Safe Haven

Faith sees things that can't be ordinarily seen, because it pertains to things beyond rational demonstration. Not contrary to things known by reason, but beyond; that is, above. I'm going to leave the philosophy to the experts, at this point. But we should not be afraid of a theology of personal encounter. I don't have doubts, as people tend to think of them, because Jesus has spoken to me personally. The same Jesus who gives the divine gift of holiness to His Church. It had only remained for me to re-orient myself to the means by which supernatural revelation is known, viz. the Catholic Church. There was a time when I knew things supernatural without understanding how I knew them. And before reconciling to the Church, what I knew, I knew imperfectly. Sooner or later, it has to come down to the fact that Jesus has come, died for our sins, and rose from the dead. There is much more "of faith" than this, but if you start here, it's very possible to end in th...

Pastoral theology isn't just for pastors. Pastoral theology is the art and science of leading people to know, understand, and love God. It involves essentially "translating" the truths of the faith into language and experience that people understand. Sometimes, though, it involves sinners being sinners. We all know that correction and admonition can be part of that, but how do you actually speak the truth in love, in concrete situations? If it is true that God has designed our sexuality in a particular way, such that any number of behaviors are contrary to His purpose by their very nature, I have to speak that truth at some point. Maybe not in 30 seconds. Maybe not upon meeting their loved ones for the first time. Maybe not. But if I never say it, if I don't hold out God's design and purpose as a goal, then I do not love them as God does, and for His sake. But someone linked a story, obviously to provoke a reaction, of a "gay" couple bringing forward...

The truth is, before the accident, I was carefree. Getting hit by a car while "walking" was a running joke. It still is, it's just way darker now! Anyway, I get scared now. They tell me it will pass, and maybe it will, but frankly, I've had close calls since. I don't mean to scare you. People turn, and they don't look. Why would you not look? We have well-marked crosswalks here. I do check for turn signals on cars, but if you don't signal, you're going to kill someone. No, you can't sneak that quick turn in. Just don't. And let's get something out in the open: when you see a person in a wheelchair on the street, you probably think, "How great to see a person with those challenges out and about!" I'm just walking. I have things to do; I don't have time to engage in pity parties, or your inspirational reverie. Point is, we're out here, there are a lot of us, and you need to look. I live in a building with 80 other pe...

I went to Confession today, confessing things I've done before. The advice was the same, too. But God, as supreme Love, keeps no record of wrongs, either. I must give thanks for His priest, who embodies this spirit also. It was much like I had never gone there before. Do we know the bounty of His love, or are we expecting to be endlessly whacked with a celestial clipboard, at best? This is not to say we don't have doctrines and dogmas and so on. Too many think "love" cares nothing for these. But I invite you to consider this: if God indeed wills our salvation, as He says many times, then we ought never think God is against us. On the other hand, lest we think we have the power within us, we remember that every single movement toward God we have undertaken or will undertake is enabled by His grace. This is a great and holy mystery. The encouragement we must draw is this: we acknowledge our sins without being sucked down by them. If we give up on ourselves, we par...

I'm a bit testy today on social media. [Aren't you always testy?--ed.] Probably. I don't have hate-watch groups and "I got banned by Jason Kettinger!" clubs yet, though. I just don't like traditionalists. I don't like them. I don't want to hear about the Latin Mass. I don't care. I've tried to care. I'm not a hippie; I just attend the Novus Ordo all the time, and I. Don't. Care. I want the Holy Mass to be reverent, and according to the rubrics. But everything after that statement is the first step to dissent. I want no part of it. I understand that the pope is not routinely infallible; I also understand that many people feel the need to remind him of that. I'm sure his spiritual director has tons of work to do. Good. But you are not that guy. I digress. I'm not always nice, or even charitable about it, if someone is talking about what I consider irrelevancies. I'd say I was sorry, but I am not. This is a rant. 

A good theologian repeats things others have said. I am definitely wary of anything that starts off, "You won't find this on Catholic Answers or EWTN..." You think you're too good for them? There's your problem. I'd love to have the impact they've had. Cleverness is sometimes the enemy of the truth. You're not too good for the Catechism, either. Idiosyncratic theologians are generally bad theologians. Don't reinvent the wheel, please.

