The other day I ran across an interesting podcast about a Dominican priest, Father Nathan Castle, OP, and his prayer ministry to souls who died in very traumatic circumstances, and are in a sense, "stuck". We would think of it as it purgatory or perhaps limbo.
The place where I listened to the podcast was Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World. I don't listen to Jimmy Akin's podcasts a lot, because they do run on quite long. But they are interesting. I listen to them when I am doing some quite boring task, such as cleaning out cupboards. This is the episode I was listening to: Helping Stuck Souls! (Purgatory, Fr. Nathan Castle, OP) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World - YouTube
This is more of a short "Cliff Notes" version of Father Nathan's ministry: The Night Shift - YouTube
He has been a priest in the Dominican order for about 37 years. More than 20 years ago, he started having dreams of short clips of traumatic events which he had never personally experienced. I will briefly summarize what he does, along with his prayer partners.
Father Nathan's ministry is to "stuck souls" who died suddenly and traumatically. Victims of fires, automobile accidents, shootings, stabbings, and drownings come to him in dreams seeking help to resolve their interrupted death experiences. He writes down the dreams, which are different than normal dream sequences. He believes that providing help to these souls is something the Holy Spirit has given him and his prayer partners to do.
I have his book, "Afterlife Interrupted". It is important to note that he has the permission of his superiors to engage in this ministry, and that he never works alone. He emphasizes that most people, even those who die in traumatic circumstances, do not get stuck. It has to do with some people not being able to let go of what happened.
Even though I found the book interesting I am very thankful that I do not have this charism of troubled dead people getting into my dreams. Sometimes it is hard enough to get a good night's sleep without that!
He makes the point that anyone can pray for the dead, they don't need to know the specific needs of the souls who have passed. One can simply pray for God to send them peace.
I found this bit interesting. One can pray even while asleep, half of what every breath does is cleanse. Father Nathan says he consecrates his breathing before going to sleep, that way his breath could be cleansing himself and a soul in a state of purgation at the same time. He asks God to bless them and cleanse them of anything that is still in them that is spent and toxic. That is sort of a comforting thought, that one can help others as well as oneself during sleep.
Good heavens. It sounds like what some spiritualists claim to do in seances - help people “ talk” to their dead loved ones so that they can do whatever it is the dead person needs doing before he or she can “Rest In Peace”.
ReplyDeleteNever heard of Jimmy Akins. I guess I will google him.
From what I understand, this doesn't have to do with any communication with living loved ones or tasks that they need to complete. This is more about the state of mind of the person who died, particularly anger or a sense of unfairness.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell, this implies a ghost type spirit haunting a living person. Sounds a bit like that movie of several years ago - The Sixth Sense. I see after reading about Jimmy Akins that he is an apologist for Catholic Answers. No wonder I’ve never heard of him! I think this priest may watch too many crime shows and has a very vivid imagination. Or maybe he experienced a very traumatic event at some time - maybe in his childhood and the memories get twisted into new forms and haunt his dreams. I hope that my great nephew who held his mother’s hand as she died from the gunshot wounds when he was barely ten - and after the shooter try to kill him too as well as his mom and dad - will not be haunted throughout his life. He now seems to be a well- adjusted teenager, but severe childhood trauma can cause issues years later. I wonder if that priest has ever gone to a good therapist?
DeleteYou will quickly find out that Jimmy Akin is on Catholic Answers, which would place him in a conservative convert sort of pigeon-hole. Father Castle isn't in that pigeon-hole, he just happened to be interviewed by Jimmy Akin. He is much more ecumenical in outlook. Though sometimes Jimmy surprises one.
DeleteSorry Anne, I posted before I saw your answer. I would have thought that about unresolved trauma too (on the part of Fr. Castle) until I read the book, and it doesn't seem to be the case. I'm glad your nephew is doing well, that would be such a horrible thing to go through.
DeleteSomehow I doubt that souls need human help in order to complete whatever passage occurs after bodily death. After googling the priest I see that he is extremely good at self- promotion however. His books and videos are probably a source of income for his order. But he should still probably discuss his nightmares with a therapist - assuming they are real.
DeleteI have no problem praying for the dead. How much it is about causality, I don't know. But connectedness, yes.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is all about remembering the dead. I really think my parents continue to have a profound positive impact upon my life even though my father has been dead for twenty years and my mother for thirty. I frequently ask: What would mom do? What would dad do?
Delete"I see that he is extremely good at self- promotion."
ReplyDeleteI would say a genius since he has invented a "worthy cause" that only he can vouch for, and only he and his associates can do anything about. That is really a corner on a spiritual market.
I tend to be very skeptical of dreams. A long time ago I decided not to try to remember or record my own. I think of dreaming as free time for my brain. Something like a horse that gets saddled or hitched up to a wagon doing waking hours and needs the freedom to relax and do its own think during sleep.
I have never had much interest is ghosts and other unusual spiritual phenomena.
I try not to be too judgmental about the mystical experiences of others.
ReplyDeleteI would note that my understanding of purgatory doesn't involve being "stuck in place". It's more of a process: a purification to purge away what separates us from God.
Actually the description of being "stuck in place" sounded more like what we used to call Limbo, almost like a holding pattern.
DeleteWhen someone dies we always say, "may they rest in peace" . Maybe sometimes people's spirits do actually need to rest for awhile before they proceed farther. I can identify with someone not just feeling physically tired, but spiritually as well.
It’s ALL pure speculation - including the existence of purgatory. But if there is a life after death for souls, and if there is a purgatory, I too doubt that souls get stuck in place.
ReplyDeleteNot all «mystical experiences » are legitimate. Lots of questions arise when they result in a money making enterprise.
I personally don't have psychic or mystical abilities, for which I am thankful. I read the book more as something sort of interesting, rather than something I believe without some big reservations.
DeleteI'm with you, Katherine. I had dreams where I DID have psychic abilities. I classified those dreams as nightmares.
DeleteAs for ghosts, there have been some odd experiences in my family but few and far between.
I have an aunt who had the "second sight " (doesn't every family have someone like that?) She knew stuff. Some of which she didn't want to know.
DeleteNo - not every family has someone with second sight. None in my family or in any family that I know personally.
DeleteI do think that some people have really well developed senses of observation, empathy and intuition. But I also think that there is a lot we don’t understand yet about mental communication between (living) people. I have had a couple of personal experiences with what I suppose is called mental telepathy - two - both involving people I was very close to, and with whom I was very comfortable and compatible.
I've had several reports over the years that, at the moment a person died, various loved ones (e.g. children) knew something had happened, even if they were miles away from the event. They felt something. Not sure what to make of it.
