You might have heard of someone saying that they had to take two steps back to take one step forward. This probably resonates with many people in their frustration to achieve progress. However I say that this is not the Christian Way. I suggest that our steps forward may appear to be "for the good" according to society, yet time and again (salvation) history proves otherwise.
Let's center this thought on Christ. If we consider the Paschal Mystery, we might notice that in Jesus' life he often untwisted the distorted view of the many, the powerful and the sinner. Perhaps at no other time better, Christ's Passion revealed to humanity the divine wisdom of taking steps forward in order to achieve one step back. And seeing with eyes of faith, one step back is what was truly "for the good." Christ took three major steps forward, in the eyes of society, the many and the powerful who surrounded him while making His Way to Calvary. Every liturgical year on Passion Sunday, Catholics remember the many who jeered and mocked Christ, believing in their hardened hearts that what they witness was "progress for the good." Yet Christ knew that he must take those steps forward in order to take that great step back.
Christ's step back was his Death on the Cross, and in that Way, evil was conquered, sin forgiven and redemption completed. In his step back, Christ reclaimed for all of humanity, salvation. When we center our lives on Christ, we begin to see that it does take two steps forward to take that great step back.
Perhaps today we realize more than in the past the truth of this reality. Many families, due to economic strain and loss, have taken that necessary great step back so they can reclaim what is truly important. After years of "progress" and "success" we perhaps became complacent in our lifestyle. Yet (salvation) history proves to us that "one step back" may in fact be what is truly for the good.
Consider one simple example to end with: ABC's Extreme Home Makeover television show. I recall early on that those families whom they helped later had debt and taxes that became too burdensome. What was a wonderfully intended gesture, became a great burden. In the eyes of society what appeared to be two steps forward with a new house and a new life, turned into one great step back for the worse. The producers soon learned their lesson and worked to establish means of providing some "nest egg" so this wouldn't happen again. Seeing with eyes of faith, you might see that the producers of the show had to take "two steps forward" in order to take that "one step back" that lead them to provide what was more important that an extreme house, that being financial (and emotional) stability. I applaud them for what they have done and continue to do.
So next time you think that you are making progress, moving forward, be cautious. Yet know that your great one step back will soon help you reclaim what is true, good and beautiful.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Right vs. Entitlement
What an excellent statement by Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann and Bishop Robert W. Finn in their joint pastoral statement on healthcare reform in the United States, "Principles of Catholic Social Teaching and Health Care Reform." They clearly laid out a set of guidelines that not just Catholics can support, but ought to support.
One example of such clarity:
These are basic principles that are universal. One need not be even Catholic to accept them and uphold them. So let us not be passive about such fundamental issues. For what is at stake is nothing less than life itself and the ability to protect and preserve the life of each human person, from the moment of conception to natural death.
Link: http://www.archkck.org/images/pdf/pastoral%20statement%20on%20healthcare%20reform.pdf
One example of such clarity:
"The right of every individual to access health care does not necessarily suppose an obligation on the part of the government to provide it. Yet in our American culture, Catholic teaching about the “right” to healthcare is sometimes confused with the structures of “entitlement.” The teaching of the Universal Church has never been to suggest a government socialization of medical services. Rather, the Church has asserted the rights of every individual to have access to those things most necessary for sustaining and caring for human life, while at the same time insisting on the personal responsibility of each individual to care properly for his or her own health."How can they say such a thing? Simply it is based on one of the principles of Catholic social teaching: subsidiarity. Which is simply an extension of the fundamental principle: dignity of the human person.
These are basic principles that are universal. One need not be even Catholic to accept them and uphold them. So let us not be passive about such fundamental issues. For what is at stake is nothing less than life itself and the ability to protect and preserve the life of each human person, from the moment of conception to natural death.
Link: http://www.archkck.org/images/pdf/pastoral%20statement%20on%20healthcare%20reform.pdf
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Parable of Three Guys Tailgating
Three best friends headed six hours early to the football game so they could enjoy some tailgating. The first guy was responsible for bringing the grill, the second guy was responsible for bringing the meat (and other food related items) and the third guy was responsible for bringing a full cooler of “refreshments.”
They were all set-up at their usual spot. The grill man fired up his grill, and they all three were inspired by the power of their fire. They were quite impressed.
And so the three guys saddled-up in front of the portable big-screen to watch some pre-game coverage while checking their fantasy football status. Eventually the meat man loaded up the hot grill to over-capacity, and they all three were intoxicated by the aroma that filled the air. They were quite excited.