There could certainly be some value in simply stating, "Abortion is murder," but to my mind, St. John Paul II had no reason to condemn consequentialism, if the most difficult cases brought forth no sympathy. In other words, real people we would identify as non-monsters are tempted to do evil that good may result every day. Do you actually help anyone by identifying the Democrats as the party of baby-murderers? Does that serve to create space to discuss anything, though it may be factually correct? In fact, I believe you call that "virtue signaling," don't you? In other news, I will go to my grave believing that Bernie Sanders is not really a socialist, because words mean things, and Bernie of today dropped in 1985 is a standard-issue Democrat. Reagan might call you that for effect, but he'd crack a smile at a 52 percent tax rate being described as "socialist." "Madam," he'd say, "You haven't seen high tax rates." But...

I have friends who used to use this phrase to describe the world of numerous private revelations and popular devotions, in contrast to the "comfortable" Catholicism of the Bishop's Church and the Catechism. In the end, it was a good-natured joke for us. Unfortunately, many dissenting voices are not joking. They disdain the "institutional Church" to promote whatever "real" practices they prefer. Fr. James Martin, SJ, is such a voice. He apparently believes that being "gay affirming" is the way to freedom. He also mistakenly believes that those of us who uphold all the Church's teachings are chained, fearful, or bigoted. Let me tell you something. I don't merely assent; I lovingly and joyously assent. If what the Church teaches is what Jesus gave us, not believing it is rejecting Jesus Our Lord! I hope the thought of it causes you grief, as it does me. We all struggle and fail. But as always, it's what we do in response that d...

For sheer longevity, iconic songs and albums, social impact, and widespread appeal, it has to be U2. Here's a little cultural penetration experiment: take an LP that you don't own but is reputed notable. If you know all the words and can sing along, it's significant for music pop culture. [Didn't you do this with "Rumours," by Fleetwood Mac?--ed.] Yeah, truly creepy. The reason I bring this up is that I know two people who have no idea who they are. I guess if you spend the '70s and '80s in Israel and Argentina training Catholic clergy, you might not know who they are. The rest of us, especially in the English-speaking world, well... I'm actually looking forward to hearing entire releases I've never listened to.

I'm a proud Yankee, in the sense that I'd still be punishing the South for the Civil War, if it were my call. Lincoln wasn't perfect, but close enough. Especially for the time. I have sympathy for particular people, like General Lee and General Stonewall Jackson, who were not monsters, and had many fine qualities, despite fighting for an evil cause. It's the revisionism about the causes of the war that's not only irritating, but dangerous. If we choose to ignore the plain words of the Confederates themselves, to the effect of black inferiority, or in challenge to the universal equality spoken of in the US Constitution, we delude ourselves. It was about slavery, absolutely and unequivocally. Were other things also worthy of sympathy? Of course. I have no particular sympathy for self-interested Northern--nay, northeastern--factory owners, who didn't mind the European tariffs falling on the South. I think the utter destruction of the South was terrible and coun...

Setting aside the car accident, I want to return to an aspect of my daily experience. We're not the same. Most of you have no experience living with cerebral palsy. You don't think about moving an arm or leg; you just do it. If you had major orthopedic surgery in your youth, it'd be a story of an injury, not a rite of passage. So many things are different. And yet. The one thing we all want is to feel loved, understood, and valued as people. I believe we all share a common fear that we are alone, that no one understands, that no one really cares. If you really want to help me, don't fret the physical things; let me know that the lurking fear every human knows, at least for these moments, isn't true or real. There are people who lay it on pretty thick, in terms of "demythologizing," in a sense, the life of disability. To paraphrase one speaker, I don't need an award for living. And yet. I must learn to live with the curious tension of desiring...

I think Dr. Haidt is really on to something . And that's with the evolution assumptions notwithstanding. I have not always been reasonable. I would like to be. Civility is not an end in itself, but it's a virtue that allows us the intellectual and relational space to hear each other. I don't ever want to hate "The Left" as much as others hate "The Right". Let me know if you think the state of our political discourse is radically better than I think it is. What can we do ourselves to make it better? These considerations don't change fundamental moral values, and given the fact that politics eventually involves power, there are limits to the amity that can be achieved. But I would be willing to bet that most of us are exhausted, and hoping there's a better way. If we Christians truly believe that all people are made in the image of God, they cannot in the end be "the other." How might that change our political engagement?

I have begun with the first four words of our most common Catholic meal prayer to let you know that I'm eating! Still liquids for a time, but I'm on my way to making this feeding tube superfluous! Most of you who know me know that my tastes are simple. But Campbell's vegetable beef soup puréed is way better than you'd think. [Mom added some beef broth to thicken it, yeah?--ed.] Yep. I'm drinking Gatorade right now. Technically, my eating status hasn't changed, but the speech therapist thinks it's safe, so I'm doing it. I have to pass what's called a "barium swallow test"--it's as radioactive and disgusting as it sounds--before the official change. We give thanks, Almighty God, for these and all Thy gifts, Thou who lives and reigns, one God, forever and ever, Amen.