DeleteJim, we had a family story like that. It happened in the 1880s , when there was no telephone, or internet, and mail took weeks to arrive. A young man who would have been a cousin on my grandmother's side had tuberculosis and had been sent out to western Nebraska to heal (not far enough west and not far enough south). He died anyway. His mother, who was 300 miles away, woke up from sleep and knew of his death. She roused the rest of the family saying, "Louis has died, we must pray for him". It turned out that had happened at the hour of his death.
DeleteLouis' gravestone was one of the oldest in the cemetery, 1885. We always put flowers there on Memorial Day.
Even though I claim no psychic abilities, like Anne I have had an instance of mental telepathy or clairvoyance; it was involving my husband when he was injured in basic training at Fort Campbell, KY. We weren't married, but we had been dating.
Katherine - have you ever heard an explanation of that phenomenon, of "knowing" something we'd otherwise have no way of knowing?
DeleteJim, I don't know what the explanation would be, but there does seem to be some commonalities. Father Nathan's episodes happen in a dream, when he is asleep. My relative knew of her son's death when she was sleeping. The incident with knowing of my husband's injury happened when I was in college, trying to study something boring, and was about half asleep. It was just a fleeting mental picture of him sitting in what looked like a barracks, with a cast on his ankle and foot. I just thought, "huh, that was weird." Then, come to find out, it had actually happened. It appears to happen when one's conscious mind is in a very relaxed state. Maybe there is normally too much background noise for any telepathic vibes to get through.
DeleteThis seems to be a private revelation. While the Church admits the possibility of private revelation, it is usually skeptical looking for evidence of holiness of the person's life, positive effects on other people, etc. I guess I am probably more skeptical than the Church since I have never been attracted to saints who seemingly had private revelations. I don't think they were fake, simply that there might have been natural explanations for them.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, with Robert Greenleaf, I affirm the theory of prophecy, that there are inspired people among us who pointing the way to a better world. With Greenleaf I think it is sometimes difficult to tell the true prophets from the false prophets. However, like him, I think we can test these inspirations in terms of past inspirations that have guided us, and in terms of our personal experience.
However, when it comes to private revelations, they seem much more difficult to test. I guess I wonder why God would make such private revelations.
Right, I'm also not entirely sure what to make of private revelations. I agree that, if good fruits come of them, they probably are harmless (and perhaps a good deal better than harmless for those who receive them).
DeleteI believe that at least some of the Marian appearances really happened.
Even though Church authorities may approve of revelations indirectly by canonizing saints or approving places of pilgrimage that does mean that we have to believe in them.
DeleteFrancis is very good on popular piety. On the one hand he has joked about people waiting at the post office for the latest letter from Mary. On the other hand, in the document on Aparecida he gives a wonderful description about how popular piety endowed this statue brought up from the sea in a fishing net with the anxieties, hopes, and dreams of a people. He attributed the success of the Aparecida document to the fact that the Latin American bishops met in a place of popular piety, i.e. close to the people, rather than a luxury hotel!
Darn it, I love Francis, even when sometimes he scares the pants off me :-)
DeleteBasically I don’t believe that the dead communicate with living people, not even in dreams. I often think about why people are so anxious to believe those who claim to communicate with the dead, or who believe in ghosts. Perhaps it’s our natural human anxiety - and fear- about what happens to us after death. Are we simply annihilated ? Do we have souls that really do live on in some way that we can’t grasp with our limited human minds? Everyone wants to believe in a life after death, even though there is no actual evidence of it. So Christian’s cling to the promises of Jesus and the resurrection ( to which there were no witnesses). It’s a deeply human hope. I hope so too, but I really have no idea if there is anything after death. Humans also want miracles. It seems that I recall that somewhere in the gospels Jesus chastises those who only seek signs and miracles. But we humans want to believe in miracles, just as we want to believe in life after death. Because we fear what might come, and we cling to hope in an afterlife, and cling to the idea of miracles and revelations, and appearances of Mary ( they’re always Mary - why not Jesus?). To soothe our fear of mortality.
ReplyDeleteI like the nature/ religious poems of Mary Oliver. Here is one I read today - I like her concept of miracles.
In the Storm
Some black ducks
were shrugged up
on the shore.
It was snowing
hard, from the east,
and the sea
was in disorder.
Then some sanderlings,
five inches long
with beaks like wire,
flew in,
snowflakes on their backs,
and settled
in a row
behind the ducks—
whose backs were also
covered with snow—
so close
they were all but touching,
they were all but under
the roof of the ducks' tails,
so the wind, pretty much,
blew over them.
They stayed that way, motionless,
for maybe an hour,
then the sanderlings,
each a handful of feathers,
shifted, and were blown away
out over the water,
which was still raging.
But, somehow,
they came back
and again the ducks,
like a feathered hedge,
let them
stoop there, and live.
If someone you didn't know
told you this,
as I am telling you this,
would you believe it?
Belief isn't always easy.
But this much I have learned,
if not enough else—
to live with my eyes open.
I know what everyone wants
is a miracle.
This wasn't a miracle.
Unless, of course, kindness—
as now and again
some rare person has suggested—
is a miracle.
As surely it is.
According to Wikipedia, the following are all classified as private revalations
ReplyDelete• The apparitions of the Sacred Heart of Jesus to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque were approved by Pope Pius XI.
• The apparitions of the Divine Mercy to Saint Faustina Kowalska were approved by Pope John Paul II.
• The five apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe of Extremadura to Saint Juan Diego were approved by Pope John Paul II.
• The three apparitions of the Miraculous Medal to Saint Catherine Labouré were approved by Pope Pius XII.
• The eighteen apparitions of Our Lady of Lourdes to Saint Bernadette Soubirous were approved by Pope Pius XII.
• The six apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima to Servant of God Lucia Santos and Saints Francisco and Jacinta Marto were approved by Pope John Paul II.
For many Catholics, I suspect some of these are as certain as dogma!
Jack says above, "Even though Church authorities may approve of revelations indirectly . . . that does mean that we have to believe in them."
A sort of dividing line in my grappling with religion came when one of my Christian Brother high school teachers said (after an extended exploration and debate within our religion class), "Well, I can't explain it, but this is what you have to believe." I think everyone knows the quote from the White Queen to Alice in Through the Looking Glass:
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
The idea that those who died under traumatic circumstances may "get stuck" and must be helped to "move on" comes up again and again in Supernatural, which can be streamed on Netflix. I am in Season 5 (of 15). I was only vaguely aware of the show when it was on the WB (2005–2020), but I am hooked on it now and expect to see all 327 episodes (if I live long enough).
