosmic scale, two millennia barely register as a moment in time.
On the other hand, it’s quite long enough for us to notice cycles and changes.
Europe enjoyed about three centuries of really nice weather.
Then the Little Ice Age made ice skating on Rotterdam’s main canal and frost fairs on the Thames possible.
North America’s crust is still rebounding from the weight of the most recent glacial period’s ice sheet.
At the moment, we’re either in an interglacial period, or maybe at the end of a cyclic ice age that started around two and a half million years back. I’ve seen informed opinions on that going both ways over the last few decades.
At any rate, right now Earth has, on average, been getting warmer. I live in central Minnesota, and haven’t invested in housing built on Florida’s sand bars, so I’m not nearly as panicked at the idea as I might be.
Let’s see. What else has been changing. Or cycling, at least. Our sun. Right.
Our star’s activity cycle has been chugging along: with occasional odd spots, like the Maunder Minimum.
We’re learning that our sun’s activity affects conditions on Earth. But I’ve yet to see someone claim that the Maunder Minimum caused the Age of Enlightenment.
Even though the timing invites “post hoc ergo propter hoc” illogic. Still, being Latin, it sounds cool; and I’m wandering off-topic again.2
Human Nature: Good News, Bad News, and Original Sin
“The Death of Caesar” in the Theatre of Pompey, as imagined by Jean-Léon Gérôme. (ca. 1859-1867)
Human nature hasn’t changed. Which is, actually, good news.
I’ve been going over this a lot lately, but I think it bears repeating.
“God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)
“then the LORD God formed the man out of the dust of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7)
“What is man that you are mindful of him, and a son of man that you care for him? “Yet you have made him little less than a god, crowned him with glory and honor.” (Psalms 8:5–6)
We’re made “in the image of God”, “little less than a god”: pretty hot stuff.
But “little less than a god” isn’t “God”: not even close.
And we’ve got problems.
Even so, we’re not garbage.
This universe was basically good. It still is. We were basically good. We still are. (Genesis 1:31; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 299, 337-344, 355-379)
Humanity was made “in the divine image”. We still are. (Genesis 1:27; Catechism, 31, 355-361)
So: if we’re such hot stuff, and basically good, why isn’t life just one big bowl of cherries?
This is among the most lucid answers I’ve run across in recent years:
Kevin: “Yes, why does there have to be evil?” Supreme Being: “I think it has something to do with free will.” (“Time Bandits”, Monty Python (1981) via imdb.com)
Living With Consequences
The trouble started when an angel decided that ‘my way’ outvotes ‘God’s way’.
Which reminds me: I haven’t talked about angels for a while.
Angels are people, but they’re not human. They have intelligence and will, but they’re spirits with no physical bodies. (Catechism, 328-330)
We’re creatures with intelligence and will, too. But we’re made of spirit and physical bodies. (Catechism, 355-373, 1730)
Demons are angels who made a really bad decision. Satan, or the devil, is our name for the angel who decided that preferring ‘my way’ to God’s was okay. (Catechism, 391-395)
Now, about what went wrong with us. The account Genesis 3 is figurative, “…but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man….” (Catechism 390)
The first of us decided that ‘I want’ mattered more than God’s ‘you should’. I’m not personally responsible for that bad decision, and human nature did not become all bad. But, like everyone else, I’m living with consequences of humanity’s bad start. (Catechism, 396-406)
That’s why we “…all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ….” (Catechism, 389, 405, 407-412, 1701-1707, 1949, 1811)
I’ll take that as good news.
Now, what the Catholic Church says “original sin” means:
“ORIGINAL SIN: The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than God’s will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the ‘new Adam,’ came to redeem us (396-412).” (Catechism, Glossary)
Sin offends reason, truth, “right conscience”, and God. It gets in the way of healthy relationships. Sin is focusing on someone or something inappropriately, and failing to love God and neighbors. (Catechism, 1849-1851)
There’s no such thing as a good sin, but some are worse than others. (Catechism, 1789, 1854-1864)
Then there’s the “unforgivable sin”.
“Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” (Matthew 12:31)
I could fret over that Bible bit, and obsess over exactly which sin is unforgivable. I’ve got free will, so that is an option. But it’s not a smart one.
Anxiety over table etiquette isn’t, I gather, a major issue these days. So I figure the odds are slim to none that someone’s preaching that the unforgivable sin is using a salad fork during a meal’s main course.
