America, this is what I'm thinking

This is a response to the comment made by Stan on the post in which I vented my post-election angst. First off, that post was not meant to stand as my final intelligent analysis of the cultural downturn this country is going through. While I stand by what I said, it was, in fact, a rant of sorts and meant to be somewhat inflammatory. Well, Stan, you were certainly inflamed.

Ok, now a response to your second through fifth paragraphs (the environment). What we have here is a difference in worldviews. Thank you for bringing this subject up, because I had been meaning to talk about it since the beginning of the school year. I'm currently taking a course in Environmental Science, so each day I'm understanding more and more just how screwed the earth is if we keep our present behavior up. First, oil. It's nice that you feel so secure in your frontier science (aka yet to be proven) and in your conservative version of the truth, but the fact is that our current known reserves are going to dry up completely within my lifetime at the current rate of production. Even if exploration reveals new reserves, I'd like to see you try to enjoy breathing when we all drive SUVs. I believe it is safe to say that your worldview is that of planetary management, as my course would call it. This worldview says that humans may manage the world to their own maximum benefit and will be able, by their superior intellect, to solve any negative environmental repercussions that their actions will create. It views the world as a tool to be used by humans. The worldview I would like to put forth is that of environmental wisdom. In this view, we understand that the earth would be just fine without us (actually, better off) and therefore strive to live sustainably (as in not using up all of a nonrenewable resource such as oil). Unfortunately, the exponential growth of the human population is not sustainable. We are overshooting the carrying capacity of the earth, and we will eventually have a population crash similar to the Black Death. Technology can only prop us up for so long. But people who continue to abuse the earth with their planetary management worldviews are only shortening the time before that happens. There is a reason for environmentalists to be radical. They realize fully the urgency of the situation and are like unheeded prophets in the desert.

Ok, spoiled malcontents? Yes, Kerry is rich. He is an elite. He belongs to Yale's Skull and Bones club. Bush is all of those things as well! I know that Kerry isn't much better than Bush, but I would have taken what I could get.

On to the pro-life issue. Abortion is an evil. It is intrinsically evil, I agree. But it cannot be as black and white as I wish it could be. In cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life being threatened by the pregnancy, the government cannot take away the woman's ability to choose. However, if it were a hypothetical (woman) "me" in any of those situations, I hope that I would have the courage to at least have the child and give him or her away through adoption or to give up my life for my baby. Those decisions are based on moral judgements that our government cannot force everyone to have. It cannot be legislated, or at least not easily. So while I personally believe that no abortions are morally correct, it is not my nor the government's place to judge that for everyone. While I would love to only look at the issue from the perspective of the innocent baby's life, there is an unfortunate gray area in which one must consider the rights of the mother equally with the rights of the unborn (and unfortunately unrepresented) baby.

I'd also like to address gay rights, even though Stan did not bring that topic up in his rebuttal. The Republican party effectively used the public's fear of homosexual people getting married to get more conservatives to the polls (and vote for Bush while they're there voting for gay marriage bans). As much as I despise the term objectively disordered, the homosexual act is just that. Marriage within the Church is both unitive and procreative. Obviously, the homosexual act cannot bear fruit, unless one considers adoption to be equivalent with procreation. So the Church will never allow homosexuals to marry. Civil marriages have no requirement of procreation, so there should be no reason why homosexual couples cannot be married by the state. I see no distinction to be made between civil marriages and civil unions. Marriage within the Church as an institution cannot be threatened simply because homosexuals can (or should be allowed to) marry through the State.

Finally, the issue of pacifism. Violence begets violence. It is as simple as that. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists may want to attack us now, but continuing to exert our power over them isn't going to stamp out terrorism. That is because we aren't dealing with a limited number of terrorists who we can all eventually kill and solve the problem. We are dealing with an insurgency that will only continue to grow under present conditons. Just as with the economic root of many abortions, we have to treat the anger of terrorists at its root, not violently react to the visible outbursts of that anger. The position of pacifism is a scary and dangerous one. I would argue that it is the more courageous one, the more revolutionary one, as well.