It is difficult to believe in life after death, but it's also somewhat difficult not to. It's kind of like the Pogo cartoon about whether or not we are alone in the universe. Either possibility is staggering.
I suppose the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption don't get classified as private revelations (not least because they are dogmas!). But as far as I know, there is no eyewitness testimony to either actual event.
DeleteThey seem to be very iffy - dogma developed by human beings without evidence but simply the result of human musings.
DeleteDavid - It is difficult to believe in life after death, but it's also somewhat difficult not to. It's kind of like the Pogo cartoon about whether or not we are alone in the universe. Either possibility is staggerIng
DeletePretty well sums it up.
Had not run across that Pogo cartoon previously - I believe this is the one in question:
Deletehttps://wist.info/kelly-walt/46853/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with people believing things that can't be scientifically proven. I DO have a problem with people who DON'T believe in things that ARE scientifically proven. Climate change, specifically.
ReplyDeleteAnd vaccines. And that there is such a thing as objective truth about such things as counting ballots.
Delete"Well, I can't explain it, but this is what you have to believe."
ReplyDeleteObviously, there is a hierarchy of beliefs. Private revelations are not in the same category as the Creed. Note that all the private revelations are recent, certified by Popes and therefore depend heavily on one's interpretation of papal infallibility. Yes, they can be interpreted to mean that popes do not err when they declare saints or accept their teachings as in accord with the faith, but it does not mean that the average person has to incorporate that into their personal lives. We are free to ignore those things in practice.
Is Catholicism really about beliefs? Are the only real Catholics those who check off all the boxes on this hypothetical list of beliefs. That also means that any Catholic can be done with Catholicism just by saying they do not believe this or that. I think that is the easy way out deciding the relevance of Catholicism.
I say that Catholicism in practice is about spirituality, about the various ways of following Jesus and living out the gospels. When Rahner was asked why the Church spends its time canonizing saints rather than defining dogma, he responded that each saint is another example of a way to follow Christ. Congar, another great theologian in his book on the Holy Spirit responded that each new saint is a fresh commentary on the Gospels.
The question for me is are there spiritualities, ways of following Christ within Catholicism, which are attractive. I have found abundance. The solitary lives of the early monks, the communal lives of Benedictines, and the live of service to others of the Jesuits. Canon law says that we all have the right to our spiritualities, as long as they are approved by the Church.
Therefore, one should see the canonization of saints and the approval of private revelations as examples of approving new spiritualities, ways of following Christ and interpreting the Gospels.
However, no one is forced to practice Sacred Heart devotion or devotion to our Lady of Fatima any more than one could be forced to become a desert solitary, or practice the choral office like the Benedictines, or go on missions like the Jesuits.
We have a lot of options as Catholics. Things become problematic when we try to force our options on others or forbid them legitimate options. The Extraordinary Form movement got into trouble not because it practiced a former spirituality but because it argued that it was the better one or even the only one.
Catholicism is a big tent. In synodality Francis is arguing that we should enlarge that tent, begin to listen to each other, and emphasize ways of walking together over excluding others.
If one does not accept fundamental Catholic teachings such as transsubstantiation, thé existence of purgatory, papal infallibility, any kind of infallibility, indulgences, the doctrine stating that the ordained are ontologically superior to the not ordained, etc, etc, etc,
DeleteHit submit too soon.
DeleteAre Catholic teachings totally irrelevant? If one is attracted by various accoutrements of the Catholic Church, but doesn’t accept many major doctrines, are they still really Catholic?
People can choose which spiritualities, or prayer forms tgey feel comfortable with, but if doctrines are irrelevant, then what is their purpose? The church itself is quite insistent that it’s the “ one, true church, and clinging to doctrines such as banning women from holy orders, or demanding that other denominations such as the Orthodox accept papal primacy etc means that all the time and effort that goes into trying to reunify Christianity is a foolish waste of effort. If only the choice of spirituality is important, and doctrine and teachings can be ignored, then why be Catholic?
Thanks Jack for that comment, I agree about the hierarchy of beliefs. I think private revelations are totally in the "optional" category. Some I find interesting (such as the one I wrote the post about), but many I just don't engage with at all. They are in a different category than such things as the articles of the creed and belief in the Eucharist.
DeleteJack - That also means that any Catholic can be done with Catholicism just by saying they do not believe this or that. I think that is the easy way out deciding the relevance of Catholicism.
DeleteActually, since not believing some foundational doctrines is the reason I am done with actively participating in Catholicism I totally disagree with describing it as “ easy”. What it is for most who leave because of teachings. - often very hard to do for multiple reasons - is deciding that they can only keep their integrity by leaving. Staying means passively supporting that which one believes to not be true. Staying while rejecting core teachings is hypocrisy, is it not? The church doesn’t offer people a buffet of spiritualities only. The very first thing it does is teach a very large set of beliefs- this is taught to children and, via RCIA to adult converts. Young Catholics aren’t taught that being Catholic means choosing between the Holy Office as the primary expression of spirituality ( most have never heard of it even) and between the Sunday mass - the Eucharist - as the primary expression of Catholic spirituality. They are told in no uncertain terms that it’s all about the Eucharist and that missing mass is a mortal sin. Not only the Eucharist as the main difference between Catholicism and others, but claiming that every Eucharist is the recreation of Jesus’s gruesome suffering and death. It teaches atonement theology. Only one example, but there are others that make it very difficult to remain Catholic. Nothing easy at all about deciding to leave because of the teachings. It has to do with trying to stay true to one’s beliefs, not the “relevance” of Catholicism.
P.s. although I am a None these days, my husband wanted to go to church on Sundays.The ECUSA was the best choice because it too offers the entire heritage of diverse spiritualities as the RCC without asking it’s members to “ believe” an entire 1000 page list of doctrines. When I was first looking at EC parishes around here I sometimes asked the priests about must believes to be Episcopalian. . They didn’t even understand the question. I explained that Catholics are expected to believe hundreds of things ranging from transsubstantiation to papal infallibility and having to confess to a human being to receive absolution and a whole lot more. Not true in the EC. One priest said the Incarnation and Resurrection, but that different understandings of the literal truth - or not - of the Resurrection were ok too. The RCC is all about beliefs - teachings - first and foremost.
DeleteAnne,
DeleteI have never seen a list of hundreds of things or an entire thousand page list of doctrines. If you are speaking of the Catechism, I have a copy. Have rarely referred to it. I also have a copy of the Code of Canon law. I refer to it a little more often but do not use it as a guide for my life. It is a guide-book for church professionals about how things should ideally be.
I have prayed the Divine Office since grade school. There is an ancient principle in the church that what we pray in the liturgy is what we believe. I would certainly say that is true of me. I don't have to read papal encyclicals or even the decrees of Church councils.
