Journeys of a Catholic Poster Girl

Today’s mind-blowing Biblical Studies idea: 

“Reading the Scriptures is like going to Communion.” –Dr. Miletic. 

We were talking about the Catechism and doing what we would call in the English Department a “Close reading”, where we read the text and then dig around in it for its meaning. The text at hand was paragraph 103, which says that we (The Church) venerates Scripture as it does Christ’s body. 

Dr. Miletic then asked us for the connection between the two. We hemmed and hawed. 

“What do you do when you go to communion?”
Receive Jesus–body, soul, divinity.

“Yes. And that is also what you do when you read Scripture. Reading Scripture is like going to Communion.” 

I was blown away. Really. I had never thought of this that way. “The scriptures are sacramental,” he continued. “That’s why only an ordained minister can read the Gospel.”  

Wow. The same thing happens we when we read scripture as happens when we receive Communion! And I have a Bible around all the time!

I will be reading more of my Bible, that’s for sure.

“God has brought you here to stretch you.” –Dr. Miletic

So today at around 5:00 I went back to school. 

A big box, delivered via UPS, was waiting for me in my apartment office. Inside was one spiral bound course text and two binders–one for Principles of Biblical Study I and one for Sacraments. I opened the box rather ceremoniously, with scissors, as opposed to my usual grab and tear open method. 

I read the course materials, the Distance Learning Guidelines and ‘how to submit assignments.” Biblical studies has no exams, just papers, which increase in the difficulty (the first was really just a worksheet!), culminating in a 10 page exegesis paper, which is basically a close reading of a Biblical text. Sacraments, on the other hand, has no papers, just a midterm and a final. I had to order the documents of Vatican II, which I should get on Saturday, so I decided to start Biblical Studies (211/511) today. 

I found a blue legal pad left over from my days at Cap, grabbed a mechanical pencil, and put the CD into my DVD player. Perched on my rocking chair I selected the first lecture. 

It was great. I felt like I was right in the classroom with them, on the first day of some balmy August. The professor, Dr. Miletic, is 1) VERY easy to understand , 2) wickedly intelligent and 3) very funny. My hand was flying over the notepad as I took notes. It was incredibly exciting, invigorating, astounding. 

He talked about the usual things–class expectations, the syllabus, the texts for the class. Then, since the class focuses on the Old Testament (OT), he talked about how it came into being–first in Hebrew, then translated into Greek by Alexander the Great around 330 AD. He discussed how the OT and the NT are intertwined, how you cannot really know one without the other. We even talked about the hypostatic union! (which is the idea that Jesus is both God and Man–he is an invisible, eternal person who also took on a finite human nature).  He was great. All the ideas flowed seamlessly into another. And then the class was over.

The assignments were: start the worksheet (asssingment 1–I actually finished it, go me!) Read 40 paragraphs of the CCC on Sacred Scripture (101-141), and then read Dr. Miletic’s handout on what we just read in the CCC (very helpful). Then, start reading Genesis. 

OK so I got through the first three things. CCC, handout, worksheet. Done. Filed the worksheet to be mailed in when it was due. 

Then I picked up my Bible. For my MA I’m using the Ignatius version since I love the RSV translation. I thought, well, I’ll just read until I get bored. Genesis is 50 chapters and I have weeks to read it. (We have a long time with Genesis. Then we’re reading like a book of the Bible every two days.) 

I picked up the pencil and notepad again and began to read. I read the whole thing, noting typology (where Jesus is prefigured in the NT), the covenant, and made a rough timeline–who was born when, who married who, when Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt. Which of Jacob’s wives had which of his 13 kids. 

When I was finished I wanted to go on to Exodus–much like I wanted to go on to the next lecture. But I didn’t. I typed up my notes (might come in handy later) and checked off the assignments. 

Tomorrow I’ve got my first Sacraments lecture. There’s no actual assigned reading, so I’m not quite sure how this will work, but whatever. We’ll find out. 

On the tentative schedule I made, I will be done with both these classes in mid-September. I have six months from the date the courses are mailed to finish, so my completion date was early-to-mid November. I LOVE being ahead! Basically I set it up like so: MWF–Sacraments; T Th–Biblical Studies. Now if Sacraments ends up being longer than 50 minutes, I’ll switch, but I think this will work well. Biblical Studies has a ton of reading with it, so I’ll probably need more time to get that all done as I get to things like “Numbers/Deuteronomy in two days”.

From the wonderful Fr. Z:

I was alerted to this item by the blog Meeting Christ In The Liturgy.

Apparently Archbishop Wuerl of Washington DC instructed one of his staff to letting priests know that there won’t be a meeting with Christ in an upcoming wymynpryst “mass” at a Dorothy Day Center in the Archdiocese.

The organizers have been contacted, but they are going ahead with it anyway.

The letter can be found here.

Seriously–the first work out of my mouth this morning, when I read the following, was, “ARGH!!!!”
The letter in today’s Columbus Dispatch–”Obama Presidency Would Be A Good Fit For Catholics”

ARGH!!!
My comments and emphases in bold.

