You have a late night and an early flight. Not long after takeoff, you drift to sleep. Suddenly, you’re wide awake. There’s cold air rushing everywhere, and sound. Intense, horrible sound. Where am I?, you think. Where’s the plane?You’re 6 miles up. You’re alone. You’re falling.Things are bad. But now’s the time to focus on the good news. (Yes, it goes beyond surviving the destruction of your aircraft.) Although gravity is against you, another force is working in your favor: time. Believe it or not, you’re better off up here than if you’d slipped from the balcony of your high-rise hotel room after one too many drinks last night.Or at least you will be. Oxygen is scarce at these heights. By now, hypoxia is starting to set in. You’ll be unconscious soon, and you’ll cannonball at least a mile before waking up again. When that happens, remember what you are about to read. The ground, after all, is your next destination.Granted, the odds of surviving a 6-mile plummet are extra ordinarily slim, but at this point you’ve got nothing to lose by understanding your situation. There are two ways to fall out of a plane. The first is to free-fall, or drop from the sky with absolutely no protection or means of slowing your descent. The second is to become a wreckage rider, a term coined by Massachusetts-based amateur historian Jim Hamilton, who developed the Free Fall Research Page—an onlinedatabase of nearly every imaginable human plummet.That classification means you have the advantage of being attached to a chunk of the plane. In 1972, Serbian flight attendant Vesna Vulovic was traveling in a DC-9 over Czechoslovakia when it blew up. She fell 33,000 feet, wedged between her seat, a catering trolley, a section of aircraft and the body of another crew member, landing on—then sliding down—a snowy incline before coming to a stop, severely injured but alive. . . . (continue reading)
An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp -- and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the "darker side" of Mother Teresa.The stamp -- set to be released on Aug. 26, which would have been Mother Teresa's 100th birthday -- will recognize the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize winner for her humanitarian work, the Postal Service announced last month."Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary U.S. citizen, served the sick and destitute of India and the world for nearly 50 years," the Postal Service said in a press release. "Her humility and compassion, as well as her respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind, inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to work on behalf of the world’s poorest populations."But Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations."Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can't really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did," Gaylor told FoxNews.com.Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. . . . (continue reading)
I am a flawed man.
I love to listen to Catholic apologetics. I listen to apologetics CDs, I read apologetic books, and I love to listen to apologetics on the radio. I suspect my reason for listening to apologetics on the radio is different from most people; at least I hope it is.
I think I read once that NASCAR is the biggest spectator sport in the United States. Being a northerner, I am sure that I miss many of the appealing aspects of NASCAR, but I think I know why most people watch it. They want to see the crashes. That is why I listen to apologetics on the radio, particularly Catholic Answers. I want to be around when the crash happens. . . . (continue reading)
This is one of the strangest, most schizophrenic abortion-related things I've seen in a long time, maybe ever.
Penelope Trunk, a successful career advice columnist/blogger, wrote a blog piece last summer called "What's the Connection Between Abortion and Careers?" The title caught my eye and drew me in to what at first I thought would be just another "yeah, so what if I had an abortion?" kind of piece. I was wrong. Or maybe I should say I was half wrong.
I did not expect Trunk to say some of things she said in that article. After reading it, I was left scratching my head in wonderment that, on one hand, this obviously intelligent woman could be so honest and forthright in her admission of what abortion is and what it does — to the mother and the child — and still be four-square in favor of legal abortion.
Later, Ms. Trunk sent out a note on Twitter announcing that she was having a miscarriage. The Twittersphere and, soon afterward, the blogosphere, freaked out about that, with many people excoriating her for publicly discussing something so private.
Personally, I don't really care about the propriety or lack of it in her Twitter message. When I watched this video, I was again nonplussed at how this woman is able (with a straight face that neither dissolves into a smirk or into sobs [either of those reactions would seem more natural, more human, if you ask me]) to so blandly admit that she was glad she had had a miscarriage, because it saved her from having to "wait in line to get an abortion." And this, after she had just finished telling the goofy CNN talking head about how much she loved her two children and how sorrowful she was when she miscarried another pregnancy.
At one point, she intoned glassily that "Whether or not you believe women should have the right to abortion, they do in this country." If the hapless host had been thinking clearly, he should have reminded her and the audience that, in 1860, a white man could just as blythely have said, "Whether or not you believe whites have the right to own black slaves, they do in this country."