Christianity is about love of God and love of neighbor. The Divine Office is the way I express my love of God.
I've been a Catholic a long time but I'm not aware that we had to sign on to 1000s of doctrines. I nean yes, a convert has to say the Baptismal promises. And we recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday. And believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. But I was taught that it was the unbloody sacrifice rather than the actual recreation of Christ's suffering and death. I guess I believe that the Incarnation was the sacrifice, and everything that came about because of that is of one piece with it, and that it was all done for our salvation. Because it certainly was not done for Jesus' benefit. We have certain foundational beliefs but it is possible to get so caught up in the minutiae of the trees that we miss the forest.
DeleteI think that there is some avoidance going on. People can choose not to use the catechism but it IS the text that defines Catholic belief. I have a copy because it was used as a textbook in my sons’ high school religion classes - taught that this is THE compendium of official Catholic teachings and that all Catholics must believe what is written there to be Truth. I have referred to it often, actually. It is not a guide for how I live my life though.
DeleteKatherine, do you believe that God would damn all humanity to hell if Jesus hadn’t arrived on the scene to “ save” us.? Jesus is called a sacrificial lamb. The words are that he came for our salvation. This implies that God would have damned all of humanity if Jesus hadn’t been sacrificed to atone for our sins. Only the perfect human being - a spotless lamb who would die a bloody death to take away the sins of the world- who also happened to be God - would suffice for God to forgive human sinners ( which God? There is only one. But three persons? Was the HS involved in requiring Jesus to suffer and die in order to save human beings from God’s wrath?. Was the second person involved in deciding that the human Jesus would have to suffer and die? Did he have no influence with God? But, the second person is God. Oh, never mind.
The mass is referred to as “ the sacrifice “ of the mass. Transsubstantiation teaches that bread is Jesus’s corporal body under a different from - transsubstantiated and hidden under a different form but still - flesh and bone. . Same for the wine. Essentially this all adds up to re-enacting a very violent, very bloody event , but sanitized - as you say, with the bloody parts carefully hidden just like the flesh, bone and blood are hidden.
Jack, I have never heard of grade school age kids being taught the divine Office. Your school or parish must have been pretty unique. But perhaps you asked to be taught it, after observing the priests pray it. That would be my guess.
The point is this - maybe there is nothing hypocritical about ignoring 95%+ of official Catholic teachings ( really) and simply going along with the biggies. Or ignoring the biggies too and going to mass to make friends and know people who will bring you soup when you’re sick ( if you’re lucky)., or because your parents and family expect you to go. Or because you like the music and like to sing so church is a good place for that.
So what are the “ must believes “ for someone to be Catholic if they can reject 95%+ of the teachings defined in the Catechism? Can someone reject papal infallibility? The infallibility of the Magisterium? Transsubstantiation? The Virgin birth? Mary’s perpetual virginity? Mary’s assumption into heaven? The existence of a heaven and a hell? How about purgatory? ( limbo is out these days).what about indulgences? Can a human being take God’s place and assume God’s power to decree that if you go to World Youth Day or say certain prayers that you receive indulgences to get out of purgatory early? I could go on, but I’ll spare you.
I would like to know what Catholic doctrines you think are must believes, since there is so much scorn for those who leave because of teachings, who are caught up in the minutiae of what are, in fact Catholic teachings?
There is a story about a boy trying to fit rocks into a box. There are big ones and little ones. The bottom line is that you have to put the big ones in first. The 95% of faith aren't all the little rocks, all 1000 pages of the catechism. They are the big rocks, such as is there a God? Did he create us? The words of the Nicene Creed state, "...for us men and our salvation, he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day." The Creed doesn't say anything about substitution atonement theory, it does say it was done for our salvation, and that he rose from the dead. I feel that I must believe the articles of the Creed, and in the sacraments. And I believe a lot of other things too. But it only takes one page, and the print isn't small, to put the big rocks in the box. It doesn't take all 1000+ pages.
DeleteAnd to the Creed I would add the ten commandments as a "must believe" for me, or rather as "must do".
DeleteI was in a conversation once with a priest (EC) and another parishioner. She told him that when she said the Creed she crossed her fingers. He laughed and said that was fine. Would that be fine in the RCC? I don’t cross my fingers but only say the very beginning, omitting a few words and not finishing - I believe in God…Creator of heaven and earth and all things seen and unseen. Everything that follows would require me to cross my fingers.
DeleteSo I fail thé must believe test of the Creed.
Since many Christian denominations use the creed to define their faith, along with the Ten Commandments, then why Catholic
. If believing in transsubstantiation, papal infallibility, etc, etc isn’t a must belive to be Catholic - if it’s only the Creed, then being Catholic is really no different from just being a member of many other Christian churches. Lots of people like ritual, and music, etc on Sunday, others just want the basics - a Bible reading or two and a homily and a couple of rote prayers like the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. It seems that there is not much different about being Catholic instead of Lutheran or Episcopal or Methodist etc if the only must believes are the Ten Commandments and the Creed.
I did say that I believe in the sacraments. That includes the Eucharist (which doesn't happen apart from the Mass) and the other six. I also believe in the Marian doctrines. Which is to an extent dependent on the magisterium of the church. Being a Catholic does have a lot in common with other churches. Which is encouraging because we are all hoping for the same destination.
Delete"Jack, I have never heard of grade school age kids being taught the divine Office. Your school or parish must have been pretty unique. But perhaps you asked to be taught it, after observing the priests pray it. That would be my guess."
ReplyDeleteI discovered an English edition of the Office for woman religious in the local Catholic church goods store. There was an introduction which explained what it was. Priests at that time said the Office in Latin; probably regarded my use of the Office as a pious devotion suitable for nuns, not real liturgy.
I was an altar boy The priests knew I was very intelligent and understood the Latin Mass. I had a Latin-English Missal.
My religious experience was very different from yours. I never went to a Catholic school until college. Yes, we had catechism taught by nuns and laity, but I hated all that. I hated the Latin Low Masses. However, I fell in love with Gregorian chant when a seminarian introduced it to some of us boys during parish summer school of religion. Probably as a way of getting us interested in the priesthood. It worked, I decided to become an altar boy like my best friend.
When I turned sixteen and could drive, I began using Saint Vincent Seminary and College library. (The Benedictines said the extra Masses at our parish). That is when I really became very self- educated about religion, mainly liturgy but also some things like Catholic social teaching.
