Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

Ellen Goodman has struck again. This time she’s off on one of her favorite topics, the Catholic Church, and What Is Wrong With It. Of course she chooses to discuss The Doc (I know, I know, some of you are sick of this….then skip this post!). It’s a syndicated column that ran in several papers around Ohio, and can easily be found on the internet or the Boston Globe website (she’s a Globe columnist). That is, if you feel like stomaching the whole thing.

In the words of Love Story , “Where do I begin?” Let’s dissect, shall we? Not that there’s much to it. Essentially she says that the Church used to believe that homosexuality was biological; people “d[id] not choose their homosexual condition.” But now the Church is banning not just those who are actively gay, but those who have homosexual “tendencies”. And this means that “a drunk or an ex-con is OK; a chaste, gay seminarian is not.”

Let’s stop there. First of all, I didn’t know the Church had changed its mind on it being biological, or at the very least something a person didn’t choose. If they have, I’m late to the party. But Goodman’s wrong when she says that a “chaste, gay seminarian is not” OK for the priesthood. In fact, that’s not what the document says. As I’ve said almost ad nauseum the document is reaffirming the idea that priests must be celibate and faithful to Church teaching if they are to be priests. This isn’t new. If you’re gay and celibate and fully believe what the Church teaches and tend to teach and defend that as a priest, then come on board. That’s fine.

Goodman also says that we’re going against nature and saying that the Church has labeled homosexuality as “intrinscly disordered”, thereby denying the biological angle. I don’t know about that. I’d say that quite a few people have an intrinsicly disordered sense of many things, including alcohol, sex, money, take your pick. That’s how we have addicts in the world. There’s evidence that alcoholism may be biological. That’s an intrinsic disorder. Instrinsic means “belonging naturally”; if it’s in your genes to be an alcoholic, then that’s what’s in your naturally. You didn’t change it. It just happened. But that doesn’t mean that you’re cut out to be an AA teacher. If you’re addicted to money and profit then one probably shouldn’t work in a brokerage house where those things are readily available for the taking. If you’re a food addict then working in a restaurant isn’t the best idea for you. If you’re a homosexual and not able or ready to be chaste, then you shouldn’t be a priest. Same with heterosexual men. This isn’t denying biology. It’s just saying that maybe this profession isn’t for you.

She ends with “the new pope’s Vatican has proclaimed homosexuals themselves as the sin. The case is closed, and so are the doors of the seminary.” That’s just complete and utter nonsense. B XVI has said no such thing, and neither has the Curia or the Magesterium. The only thing this document says is that if you’re practicing homosexual practices and are unwilling to be chaste, or a seminarian who actively supports gay culture and lifestyle, then you’re going against the Church’s practice and should not be in a position to teach on Church doctrine. It’s like hiring a math teacher who doesn’t believe in addition. It just doesn’t make sense. But if you want to be a priest, you are chaste and celibate, and you believe what the Church teaches and are willing to protect and defend it, then come on in. We could use you. Why does the Left have to make this so hard?

I’ve concluded that Darwin needed to meet C.S. Lewis.

In reading the Faith and Values section of the Dispatch this week, where there was a front-page story on Darwin, there was a pulled quote that read: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficient and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitics wasps with the express intention o ftheir feeding within the living bodies of catepillars.” The article continues with the idea that Darwin, who at one time was in training to be an Episcopal minister, wanted to believe in God, but “couldn’t,” because of the problem of pain. That’s why I think he needed to meet Lewis; Lewis wrote a masterful volume with that same name that discusses why God, if He is Love and is all-good, would send pain to his people. It’s been awhile since I read it, but Lewis’ points seem to be that God sets in play certain laws of nature, and those laws can tend to cause people pain. God doesn’t send a person cancer, for example, but he created the human body, and in that human body certain cells can mutate to cause cancer. Does God avert it? Certainly. He is all-powerful, after all. But most of the time He chooses not to, and since He knows what’s best for us, in His eternal plan for us, He probably knows better than we do. Does that make suffering any easier? Take it from me, it doesn’t at first. But it can bring us consolation to know that God is with us in everything we do. Mother Teresa used to call suffering the embrace of Jesus, that you are so close to Jesus when you suffer that He can literally hug you. That’s helped me, as well as the Catholic idea of redemptive suffering, which St. Therese knew, which Dostoevsky (although not Catholic) also knew–that humanity is connected by a vast web of suffering and love, and by offering up our suffering to that web we join all humanity, and can help others. It’s kind of a vague and probably weird idea to those not acquainted with it, but Catholics, especially cradle Catholics (mothers: “offer it up!”) will know what I mean. And yet Darwin, the great scientist, was unable to see that nature has its own God-given rules and methods. Sometimes those methods are malignant. But that’s nature.