Yes, I am continually learning. But I believe I am more free to receive the truth that I learn without the blinders of selfish concerns. These are my intelligent opinions, and I invite debate.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The Bone has a wonderful post as to where to go from here that I invite you (the general public, not Stan) to read. (it is the second post on Nov. 6, if confused) It lifted my spirits after being kicked while already down by aforementioned Stan. The poem If, linked to in the post, was especially inspiring for this post. Thank you, Stan, for challenging me to mature, not into your conservative point of view, but in being able to take criticism as constructive and replace my rant with clear-headed opinions and arguments.


I've actually realized recently just how conservative I am with regards to my own sexuality. While it is obvious from my positions on abortion and homosexuality that I do not judge others by my own standards, the standards of chastity I hold myself to are pretty darn high! I realize this as a result of my theology class. I'll hopefully post more on this later.

Prohodiation

Last wednesday night at youth group, we received the challenge to cut the strings that hold us back from our full potential, from fully surrendering to God. We went through our days and reflected on what was holding us back from what we wanted to do. Then we ranked the items in order of importance, with one item of highest rank that we would definitely commit to cutting out of our lives. Since the word procrastination appeared on my list at several points throughout the day, I figured that would be a good thing to work on. I mentioned my problem with procrastination when I was ranting about school earlier, but it has been a bigger problem this year. I had a case of early onset senioritis. So since wednesday, I've been focusing on not procrastinating, and I've been pretty good. With getting my homework done earlier (or getting it done at all), I actually had time to blog last night (a school night). I already reflected on a cause of my procrastination, that cause being using it as a release from my perfectionism. But basically, it is a matter of self-discipline. Although, I have noticed that, while it is nice not having to rush to get my homework done before I go to the class it is due in, the days are generally more boring without the adrenaline of rushing. There's a trade off. I just need to find more ways to be more productive and less bored. I did well today, turning in my application to SLU, finally, and looking into other scholarships (but still, I wasn't under any pressure, so it was not very interesting; I wish I was taking psychology right now).

Nevertheless, not procrastinating is good. Maybe I'll start practicing prohodiation (pro hodie "for today" (a word I just made up), instead of pro cras, "for tomorrow"), and start my homework on a friday. Maybe.

America, what were you thinking?

To: The World
I want to sincerely apologize on behalf of the people of the United States of America for not removing George W. Bush from power. I apologize to you because I am certain that the next four years will undoubtedly hold great suffering and injustice for many more parts of the world as a direct result of Bush's "foreign policy," aka using a war on terror as an excuse to seize as much of the dwindling fossil fuels as possible, which will only increase the amount of terrorists' complaints and rage against the United States. So I fear for your well-being, World.

I also fear for the United States, which, under Bush's "domestic policy," will continue on the path of regression in the areas of environmental protection, education, the welfare of the poor and elderly (both financially and medically), gainful employment, and civil rights/constitutional rights. Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot.

I'm seriously having trouble understanding the thought processes of half of America. There are actually people who think Bush is a good president. And they are the majority! What kind of country am I living in? I'll never leave the country soley because of the election of one person, but if those people being elected keep taking away more and more of my rights and keep degrading the society in which I need to survive in, destroying the "American Dream" they profess to live by, I may eventually be fleeing, not from a man, but from the tyranical state that man is leading. In that case, Sweden, here I come!

I would like to question Archbishop Burke's stand on voting for "pro-life" candidates. I understand that we should choose candidates by evaluating their positions through the lens of our beliefs. But lets honestly look at the significance of what we've done. We (er, you) voted for the "pro-life" candidate by reason of our religious beliefs. And when this candidate assumes power with a mandate based on those religious beliefs, he will go on to work on economic and political matters (not religious!) that will in fact lead to an increase in the problem of abortion (through the oppression of the poor (who receive the majority of abortions)) and the problem of capital punishment. And the problem of an unjust war. Just because war is supposedly justifible in some situations doesn't mean that we should disregard the fact that it is NOT JUSTIFIED in this situation. Bush may not be pro-choice, but he certainly isn't pro-life, either. And you put him back in office. So I fear for the Church as well.