Then the cooler man passed around some more “refreshments” as they socialized with the neighboring tailgaters, checking out “the competition”and enjoying “the view.”
Cooler man went to grab another refreshment when he noticed the grill was really smoking. He yelled at grill man for not watching the grill close enough. So grill man opened it up. Cooler man and grill man then became enraged at meat man for putting so much on the grill. Well the three guys started battling over the grill and who knew best on how to grill.
Then along walks up a beautiful woman who asks the “gentlemen” if one of them could help her start her charcoal grill. She wanted to surprise her husband when he got back that it was ready for him.
What do you think happened next?
They were all set-up at their usual spot. The grill man fired up his grill, and they all three were inspired by the power of their fire. They were quite impressed.
And so the three guys saddled-up in front of the portable big-screen to watch some pre-game coverage while checking their fantasy football status. Eventually the meat man loaded up the hot grill to over-capacity, and they all three were intoxicated by the aroma that filled the air. They were quite excited.
Then the cooler man passed around some more “refreshments” as they socialized with the neighboring tailgaters, checking out “the competition”and enjoying “the view.”
Cooler man went to grab another refreshment when he noticed the grill was really smoking. He yelled at grill man for not watching the grill close enough. So grill man opened it up. Cooler man and grill man then became enraged at meat man for putting so much on the grill. Well the three guys started battling over the grill and who knew best on how to grill.
Then along walks up a beautiful woman who asks the “gentlemen” if one of them could help her start her charcoal grill. She wanted to surprise her husband when he got back that it was ready for him.
What do you think happened next?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Divisions Divide Giving Direction
Observation: Do we sometimes miss the obvious, especially in the hopes of tolerance and peace...?
Conclusion: Divisions marking differences can be healthy and in fact can give direction in life.
Once we recognize a difference, we need not immediately begin an attempt to find similarities, seek unity or strive for compromise. Yet are we so threatened by divisions that we avoid discussions on differences? What happened to divisions revealing a difference for the sake of clarity? Is it not intolerant to dismiss our differences?
Ah! perhaps this is where heart of the matter is! The radio show host, Dennis Prager, speaks consistently about his preference for clarity over agreement. This perhaps is counter-cultural to the mass-media-driven society-at-large preference for "agreement" and thus our consistent sensitivity towards compromise. Sometimes compromise lacks direction for wanting clarity and agreement is far from a possibility. Ironically when compromise instead of clarity is sought, divisions are magnified and clarity swept under the rug.
Think of your own personal experiences. Have you been in a work meeting where "collaboration" turns into everyone "compromising" to the boss' preemptive decision? Have you been in a conversation with a friend that ended with "I guess we'll just agree to disagree."
Often times division divides for the sake of clarity, and in this clarity we can have direction in life. If you were asked to mentor a youth and help them discern their vocation in life, which would be truly helpful, tell the youth:
A. "You can do anything if you just put your mind and heart into it."
B. "Seek what God has planned for you by identifying your interests and talents and narrow the field that way."
In politics the differences within our traditional two party political system is critical to a healthy government. In jurisprudence the division between prosecution and defense is absolutely necessary for the sake of justice. In human nature the distinction between male and female is fundamental to our very existence and makes possible real equality.
In fact equality is only possible if we recognize distinction, differences and divisions. Equality does not always mean "sameness." Yet how often does it seem that the pursuit of peace using the rhetoric of tolerance seeks not "unity in equality" but "compromise in sameness?"
Just War is a prime example of the unfortunate means of defending divisions to seek victory found in equality. Tragically there can be great clarity in a just war, if distinction is consistently maintained for the sake of clarity. When that line is breached the fog of war blurs our vision and victory cannot be defined.
Conclusion: Divisions marking differences can be healthy and in fact can give direction in life.
Once we recognize a difference, we need not immediately begin an attempt to find similarities, seek unity or strive for compromise. Yet are we so threatened by divisions that we avoid discussions on differences? What happened to divisions revealing a difference for the sake of clarity? Is it not intolerant to dismiss our differences?
Ah! perhaps this is where heart of the matter is! The radio show host, Dennis Prager, speaks consistently about his preference for clarity over agreement. This perhaps is counter-cultural to the mass-media-driven society-at-large preference for "agreement" and thus our consistent sensitivity towards compromise. Sometimes compromise lacks direction for wanting clarity and agreement is far from a possibility. Ironically when compromise instead of clarity is sought, divisions are magnified and clarity swept under the rug.