A Catholic math teacher in my public high school introduced me to Thomas Merton. He was a Harvard graduate, and very well educated theologically. When I went to Saint John's University during the Vatican Council, my advisor was a layman, an English professor, also very self-educated theologically, a pacificist strongly influenced by Dorothy Day. From an early age I became far more theologically sophisticated than the catechism and religious education taught in our parishes, and most parish priests who do not have doctorates.
When I earned a master's degree in theology at Notre Dame after retirement it was really to figure out how much I knew. In a graduate seminar on Desert Spirituality, the professor each day handed out copies of the next reading, some chapter from a different book. Each day I handed it back to him and pulled out the book. He soon realized that mean I had read the whole book. He pulled me aside one day and asked me why I had taken the course since I knew the area so well. Generally speaking, in any area of theological study that I am interested in I have usually mastered all the English language literate available. Of course, I have not mastered the German, French and Italian literature as the best Ph.D. scholars in the field have.
While I am well educated theologically, religion is more about a way of life than about beliefs and values. I decided to get a master's degree in theology because ND offered a specialization in spirituality, and therefore I could say I had a master's degree in spirituality rather than in theology. The reality is that I have taken enough courses to have specializations in liturgy and scripture, but I view myself as a social scientist who is interested in spirituality (that is Christian life as it is actually lived) rather than as a theologian.
So, Jack, you don’t really have any Catholic ( big C) must believes. Only a way of life that emphasizes the prayers of the Office.
ReplyDeleteI too understood the Latin mass. Besides having the bilingual missal, I won awards in school for Latin. I wasn’t a bit sorry when it went away.
I also have found the wisdom of the desert fathers and mothers to be far more meaningful than the Sunday mass. Merton, and others are spiritually nourishing. But it doesn’t require being Catholic to incorporate that kind of spirituality into one’s life. The spirituality of silence is the most important to me. No words, no music - just silence. I would also say that nature supports my spiritual life. When I look at the wonders of the created world, the one thing that I can’t embrace is atheism.
I was drawn to centering prayer because it is not burdened with theology.
Here is some information that I posted years ago in several places from By What Authority? A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful by Richard R. Gaillardetz on levels of Church teaching and the required response of the believer, from highest level to lowest level. (I have had to change the format, since in the book it is a chart.)
ReplyDeleteDogma - Assent of Faith [The believer makes an act of faith, trusting that this teaching is revealed by God.]
Definitive Doctrine - Firm Acceptance [The believer "accepts and holds" these teachings to be true.]
Authoritative Doctrine - "A Religious Docility of Will and Intellect" [The believer strives to assimilate a teaching of the Church into their religious stance, while recognizing the remote possibility of church error.]
Provisional Applications of Church Doctrine, Church Discipline and Prudential Admonitions - Conscientious Obedience [The believer obeys (the spirit of) any church law or disciplinary action which does not lead to sin, even when questioning the ultimate value or wisdom of the law or action.
Interpretations of which teaching belong in which of the four categories may vary somewhat, but it seems to me the gist is that if the Church teaches something, Catholics must either believe it or (in the case of the fourth category) act as if they believe it unless doing so would cause them to commit a sin.
This link will take you to a list of 426 Catholic dogmas which, being in the first category in my immediately preceding post, Catholics are required to give an "assent of faith." As far as I know, although it was compiled from a book by Ludwig Ott titled Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, it was not prepared by Ott himself.
Delete426 items is a pretty big list to swallow. I didn't make it all the way through. I don't know if I believe some of it. I don't really feel that it matters if I believe all of it. When my husband went through RCIA he was not expected to know all that. He asked the priest if the fact that he struggled with the Immaculate Conception was a show stopper. The priest said that if theologians were allowed to argue about it, an ordinary person in the pews could have some issues too.
DeleteI have not found among ordinary cradle Catholics much interest in doctrines or dogmas. Most are willing to let those things up to Church professionals since they have such little impact upon the average Catholic's life.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Papal infallibility. It did not keep my Polish father from criticizing JP2 because he did not allow priests to be in politics. "Do as I say, not as I do." It did not keep my mother from criticizing him because he was against women priests. "Why do we continue to be in communion with Rome? They don't understand us." When I asked her if she was coming to D.C. for JP2 Mass on the Mall (I was living there at the time) She said "I would not go even if he came to our parish church. He is just a MAN." MAN was said with that intonation that I knew she meant: "A male of the species with all the usual faults and limitations."
I suspect there are less than one in a thousand Catholics in the pews who believe that as a Catholic they have to understand let alone believe these things. It is not that they disbelieve, they really don't see them as very relevant to their lives. Yes, they might remember them from their own or their kid's religious education. About as relevant as history.
When sociologists have studied religious conversion or exiting they find that people often describe that in terms of beliefs. But they have concluded that is because religious professionals explain things that way and therefore that is how they should answer such questions. Actually, changes in religion usually accompany social changes such as marriage, new profession or social status.
While sociologists have been amazed at how some people can accurately chose a description of some of their church doctrines, they have generally found NO relationship of significance to any aspect of their lives. All the time and effort put into religious education means nothing except for the religious professional who are doing it.
Jesus summarized the whole law and commandments as "loving God and your neighbor." I think most Catholics get that even if many religious professionals don't.
DeleteAfter reading all of this, what it seems to come down to is that specifically Catholic teachings are irrelevant to most Catholics, who are Catholics primarily because that’s what most were born into. So being
ReplyDeletea Catholic is like being an American or Italian or Polish or Chinese or whatever. It’s the culture of one’s birth. Most Catholics would be Protestant if their parents were Protestant. Or Jewish if their family was Jewish. Etc. Some people change, primarily because of marriage, as Jack noted.,Jean and her husband are the only converts I’ve ever heard of that became Catholic on their own volition. Most converts I know became Catholic because they married a Catholic and it was the course of least resistance if they weren’t really strongly attached to their own religious heritage. So it seems that cafeteria Catholics (basically all Catholics) are the “ authentic” Catholics after all. No matter what the “ orthodox” Catholics say. And they are cafeteria Catholics too, so .. Catholic teachings are pretty irrelevant it seems. Jack is right - all the time and effort that is put into religious education is pretty much a waste. Just think of the money they could save just by being able to forgo printing all those copies of the 1000 page catechism
,
I think the Catechism is more a work of reference than something people refer to on a daily basis. I would compare it to an encyclopedia, back when people had them. You could look something up if you needed to.
DeleteI have mentioned before that deacon formation has been all over the map since the permanent diaconate was restored. It gets changed fairly often. One director of formation in our archdiocese (after our time in formation) had the Catechism as the textbook. The candidates had to read the whole thing, cover to cover. I'm not convinced that it made them any better at ministry. My husband was grateful that he hadn't been required to do that.