I’m no theologian, but I’m about as sure as I can be that improper table etiquette isn’t a mortal sin.
MORTAL SIN: A grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner (sanctifying grace), constituting a turn away from God. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be present: grave matter, full knowledge of the evil of the act, and full consent of the will (1855, 1857). (Catechism, Glossary)
On the other hand — no. I’m running late, and don’t have time for such speculation.
Besides, folks can have very real concerns over acts which may feel unforgivable.
Bottom line, I could have committed an egregious sin: and, since I’m still breathing, forgiveness is an option.
There’s nothing special about me, so the same applies in your case. I’ve put a few links in the footnotes which may or may not help.3
So, if that, whatever “that” is, isn’t the “unforgivable sin”, what is?
It’s pretty simple, actually.
It’s saying “no” to God, without the option of changing my mind.
Here’s how it works.
Accepting God’s Mercy: Or Not
Right now I’m alive.
But that won’t last. Death happens. (Catechism, 1021)
Here’s where it gets interesting.
Death happens, and I will live forever.
Depending on what I’ve done, and what I decide, and — this is important — by the grace and mercy of God, that can be very good news indeed. (Catechism, 1020-1032)
But there’s a catch of sorts. I must say “okay” to accepting God’s mercy.
Right after I die, I get an interview with our Lord: my particular judgment. It’s the ultimate performance review. (Catechism, 1021-1022)
The good news is that accepting God’s mercy is an option. So is refusing God’s mercy, although that’s not a good option. At all. (Catechism, 1020-1041)
And that, I’ve gathered, is the unforgivable sin: telling God ‘you aren’t the boss of me’, at a point where changing my mind later is not an option.4
Advent: Getting, and Staying, Ready
The Veil Nebula, seen with Hubble’s Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2.
“O come, Desire of nations, bind All peoples in one heart and mind; Bid envy, strife and quarrels cease; Fill the whole world with heaven’s peace. Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel Shall come to thee, O Israel.” (“O Come, O Come, Emmanuel“, additional verse; translated by Henry Sloane Coffin (1916))
It’s Friday afternoon as I’m writing this, so most of what I was going to say about the first two millennia of our long watch will wait.
This excerpt from the USCCB website says what Advent’s about:
“What is Advent? Sunday, December 3, 2023 — Sunday, December 24, 2023
“Beginning the Church’s liturgical year, Advent (from, ‘ad-venire’ in Latin or ‘to come to’) is the season encompassing the four Sundays (and weekdays) leading up to the celebration of Christmas.
“The Advent season is a time of preparation that directs our hearts and minds to Christ’s second coming at the end of time and to the anniversary of Our Lord’s birth on Christmas. From the earliest days of the Church, people have been fascinated by Jesus’ promise to come back. But the scripture readings during Advent tell us not to waste our time with predictions. Advent is not about speculation. Our Advent readings call us to be alert and ready, not weighted down and distracted by the cares of this world (Lk 21:34-36)….” (Prayer and Worship, Liturgical Year, Advent; USCCB)
I’m a Christian, and a Catholic: so I occasionally think about our Lord’s first coming, and about his assurance that he’ll come back.
As for when Jesus will return, making that go-time decision is up to God the Father.(Catechism, 1040)
“But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Matthew 24:36)
If the Son of God didn’t need to know, I sure don’t.
Meanwhile, we’ve got our standing orders, outlined in Matthew 28:18–20. So part of my job is — well, doing my job, paying attention, and praying.
“‘Beware that your hearts do not become drowsy from carousing and drunkenness and the anxieties of daily life, and that day catch you by surprise like a trap. For that day will assault everyone who lives on the face of the earth. Be vigilant at all times and pray that you have the strength to escape the tribulations that are imminent and to stand before the Son of Man.'” (Luke 21:34–36)
I’ve talked about this sort of thing before. Often. Including:
Edward Gibbon (wrote “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, published 1776-1788, which set the tone for Roman Empire discussions until historians took another look at the source material)
When Deborah was a judge of Israel, she told Barak that his victory against Jabin’s army was a sure thing. (Judges 4:1–7)
Barak refused to go unless Deborah came with him. Which she did. Barak’s forces won, but God and Deborah got credit for the victory. Sisera, Jabin’s general, fled: but died when Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite nailed his head to the floor.1 (Judges 4:8–22)
Judith and Editors
Then there’s Judith, who walked into an Assyrian siege camp with her maid, talked her way into the general’s quarters, and removed the general’s head.
