Good ol' Catholic Guilt

I'm Catholic... so... "I know guilt." You know what I mean?

Actually,... truth be told,... I don't even know what I mean. Well, I know on a superficial level in that I frequently hear quotes such as: "I got that Irish Catholic Guilt in me..." "I grew up Catholic, so I know guilt..." "You used to be Catholic, so you should know that guilt stuff..." and on, and on. Yet, I do not know in a personal, experiential, way that level of guilt that would compare to the descriptions just mentioned.

So why am I writing this post?

Well, while I may not have experienced this "guilt" at the level of notoriety that seems to be prevalent, I think there may be something to it. Because I may not have experienced it, I will not dismiss the possibility that some people do, in fact, feel this way (or are predisposed to feel this way). And, this post is mainly addressed to such people.

First, let me apologize from the depths of my heart if I just came off as being haughty. It was truly not my intent. I have heard such phrases said so often, for so long, that I sat around trying to figure out where people come up with it (where they are coming from). And, it was in self-reflection that I think I may have figured out the key to understanding it.

The big question I asked myself is: "do I feel guilt?" As silly a question as that may seem, it actually was profound to me. My knee-jerk answer was "of course I do... why wouldn't I?,..." and then, I proceeded to think of the reason(s) why I feel guilt.

I think above serves as a really good example of one such instance when I feel guilt: If I do something, particularly unjustly, to offend someone. How about when I let someone down?-you bet ya!,... how about when I do something I shouldn't?... guilty as charge... a flood of examples came streaming into my thoughts, and there seemed to be one thread that was common to all the situations: the BIG, three letter bad word. Yes, my friends, the word that must never be spoken, and even more rarely should be committed: S-I-N.

Lets not kid ourselves... we all sin. Yet, something inside us tells us that, maybe-just maybe, we shouldn't. Sometimes, though, that doesn't stop us from doing it... right? It is in those times when we know we can do better that we feel guilt the greatest.

But,... what of this prolonged, pronounced, even prominent sense of guilt that seems to prevail the realm of common knowledge?

I think it is important to point out that I think it is a really awesome thing that people are experiencing the emotion. Not in the diabolical sense that I would in any way enjoy some one's suffering; it truly pains me that someone would suffer... particularly if it is needless suffering. It is awesome in that in order to experience this emotion, it first assumes that the person has a sense of right and wrong. When we experience guilt, we know that we can sit back and think "what did I do wrong?"... which means that, to some extent, those who experience guilt truly want - deep down - what is good and just in the world.

Even more so, if a person has this long/deep sense of guilt, this suggests that his sense of right and wrong is very strong and cannot be muted no matter how much his intellect may want. It is this sense of right/wrong, the conscience, that is a wholly good thing; the stronger the better because the stronger it is the more that, deep down, you care. That is the thing that is awesome.

But, here is the hard part,...

Guilt is not a pleasant emotion (as it should be). I would say that it is so for a reason. Experiencing guilt is the first step to healing. It is only the first step, though... and if we do not follow through with the other steps, we will not only continue to feel guilt, it will also begin to intensify. It may even intensify or be prolonged enough that we lose hope, or we give up... but I will let you in on a little secret: it will not go away. We should not be experiencing an extended amount of guilt, nor do we have to.

Guilt is only the first step, in that it is the first step in allowing God to form our heart. The more we ignore this, or worse, the more we resist God working in our hearts the more discomfort we ultimately cause ourselves. God does not want us to be in pain and suffering, but He will not stop us from self-inflicted wounds. God wants what is best for us, but He will never stop us from turning our back on Him. God, the Loving Father that he is, though... no matter what... will always be looking off to see if his prodigal children will be coming back. And, when he sees us coming back, WAY off in the distance,... out of compassion He runs out to meet us... to embrace us... to clothe us in His redemption... and fill us whole because we who were once dead are now brought to new life!!(Luke 15 11-32)

But, this will never happen if we never follow through with what guilt should move us to do, and THAT is the hard part. Guilt, first and foremost should move us to sorrow... From sorrow to forgiveness; forgiveness not necessarily in the sense of giving, but in seeking... From seeking forgiveness to reconciliation... From reconciliation to redemption.

God's Mercy is free, and yearning for us... if only we were to ask. The greatest obstacle... the greatest enemy, though, is ourselves. How often do we, out of pride, refuse to humble ourselves? To recognize our wrongs? To recognize our faults,... the bad things we had done? the good things he have failed to do? That reconciliation with God is found in the Sacrament of Forgiveness and Mercy... but why do we allow ourselves to be discouraged from confessing our sins aloud as if we never sin?

My brothers and sisters... please let me invite you to come to God's Mercy,... allow it to heal you and work in your lives. Allow me to plead with you to join me in finding the joy in life through reconciliation found in the Sacrament of Confession. Let us be that prodigal son who, after turning ourselves from God through sin, through guilt realized:

"Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee: I am not worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants"

And rise,... coming home to our Father.