Obama presidency would be a good fit for Catholics
Saturday, September 6, 2008 3:09 AM

While the agents of division seek to deceive Catholic voters with single issues (gee, only the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE!) and stories of Communion denials, there is much for Catholics to look forward to with a Barack Obama presidency.

With families struggling to survive, as both parents work jobs under threats of layoffs, America needs new leadership. With health-care costs soaring and millions of Americans without health insurance, America needs a new plan.

With our country at war and relations with other countries strained, America needs a new strategy. With our educational systems failing and our children falling behind, America needs a new perspective. With our planet warming and energy costs rising, America needs to show the way.

As a Catholic going to the polls this November, I am mindful of these shared problems we face as Americans. My faith and love for my country compel me to vote for a candidate who will bring a systematic reform of No Child Left Behind.(No, your duties as a Catholic compel you to vote for the candidate who is PRO LIFE, sorry, buddy.)

As a Catholic, I am called to vote for the candidate who will bring improved access to health care for the poor and for working families. As a Catholic, I seek a candidate who supports a lowering of the federal deficit. I seek a candidate who seeks a realistic investment in alternative energy, speaking to the call I have as a Catholic to be a good steward of the environment. NO! AS a CATHOLIC, you are to seek the protection of the most vulnerable–Children in the womb! This is a non-negotiable issue, say the bishops, say the pope, says the CCC

As a Catholic watching my country from a worldview, I seek a candidate who will end the harsh interrogation of detainees and restore our respect and relations globally. As a Catholic, I seek a candidate who works to address the circumstances surrounding a woman’s decision to have an abortion and works to reduce and eliminate abortions in this country. (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

The possibility for an Obama presidency brings the prospect of a national unity not felt since the presidency of John F. Kennedy. Catholic social teaching proclaims that we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, no matter if they are rich, poor, white or black. (Gee, Catholic social teaching ALSO is TOTALLY PRO LIFE and says Abortion is a “grave sin”.)

As president, Obama will tend to the dignity of the human person. (The Man is for INFANTICIDE. That’s protecting the dignity of the human person? )We will hear his call to family, community and participation. Rights will become a priority, as will options for the poor and vulnerable. As president, Obama will bring dignity back to work and secure the rights of workers.

As our nation regains respect in the world, I believe an Obama presidency will bring solidarity to our planet, as well as care for God’s creation. These tenets and issues are part of my being, part of my faith narrative (Faith narrative?? What the heck does THAT mean?) and the reasons I will vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden this November.

Oh my. This man needs a good, solid dose of WDTPRS? and a reading of the CCC.
All of those things–the right to work, the environment, etc.–are important to Catholics. But they are not non-negotiable. Abortion is. We cannot, in good conscience, vote for a candidate who is pro-choice, never mind a candidate like Obama who supports infanticidewhere this is a solid pro-life option available.
In this election, we have that option.

So you know how some people (like, OK, me) occasionally say they’d like to hear the bishops speak out on this pro-choice Catholic politicians taking communion thing? 

Well, thank God, they finally have, in response to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) theological stupidity.

What the Speaker said, on Meet the Press: (emphasis and comments mine) 

REP. PELOSI:  I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.  And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition.  And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months (that would be St. Thomas Aquinas, not St. Augustine).  We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.  Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester.  There’s very clear distinctions.  This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god.  And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.  As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW:  The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI:  I understand that.

MR. BROKAW:  …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI:  I understand.  And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that.  So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.  But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.  And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions.  That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception.  My Republican colleagues do not support contraception.  If you want to reduce the number of abortions, and we all do, we must–it would behoove you to support family planning and, and contraception, you would think.  But that is not the case.  So we have to take–you know, we have to handle this as respectfully–this is sacred ground. We have to handle it very respectfully and not politicize it, as it has been–and I’m not saying Rick Warren did, because I don’t think he did, but others will try to.

(we’ll forget the fact that she confused St. Augustine with St. Thomas Aquinas for one minute)

And I guess 70 AD is, um, 50 years ago. (this link also has a video! and h/t dad for the linkage)

Well apparently this travesty of theology could not go unremarked upon by the higher-ups. So:

First, from my cousin (family love flying high right now). Here’s the press release

The following statement is from Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl: 

On Meet the Press this past Sunday, August 23, 2008, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made statements regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church, human life and abortion that were incorrect. 

Speaker Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic. She went on to say, “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition…” After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.”

We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: the current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago. The Catechism reads: 

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (Catechism, 2270-2271)

The Catechism goes on to quote the Didache, a treatise that dates to the first century: “’You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”

From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death. 

And then, from Cardinal Egan in NYC: (h/t Corner)

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN

CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

            Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008.  What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age. 

            We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers.  No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb.  In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons.  They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith.  Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

                                                            Edward Cardinal Egan

I guess the real key to getting an episcopal reaction is to go on National TV and really, really flub up Catholic theology. 

I also liked Archbishop Chaput’s call for V-P candidate Biden not to receive communion. 