Then the two women calmly walked out of the camp. With the general’s head in a bag. (Judith 10:11–18:20)
The Book of Judith says the Assyrian general’s name was Holofernes, and that he was sent by Nebuchadnezzar.
That’d be Nebuchadnezzar II, second king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire: or the Chaldean Empire, or Assyrians. It depends on who’s talking. That was around 630 BC, give or take a few decades.
Nebuchadnessar II’s territory had been what we call the Neo-Assyrian Empire up to around 610 BC, give or take a few years. I strongly suspect that’s why the book of Judith’s author called his people’s enemy “Assyrians.”
The Book of Judith is in my Bible. But if you’re an American, odds are that it isn’t in yours.
I’m a Catholic.
Folks like Jonathan Edwards set the religious tone of my homeland.
So Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Sirach, first and second Maccabees and Wisdom are edited out of most American Bibles.2
Editors had their reasons for deleting the Book of Judith.
Examination of Conscience: Getting Ready for Reconciliation
Since I’m human, I have within me an ember of the fire that forged the universe. We all do.
That sounds like the Victorian ‘lords of the universe’ attitude that made a mess we’ll be cleaning up for centuries. But it’s not.
Being made in the image of God means I have dominion over, and responsibility for, my share of this world. And for how I treat folks around me. That’s scary.
That’s also why my parish’s Advent Companion booklet has an examination of conscience before a DYI Advent wreath blessing.
The booklet’s ‘examination’ is an eight-point list that starts with —
“For the times when I forget that I need a Savior, and arrogantly conceive of myself as sufficient to myself.” (“The Magnificat® Advent Companion”)
Each item ends with “Come, Lord Jesus!”
Examinations of conscience aren’t just an ‘Advent’ thing.
They are, or should be, how I get ready for the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation: what my culture calls Confession. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1422-1484)
I don’t enjoy reviewing my thoughts and actions, looking for misdeeds. Sins. But it’s like flossing and brushing my teeth. I’m better off if I do it than if I don’t. Happily, there’s a mess of resources out there; including these.
Some actions are wrong, regardless of circumstances. Like murder, deliberately killing an innocent person. (Catechism, 1447)
Others, like sticking out my tongue, may be right during a dental exam, maybe-wrong when talking to someone, and quite often neutral.
And, although no sin is a good idea, some sins are worse than others; which is why we talk about venial and mortal sin. We also sort them out by what we misuse, how we misuse things — it’s complicated. (Catechism, 1846-1869)
But in another way, it’s simple.
Sin is a failure to love. When I don’t love God and my neighbor, and see everyone as my neighbor, that’s when I sin. And “my neighbor” includes everyone. No exceptions. (Matthew 5:43–44, 22:36–40, Mark 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–37; Catechism, 1706, 1776, 1825, 1849-1851, 1955)
Sin is an offense against reason, truth and God. (Catechism, 1849-1850)
And, as long as I am alive, seeking forgiveness is an option. (Catechism, 827, 976-983, 1021-1037, 1042-1050)
That’s all I’ll do for this week. Here are the usual links:
Brobdignagian bowling shoes in Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade. (2020)
This week will be less routine than usual, partly due to Thanksgiving Day. I’ll be staying home, and haven’t decided whether or not I’ll try finding free online streaming of Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade.
This — and probably my regular ‘Saturday’ post — will be the text equivalent of a clip show: excerpts from stuff I’ve posted before.
So: Happy Thanksgiving Day, Greetings on November 23, or whatever seems appropriate.
Giving Thanks Anyway
Feeling thankful when times are good should be easy.
Being thankful in bad times? Not so much.
I can be thankful that I’ve got a roof over my head, food in the house and a good family. Or I can kvetch about being born with bad hips, two of our kids dying, and every other rough patch in my life.
Being thankful strikes me as making more sense. Rough patches and current economic issues aside, I have a good life.
But what about folks who don’t have a roof over their head, food in their home and a good family? Or, in some cases, any surviving family.
What could someone living with rough times have to be thankful for?
A key word there is “living.” Remembering that being alive beats the alternative has helped me endure suicidal impulses.
I figure existence itself is cause for giving thanks.
That’s because I think God creates and maintains everything and everyone. And lets created beings, including us, help: each according to its nature. (Genesis 1:1; Psalms 136:1–9; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 301-308)
Our nature being what it is — I’ve talked about that before.
Rough Patches
One of my — and my wife’s — rough patches was when my wife almost died, and Elizabeth did.