God Love You!

Letter to Obama...

I just read the open letter to President Obama from the Superior General of the Congregation of Holy Cross. If you don't know, the Congregation of Holy Cross is...

...well, I will just let you read. Many great quotes will come from this letter:

Mr. President, as you know the "life issues" before us are quite matter of fact, yet exceedingly complex. Our most essential faith conviction is straight-forward. You yourself expressed it so well in your remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast this past February 5th, when you said: "No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life an innocent human being. This much we know."

This much we know, Mr. President, your statement on the taking of an innocent life is our belief. It is the kind of clear, straightforward talk of your conscience convictions that we find so appealing. But sadly for us Catholics, your words do not express our meaning when you speak of "taking the life of an innocent human being."...

... in Catholic dogma, human life is human life. Abortion is considered an unspeakable crime, the taking of an innocent human life. As you so well stated "no God condones taking the life of an innocent human being." As Catholics, that much we know. You prayed "let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate." Just as love begets love, hate begets hate.

There are some people who hate the life of a child in the womb due to the unwanted consequences of sheltering, nurturing and forming that new "intruder," that new guest, who is now forever altering the agenda of one's personal life as well as the life of our larger society.

There are some religious people who now hate Notre Dame for inviting you to speak at the 2009 graduation and receive an honorary degree. I fear their hate will beget further hate. Will their hatred ultimately destroy their souls in the guise of self-righteousness, just as powerfully as abortion destroys the physical life of a newly conceived child?...

Embedded in the civil laws framing our United States cultural values, and even among some Christian believers, an embryo growing in a woman's womb is not considered to be a human life; "it" is regarded simply as new tissue, a kind of cancerous, biological growth infecting a woman's body and threatening a woman's independent way of life. Legalized abortion clearly implies that a person's choice for personal freedom supersedes the natural human obligation to protect and nurture human life. Biological destiny has its challenges for both women and men in making our choices. The Hebrew Scripture emphatically expresses the right decision in the choice between life and death: "choose life!"

Faithful Catholics believe that the fetus, the embryo, growing in the womb is a distinct human being. We believe that the new child's mother is the guardian of her baby's life within her womb. She is offering this new creation precious hospitality, just as a Christian might give a journeying pilgrim the respite of hospitality within one's own home.

This much we know, Mr. President, in our culture, dictated by the law of the land, a newly conceived embryo is not offered the dignity and rights of an independent, innocent human being. "There is no God who condones taking the life an innocent human being." As Catholics, this much we know, abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. Nothing will ever change that.

President Obama, would you really sign into law a bill like FOCA which would force faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions? Would you deny doctors and health care professionals their most precious human freedom in choosing life?...

...Tragically, we have a tradition in our United States culture which gives us permission to define the parameters of human life when it suits our self-interest. Did we not justify our tradition of slavery by denying that a black human being of African decent was fully human? To call a slave a human being would have interrupted the economic progress and well being of our country's self-interest. Many leaders of the nation believed we could not afford to do that. As I understand it, President Lincoln had a contrary view and took us to civil war for the sake of unifying our country's conscience in terms of the rights and dignity of all human life. Or was it simply a war fought over the nation's economy?

And so now today we are engaged in a great civil war over conscience formation. The defense of human life is an obligation for all humanity, not just for Catholics. Or is this war simply a war over the right to defend our self-interest without regard for promoting the responsibility we have for others?

An "unwanted" child comes in many forms: an untimely presence; a disabled or deformed creature; an embryo of the wrong sex; a child conceived out of wedlock; a child conceived through a hideous crime. We today have an unparalleled capacity through our scientific know-how, unlike the limited knowledge at the disposal of Adolf Hitler, to create a super race, free of any spot or wrinkle. The new laws of our society seem to aspire toward creating genetic purity within the human species, hoping to assure a problem-free future for the sake of human happiness, pleasure, prosperity and peace.

There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. President, that in the not too distant future we will have godlike powers to form the perfect human species. The Tower of Babel will have had nothing on us when it comes to asserting our god-like greatness.

Surely future laws will require us to remove any genetic tendency toward weakness and imperfection; we will soon have a nation (and world?) of perfect "Stepford Wives" and perhaps "Stepford Husbands" and "Stepford Children." We will soon become quite adept in the art of putting people out of their misery; particularly if they are causing us misery!..

What makes the last part so potent, and I hope the president "gets it", is the reference to the Tower of Babel...

And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech. And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it. And each one said to his neighbour: Come, let us make brick, and bake them with fire. And they had brick instead of stones, and slime instead of mortar. And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous lest we be scattered abroad into all lands. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.

And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed. Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech. And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries. (Gen 11:1-9)

The first significant point:
This story follows on the heels of the great flood. The people, of one language... "understanding"... came together to accomplish a great feat that would surely earn a spot on the TV series "Modern Marvels." There were going to build something, on their own (without consideration of God), that would -in essence- reach God's dwelling place... all dedicated to the Glory of Man (apart from God). In other words... they wanted Godlike powers, and wanted nothing to do with God. This "great" project of theirs was 'in the name of unity,' but lacked the source of unity.