Yes - your husband should definitely give thanks. Would suspect that anyone who uses the catechism to guide their ministry would be truly awful at anything that requires a kind, pastoral touch. But the fact remains that it is the definitive listing of official Catholic teachings. I have noticed that the super conservatives refer to it fairly often in comments, and it’s not unlikely that a lot of the JPII/Benedict priests do also,
Delete
ReplyDeleteJesus summarized the whole law and commandments as "loving God and your neighbor."
According to John P. Meier in Volume IV of A Marginal Jew: Law and Love:
It is Matthew and Matthew alone, perhaps echoing early rabbinic discussions, who adds at the end of his version of the story (22:40): "on these two commandments hang the whole Law and the prophets." The question of whether "hangs on" means "derivable from," "reducible to," or "summarized by" is irrelevant to our purpose. The rabbinic sounding conclusion in Matthew 22:40 is a redaction addition by Matthew; it tells us nothing about the teachings the historical Jesus.
NB: That is a small excerpt from an extremely complex discussion in a very difficult book, but I think it is fair to say Meier concludes that the attitude of Jesus toward the Law is not discoverable from Matthew's invented redaction of Mark's text. So if Meier is right, whatever Catholics may "get" from the redaction is from Matthew, not from Jesus. Perhaps biblical scholars are "religious professionals" who don't have the superior insight of "ordinary Catholics."
It seems that you (Jack) are brushing aside a tremendous body of Catholic thought from the past two millennia and particularly from the second millennia of Church history, including people like Aquinas and his successors. It's a rather astonishing position.
In the Meier quote, it should be "teachings of the historical Jesus."
DeleteWhile I admire Meier’s project and took his course at ND on the historical Jesus, I am very skeptical of “historical” approaches to sacred scripture.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think we can reconstruct the “events” that went behind the texts that we currently have. I prefer literary approaches which stick with the text, trying not to reconstruct its history, but being careful not to project our own society into the past.
In a sense I think that the average Catholic can have better insights from literary study than biblical scholars who claim to understand the past but who are really just living in an ivory tower of fellow scholars whose culture fads about the past change from decade to decade.
There have been multiple attempts to reconstruct the “historical Jesus.” There have been attempts to reconstruct a whole history of the Q community, i.e., the history of the texts common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark. Pure fantasy in my opinion.
When we get to the third volume of Meier’s work, we profoundly disagree. He completely dismisses the contributions of the social sciences to an understanding of the past. Of course, he had to do that to avoid analyzing all the social science attempts to reconstruct the cultures and social institutions of past. I think that all the archeological findings are increasing giving us a better picture of life in ancient times particularly its social dimensions. However, that does not enable us to reconstruct historical events which is what Meier is attempting to do with his “historical” Jesus.
As for sweeping away the past thousand years of Roman Catholicism, e.g., the influence of Aquinas and Augustine, I think Vatican II is moving us in that direction. Neither of those theologians have had much influence upon the Orthodox. A large part of the “return to the sources” of Vatican II was a return to Church Fathers of the East. Our liturgical reform was very Eastern: concelebration, communion with the cup, vernacular languages.
Since the Council we have moved from a Eurocentric Church to a world Church. Our center population wise is now in the Americas and will soon be in Africa. We have a Latin American Pope as our leader.
We are thinking of returning to the Eastern practice of being a synodal church. We are also thinking about married priests and women deacons. The East approves of women deacons in theory; they just have not practiced it except in rare occasions.
Ecumenically, both Protestants and Orthodox thought that Vatican II made progress toward meeting their concerns. Of course, so did the Jews. So maybe Roman Catholicism made some mistakes in the last thousand years that we need to leave behind.
Not everything in the last thousand years was a mistake, e.g. I think all the development of religious orders in the West with their diverse spiritualities was a great accomplishment unparalleled in the East.
Jack, I agree with you that the quest for the "historical Jesus" is for the most part futile. And it is all too easy to project our own society onto the past.
DeleteI have heard it said that the Eastern church is more careful about defining doctrine too narrowly for fear of concocting heresy.
Even if the quest for the historical Jesus turns out ultimately be futile, John P. Meier's observation that "the rabbinic sounding conclusion in Matthew 22:40 is a redaction addition by Matthew" may still be correct. Citing the words of Jesus to make a point strikes me as problematic if Jesus himself did not speak those words.
DeleteI think any project of attempting to create a Jesus Gospel of authentic saying within any Gospel or across all Gospels is futile. Matthew was in a far better position than we are to interpret what Jesus meant. He may well have had several oral remembrances as well as Mark and Q. Luke says he had a lot of sources when he wrote his Gospel.
DeleteThe Gospels are inspired. We are not free to pick and choose among them by saying that parts of them are the teaching of Jesus but other parts merely the work of the authors. That is the road to heresy.
Jack, seriously? Picking and choosing when reading scripture is the road to heresy? How do you define heresy?
DeleteUnlike others here I long ago gave up reading the scriptures as “gospel” truth - much less as literal truth. The way the Bible was written, over a couple of thousand years, by mostly unknown writers ( including the writers of the gospels) long after most of the events described means that it should be looked at as a wisdom book. Take the lessons that seem to make sense in the context of trying to live a good life, and ignore the rest. A good portion of the Bible is metaphor. Some is parable. Historic events are vaguely present, but the Bible isn’t a history book. It’s an attempt by human beings to try to understand the eternal questions of where did we come from, what is our purpose, how then shall we live. It’s an attempt to understand how the Creator has seemed to work in the lives and cultures of the writers.In the Hebrew Scriptures it is the musings, prayers, reflections of the Israelites. The NT served the same purpose for the early followers of the Jesus movement. It describes how they understood and reacted to this most unusual Jewish teacher, repeating messages that they had heard about him, whether or not they are literally true. One way or another, it seems that Jesus did teach love - of neighbor and of God. I am not a Bible scholar, but I am aware of the fact that w whole lot of the events in Jesus’s life ( including the virgin birth) and a lot of his teachings, are rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Some of the alleged events in Jesus’s life were written to “prove” the eventual claims by his followers that he was the messiah, promised in the Hebrew Scriptures. Some were written to put some of the teachings of the Hebrew Scriptures into Jesus’s mouth. This would certainly help when trying to convert more Jews to join the Jesus movement.
Sometimes people seem to forget that Jesus, the apostles,, the disciples during his lifetime, and his followers for at least decades, and into the second century were not what we mean by the word “christians” today. They were mostly practicing Jews, especially during the first century CE, not gentiles. Some gospels were written to attract the gentiles, some were aimed at the Jews. Important to keep in mind when reading the NT.