I could say that I read Job 1:21 and Psalms 69:30–31 while sitting by my wife’s hospital bed: and immediately started thanking God for what was happening.
That’s not what I did.
I tried, briefly, bargaining with God; then got smart and started asking for help while dealing with the unpleasant reality.
Maybe I could score points in some circles by claiming Job-like virtue. But with my particular judgment approaching, that seems imprudent. At best.
Equality, Differences and Being Thankful
I don’t see a problem with telling God ‘thank you’ for having a roof over my head and food in the house.
Provided that I don’t start imagining that being in one of life’s smooth(ish) patches is due to my outstanding virtue. Or vice.
Stuff happens: wealth and poverty, sickness and health. None of that’s a sure sign of virtue or sin. What I do with what I’ve got: that’s what matters. (1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:5; Catechism 828, 1509, 2211, 2288-2291, 2292-2296, 2448, 2540, 2544)
That’s why I see no problem with traditional expressions of thanksgiving for abundance. Or simply for having “galore:” enough.1
I think each of us has equal dignity. And that we’re all different. Some need help. Others can give help. Giving, and getting, is part of what being human is about. (Catechism, 1934-1938)
I figure that most, maybe all, of us should be giving and getting help. And being thankful when we can give. (Acts 20:35)
I’m pretty sure being thankful when we give others the opportunity to help us make sense, too. And that’s yet another topic.
Here’s the post I took those excerpts from, and other related ones:
I was called “some conservative guy” in social media, several years back. In context, the label made sense. Particularly since I hadn’t been displaying liberal views.
Fact is, I’m like my father-in-law.
Many years back now, he was asked whether he was liberal and conservative.
He said he was Catholic. So am I. And the Catholic Church is literally catholic, καθολικός, katholikos, universal. (from κᾰθόλου: on the whole, general).1
I took a few of those online ‘discover your politics’ quizzes in 2017.
In each, I answered about 20 questions: and learned that I’m a right-wing conservative, a liberal, and a libertarian.
In each case, my assigned label matched political views on economics, state-sponsored micromanagement, that sort of thing.
I think employers should pay folks a reasonable wage, and don’t think a federal agency should tell me what color socks to wear. That very likely accounts for liberal and libertarian labels.
I suspect the right-wing conservative label came from my insistence on seeing humans as people, regardless of age. But it’s been years since I played with those online ‘what are you’ things, and don’t remember details.
Out of Step: a Half-Century-Plus and Counting
If I’d been born a little earlier or later, my teens and the 1960s wouldn’t have overlapped almost exactly. But they did, and that’s affected my attitude.
It was not a serene decade.
Quite a few Americans had started realizing that “legal” isn’t necessarily “right”.
Some were even questioning whether “she’s smart as a man” was really a compliment.
The Vietnam War had become an ongoing SNAFU: arguably on a par with the Charge of the Light Brigade.
America’s self-described defenders of freedom were having fits. In part, I suspect, because (alleged) Communists, fellow travelers, and other folks with controversial ideas, weren’t being consistently silenced.
I was not, putting it mildly, on the same page as The Establishment of that era. But I couldn’t reasonably go along with every belief of what became today’s Establishment.2
Good grief. I couldn’t even be conventionally unconventional, and that’s another topic.
I’ve over-simplified the situation, but the 1960s must have been rough on folks who’d gotten used to having their preferences and paranoia taken seriously.
Protecting Americans From Unsanctioned Ideas
Retracted “Human shields” cartoon, and examples of caricatures by cartoonist Michael Ramirez. (2023)
That cartoon was still visible on the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s website this Wednesday.
Folks visiting the Washington Post’s website, however, will not be exposed to the disturbing image. Because, apparently, it’s “racist”.
Back in my salad days, something offensive could be labeled “Communist”. And then right-thinking publications would shield their readers from the improper idea or image.
The good news then was that not all publications were right-thinking. Not from HUAC’s viewpoint, at any rate.3
The good news now is pretty much the same thing, although The Establishment’s preferred reality has shifted a bit.
On the other hand, folks who have become accustomed to having their preferences and paranoia taken seriously still favor stifling ‘subversive’ ideas to discussing them.
“…He added he’s happy the cartoon has sparked a debate about the ‘systematic undermining of the freedom of speech.’
“‘I want an open debate. I think America is better, more extraordinary because of that,’ he said.