The second significant point:
Many times in the letter to Obama, the Superior General complements President Obama for his great skills in speech and persuasion... yet at the same time consistently points out that the greatest, and very same, words that President Obama utters have wholly and completely different meaning to a Faithful Catholic. Confusing, none-the-less, no?

This, quite predictably, is what happened in the Story of Babble (I mean Babel). Okay, okay,... I confess,... the slip of type was intentional. Oddly enough, "Babel" is where we derive meaning to the word "babble." The 'great' people of Babel wished to make themselves great by marveling in their own technological feats... but ended up causing themselves to be scattered to the ends of the Earth. Now President Obama wants to advance us, technologically, beyond the heights of the Tower of Babel... through the heights of Heaven to pierce the heart of Christ Himself. Why, then, should we not expect a fallout that will pale in comparison to the people of Babel?

For the sake of His sorrowful Passion... Have mercy on us and on the Whole world...

Why don't Catholics use contraceptives?

The inaugural post. :)

A good friend of mine asked me this question once. My friend wasn't the first to ask me this question, because hers is not an uncommon one (even among Catholics). In fact, this was one question that I struggled with when coming back home to the Church. Here is the exchange we had (slightly edited to fill in the context of the conversation we had been having):

Why don't Catholics use contraceptives? Isn't abstinence sort of a form of birth control? Selectively opting not to have sex in order to prevent birth? Or timing things so that a baby is less likely?

The topic of birth control often becomes a confusing subject because a lot of people tend to fixate on a 'legalistic' view of it, i.e. you can do this/can't do that, while forgetting the reasons for its prohibition. You are correct, abstinence is a form of "birth control". What should be clarified is the use of artificial contraceptives. To the average person, when the word contraceptive is used, the first thought is the pill, condoms, the morning-after pill, or sterilization. Someone in the medical field may be familiar with other methods that utilizes breast-feeding, or fertility-symptoms measuring. These natural methods are allowed by the Church if there is sufficient reason (so, it being artificial v.s. 'natural' isn't the factor that makes it allowable). Even natural "contraceptives" can be a perversion, and thus lead to sin.

Confusing as this may be, it may help to explain the why behind it. Sexuality, in Catholic understanding (theology/morality/etc.), has its roots in the Sacrament of Marriage. Yes, I threw out 'Sacrament' as a potential topic to take up further, because this is one other subject that is uniquely Catholic, I think. A brief explanation of Sacrament can be compared to against that of a contract. Contracts are agreements between two parties, exchanging goods or services, where if one side faults, the agreement is dissolved (sometimes with punitive damages)--from the experiences that I have had, i.e. what I have seen, this tends to be more how protestants see marriage.. please correct me if I am wrong. Sacraments (Latin: sacrāmentum, which means oath/obligation... covenant), on the other hand, while like a contract is an agreement between two parties, the 'agreements' are vows sealed with the exchange of persons, and is more intimate (familial), thus indissoluble.

A good example is Christ, and the New and everlasting covenant. He was the person whom God exchanged from His family to seal His final 'promise'. So we find in Genesis this first covenant taking place, between God, Adam and Eve, where man shall leave his father and mother, cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. It is very striking what Adam says of Eve: This now is bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh. In this covenential context, we understand better the blessing that God says to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1: "And God blessed them, saying: be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth..."

This being said, we see that the Sacrament (a more official definition being "an outward sign of an inward grace") of Marriage is a covenential promise between a man and a woman... with the familial exchange being themselves giving each other completely as Christ gave Himself completely on the Cross. One of many blessings that comes of this is the fertility and conception of life, where man shares in God's creation. In fact, the conception of a child is the closest reflection of the Trinity that man can get here on Earth. To intentionally eliminate, or remove the fertility aspect of this, is to pervert the covenential vows and God's blessings. It even becomes a contradiction to some extent, because how can one, in a covenential vow, say "I give you my all", and then place a barrier in the act of giving your all? Or, "I give you my all", then withhold the part of the self which includes fertility? (This is another place where we see the beauty of sexuality in that every time a man and women embrace in bed, they are renewing, or making present again, their marital vows).

Natural Family Planning is simply knowledge. Knowledge of being able to recognize the natural fertility cycles that a woman goes through in order to either aid in achieving pregnancy, or to avoid/delay pregnancy. An object/process is not introduced to cause infertility, as in the barrier/oral method (artificial). As mentioned earlier, even Natural Family Planning can become a perversion of what has been explained, especially when there isn't a sufficient reason to delay/prevent pregnancy. Any time sexuality deviates from the understanding within the context of Sacrament/Covenant of Marriage (contraception-natural or artificial, masturbation, pornography... even marrying only for political/monetary reasons or marrying with no intention of having children-or not being open to having children... etc.), this deviation becomes occasion for sin.

God Bless You!