The big problem I have with Darwin isn’t the basic idea of evolution. I’m with the Church on that; humans haven’t always looked the way we do now. But Darwin didn’t see human beings as anything special; he believed in the ape theory (heck, he coined the ape theory). That’s distinctly un-Christian–Christians of all stripes believe that we were created “in His image” and the Jesus is the “Word made Flesh”–He is the Son of God, and since Jesus wasn’t an ape, I don’t think God is either. Hence, we were not apes. Does that mean that we’re not connected to them? No. But we didn’t come from them. We are different among all animals. We are distinct. We can reason. We have a soul–animals don’t. We were all created by God, but only humans were created in God’s image. And that’s enough for me. Darwin didn’t see that.

Poor guy. The article said he didn’t want to cause all this ruckus…that’s why he waited so long to publish Origins of the Species . But he was certainly confused, much like Camus, who said he was an atheist because he couldn’t believe in a God who would let one innocent child die. But too many people see these things as God “letting” them happen. God has a plan for everyone. Sometimes it’s tragic and seems pointless to us. But that’s where faith comes in. You have to believe that nothing is pointless, there is no maleficient action on God’s part. He doesn’t “willingly afflict the children of men,” as the Episcopalians say in the Book of Common Prayer . But He does allow suffering. Often it’s the only way we grow closer to Him. Too bad Darwin didn’t use it that way.

In the spirit of the season, I thought it would be fun to have a “name that carol” sort of thing, just for the Christmas season, and give y’all something to look forward to. Play, don’t play–choice is yours. If you’d like to wager a guess, respond in the comment section or email catholicpostergirl@yahoo.com. The person who guesses the most right gets his/her name in the blog (what a reward!) And for the most part these will be hymns–unless I run out…

Today’s:

Hail the Heaven-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and Life to all He brings
Risen with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that Man no more may die
Born to raise the Sons of Earth
Born to give them second birth

Bonus points if you know the composer….

I just finished the remarkable work of St. Teresa of Avila (first female doctor of the Church), The Interior Castle , which is on my short list of “Theological works one must read before he dies.” It is truly amazing. Written with a deft touch, it covers the subject of prayer, but it is so much more than that.

St. Teresa asks us to envision our soul as an “interior castle” that is made up of seven “mansions”. The first mansion is outside the gates of the castle, where we are most easily tempted to fall away from God and prayer and are living in sloth, not devoting much time to God or meditation in prayer. The seventh castle is one step away from Heaven, where you are as closely joined to God through prayer as one can be on Earth. This, St. Teresa says, is something all of us can aspire to. Her audience was her fellow sisters in the Carmelite convent, but her words are equally applicable to all of us, even in the twenty-first century.

The book discusses the best ways to pray, how to address periods of “aridity”, or spiritual dryness, what suffering means, how to make the most of suffering, what God expects of us, confession, and many other topics. Her goal is to draw us closer to God and perfection, and she acknowledges that it is not easy. She writes in a conversational tone, and, like Thomas a Kempis, writes in short (although not as short as his) chapters, divided into subsections, which make for ease of reading. Of course, what translation you pick will also determine how easy it is to read, and again I found myself choosing the Barnes and Noble library of Essential Reading edition, which gave a great, clear translation with adequate notes and a good introduction (although a little heavy on the new-age feminist stuff…oh well).

I can’t really praise this book enough, other than to say you must read it immediately. It’s perfect for mediation, as well, and shouldn’t be read straight through, although it can be. Time is needed to reflect upon and absorb the things that this great Doctor of the Church is trying to teach us. Although she often refers to herself as dumb and ignorant, it is evident that she is none of these things and is, in fact, providing us with profound yet accessible insight. It’s a great book to give for Christmas, and perfect spiritual reading.