“The two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning artist told Fox News Digital he will have a cartoon addressing what transpired published in Sunday’s edition of the Review-Journal and will pen a piece to accompany it.
“Offering a preview of what he will say, Ramirez cited the Washington Post’s motto ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness,’ saying ‘When the protests and rancor of a distressed newsroom offended by a cartoon exposing the truth causes adults to retreat to their safe spaces, clutching their participation trophies and cancel the freedom of speech, these are truly dark days.’…”
Caricature and Sensitivity
“Low types”, left and right; a person of the “superior races”, center. (1899)
Before I talk about caricature and that conniption-causing cartoon, a word or two about racism: which I’ll take as discriminating against (or for) folks, because they have the wrong (or right) ancestors.
Basically, it’s a bad idea and I shouldn’t do it. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1939)
Which should be obvious, since respecting humanity’s transcendent dignity and acting as if folks matter comes with being Catholic. Or should. (Catechism, 1928-1942)
Now, about caricatures.
They’re pictures of individuals in which the artist emphasized striking characteristics of that person.
In contrast, cartoons are pictures of individuals in which the artist emphasized striking characteristics of that person.
Okay. There’s more to comparing and contrasting caricatures and cartoons. But I’ll leave it at that today.
These days, artists make caricatures for satire, political cartoons and just for fun. Some folks like their caricatured likeness. Others don’t.
And some say they’re offended when a caricature looks like its subject.
The word “caricature” is only a few centuries old, but folks have been drawing caricatures for a long time: at least since someone scribbled that profile on the wall of a Pompeian villa.
All we know about that picture’s model is that he looked like Mr. Magoo. And that someone wrote “rufus est” over his head: “this is Rufus”.4 Who Rufus is, and why someone drew his profile on the wall, is a mystery which may never be solved.
“…War Rages as Outcry Grows….”
Family photo, before Hamas attacked.
I’ve said this before. I do not like wars. Things get broken and people get killed.
The plight of folks living in Gaza has been a regular feature in my news feed.
What’s been less obvious in the headlines is why the Jews have been paying so much attention to a hospital.
As I said last week — given their beliefs, I can’t blame Gaza’s rulers for digging in under their subjects’ homes and public services. They’re getting headlines and sympathy.
Too bad it comes at the expense of their subjects. And that’s yet another topic.
“…Doctors at the hospital say they have been working without power, food or water for days now — and that critically ill patients have died as a result, including newborn babies. People displaced by the fighting in Gaza have been sheltering in the hospital complex….
“…In the brightly lit corridors of the MRI unit, Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus shows us three small stashes of Kalashnikovs, ammunition and bullet-proof vests — he says they have found around 15 guns in all, along with some grenades….
“…'[And] we uncovered a lot of computers and other equipment which could really shed light on the current situation, hopefully regarding hostages as well.’…”
The point of bringing this up again is that, however much it’s under-emphasized in my country’s news, the Hamas tunnel systems are hardly a secret.
And, embarrassing as the idea may be, neither is the Hamas policy of using human shields.
As for whether or not Israel’s government should respect the sincerely held beliefs of Hamas, and not try keeping them from killing more Jews? I talked about double effect and living in a non-ideal world a few weeks back.5
Self-Appointed Guardians of Freedom and Decency: Then and Now
I don’t think the “Human shields” cartoon is racist — any more that Herb Block’s 1951 “Say, What Ever Happened To ‘Freedom-From-Fear?” cartoon was un-American.
I’d prefer that today’s Washington Post be as willing to incur the (self?) righteous wrath of America’s self-appointed guardians of freedom and decency as the paper was in McCarthyism’s heyday.
But editorial staff, and sometimes viewpoints, change with time.
And, although I’m not pleased that the Washington Post decided to let today’s analog to the old “Communist” trigger word suppress a [trigger word] cartoon — I’d be less pleased if a federal agency forced the Washington Post to publish it. Or, for that matter, forbade the Las Vegas Review-Journal from releasing it.6
One more thing before moving on.
I do feel sorry for folks living under Hamas rule. But I do not think it follows that Hamas leaders should be exempt from criticism and caricature.
American and Catholic
Udo Keppler’s anti-Catholic cartoon for Puck magazine: “The American Pope”. (1894)
I’m an American. My country is no longer the youngest in the world, but we’re not quite two and a half centuries old.
I’m also a Catholic. That makes me part of an outfit that’s two millennia old and counting.