Think of your own personal experiences. Have you been in a work meeting where "collaboration" turns into everyone "compromising" to the boss' preemptive decision? Have you been in a conversation with a friend that ended with "I guess we'll just agree to disagree."
Often times division divides for the sake of clarity, and in this clarity we can have direction in life. If you were asked to mentor a youth and help them discern their vocation in life, which would be truly helpful, tell the youth:
A. "You can do anything if you just put your mind and heart into it."
B. "Seek what God has planned for you by identifying your interests and talents and narrow the field that way."
In politics the differences within our traditional two party political system is critical to a healthy government. In jurisprudence the division between prosecution and defense is absolutely necessary for the sake of justice. In human nature the distinction between male and female is fundamental to our very existence and makes possible real equality.
In fact equality is only possible if we recognize distinction, differences and divisions. Equality does not always mean "sameness." Yet how often does it seem that the pursuit of peace using the rhetoric of tolerance seeks not "unity in equality" but "compromise in sameness?"
Just War is a prime example of the unfortunate means of defending divisions to seek victory found in equality. Tragically there can be great clarity in a just war, if distinction is consistently maintained for the sake of clarity. When that line is breached the fog of war blurs our vision and victory cannot be defined.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Heroes lived before the Vietnam War
What happened to the hero?
According to what I've been taught, thus handed down, is that heroes lived before the Vietnam War. I don't believe that those who fought or fight today to defeat tyranny in defense of liberty are or were not heroes. I'm simply stating the message handed down to my generation.
Case in point: simply contrast the Vietnam War Memorial to any World War II memorial.
WWII memorials represent the bravest and honorable men defending freedom across the world. For example the famous Iwo Jima statue or our national WWII memorial. The Iwo Jima statue shows men boldly raising the flag as a band of brothers. The national WWII memorial is open, bold, proud, speaking of courage and confidence.
While in contrast the Vietnam memorial is dark, depressing and speaks of fallen soldiers. Each represents different times and different wars, however, the memorials speak loudly on the change of heart men have for defending and protecting the freedom of those who face tyranny.
This contrast points to what happened to the hero in the United States. Heroes lived before the Vietnam War because that's when war no longer could be about "defeating tyranny in defense of liberty." War can only be an offensive attack, at best a mistake, even worse a lie. And today war is generally assumed to be a lie.
So what does being a hero have to do with war? That goes to the question of what is a hero. And worse yet, we no longer teach what a hero is. They simply lived before the Vietnam War.
(this is an excerpt from my series, I Am Man)
According to what I've been taught, thus handed down, is that heroes lived before the Vietnam War. I don't believe that those who fought or fight today to defeat tyranny in defense of liberty are or were not heroes. I'm simply stating the message handed down to my generation.
Case in point: simply contrast the Vietnam War Memorial to any World War II memorial.
WWII memorials represent the bravest and honorable men defending freedom across the world. For example the famous Iwo Jima statue or our national WWII memorial. The Iwo Jima statue shows men boldly raising the flag as a band of brothers. The national WWII memorial is open, bold, proud, speaking of courage and confidence.
While in contrast the Vietnam memorial is dark, depressing and speaks of fallen soldiers. Each represents different times and different wars, however, the memorials speak loudly on the change of heart men have for defending and protecting the freedom of those who face tyranny.
This contrast points to what happened to the hero in the United States. Heroes lived before the Vietnam War because that's when war no longer could be about "defeating tyranny in defense of liberty." War can only be an offensive attack, at best a mistake, even worse a lie. And today war is generally assumed to be a lie.
So what does being a hero have to do with war? That goes to the question of what is a hero. And worse yet, we no longer teach what a hero is. They simply lived before the Vietnam War.
(this is an excerpt from my series, I Am Man)
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
My One Percent Theory
Major Characteristics of the 1%:
1. Consistently use common sense—the mentality of the 1%
2. Seeks or needs order, is organized—for order is reasonable—the mode of the 1%
3. Participates in divine activity—or consistently has creative outlets
4. Thinks outside the box, especially beyond linear thinking—the strength of the 1%
5. Takes the initiative—the instinct of the 1%
6. Is virtuous, esp: diligence, courage, courteous, and discipline
7. Is optimistic (thus many think 1% is too high of a percentage)—power of the 1%
8. Does not need physical rewards—though we are not stupid to turn such away
9. Seeks to be with or is attracted to other 1%ers—magnetic personality
10. Faith: recognizes not perfect, but strives for excellence, the greatest good—while we all seek the good, the 1% seek the greatest good—ultimately that being for 99% of us the divine, God.
