I shared some thoughts with my friend Adam Fischer, and realized they’d fit in with TCG.

U2 has a song called “Grace” from their album, All That You Can’t Leave Behind. I was not an instant fan; rather, the song grew on me over time, and now I often sing it to my girls at bedtime.

A line goes, “She travels outside of karma.”  I’ve long loved this one, referring to grace, and thought it a lovely expression for what I believe grace to be.  Grace operates outside of blind justice, and has no interest in giving us, strictly, what we deserve.  Rather, it represents a flow of blessings, the workings of the highest mind, which is subject to nothing while offering goodness to all.

Just today, another line offered unexpected depth.  ”What once was hurt, what once was fiction, what left a mark no longer stains.”

The first and last descriptions have always made some sense.  All three, in fact.  Yet the middle one suddenly meant more.

Hopefully this thought is not based on a flawed understanding – from what I have read, there are a number of myths involving a god coming to live among humans, the son . . . → Read More: “What once was fiction”

Unfortunate that the robbery happened, but that loss yielded to some good neighborliness.

Will County Habitat for Humanity houses robbed, community helps

Mark has now reached the point, in my reading, where the conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities is escalating. Every page, it seems, alludes to the fact that the authorities are plotting to kill Him, and would do it immediately, except that the people would revolt against such an action.

So, like theives, they will wait for the night.

In the meantime, they continue to confront Christ about His teaching and actions. He drives the money changers out of the Temple and they want to know by what authority He has done this; they try to trap Him on the subject of paying taxes, and the resurrection; ultimately, they are incensed and furious that He would liken Himself to God and declare that they, far from appearances, have denied the Lord in their hearts.

All of this from under the shadow of the cross, within days of a torturous death.

On a purely human level, I am amazed at the way He keeps His cool. How can He think of that response to the Pharisees and Herodians – “Pay unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” – knowing that they are bringing about His death? . . . → Read More: The Incomparable

Just can’t find it at the moment.  Suffice it to say I really am moved by both sides of this story, and not only for the headline.  Have a read about the gifts that were exchanged.

As noted in previous posts, Barclay has a tendency to “naturalize” some of the events in the life of Jesus.  One of the main ways he does this is by suggesting that demon possession, for example, was merely a psychological illness; a serious illness to be sure, with staggering consequences, yet truly a product of the mind.

Now, I don’t dismiss that psychological illness could play a role in something like demon possession, and that the power of cultural beliefs (here, a cultural belief in the reality of demon possession) can exacerbate and extend suffering in some cases.  Let us indeed consider the  nuances.

Still, from a very (fortunately) limited experience and from second-hand information, it is hard for me to dismiss the other possibility – that demons take some form in reality.  That is, people are sometimes stricken completely outside of their wishes (however masochistic these can be), and the condition manifests a kind of power and fury that borders on supernatural.

The trouble with this “naturalizing” of miracles, as I see it, is two-fold:  One, it often seems a stretch to draw out of the context that these things were other than supernatural acts.  Two – even if . . . → Read More: Mark 4:35-41

Now interrupting the series of posts on the Gospel according to Mark for this (important?) bulletin…

In other places I have commented on my love of local newspapers.  We get the Joliet Herald News, and I read every issue.

This guy, a columnist named George Gaspar, finally got my goat one too many times.  I am compelled to write …A LETTER TO THE EDITOR!

Here is his column.  Below is my response (not sure why it’s in bold).

With 300 words or less, the Editor has put me at a disadvantage.  I can’t have all of my grievances redressed, so we’ll’ve [sic] to settle for the major point.

Mr. Gaspar obfuscates the point in his March 2 “Viewpoint” column.  He would swing the weight of women’s rights like a medieval mace in order to beat the Church back into the Dark Ages, where it becomes an easy target to malign and calumniate.  (This would be interesting to explore; at a glance, I would offer that Thomas Aquinas could express a better argument in sighs than Gaspar has in this column).

Let’s be honest – whether the “extremist” Republicans or the “extremist” Catholics want to turn back the clock is . . . → Read More: Letter to the Editor

It is amazing what a good commentary can do.

Some time back I attempted to read the Gospel according to Luke, and I found myself stumbling constantly.  This was nothing more than a form of unfamiliarity – despite my upbringing and hearing passages from the New Testament (at least) once a week for as long as I can remember, I don’t get first century Galilee.

Fine, but aren’t the episodes and teachings timeless?  If you’ll labor with the text, won’t it come alive in some way very near to your own life?  Sure it will, but that can seem an awful lot like cherry-picking.  And that’s probably not quite fair, because one does not usually want to cherry-pick, but to understand the gospel as a complete work, as though one had walked with Jesus and experienced Him.

Anyway, we’re veering off the course.  Stay focused, you.