Or, "Whether or not you believe men should have the right to prevent women from voting, they do in this country" (prior to 1920), etc., etc.
That's the point. Because enough Americans believed that white's should not have the right to own other human beings as slaves is why we were able to abolish that terrible "legal right." Similarly, though of far, far less a magnitude on the injustice scale, Because enough Americans came to believe that it was wrong to deny women the vote is the only reason why that unjust law was eradicated. (And that didn't happen until 1920!)
Penelope Trunk's attitude toward abortion is just . . . weird. It's schizophrenic. I don't understand it. I feel so very sorry for her.
I have had two abortions.
The first one was when I was twenty-seven. I was playing professional beach volleyball. I was playing volleyball eight hours a day and I spent two hours a day at the gym. I noticed that I was getting tired more easily, but I thought it meant I needed to train harder.
Then one weekend, a doctor friend on a visit saw me drop a plate one day, and a vase the next. I told her my hands just gave out because they were so tired.
She said I was anemic. Then she said, “Maybe you’re pregnant.”
“I’m not,” I said. “I have a regular period.”
It turns out, though, that you can have a regular period and still be pregnant.
And I was. Fourteen weeks.
My friend said, “Schedule the abortion now. You’re already late for it.”
I didn’t do anything. I was in shock. My boyfriend was in shock. Neither of us had ever had a pregnancy. I couldn’t believe the whole process actually worked, to be honest.
I told my mom I was pregnant. She said, “Get an abortion.”
I didn’t say anything. I wasn’t really thinking I had any choices. I didn’t have a job that could support a child. And I wasn’t sure if I was planning to marry my boyfriend, although we were living together. I knew that I had big ideas for my life and I hadn’t figured things out yet.
My mom got militant. “You’ll destroy your career possibilities.”
She riffed on this theme for a week, calling me every night. Her passion is understandable. My mom took . . . (continue reading)
In the last three days, the governments of eleven countries have scrambled to elevate their preparedness levels for Islamist terror, or enforced extraordinarily stringent security measures. Another six governments have pursued these steps without fanfare.
Friday and Saturday, Jan. 22-23, India placed its airlines and airports and those of all of South East Asia -Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka - on alert for a possible airplane hijacking by al Qaeda or Lashkar-e-Taibem. The UK elevated its terror threat level from "substantial" to "severe" - one below top and suspended direct British airline flights to and from Yemen.
Last week, five Britons were apprehended at Islamabad airport attempting to pass their boarding passes to five others. Yemen itself stopped issuing entry visas at Sanaa airport. The British appear to fear a fresh spate of terrorism inside the country.
Although the Obama administration has not formally raised the current terror alert level, vigilance at all American airports and border posts has been radically heightened since a Nigerian terrorist tried to blow up the Northwest airliner on Christmas day. Since Jan. 4, the airlines and passengers from 14 listed countries have faced body screening before boarding flight to the United States. Last week, six people on the newly-expanded no-fly list were not allowed to board US-bound flights.
Saturday, US airport authorities were warned that at least two female suicide bombers of "non-Arab appearance" and bearing Western passports may have been sent to America by al Qaeda-Yemen - either to blow up US-bound flights or commit suicide attacks inside the country.
Referring to the failed airline bombing, tormer White House counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke told ABC: "There are others who are still out there who have been trained and who are clean skins - that means people who we do not have a record of, who may not look like al Qaeda terrorists, who may not be Arabs, and may not be men." . . . (continue reading)
"Pop culture is culture like McDonald’s food is food."
Father Paul Ward, a priest of the Archdiocese of Detroit has written an excellent reflection on how Catholics have been affected, afflicted, and infected with a "pop culture" mentality toward the Faith. Toward truth. Toward God. My humble suggestion to the parish priests who read this blog, consider reprinting this in your parish bulletin (with Father Ward's permission, of course). With a few adjustments, it might even make a good sermon!
“McChurch” is neither a real name nor a real word, but an expression I coined to convey “commercial Catholicism,” or even “consumer Catholicism.” Not only in America, but in many other places as well, the Catholic Church has largely gone the way of pop culture. That is, it became an object of the market.
Culture is a term which can have several meanings. Its more philosophical definition makes it the development of man’s superior faculties (intellect and will) in the material world. Another definition makes it the productions of such development, for example, the work of art, the composition of music, the opus of some great author; and here, we refer not to the mean productions of inferior skill, but the greatest and most superior of such works.