As Archbishop Chaput said, “BE CATHOLIC.” You have to take what the Church believes hook, line and sinker if you’re going to be Catholic, the way we’re supposed to be, if our faith is our “North Star” (Arch. Chaput). You can’t just muddle the theology and hem and haw to try to make it support your position if it doesn’t. 

Today’s gospel was perfect for my state of mind lately; Jesus spoke about not worrying what to say when you are questioned about your faith, because he will give you the words that no one can refute. He promised that “not a hair on [our] head[s]” will be lost. He takes such good care of us–I think that is something that we often forget.

We think that if God loved us, then He’d sort of “leave us alone”; that is, we’d have enough money, perfect health, etc., etc. Everything would be easy. But if you look at the lives of those God and Jesus loved, it was the exact opposite. Mary was told at Jesus’ presentation that a sword would pierce her heart. John, the “beloved disciple”, died in exile on Patmos. Peter and some of the other apostles were crucified. How many saints had illness, the “dark night”, doubt, pain, fear? Almost all of them. Look at Jesus himself, the “beloved Son”–crucified. For love of us. God’s love is, to our human way of thinking,a funny kind of love. But we have to remember that His knowledge is perfect. He wants us to be with Him in Heaven, and if that takes discomfort and pain, etc., then that’s what it takes. And it doesn’t take that for everyone. I’m re-reading St. Teresa of Avila’ s The Interior Castle, and in her discussion of the First Mansion, she discusses this point, saying, “there are different way of being in this castle”; she writes later that “if we start with the false principle of wishing God to follow our will and to lead us in the way we think best, upon what firm foundation can this spiritual edifice rest?” RTusting God is vital. But that doesn’t mean we can’t doubt. Mother Angelica said

Don’t worry if you have doubts. Doubts do not displease God. They are permitted by Him–permitted to bring out the depth of faith within us.

But this was all just one part of the Gospel. The other part, the first part, about not being afraid of what to say because Jesus will give us the words, is what I’ve been dealing with lately. So many people seem to want to blunt God’s truth and what His Church teaches. They want balance. They want other ideas presented. This is not a political arena. There are no other sides in the Catholic Church. There is right, and there is wrong. There is sin, and there is virtue. There is Heaven, there is Hell (well, OK, Purgatory too, but you know what I mean). I know people who want to present sin, heresy, blasphemy (all good old-fashioned words we’re too afraid to use anymore) as “alternatives” or “other ideas” or “balance.” Well, there isn’t balance when we’re talking faith. God will keep us from error, but I don’t want to have my parish end up like some Protestant denominations, who write statements like (and I’m paraphrasing), “abortion is bad, but if you really need to have one, then you should be able to. (Side note: What other sin do we talk about like this? None. We don’t say, “well murder is bad, but if you really need to kill someone, do it.” “Well, stealing is bad, but if you need to..” “adultery is bad, but…” Only abortion. Funny.) NO.

One among the many things I love about Catholicism is its total definitiveness. There is right and wrong. Black and white. This is what is good, and this is what is not. There’s no wishy-washy beating ’round the bush. You know what’s going on, and if you don’t, get thee to your CCC. If you’re Catholic, be Catholic. Believe what we believe hook, line and sinker. Or go find a church that believes what you believe. To pull the name of a blog, “The cafeteria is closed.” No more of this balance talk. We have to talk truth.

Well not really a response as much as a clarification, I think.  Since I’ve received two comments, which is a lot for me (!), I figure it’s worth it.

One blogger wrote in to say that no political party in the U.S. meets all the criteria of the Magesterium. This is true. However, there is a crucial distinction between the church’s stance on abortion and the death penalty, as seen in the CCC.

On abortion:

2270    Human life must be respected  and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person–  among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271    Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.

2273    The inalienable right to life of every innocent human being is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation. (emphasis in the original)

Note the use of innocent in the above passages as well.

Now, note what the CCC says about capital punishment:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limits itself to those means, as these are more in condition with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

…the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if practically non-existent.” (CCC quoting JPII’s Evangelium Vitae)

See the difference? Abortion is ALWAYS morally wrong. There is never an acceptable circumstance. Even though the Church states (correctly) that the cases where an execution is morally permissible are incredibly rare (which I agree with, obviously), there is still a tiny window left for the cases that truly deserve (can I use that word?) the death penalty.  It is not absolutely morally prohibited.

Thus, if you’re going to weigh one against the other, you would have to side with the pro-life (meaning against abortion) candidate, since that is the absolute moral evil. Besides which, I find it personally difficult to reconcile the doctrine many liberals espouse (including Sr. Helen Prejean and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor) that the death penalty for criminals is wrong, but that partial-birth abortion, where a baby’s brain is sucked out of its skull while the baby is alive, is OK. That just seems wrong to me.

I decided in high school that if I was going to be pro-life it had to be all the way. So I studied my views and decided it was more important for me to be inline with my church than my party. Some of my partymates give me crap for this, but I figure whatever. And the Church does allow very, very rare instances of death penalty use.

I hope this clarifies the doctrine. I have not quoted everything the CCC has to say on these issues, nor have I included their biblical and doctrinal (i.e, the Didache) footnotes. But you can look it up yourself if you want more.

Great Post!