The burden that all 1%ers must bear is the frustration of carrying the weight of the 99%. The struggle for the 1% are the 2-3%ers who are so close but yet so far from the 1%--and they are twice and thrice as large as the 1%!
Fundamental Principles of the 1%:
1. Individuality—promotes, defends, and encourages personal liberties and self preservation—this is not individualism
2. Faith—promotes, defends and encourages freedom for religion—there should be an intentional change of “freedom of religion” to “freedom for religion” to assist the 99% who have been misguided by the 2%ers’ distortion of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
3. Subsidiarity—the needs of the most local community are best meet by that local community—should be placed in the 1% of the local community
The major characteristic of the 2% = pride; power of the 2% is apathy; lying is their mode.
The major characteristic of the 3% = envy; power of the 3% is pessimism; inconsistency is their mode.
I challenge the following to be true if tested: 99% would agree that only 1% consistently use common sense; the 1% that would disagree are the 2% who think everybody uses their common sense for they think to say otherwise would be “mean.”
Would you be interested in reading more? Tell me whether you would read a book on this topic.
1. Consistently use common sense—the mentality of the 1%
2. Seeks or needs order, is organized—for order is reasonable—the mode of the 1%
3. Participates in divine activity—or consistently has creative outlets
4. Thinks outside the box, especially beyond linear thinking—the strength of the 1%
5. Takes the initiative—the instinct of the 1%
6. Is virtuous, esp: diligence, courage, courteous, and discipline
7. Is optimistic (thus many think 1% is too high of a percentage)—power of the 1%
8. Does not need physical rewards—though we are not stupid to turn such away
9. Seeks to be with or is attracted to other 1%ers—magnetic personality
10. Faith: recognizes not perfect, but strives for excellence, the greatest good—while we all seek the good, the 1% seek the greatest good—ultimately that being for 99% of us the divine, God.
The burden that all 1%ers must bear is the frustration of carrying the weight of the 99%. The struggle for the 1% are the 2-3%ers who are so close but yet so far from the 1%--and they are twice and thrice as large as the 1%!
Fundamental Principles of the 1%:
1. Individuality—promotes, defends, and encourages personal liberties and self preservation—this is not individualism
2. Faith—promotes, defends and encourages freedom for religion—there should be an intentional change of “freedom of religion” to “freedom for religion” to assist the 99% who have been misguided by the 2%ers’ distortion of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.
3. Subsidiarity—the needs of the most local community are best meet by that local community—should be placed in the 1% of the local community
The major characteristic of the 2% = pride; power of the 2% is apathy; lying is their mode.
The major characteristic of the 3% = envy; power of the 3% is pessimism; inconsistency is their mode.
I challenge the following to be true if tested: 99% would agree that only 1% consistently use common sense; the 1% that would disagree are the 2% who think everybody uses their common sense for they think to say otherwise would be “mean.”
Would you be interested in reading more? Tell me whether you would read a book on this topic.
Civilization Lost
Observation: Society is a mechanism not a civilization.
Conclusion: Civilization has been lost.
Mech-a-nism: a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.
Civ-i-li-za-tion: refinement of thought, manners, or taste
Certainly my observation is shared by the common person. You need not be an "intellectual" to posit such a revelatory explanation on the plight of the human condition. Am I being pessimistic in my inference? Have I jumped to quickly to my conclusion? If I am correct in my final analysis is this the final word on the human condition?
Since I am not a pessimist, I believe that civilization is lost for good. We suffer from a severe illness that is corroding the soul of humanity. The late great Pope John Paul II, Servant of God, spoke of the "culture of death." Thus perhaps civilization has been lost, for now. Yet humanity is not gone. We must reclaim what has been redeemed. Our pursuit must not be to return to "civilization" but the goal is to become "sanctuary."
Would you be interested in reading more? Let me know if this is a topic worth writing a book about that you would be in turn interested in reading.
Conclusion: Civilization has been lost.
Mech-a-nism: a process, technique, or system for achieving a result.
Civ-i-li-za-tion: refinement of thought, manners, or taste
Certainly my observation is shared by the common person. You need not be an "intellectual" to posit such a revelatory explanation on the plight of the human condition. Am I being pessimistic in my inference? Have I jumped to quickly to my conclusion? If I am correct in my final analysis is this the final word on the human condition?