If the text must be understood – at least to some extent – from the perspective of a 1st century reader, Barclay has translated the social and historical (con)text into 20th century language.

Isn’t this the 21st century?  The man died in 1978, dude.  What do you want?

Once he has done this – . . . → Read More: Jesus Digest

A friend has had some questions about the Catholic faith, and one of them centered on Baptism.  How is it, she very reasonably asked, that we started with John baptizing Jesus and Jesus commissioning his disciples to baptize in the name of the Trinity and now have priests sprinkling infants with water, while no one else may baptize?

You playing at home probably know, as I did, that baptism is not the purview of priests alone, but also bishops – and under fairly ordinary circumstances, deacons can baptize.  You probably also knew that any believer could baptize under extraordinary circumstances – say, a death bed conversion.

But here’s your extra credit question:  Did you know that non-believers can baptize people into the Catholic Church?  It’s true, as long as they follow the form and formula, and carry the same intent as the Church does whenever she baptizes.

Maybe I’m alone in this – that, to me, is astounding.  It actually puts me in awe.  The Church is so caught up in the salvation of souls – desperate even, in a certain way – that we allow anyone to baptize (under particular, reasonable circumstances).  Richard Dawkins could baptize.

That’s called grace.

I guess this is kinda my blog now…

www.acatholicguy.com – still available.

There some ridiculous company, by the way, that owns www.restfortheweary.com.  I have the .net version of that, because they decided to take the .com and occupy it like Wall Street.  And they’re very gracious about it – every couple of months I get a form e-mail saying the site is available at a discount.  Instead of $2,000 or some ridiculous price, they’ve brought it down to a very reasonable $1,750.

I sent them an e-mail suggesting that they were motherless and enjoying their freedom at the cost of several thousand dollars.  I may have also offered them a discount on www.gotohell.com.

Or, I may have politely declined their offer, but thought about doing those things.

On our return trip from Starved Rock to New Lenox, Marcy and I passed through Ottawa, IL to be refreshed by a local coffee shop with an inspiring story – Jeremiah Joe Coffee.  Ottawa reminded me a great deal of Charleston, WV, which is a great comparison for the Illinois town.

As we drove on, we passed a church with their marquee – “What’s the best vitamin for a Christian?  B1.” – and a banner.  The banner got me worked up a bit, and maybe you will see why.  It read, “Jesus didn’t reject anyone.  Neither do we.”

In response, I plainly said aloud, “Yes, He did.”  Marcy looked up to see what I was talking about, and I explained what I saw and what I was saying.

“The Scribes and the Pharisees,” I said, “He called them vipers.“  (See Matthew 12:34, 23:32-34)

Now, the spirit of the banner is one thing, and to love one’s neighbor in spite of any shortcomings or differences is a great thing.  Of course we are all in need of this kind of love.

But the “love” that says anything goes, that permits any behavior as long as it is not immediately painful to . . . → Read More: Banner of “Love”

My daughter Amelia is about to turn 2, and she is such a delightful human being.  She is at an age when she loves to see what Mama and Papa are doing, and she does her best to imitate.  This includes baking, putting on deodorant, nursing babies (she nurses her doll), reading stories (again, she’ll read to her doll), and even exercising.  All of this is taken up with wonder and exuberance.

This will tie in, in a moment.

From the first donation, I have been fascinated with the whole process of giving blood.  Naturally, there are the very good, altruistic reasons for doing it – you can help save or improve the lives of those who are critically injured or ill.  In fact, it is an almost completely altruistic act.  The only thing one concretely gets from it is a snack and some juice.  Less concretely may be a sense of moral superiority, but we’ll leave that aside for now.

The fascination has to do with actually giving away, in a real sense, a part of one’s very life.  It is admittedly a modest part, and one that is not very sacrificial beyond giving up some time and a . . . → Read More: The motions

The only thing more fascinating than someone spending $100 million on a campaign advocating a bunk prophecy is how much play this has gotten in the press. Flipping through the channels in my hotel room last night, talk about Harold Camping’s bold (and now, utterly false) prediction was inescapable. Now I know atheists are planning post rapture days on Sunday and those who utterly despise religion are using this to show the foolishness of the entire faith enterprise, but I think this points to an all together wonderful and escapable truth – we are created for God.

A recent study by a professor of psychology from Bristol Univrsity has put forth a proposal that our brains are literally hard wired for God. While I don’t propose to know the science behind this, I, for one, believe it. And I think this entire rapturegate (I hope I’m the first one to throw “gate” at the end of the word rapture in the history of media) is a fascinating case study in the inescapable metaphysical reality of God.

We are created by God, for God. It’s in the deepest parts of us. St. Paul teaches us that the whole of creation . . . → Read More: Rapturegate