There’s no problem, or shouldn’t be, being an American and a Catholic. As a citizen, I should — along with civil authorities — contribute to “…the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom….” (Catechism, 2239)
Civil authorities, politicos included, also have obligations. (Catechism, 2235-2237)
Obedience to and respect for authority are important. That’s reasoned obedience. Blind obedience is a bad idea and I shouldn’t do it. No emperor, king, president or boss is above natural law. (Catechism, 1900-1903, 2242-2243)
And that brings me to a mess involving an ex-bishop, a popular video, and our rules.
He Said WHAT?
Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Tyler, Texas, USA. (Vatican News)
Last week’s news hasn’t pushed the Gaza mess or presidential politics out of first place in my news feed.7 Can’t complain about that. Won’t, anyway.
“Bishop Strickland relieved of pastoral governance of US diocese“ “The Vatican has published the Pope’s decision concerning the pastoral governance of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas, following an apostolic visitation conducted by two US bishops.” Vatican News (November 11, 2023)
“…Cardinal Daniel Nicholas DiNardo, Metropolitan Archbishop of Galveston-Houston, released a statement in which he noted that the prelates who made the visit, Dennis Sullivan, the Bishop of Camden, and Gerald Kicanas, Bishop Emeritus of Tucson, ‘conducted an exhaustive inquired into all aspects of the governance and leadership of the Diocese of Tyler by its Ordinary, Bishop Joseph Strickland.’
“‘As a result of the Visitation,’ the statement continues, ‘the recommendation was made to the Holy Father that the continuation in office of Bishop Strickland was not feasible. After months of careful consideration by the Dicastery for Bishops and the Holy Father, the decision was reached that the resignation of Bishop Strickland should be requested. Having been presented with that request on November 9, 2023, Bishop Strickland declined to resign from office.’ Pope Francis then decided to remove the bishop….”
Maybe a juicy conspiracy theory will develop, inspired by the scattered ‘TRUE FACTS BEHIND…’ headlines I’ve seen.
I hope not. There’s more than enough nonsense bouncing around as it is: including a Catholic version of my country’s End Times Bible Prophecy, playing off the Gaza mess. I’m hoping that doesn’t get traction, and that’s yet again another topic.
I’m running behind schedule, so if I’m going to get this finished by Saturday, I’ll settle for hitting the highlights — that’s not quite the right word, but let it pass — of the Strickland situation, and move along.
Some of the trouble started back in 2020, with a rousing but misleading video.
“Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, has endorsed a video that includes anti-immigrant remarks and homophobic slurs by a priest of Wisconsin in which the priest claims, ‘You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat.’
“The video was released Aug. 30 by Fr. James Altman, pastor of St. James the Less Catholic Church in La Crosse, Wisconsin, and has since received more than 298,000 views….”
“…In referencing Martin’s participation at the Democratic convention last month, Altman labeled the Jesuit priest a ‘a hyper, confusing [!] spreading heretic’ who was a ‘premier speaker’ at the convention.
“In fact, Martin, who is known for promoting LGBTQ inclusion within the Catholic Church, did not speak and instead offered a prayer that included petitions for ‘the LGBT teen who is bullied’ and ‘the unborn child in the womb,’ among other vulnerable and marginalized groups….”
I’ll give Father Altman credit. He’s got a colorful style. And I can see why he was relieved of pastoral duties.
“Fr. James Altman has been removed from ministry after Bishop William Callahan of La Crosse sought privately to correct the priest for his inflammatory, though in some circles popular, commentary on social media.
“‘The obligation of a bishop is to ensure that all who serve the faithful are able to do so while unifying and building the Body of Christ,’ the La Crosse diocese said July 9. ‘Bishop William Patrick Callahan, in accordance with the norms of canon law, has issued a decree for the removal of Fr. James Altman as pastor of St. James the Less Parish.’…”
About Altman and Strickland being relieved of duty: as far as I can tell, they both broke rules about getting political. And in Altman’s case, misrepresented information.
In both cases, again as far as I can tell, due process was followed. And I hope everyone involved can learn something from the experience.
Resources: Political Life From a Catholic Perspective
As I said before, being an American and a Catholic isn’t a problem.
But I should remember that the Catholic Church isn’t an American political party.
I suspect, based on what I saw when I was modestly involved in local and state politics, that one or both of America’s major parties might get to the point where membership and being Catholic are incompatible.
But I hope we’re not there yet. And if we are, I’m not the one to make that call.
As for why J. Strickland and the Wisconsin priest got in trouble: I can guess at what the specific problem was.