This second definition makes a man “cultured,” therefore, if he is familiar with the works of Bach, Aristotle, Descartes, Kierkegaard and Michelangelo, with Latin, Greek and Hebrew or some modern languages as well, and has acquired certain mental disciplines – logical thought, refinery of tastes, etc. – which come only with the exploration of these greatest and superior works which have come forth from the souls of men.
“Pop culture” is culture which you can buy or sell. Now, it would be overstating the case to assert that there is absolutely no artistic, intellectual, philosophical or theological contribution that a rare few pop artists make; that would be an exaggeration. But we all know that much of pop culture is junk. The proof lies in the endless stream of noise, violence and impurity which is broadcast on local music radio stations, or the hundreds of cable channels which simply multiply the amount of worthless material with which today’s man might entertain himself. (Oh, and about cable channels, I’m convinced that HBO stands for “Hell’s Box Office.” No, I don’t have cable, nor a TV in fact, but as a diocesan priest who invests time with his flock, I continually brush with such things.)
Pop culture is culture like McDonald’s food is food.
Now, imagine a religion you could package up and sell. You can make it appeal to lots of people, like McDonald’s sells French Fries, like pop singers sell their rhythms, like Pepsi sells their pop (for non mid-westers: “pop” is “soda”), and like tabloids sell their gossip. A pretty package, perfectly accommodated for the consumer; tasty, delicious, appealing to the senses, and en vogue. Such a religion is what we can call McChurch.
We have seen some communities, especially our Protestant brothers and sisters, start “coffee house Churches,” “cinema Churches,” “mega Churches,” “non-liturgical Churches.” None of which, of course, makes any sense; yet their (scant) popularity rises from the natural religiosity of persons completely uninformed, misinformed or frankly malformed in the message of Jesus Christ. Let’s dupe the consumer into buying into our religion, and appeal to his senses, to what’s en vogue. Let’s neglect the conversion, themetanoia, demanded by Christ, because it simply doesn’t sell: that’s McChurch.
What qualities does McDonald’s have in common with McChurch? It’s easy, it’s comfortable, it’s cheap. At McDonald’s the customer is always right. But real Christianity, which subsists in the Catholic Church alone, is not like that. It is not easy, it is hard, very hard. It is not comfortable, it is uncomfortable, in fact it is downright crucifying! Is the customer always right? No, the sinner is always wrong, phenomenally guilty, returning sin for redemption, ungrateful beyond all telling… but with hope through the grace of Christ.
McDonald’s wants to sell a product, and so does McChurch. And when the local branch manager (the pastor of a parish) fails to keep sales up, he just might get fired. As the market offers a specific good, service or rent for a price, similarly some clergy provide services for income, instead of for the salvation of souls. The market wants to convince the buyer, even by duping, to pay money for something; McChurch wants to convince the faithful, even by putting on a show empty of all true faith, to pitch money into the collection (or fundraiser, or whatever), but cheating them of true holiness which only Christ can give.
The consumer market it centered on the consumer: if the consumer will pay money for it, the vendor will sell it and make piles of money; and so McChurch will give the faithful whatever they like, whatever pleases them, even if that implies complete alienation from the Gospel. God doesn’t provide us what pleases us, but only that which truly makes one happy, even if that happiness is bought with tears and agony.
McChurch is religion like Lady Gaga is culture.
What is the solution to McChurch? Clearly this: holiness of life. When one finds Christians, Catholics, even clergy who put on the weekly show to the “ooo’s” and “aaaw’s” of the crowds, but live in continual and habitual sin, perhaps even mortal, that’s McChurch, and it will wither and die like a branch separated from the vine.
Yet how often the pastors of the Church will cave in to some perception of popularity to continue selling their product? How much ruthlessness, injustice and failure of basic charity there is when they flounder who are devout, and they who are wicked or proud or greedy or intemperate flourish, all with the blessings or mandate of those whom Christ appointed as pastors. What will such men do when Christ comes in the sky with his angels? Where will they hide?
McChurch is religion you can buy and sell; religion packaged for the market, thriving on popularity. But none of this shares anything in common with Jesus Christ the Lord, for he was slandered, abused, humiliated, violated and crucified… at the hands of the priests and Pharisees who should have been the quickest in perceiving in Him the Messiah.
Down with McChurch, up with true Catholicism!