DeleteHello - there have been a lot of comments since I last checked in, and many of them are quite long :-). For now, just some thoughts regarding the Catechism:
ReplyDeleteThe Catechism of the Catholic Church was first published in 1992, during John Paul II's papacy. I don't have time to look for the history of its creation, but presumably several years of preparation went into it. Essentially, it's a snapshot of what the church believed and taught ca. 1990, according to the presumably-rather-conservative-and-establishment-oriented team that put it together.
The key word in the previous sentence is "snapshot". Theology, and events, and the world, and even the church under Francis, and all the other forces and influences that impact Catholic thought, have not been encased in amber since then. The original Catechism itself put forth some teachings, such as on the death penalty, which varied from more traditional Catholic teaching, and which many Catholics still have not "received" with anything resembling assent; Francis has subsequently pushed that variance still further. IIRC, one of the Catechism's paragraphs on homosexuality was revised within a couple of years of initial publication; well-meaning people today would call for much more major revisions. And Francis has caused the church to qualify its ban on communion to (some) divorced and remarried couples.
At the Synod which starts next month, participants will wrestle with many knotty problems - seeming disconnects between traditional church teaching and the "sign of the times" as read by people of good will. I don't think anybody expects Francis to cap off the synodal process with a decisive rejection of proposals for change and a ringing affirmation of traditional church teaching.
If a document, the Catechism, from 30 years ago is no longer up to date, how much more carefully/skeptically should we treat the New Advent Encyclopedia, and the Baltimore Catechism, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent. All of these are snapshots. That's not to say there is nothing worthwhile about any of them. There is much good in them. As a matter of fact, I checked the Catechism briefly before I commented on purgatory in this very thread, to make sure I wasn't going to freak anybody out with my opinion (not that anyone else reads this blog, AFAIK).
One more quick comment: my dad has a book on his bookshelf at home, by Denzinger, or is it Benzinger, which defines Catholic doctrine from ca. 100 years ago, maybe longer. I've only glanced at it very briefly. It is chock full of "(de fide)"s in red type, meaning, I think, that the sentence or phrase that preceded the parenthetical insertion is considered to be an article of faith.
ReplyDeleteA book like that, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, can be used as a weapon of exclusion. "You don't believe that item? Then you're outta here!"
I prefer to think of the articles of the Creed or the Catechism as possible articles of inclusion, or at least invitation: we're invited to think and pray and struggle with each one, in the hope that we might be able to find it in our hearts to accept it. Because each acceptance strengthens, in some way, our bond with Jesus.
Jim, the edition of the Baltimore Catechism that we studied when I was in grade school wasn't quite as old as the one your dad has, but it was close. The illustrations were quite dated; with boys wearing knickerbocker pants that came to the knee, and women wearing cloche hats. Early 1930s fashions. And I can't forget the milk bottle illustration of kinds of sin. Venial was gray milk, mortal was pitch black. Original sin was kind of crosshatched. Trust me, the post VII religion textbooks were a big improvement.
DeleteI like your idea that the catechism and the articles of the Creed could be articles of inclusion or invitation.
Perhaps they make that claim because the church teaches that its doctrines are Truth and so they never change. I’ve seen some very interesting reasoning in comments by the Uber- conservatives trying to explain how documented changes in teachings never “ really” changed.
DeleteKatherine,I’m older than you are and my Baltimore catechism wasn’t illustrated.Sounds like that was a good thing.
In first grade at St. John the Evangelist school, we had old reading textbooks that were the Catholic equivalent of Dick and Jane. There might even have been a dog. They were illustrated, too. I remember, in the last chapter, Grandma moved next door to the parish church so she could go to mass every day.
DeleteLol! In my parish school in the 1950s we had Dick and Jane. And Spot. Pretty sure the dog was named Spot. Maybe Catholic school publishers weren’t as pervasive then.
DeleteMy son and his wife are thinking of moving their kids to a Catholic parish school because they can send both their kids there for less than one tuition at the Lutheran school they are in, even paying the not Catholic premium. I’m a bit worried because they have close friends and relatives who are gay. The kids love them and are very close to a couple of them. Also one of my 9 year old grandson’s best friends has two ( married) dads. The dads are close friends of my son and his wife. I told them that they need to check out what the school teaches the kids. It could present a very upsetting situation for our grandson. His little sister is 6 years younger so it wouldn’t be an issue with her, at least for a while. Anyone know what goes on in Catholic schools through 8th these days? Maybe Jim’s daughter, the teacher who did teach in a parochial school for a while.
I know that the Catholic schools now are a lot different from when I was a kid. For one thing most of them don't have any nuns. They are also a lot smaller. There were 40-plus kids in a classroom when I was young. Those were double grades, 1st and 2nd were together, 3rd and 4th, etc. I don't know of any that do that any more. Our parish school runs pre-school through 6. There are probably about 15 per classroom. The teachers are members of the parish. They seem very nice, and well qualified. I haven't heard , at that level, that they really address LGTB+ issues much. The building is well maintained, but old. All the public schools are decades newer.
DeleteMy granddaughters attend Catholic schools in Omaha, the younger two are in their parish school, the older one is in high school. It seems pretty diverse with race and ethnic. But the archbishop has said that the schools don't accommodate transgender ( I'm guessing not gay either). My son and daughter in law didn't consider public school because the one they would be attending is the worst one in Omaha, it has a lot of violence. My son is on the staff of a secular private school (used to be Episcopal). The girls could go there for reduced tuition (it would still be pretty high) but he thought it would be an awkward situation to have his own kids where he is employed.
Anne, have your son and DIL considered the public schools, or is the situation similar that they don't have a safe one nearby? Or are there secular private schools such as a Montessori that they would consider? It just seems counterintuitive to attend a religious school, either Lutheran or Catholic, if the family isn't religious. But I know some families do it and seem to do well. My former boss who is Hindu sent his kids to our parish school for awhile and they seemed to get along fine.
Katherine, the local public schools are dealing with a multiplicity of challenges because the majority of kids don’t have English as their primary language which impacts the pace of teaching. Not really an issue of violence. The good secular private schools are super expensive $40-50k for elementary school. The EC school is also $50k. There are two Lutheran schools near them - one is super conservative, the other is very progressive. Naturally they chose the progressives - I believe it’s ELCA. Even though the E stands for Evangelical, they are progressive and the Missouri Synod is more like non- denominational evangelical. The difference is immediately apparent on the home pages of the two schools. The lesbian bishop of the Lutheran denomination that runs the school their kids go to spoke to the kids during Pride week last year, explaining what it means to be gay (without sexual details of course) and about the discrimination they often encounter - and that this discrimination is not christian. My son and d-i-l told me last night that a lot of Catholic schools in LA flew pride flags during Pride week. I warned them that the bishop in LA is pretty conservative, but they seem to feel that they could handle the situation with their son. One of their gay relatives, an aunt and probably the relative their son loves the most, is a devout African American evangelical, although her partner of many years is not religious. Most Montessori schools don’t go beyond pre- school or early primary grades.Our grandson will be in 5th next year.