Since I am not a pessimist, I believe that civilization is lost for good. We suffer from a severe illness that is corroding the soul of humanity. The late great Pope John Paul II, Servant of God, spoke of the "culture of death." Thus perhaps civilization has been lost, for now. Yet humanity is not gone. We must reclaim what has been redeemed. Our pursuit must not be to return to "civilization" but the goal is to become "sanctuary."
Would you be interested in reading more? Let me know if this is a topic worth writing a book about that you would be in turn interested in reading.
What do I write about?
The focus on my writing shall be anything that I deem interesting and hope you do too. My writings include observations seen through the eyes of this Roman Catholic Generation X male.
I've always enjoyed conversing about religion and politics, the two great taboos of conversation! However what I find ironic is that religion and politics, just happen to be the two most important topics. Everything (literally) stems from our view of life and religion and politics are the two lens from which we see with depth. Unfortunately these terms "religion" and "politics" have been tainted by "the masses." Consequently I have two choices, keep using the term or find alternative words that speak to the point still the same. So I choose the later...
Religion is not some out-dated institutional hierarchy of ancient precepts. But because "religion" is tainted as such, I must find a new word that means what "religion" is truly about. That meaning will be a subject of a future blog. My alternative is "the soul." Perhaps a bit intimidating, but weighty enough to bear the significance of it meaning.
Politics is not opinionated and contradictory rhetoric by some over-zealous and selfish opportunist who is typically a lawyer. But because "politics" is thus tainted, I must again find a new word that means what "politics" is truly about. Its meaning will also be a subject of a future blog. My alternative is "the body." Perhaps too enigmatic, but again I do believe in time it will become acceptable.
So my final analysis is that the person is both body and soul; and thus must and always in fact speaks of both politics and religion in every conversation. We just are ashamed to admit it. And with what we done to the meaning of these words, it is no surprise that we continue to lie to ourselves. Thus I tell the truth, as I see it.
I've always enjoyed conversing about religion and politics, the two great taboos of conversation! However what I find ironic is that religion and politics, just happen to be the two most important topics. Everything (literally) stems from our view of life and religion and politics are the two lens from which we see with depth. Unfortunately these terms "religion" and "politics" have been tainted by "the masses." Consequently I have two choices, keep using the term or find alternative words that speak to the point still the same. So I choose the later...
Religion is not some out-dated institutional hierarchy of ancient precepts. But because "religion" is tainted as such, I must find a new word that means what "religion" is truly about. That meaning will be a subject of a future blog. My alternative is "the soul." Perhaps a bit intimidating, but weighty enough to bear the significance of it meaning.
Politics is not opinionated and contradictory rhetoric by some over-zealous and selfish opportunist who is typically a lawyer. But because "politics" is thus tainted, I must again find a new word that means what "politics" is truly about. Its meaning will also be a subject of a future blog. My alternative is "the body." Perhaps too enigmatic, but again I do believe in time it will become acceptable.
So my final analysis is that the person is both body and soul; and thus must and always in fact speaks of both politics and religion in every conversation. We just are ashamed to admit it. And with what we done to the meaning of these words, it is no surprise that we continue to lie to ourselves. Thus I tell the truth, as I see it.
Purpose for this blog
I have three main reasons for starting this blog:
1. Practice makes perfect: My need to enhance my writing skills is first and foremost my main reason. So yes this is my laboratory and you are my guinea pigs . I shall be in a continual practice/experimentation mode.
2. Save us time and money: I have a desire to write in order to publish (publish beyond a blog). So I thought why not pitch my ideas and observations so that people can tell me whether they would actually be interested in reading more, or not. I see this to be a win-win.
3. Egotistic tendencies: Let's be honest we all have them; it goes with the whole fallen, sinful nature. You need just see all of the texting, social networking, blogging, blah blah going on. So me too.
1. Practice makes perfect: My need to enhance my writing skills is first and foremost my main reason. So yes this is my laboratory and you are my guinea pigs . I shall be in a continual practice/experimentation mode.
2. Save us time and money: I have a desire to write in order to publish (publish beyond a blog). So I thought why not pitch my ideas and observations so that people can tell me whether they would actually be interested in reading more, or not. I see this to be a win-win.
3. Egotistic tendencies: Let's be honest we all have them; it goes with the whole fallen, sinful nature. You need just see all of the texting, social networking, blogging, blah blah going on. So me too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)