Just a few notes on what I would like to see changed about the election process. Federal control of voting methods! It should be standardized throughout the country. Also a better voting method. I'm researching what that might be. Possibly ranked pairs. Possibly instant runoff voting. I still need to learn more. Get rid of the electoral college. My history teacher tried to explain its purpose/importance, but he failed to impress its importance on me. It is antiquated and needs to go. Feel free to enlighten me if you think otherwise. Or if for some reason we have to keep it, we can at least follow New Hampshire's lead (I think) and divide the electoral votes proportionally to the popular vote. Oh, and we could abolish the two party system while we're at it.

Dream ticket for '08 election: Obama McCain.

Pray for our troops, that they can stop dying for one man's mistake/personal agenda.
And God bless the WORLD, because America just cursed itself.

Fr. Sam wants YOU to be a priest.

Last Sunday, I met with some of my classmates and a priest at my high school. We were there to discuss our possible vocation of priesthood. It's a relatively small group. There are apparently only five of us in my whole class considering the priesthood. I was invited to come to these meetings at the beginning of the school year. I'm not exactly sure why. I suppose all of the priests or even all the theology teachers talk amongst themselves regarding possible candidates for the seminary, because I don't remember ever directly telling the priest who led the meeting (Fr. H) that I was considering the priesthood. Nevertheless, this has been at least the fourth priest to approach me about the priesthood. So I'm feeling a call, at least on the temporal plane. There hasn't been any great epiphanies or inspirations from the spiritual plane calling me to the celibate life as of yet. That's not to diminish the importance of the temporal plane of course. I suppose I'm not so much looking for a call from above as much as from within. I believe for the most part, even though it is hard to consider in my humanness, that I would be free to follow God's will into the consecrated life, if that be the case. But let's look at the practical side (the side all of these priests looked at when they decided to extend the invitation to join them and answer a similar vocation as their own). Why do I elicit so much attention from these priests? Basically, I believe I have been observed as being prayerful and pious. It is true that I do pray (not nearly as much as I should/as I want to) and that I have developed a generally pious pattern of behavior. From these things one may conclude that I am a spiritual person and interested in spiritual things. But does that mean that I am automatically a strong candidate for the priesthood? Maybe. Does it mean that I should automatically become a priest? Definitely not. I don't think anyone was suggesting that, but with the numerous invitations to the priesthood, I think I have felt pressured to consider the option and therefore perverted the intent of the invitations.

When I strip the situation down to just me and God, which is what I would prefer to do right now, I am left to consider the practical matter of how good of a priest I would make. What makes for a good priest? It seems to me that in one's vocation, one would find the best use for the talents one has been given. Right now I don't feel that I would make a good priest with the gifts I have. Although I do realize that if this be my vocation, God would give me the grace to live it out.

Actually, I'm suprised that I am taking these considerations as seriously as I am during this period of doubts in which I am questioning the importance of ritual and ceremony and elaborate symbolism. I'm by no means rejecting all of it, just seeking a better appreciation of it. But while I'm going through this process, its a little hard to consider becoming the one administering all of the rituals and ceremonies and wearing the robes full of elaborate symbolism. Robes that seem to elevate the priest and put up a barrier between the priest and congregation right now. I think all of these doubts come as a result of surrounding myself with people that do reject all of this organized religion stuff (namely, many of my classmates), and not living in a bubble. Even in a Catholic Jesuit high school, secularism creeps in and influences my thinking. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It leads me to struggle with these issues and strengthen what I actually believe in. I also have gained a better understanding of where some of my classmates are coming from with regards to their attitudes about religion. At the end of the day, I may not agree, but that isn't necessary for me to understand and accept them for who they are. So I'm glad for that.

When I talked Sunday about where I am in my discernment, I offered the definition of vocation that it is finding God in my deepest and best desires. I said that I'm not sure how to discern what those desires are, but I do know for sure that I have a desire to be a husband and a father. Fr. H responded that on some level, everyone wants to be a spouse and parent, but we have to get past that. I'm just not so sure I should.

So here's to developing a personal relationship with God that I am able to take public, sharing it in the faith community of the Mass. I'll just work on living for God and let God figure out how to guide me to the right vocation.

Fight Club: a call to let go and let God?