DeleteI had suggested that they move farther out from their current location to a neighborhood with good public schools, but they don’t want to move. They are in the oldest part of the San Fernando Valley ( home of the Valley Girls😉) and very near to all the downtown LA stuff. The Catholic elementary school our sons went to had a few non- christian students - Hindu and Muslim.
Well, I have just read the school handbook. Nothing is said about the religion curriculum. I doubt that in a Catholic school that the subject would be mentioned before 7th grade. There is no mention in the school handbook about LGBT issues. It says they don’t discriminate on race, ethnicity, culture etc but doesn’t mention sexuality. I might look up the diocesan policies. As conservative as Gomez is, he is in LA and might not want to stir the pot. The handbook does say, not surprisingly, that all students take religion class, and that non- Catholic students must be respectful during mass etc even if they don’t participate. My son and his wife are fine with that. The Lutheran school teaches religion once/ week and has a chapel service once/ week.
DeleteI am puzzling over the conundrum of how two urban public schools in the same city, in the same district, with the same pot of money, can have two such different outcomes. I am speaking of the one avoided by my son's family because of violence and other problems, which actually has a newer building. The other one occupies an historic 120 year old building and is in the inner city. It is however well rated and has a waiting list of kids wanting to transfer in. Go figure, I guess.
DeleteKatherine, is the school with the waiting list a charter school? You said it has a waiting list. So it’s not a normal, neighborhood public school. Is the other school a charter school?
DeleteCharter schools can be all over the map. Some are excellent, and some - especially the schools run by for-profit companies - can be truly awful.My youngest son taught in one of the for- profit charters for a year., he said they really didn’t care about getting good teachers and educating the kids. It was all about the profits. Much like our current healthcare system.
No, it isn't a charter school. It's just a regular public school. There is a policy in Nebraska that people can transfer to a public school within a district even if they don't live in the geographic boundaries for that school, if there is room. That is the clicker, because those who do live within the boundaries have first preference. That would be why there might be a sort of waiting list. I have an idea that the families in the area of the better school might be a little better off, even though not rich, and might not be dealing with the gang and drug problems as much.
DeleteI should add that my son and family live in a small, newer subdivision and I don't feel that where they live is unsafe.
DeleteThe Catholic readers from the 1950s were the Faith and Freedom series, still available here. The Catholic versions of Dick and Jane were named David and Ann. It just occurred to me that my niece and nephew (now middle aged with families of their own) are name David and Ann. I have always thought that my nephew was named after me, but now I wonder.
ReplyDeleteThe Faith and Freedom series was designed to indoctrinate us not just as Catholic, but as patriotic, freedom-loving Americans, as the series name clearly indicates.
LOL, our series had John and Jean and Judy. Same thing though, that it was designed to indoctrinate. We also had an English grammar series, "Voyages in English", I think it published by Benziger too.
DeleteI'm surprised they didn't have a Catholic series with six kids, named Linus, Cletus, Sixtus, Felicity, Perpetua, and Agatha!
DeleteMy late Protestant father in law was named Cletus Philemon. He hated his name and created a nickname that he always used.
DeleteDavid, thanks for that link. I looked at the content for "This Is Our Family." That might have been what we used. Looks like there was a little toddler brother - forgot about him. Katherine, I don't think there were six kids in the family, but there were three at the beginning, and another may have come along, somewhere along the way.
DeleteOne of my great-grandfathers, and his father, were named Cornelius. Seems rather magnificent to me.
Delete"My late Protestant father in law was named Cletus Philemon. He hated his name"
DeleteDid he go by "Clete"? That seems vaguely sporty; there was a ballplayer in my youth named Clete Boyer.
(If there are any baseball nerds among us: Clete Boyer was the brother of St. Louis Cardinals player Ken Boyer. Clete once was kissed on the field by Morganna, the Kissing Bandit. Apparently he got a hit in his very next at-bat.)
Jim, I wonder if your great grandfather was named for one of the saints in Eucharistic Prayer I, the Roman Canon. "...Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian.." I sort of like the way that part of it rolls, even though I don't know much about most of those saints.
DeleteYes - Clete. But he hated sports and never paid any attention to them, so I doubt that the baseball player’s name actually influenced him. Besides, Clete Boyer didn’t start playing professional baseball until 1955, according to google. My father - in- law was 48 then. He started calling himself Clete decades earlier.
ReplyDeletePrayers for Morocco. More than 2000 dead. My son and his family stayed in Marrakech about 6 weeks ago, before heading for their annual summer stay in Barcelona. They make friends wherever they go, and Morocco was not an exception. Their friends there are ok, but thousands of others are not.,
ReplyDeleteI have many co-workers in Morocco (Casablanca). Yes, please do pray. Also for Libyans- the flooding seems even more catastrophic than the Moroccan earthquake.
DeleteYes. The floods in Libya are even more devastating. Almost unimaginable. I pray for all the victims of these tragedies.
DeleteThe Libertarians and most Republicans hate regulations - because the requirements cut some profit off the bottom line. As someone who grew up with earthquakes, at a time when no tall buildings were allowed in Los Angeles, I am thankful that 1) effective earthquake - proof construction methods have been developed ( LA now has tall buildings and a skyline downtown. Mostly only in downtown, for which I’m grateful ) and 2) even more importantly, the codes are enforced (usually)California has had many earthquakes as strong or stronger that the one in Morocco. In 1989 there was a similar earthquake, called the Northridge earthquake. Northridge is in the heart of the high density San Fernando Valley. Almost 60 people died, but it could have been much worse. It hit early on a Sunday morning, and a shopping center, parking garage there and a low rise apartment building collapsed. It turns out that the building codes hadn’t been followed, and yet they had passed inspection. Someone didn’t do their job., The damage was extensive, including forcing the closure of the Santa Monica freeway - the busiest highway in the country and a major LA road. Of course the rebuilding and repairs cost $ billions. Poorer countries like Morocco and Libya are facing immediate, almost unthinkable personal tragedies, and long- term damage that they can ill afford.
Thé US is mostly spared the massive death rate from natural disasters that devastate other countries. And that’s largely due to our regulatory infrastructure. Regulations protect people. But the extreme conservatives want to gut most regulatory authorities. Darn government, interfering with profits !