Let me echo something said in a Catholic publication recently. Being Catholic in itself is unremarkable. Yet if you dive in with both feet, as it were, embracing all that the Church teaches, you're going to be weird. To believe firstly that a consecrated Host is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Savior is a leap, if we're being honest. But I live in a world where it's absurd to doubt it. The one thing religion does not do is provide comfort in this life. The true believers always suffer. You may have even noticed this. People ask why God allows such suffering. But God himself endured the cross. When we suffer, we are sharing in the cross. It is definitive proof that we are loved. It's weird, I know. But I will take it. I might be crazy, but the way I see it, crazy beats boring, every time.

I wanted to take a moment to plug a book . It's called, "Primal Loss: The Now-Adult Children Of Divorce Speak." It's edited by my friend, Leila Miller. I am one of the contributors. One aspect that I appreciate is that a great many of us love our parents, and we have no desire to hurt them, or judge them. Yet the truth of what we experienced must be told. Even through touching this part of my past, I have become more comfortable with the truths of natural law, one of which is that children deserve to grow up in a home with their married parents. Tragically, we recognize that this is not always possible, and the Church never commands people to remain in dangerous situations. But as with many things, the exception has become the rule. Divorce is not part of God's plan for humanity. Quite aside from various value systems between people, we are all beginning to feel the effects of broken families and the resulting chaos, as a matter of public policy. I predict that if...

I suppose it's a positive thing that I am back to being impatient, and unreasonably angry at the Cardinals playing poorly. I'm back to being the sinner that I am. The pain from the accident is less, and though it'll be awhile before things are normal, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, so to speak. My mouth feels rather strange, as I'm still wearing something akin to braces to hold my jaw in place. It won't be that quick for biting into things, but I'm nervous about as yet undiscovered dental damage. I thought at the time of the accident that I had in fact lost much more than one tooth. I guess we'll see. Thanks be to God, for ordinary worries, for ordinary days. Let me never again grouse about a boring day.

I am deeply humbled that my first post about the accident has been read (according to the blog) over 1500 times. I don't deserve to be in the company of a few of those who read it, and appreciated it. These further thoughts of mine intend to honor them through their ongoing challenges, much greater than my own. You often hear advice to the effect that you shouldn't "explain" what's going on to a suffering person, and that's true. We are so committed to the fact of our loving God that this seemingly contradictory information in the form of the suffering is problematic. Some folks are just awkward or self-involved, too. Most people mean well, and that's enough. But what about the meaning of it all? I offered some thoughts before, and I did so because it's my suffering. I don't intend to apply it to anyone else's situation, but feel free if it helps. I felt joy, and I am a witness, so it seemed right. Was it in spite of the suffering? No, not ...

When we talk about authority in matters of religion, we are talking about divine infallibility, that is, God's communications are marked by that quality of His perfection, and to communicate things about Himself that would not otherwise be known. Contrary to the imaginings of Dr. Horton and other Reformed counter-apologists, submission to the Magisterium of the Church  is not a new answer to a new problem. The very reason why Newman could speak of an "onus probandi" is that the Church pre-dated the new methodology of Sola Scriptura, and the new doctrines which were its fruit. It is not an emotional need for an unreasonable certainty, but that quality of communication that distinguishes God's word from that of mere men. Indeed, Horton can't and doesn't relieve that burden by re-proposing Sola Scriptura; he simply trades ecclesial infallibility for alleged personal infallibility. It's the practical fruit of the beloved Noltie Conundrum as a uniquely Pr...

The worst part of the accident (besides the tracheotomy) is not being able to eat real food. I have a feeding tube right now. You start to notice how we are deluged with food commercials when you can't eat any of it. I can't say that everything I dream about is sustainably sourced or clean, if you will! My friends, we are going to eat when this is over. Mark my words, and mark them well.

It is indeed true that a socialist is never satisfied. It's also true that a raucous political discussion will always ensue concerning how much the government could and should spend regarding any one thing. I don't assume that a person who funds something differently--that is, less--wants children to starve in the streets. But at some point, Spock's clever dictum holds true: "What you want is irrelevant; what you've chosen is at hand." You can't argue that a 31 percent cut in one year is a search for efficiency. It's a malicious rejection of the people who spent the money, and the purposes for which they spent it. And at such a point, you deserve whatever moral scorn your opponents heap upon you. A true conservative might say that the federal government could operate at 95 percent of its funding level from the previous year. You could easily argue that there is always waste, and a few years of a generalized cut will come back to the people in benef...