Again, I’m running short on time. There’s a (lengthy) discussion of politics and being Catholic here:
“Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life“ Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of November 21, 2002, approved the present Note, adopted in the Plenary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication. Published November 24, 2002, the Solemnity of Christ the King
Irksome as it may be for someone of the ‘God agrees with me’ ilk — the Church isn’t into politics. Not in the ‘you must belong to this party’ or ‘you must not admit to experiencing this temptation’ sense.
The Church’s job, in part, is pointing out what is — and is not — ethical.
And, irksome as it may be for someone of the ‘right and wrong are whatever I feel like’ ilk, some things are right. And some things are simply wrong. Not all that many, and that’s still another topic. Topics.
As I see it, neither of my country’s main political parties have platforms that line up with what the Church says is right.
But I suspect that there are folks in both parties who honestly believe that they are acting for the common good. It strikes me that making it easier for these folks to learn what actually is ethical behavior is a good idea. Now I’ll step down from that soapbox.
After a quick look through Canon Law, all I could find about Catholic clergy and political involvement was this:
Can. 287 §2. “They [clerics] are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.”
Can. 317 §4. “Those who exercise leadership in political parties are not to be moderators in public associations of the Christian faithful which are ordered directly to the exercise of the apostolate.”
About Strickland and Altman: I can see why some devout, and conservative, Catholics may get upset over what’s happened.
And I can see why some devout, and liberal, Catholics may get upset when they realize that this isn’t the dawn of a glorious — and liberal — revolution in the Church.
Me? I’m Catholic. I think the Pope is Catholic. I also think the Church has been Catholic for two millennia: and that’s not going to change.
Cancel Culture: New Phrase, Old Habit
This isn’t the America I grew up in.
Back then, HUAC was protecting us from Communists, composers, fellow travelers, and other dangerous subversives.
That’s what they said they were doing, at any rate.
It was a long time before I realized there really was a “Communist threat”, and if I don’t stop reminiscing I won’t get this finished.
HUAC finally folded in 1975. We haven’t had anything quite like it, or the Army-McCarthy hearings, since.8 Which doesn’t disappoint me one bit.
These days, trigger words and phrases like “Communist” and “national security” don’t get the response — and broad support — they used to. Which, again, doesn’t disappoint me.
Now we’ve got new trigger words and phrases: like “racist” and “inclusive”. This, I’m not too thrilled about.
What’s been happening lately isn’t “McCarthyism”, and I’m pretty sure folks who want “racist” political cartoons banned feel that they’re protecting us. But I’m no great fan of “cancel culture”.
“Cancel culture is a phrase contemporary to the late 2010s and early 2020s used to refer to a culture in which those who are deemed to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner are ostracized, boycotted, or shunned. The term ‘cancel culture’ is predominantly used when these responses are to right-wing actions or speech, but is rare when the responses are to left-wing actions or speech….” (Cancel culture, Wikipedia) [emphasis mine]
Interestingly, Pope Francis doesn’t approve of “cancel culture” either:
“…As a result, agendas are increasingly dictated by a mindset that rejects the natural foundations of humanity and the cultural roots that constitute the identity of many peoples. As I have stated on other occasions, I consider this a form of ideological colonization, one that leaves no room for freedom of expression and is now taking the form of the ‘cancel culture’ invading many circles and public institutions. Under the guise of defending diversity, it ends up cancelling all sense of identity, with the risk of silencing positions that defend a respectful and balanced understanding of various sensibilities. A kind of dangerous ‘one-track thinking’ [pensée unique] is taking shape, one constrained to deny history or, worse yet, to rewrite it in terms of present-day categories, whereas any historical situation must be interpreted in the light of a hermeneutics of that particular time, not that of today….” (To the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See, Pope Francis (January 10, 2022)) [emphasis mine]
What’s funny, or sad, or both, is that folks who were on the McCarthy bandwagon and those who now strive to suppress ideas which aren’t theirs, may sincerely believe that what they’re doing is right.
(Only) Free to Agree With Me is Not Freedom
Self-appointed defenders of freedom, caricatured in the Washington Post. (1947-1954)
“Free to agree with me is not freedom” has been a catchphrase of mine.
I knew what I meant, so I didn’t realize how ambiguous it was. Maybe “murky” would be a better word.
Anyway, after some thought I decided that “only free to agree with me” is closer to what I have in mind.
Freedom has been a big deal in my country from day one.