As I've been reflecting, another thing I took away from watching Fight Club is a reiteration of an idea I wrote about last spring during track: that I can only improve myself so much on my own and I have to let God work in me without my interference. The anti-globalization movement that develops during the movie has the aura of the early Christian Church in that the people involved are completely dedicated and empowered as though the Holy Spirit is working within them. That's as far as the comparison goes between Fight Club and the early Christian Church. Two different themes in the movie that lead to this dynamic movement are letting go of control (which in the movie led to a "near-life experience" (as opposed to near-death)) and the favoring of self-destruction over self-improvement. I am repulsed by the movie's idea of self-destruction (basically all types of violence brought upon one's person by choice), but this may be translated to the more Christian ideal of dying to one's own wants and needs, rejecting the material things (just as in the movie) in order to be free to follow and imitate Jesus. So I was just thinking about all of the self-improvement that I talk about and try to do, especially as discussed in this blog. The movie says that self-improvement is just masturbation. And I would agree with that statement if anything I do is not fully directed to pleasing God and not myself. I need to let go of control of my life, deconstructing those aspects of my life that I hold onto for my own sense of control and security and pleasure so that God may be free to move within me and work through me to affect this world as God wills it. This is yet another call to change the attitudes with which I am motivated in order to be selfless in my attempts at self transformation/world transformation. I hope this results in less talking about it (as in this blog) and more praying. Less lip-service, more action.

Politics: opinions on the election, globalization

Well, lots of different things have entered into and influenced my thinking during this exam week (ie week of partial freedom from time restraints imposed by school). I read an article about the European Dream (as opposed to the American Dream) in Utne magazine. I have been reading Catherine de Hueck Doherty's The Gospel Without Compromise. I finally watched Fahrenheit 9/11. I also watched Fight Club today. It's been a lot to take in. Maybe I can start to process it here.

Okay, first off I should get it out there that I'm planning to vote for Kerry come 11/2. As much as I am Pro-Life, I have come to understand that abortion laws will not be changed any time soon. It would be better to support a candidate whose philosophy might lead to a treatment of the social conditions that lead to many abortions than to support a candidate who is making those conditions worse, and isn't all that Pro-Life anyway. Honestly, my vote for Kerry is more a vote against Bush. While I dislike the two party system dramatically limiting my options to support a candidate who actually holds the majority of my views, I accept that this is the present system within which we are living. And in order to successfully oust Bush, I am left with only one realistic choice. This is a vote of conscience for me because I cannot imagine giving Bush another four years to mess up the planet any more than he already has; I have to have hope that Kerry will be able to at least slow down the rate at which the United States messes up the world.

I mean, really, doesn't anyone else see the irony of Bush forcing "freedom [to be] on the march?" Any parallels to Monolithic Communism? Taking over countries so that they can assume your political system? This is the most blatant, and therefore most offensive to the world, form of globalization that the United States is trying to enact.

I guess this is where my watching Fight Club takes effect. I had never given much thought to the effects of globalization, or even what it was, until recently. The movie is basically (without getting into any of the plot at all) a portrayal of a very violent anti-globalization group. I read a review of the movie that helped me understand it a lot better for what it is, if you're interested. I came away from the movie and review thinking about what I've read in Gospel Without Compromise, which is the most recent call to love one's enemies that I've received. So the movie was good only in introducing me to this important issue of globalization.

The Utne article that I linked to above was cool because it presents an alternate worldview from the one the United States holds, that of Europe, or more specifically, the European Union, which I find to be a very cool thing indeed. I very much suggest reading the article. Unfortunately, as Europe has apparently evolved liberally, it has become greatly secularized (as the article says). Not that the United States is very far behind that trend. Despite this fact about European culture, I get the sense that I might be more compatible with the governing structures in Europe than in the United States. I'm not planning on moving an time soon, but I look forward to experiencing Europe in person.

I don't know if there's anything to say about Fahrenheit. Bush is bad. We need to get him out. I knew that before watching the movie. But it's nice to know that the message is reaching more voters.

To quote the bumperstickers on the back of my car (if only bikes had bumpers), "Choose Life. Not Bush."