I love Harry Potter–love him, love him, love him. Even though I’m not a big “fantasy” person (I didn’t really like Lord of the Rings —yes, I know that’s sacrilege….), but I’ve been hooked on Harry ever since the first book came out. And as a fan of the books, I also tend to be a fan of the movies (although I’m still mad that Book 3 was gutted so on the big screen….and the location change! What’s up with that?), and Goblet of Fire is definitely worthy of my recognition and respect. It’s a good old-fashioned thriller, essentially, and I will say it takes the massive book and trims it down to it’s thriller components, which makes for a quite brisk and goosebump-inducing ride.

This is not a movie for small children, unless they don’t scare easily. I saw this movie with one of my best friends and she had her coat up around her eyes numerous times (it doesn’t help that she doesn’t like snakes or spiders). And there’s a death in this movie (no spoilers here), so take caution.

I won’t spend a lot of time rehashing the plot, because I think we all know it by now–Harry’s in his fourth year at Hogwarts, with his buddies Hermione and Ron. This year there’s a new twist; there’s going to be Tri-Wizard Tournament, featuring students from Beauxbatons (a French witches’ academy–great costumes, by the way) and students from Durmstrang (a Nordic Warlocks academy with a very appropriate name–think Wagner opera and it will come to you). There is to be one champion competing from each school and you have to be over 17. Of course, Harry ends up as an unexpected fourth champion and is entered, because your name coming out of te Goblet constitutes a “binding, magical contract” which cannot be broken. So even though Harry is younger than the others, he will compete in three extremely nerve-wracking tasks–facing a dragon, rescuing a captive from the mermaids in the school lake, and getting through an enormous maze without getting killed. These would be hard enough, but combine the tasks with girl troubles and classwork, and a fight with Ron, Harry’s got a lot on his plate. The Final Task ends up being much more than her ever bargained for; it is there that he meets Voldermort, the most evil wizard ever, who tried to kill him at the beginning of the saga and who Harry has been thwarting ever since.

The acting is good; the kids have grown into their roles and play them with depth and passion. I especially appreciated Emma Watson’s turn as Hermione in this film. The staff members are more or less superflous, save Mad-Eye Moody (Brendan Gleeson), the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher (who turns Malfoy into a ferret!!), and Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). But there’s enough Snape and McGonagall to keep us interested (watch the scene where McGonagall is giving ballroom dancing lessons and uses Ron as a prop), and there’s Hagrid, who falls in love with the French headmistress. Ralph Fiennes is note-perfect as the creepy and diabolical Voldermort. In a way, I feel bad for the guy–it seems like he was born to play nothing by bad characters (see Schindler’s List ). He’s just too perfectly suited for them. He must be getting typecast left and right.

The special effects are nicely done but not overpowering, and the cinematography elegantly conveys the darkness of the plot. This is one dark movie. The score, by Patrick Doyle this time instead of John Williams (who was writing the score for Memoirs of a Geisha at this time) is also very well done, and more subtle that Williams’ efforts (the famous “Hedwig’s Theme” does make an appearance, although in a decidedly minor key).

Overall, a very nice picture that conveys good and evil in ways that everyone can appreciate. It’s nice to see a film where good and evil are clearly sketched out, courage is required, and morality is the order of the day–even if it does take place at a wizarding school. Go see and enjoy.

A post from The Corner yesterday, courtsey of The Derb (if you don’t read the Corner, you really, really need to…I post the site all the time, but here it is again: http://corner.nationalreview.com )

ABORTION AND CRIME [John Derbyshire]
Steve Sailer has been conducting a lonely and too-little-noticed campaign these past few years to demonstrate that “Freakonomics” author Steven D. Levitt is all wet on abortion and crime.

It also illustrates the importance to the political Right of having some competent datanauts on our side. Steve is amazingly good at this (he likes to describe himself as “the only Republican who knows Microsoft Excel”), and it is astonishing that some conservative think tank hasn’t got him on a big fat permanent retainer by now.