“…In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people….” (Declaration of Independence: A Transcription — America’s Founding Documents, National Archives)
It didn’t take long to realize that our freedoms needed to be spelled out.
“…Article the third… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances….” (The Bill of Rights: A Transcription — America’s Founding Documents, National Archives)
It’s been an ongoing process. Partly because folks who influence or control key parts of government, media, education and other institutions, can forget that folks like me aren’t the enemy. My opinion.
That’s not an elegant way of expressing the idea; but it’s late, and I’m in a hurry.
Let’s take a hypothetical situation, imagining that by some freakish violation of probability, I became editor-in-chief of Liberty’s Blinding Light — a thoroughly fictional newspaper, part of the equally-fictional TDNN news corporation.
No. Even for me, that’s too hypothetical.
I am profoundly not corporate executive material.
The point I was groping for was that seeing ‘not mine’ opinions as subversive or otherwise [trigger word] can be easy.
Particularly for someone with sincerely-held opinions, who has lived among like-minded folks most of his or her life.
I’ve got sincerely-held opinions, lots of them. Some more important to me than others.
But I grew up in the 1960s. If folks who had been leaning toward McCarthyism’s views had made more sense, I might have taken them more seriously. But they didn’t. Neither did many of those who became supporters of today’s Establishment.9
“Leaves of Grass”, Underground Comix, and “Banned in Boston”
As it was, I remember when “banned in Boston” still mattered.
As something other than incentive for folks to go see what had upset the Boston Brahmins this time, that is.
On the other hand, I can sympathize with tight-collar folks. Sometimes I even think they’ve got a point.
But I’m not even close to thinking that celebrating Christmas is “Satanical”.
“The Obferation of Christmas having been deemed a Sacrilege, the exchanging of Gifts and Greetings, dreffing in Fine Clothing, Feafting and similar Satanical Practices are hereby FORBIDDEN” (Public notice deeming Christmas illegal. Boston (1659))
I’ve also not been filled with holy zeal and an urge to burn copies of Walt Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass”. Although, again, I can see why someone might, back in the ‘good old days’ of the 1850s.
A big, make that huge, problem I see with ham-handed suppression of [trigger word] opinions and ideas is that folks who hold them don’t always stay suppressed.
Underground comix, for example, still aren’t exactly mainstream.10
But they did, I think, encourage folks who had been willing to try something — almost anything — other than the ‘God agrees with me’ version of patriotism and ‘buy stuff you don’t need with money you don’t have to impress folks you don’t like’ notion of “success”.
Bottom line: opinions and ideas that make sense will, eventually, slip past the censors.
So will those that don’t make sense.
I prefer not being protected from [trigger word] cartoons. Not even those created by a cartoonist who went from national syndication to off-the-radar in a matter of days. As far as I can tell.
And that’s — actually, that’s not another topic, but it’s all I have time for this week.
michaelpramirez.com (November 15, 2023, “The connection has timed out / The server at michaelpramirez.com is taking too long to respond.” — November 17, 2023, Michael P. Ramiraz’s site was accessible. And [unrepentant??].)
Something new each Saturday.
Life, the universe and my circumstances permitting. I'm focusing on 'family stories' at the moment. ("A Change of Pace: Family Stories" (11/23/2024))
Blog - David Torkington
Spiritual theologian, author and speaker, specializing in prayer, Christian spirituality and mystical theology [the kind that makes sense-BHG]
I was born in 1951. I'm a husband, father and grandfather. One of the kids graduated from college in December, 2008, and is helping her husband run businesses and raise my granddaughter; another is a cartoonist and artist; #3 daughter is a writer; my son is developing a digital game with #3 and #1 daughters. I'm also a writer and artist.
Text characters, the ones used online at any rate, include symbols that aren’t letters of the alphabet, punctuation, or numbers.
Although I’m not “white” by some standards, which haven’t been current for several generations now, I’m definitely melanin-deficient.
![NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration's image: part of the Veil Nebula, a composite of many separate exposures made by the WFPC2 (Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2) instrument on the Hubble Space Telescope. The assigned colors are: F502N ([O III]) blue, F656N (Halpha) green, F673N ([S II]) red. (exposures taken November 1994, August 1997)](https://i0.wp.com/brendans-island.com/blogsource/20231112ff/20231201-800px-Veil_Nebula_by_Hubble_2007-_segment_2-658.jpg?w=640&ssl=1)
Apart, that is, from adding the usual links:
