Abbey-Roads2

Do most Catholics think homosexuality is okay?

“The majority of Catholics (55 percent) do not believe homosexual behavior is a sin. Only 39 percent of Catholics called it a sin.” - Source
 

But pedophilia is still a sin? 

I read a revealing blog post yesterday about a religious - from a good family (order) - who was arrested, tried and convicted of a crime he admitted to.  Yes, sexual contact, abuse, molestation, whatever.  The oldest boy/victim was fourteen.  Someone made an off the cuff observation that it is really mostly girls who get sexually molested, and I commented that is not true:  Men/boys who have been molested usually don’t tell because it is unmanly and too shameful for them to admit.  Someone else called the crime pedophilia… because the kids were young - the term amongst homosexuals used to be “chicken” for under age boys.  I suggested it would be more accurate to label the offender as a “gay-pedophile” - after all, it really was a gay thing - just like the Church abuse scandal was more a gay thing than classic pedophilia.  (Crime of opportunity, male on male action, arrested-development/sexual-immaturity of the perpetrator, and so on.)  Obviously, it is simply not PC to link the two.  (AND NO!  I am not suggesting all homosexuals are pedophiles, just as I would never suggest all heterosexual men are pedophiles.)

Aside from that, I asked these questions:

Who admitted the man to the order in the first place?

And did they ask him to live chastely for x-amount of time before admitting him to vows?

Can anyone else connect the dots here?

But first, connecting the dots about linkies…

I’m not linking to anyone in this post, but surfing around the blogosphere, I have come to realize why some people link to the people they do.  Just because one has a blog does not mean people will link to you.  There is a status quo one must live up to in order to get the linkies thing going on.  (I’m always the last to learn these things.)

Well, first of all, people have to read your blog and like it for them to want to link to it.  (Which is why I have so few readers by the way.)  Having said that, if someone has a literary blog, or an intellectual blog, they may read you, but you are not qualified enough to be on their blogroll.  Nothing wrong with that.

Now I’ve commented in the past few weeks how certain cafeteria blogs seem to be trying to appeal to more sophisticated intellectual/news blogs while being somewhat dismissive of their original “lunatic fringe” fan base.  It all gets so complicated.

Blog hostilities.

Now I find blog competition rather interesting, especially as it involves the elitism of several quality blogs.  It is all rather humbling.  Many bloggers, from whatever school of thought they hail from, tend to be more or less elitists.  I’ve noted liberal and conservative Catholics alike refer to their inferiors and those who disagree with them as ‘wackos”.  (They also will refer to their commenter’s with the same condescending tone.)  I actually like that in some respects  - they sort of cancel one another out that way, and it helps me maintain a proper introspection.

Recently, a Catholic blog that is considered to be rather liberal, let’s call it “Vox Nova” (I rather like the blog BTW) has entertained me with the lively comments their posts generate concerning the “wackos” on the Internet.  Actually, this is where I learned that what I write just doesn’t count for the many elitists out there.  (There is one blog in Asia…)  And no, I am not offended, and I keep going back to these blogs, mainly because I enjoy other writer’s point of view - and as Liza Minelli said, “I think that’s the greatest gift one can have!”  (LOL!  Again!)

Finally, that  “wingnut loon” and his crazy followers.

No - a commenter on that “liberal Catholic” blog was not using that term for me - although many others might - but rather for Fr. Zuhlsdorf.  In fact, another commenter added, “Of course, the online cult of Fr. Z. is going to be upset that their oracle has been denounced. Seriously, he seems to be the major spirit behind the radical Catholics on the net, making them feel like they are in the norm when the reverse is the actual case. “Save the liturgy, save the world” craziness says it all — the liturgy doesn’t need to be saved.”  (I don’t want to link to the article because they probably already think I’m a wingnut too.  LOL!)

I especially like the last comment.  “The online cult of Fr. Z.”  Aside from demeaning his vast readership, it also demonstrates my point:  There are various factions and cliques in the blogosphere; little people and big people, has beens and haven’t beens, employed and unemployed, intellectual and banal, spiritual and gnostic, trad and lib, and so on and so on.  Some get their breaks with other media, other’s troll around the net, hoping to get their own “cult”…  It is pretty much about power and influence, although it is much more about look at me, listen to me, support me.  Me.

Cat Fight Update! (4:20 PM)

Oh crap!  It is just too funny to miss, so I’ll link  - go to Vox Nova and read for your self.

Promoting superstition.

Whoever writes for Spirit Daily is certainly consistent when it comes to promoting the superstitious BS about the number 11.  The Daily has been running a series of misleading reports upon the spiritual significance of the number 11.  It seems to me whoever is writing the articles would have to delve into the occult to come up with a lot of the stuff  they are claiming.   Spirit Daily may be entertaining as a journal of legitimate reporting with crack-pot conspiracy theories sprinkled in - but be careful not to believe everything you read on the site.

[Art:  William Hogarth;  Credulity, Superstition and Fanaticism.]

My initial reactions. 

The very night it happened, as I watched the television coverage with a friend, in order to break the tension once in awhile, I would bring up the idea that the collapse had something to do with our failing infrastructure.  In other words, it wasn’t an “accident” in the classic sense - it was negligence - which meant it was an accident waiting to happen.   In the days since, the latest news reports tend to verify my opinion.  In fact, the evening of the collapse, Leah McLean (pictured) of Channel 5 Eyewitness News, was given a short bite of air time concerning her research into the inspection history of the I-35 W bridge.  (To my knowledge - and I watched every channel, no other local news agency even bothered with background research that evening.)

John Mason and Cyndy Brucato were anchoring the coverage of the tragedy and momentarily turned to Leah McLean for what she had - no face time for Leah, just audio.  She, within an hour or two of the collapse, came up with the 2006 inspection records which documented the structural deficiencies of the bridge.  I suddenly had that “ah-ha!” moment - because I knew I was correct in my assumption regarding negligence.  I thought McLean was brilliant to uncover this information.  The 5 News team were obviously not impressed - and the story was never aired again.  Why?

Sensationalized reporting.

That wasn’t my only problem with local media as the days unfolded.  The news stations - especially Channel 5  just kept going over and over the same angles, guesstimating the number of injured and dead.  I told my friend the night of the collapse, the number of dead will only be around 10 people - although he was with the news media, assuming 30 to 40 people.  Media always needs to sensationalize coverage - for drama and to hold viewer’s attention.

Although the local media covered the event well, every agency mostly focused upon the dramatic - but none were quite as over-animated as the Eyewitness News team journalists, who verged upon soap-opera style drama in their presentation.  On the other hand - Network news was more subdued and much more thorough in their coverage, covering angles local news agencies apparently never even considered.  In fact Drudge, along with one or two blogs had better coverage than local news.  (I don’t read newspapers, so I wouldn’t know about their coverage.  Do  people still read newspapers?) 

Network profesionalism.

Martin Bashir of ABC’s Nightline, even had more information than local media.  The focus of Nightline’s coverage came off much more polished and professional, with more in-depth stories - something the continuous coverage on local news could have easily done, since they were doing non-stop coverage as it was.  Maybe they need a new news director? 

For instance, it was on Nightline that images of the Somali woman and her baby who are still missing, first appeared - yet even the next day, our ABC affiliate,  Channel 5, never posted the Somali woman’s photo until the evening news.  While local media focused upon rescue workers and survivors, along with constant live replay of destruction footage,  those still missing and their families were largely ignored.  At the same time, the Network journalists were the people who uncovered similar information to what Leah McLean was digging up; previous inspection reports, engineering analysis, photos, etc.  Yet local news just kept up their repetitive visual shots and redundant commentary.

Face-time.

At one point in the first night’s coverage, Cyndy Brucato (pictured), who once worked for the State Government, broke into coverage, obviously excited because she contacted a friend, an expert who worked for MNDOT (or at least he had a role to play with that agency, I can’t remember) and informed the audience he would be in studio to discuss what may have gone wrong with the bridge.  As she spoke, interrupting her co-anchor John Mason, he kind of gave her what I considered a condescending look, and threw his pencil down, reluctantly allowing her to speak.  My impression was that he felt she was ‘horning’  in on his air time as lead anchor.

Channel 5 Eyewitness News can surely bring you minute to minute coverage on anything from a summertime thunderstorm with pea-sized hail, to this bridge collapse, but the depth of their coverage is often lacking in substance.  It is usually sensationalized, and often about face time for the anchors and continuous airtime for the station. - in other words, ratings and who got to the scene first.  It’s fairly well known that Channel 5 is one of the worst stations in the Twin Cities area for employment longevity - the only long-term, on air personality they have is Dave Dahl, and that is because he’s the best meteorologist in the State.

What’s in store for KSTPNews anchors now?

Surprisingly, I saw Leah Mclean only one other time in the days following the collapse, she captured some camera time while at the site of the disaster, doing a rather forgetable report.  McLean is supposed to be one of their main news anchors, but Mason and Brucato had all the air time.  (Although McLean may have wanted to be in the field rather than the studio.)

Locals may recall that in the 1980’s this same station fired Brucato because they thought her looks and delivery were too hard.  Since her stint as Press Secretary for Governor Carlson’s Administration, that experience may be what changed her luck with management. 

I may be wrong, but it seems obvious to me, as regards  John Mason (pictured), that he has been coached by stylists as regards his on camera image.  (Of course they all are.)  Over the past several months he seems to have acquired this forced smile while reading the news - or maybe it’s just me who sees that.  Knowing the reputation of Channel 5 management, he probably will not be there that much longer, no matter how hard he tries.  As for Leah McLean - I wonder what will happen to her?  She’s one of the best female anchors they’ve had since Julie Nelson - who is now at KARE 11, an NBC affiliate.  Management at Channel 5 appears to be rather chauvinistic, so if they decide to replace Mason, they are sure to do so with another man, rather than have Brucato and McLean carry the news.

Obviously, I’ve watched much too much coverage on this National tragedy.  (If time and space permitted, I’d post my critique of WCCO’s Don and Amelia - they actually make KSTP look good.)   

In this province, the feast of the Ascension has been transferred to Sunday - so today is not Ascension Thursday.  Although, the novena of preparation for Pentecost begins today.  The first novena ever, began with the Apostles and Our Lady, who spent 9 days in prayer preparing for the coming of the Holy Spirit.  (This is where Catholic’s got the custom of praying novenas in preparation for a feast or to obtain a special grace - we didn’t just make it up.)

Though it may appear to be an insignificant matter, I think it is one more accommodation that contributes to the confusion experienced by the faithful and discourages “active participation in the liturgy” when Ascension Thursday turns into Ascension Sunday.  The liturgy is more than Mass, the Eucharist is the source and summit of the liturgy, to be sure; however, in its entirety, the liturgy encompasses the prayer of the Church in the canonical hours as well. 

Tradition has it that 40 days after Easter, Christ ascended to the Father in Heaven.  10 days later, the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles - 50 days after Easter - thus completing the Paschal season.  It is the liturgical life of the Church that guides and informs our faith, switching key feast days around is confusing, not to mention that, in a manner of speaking, it departs from Vatican II’s emphasis on liturgical reform to encourage the faithful to a more active participation in the liturgy. 

So why are feast days transferred?  Especially in the United States?  Supposedly it is for pastoral reasons, to lift the undue burden of a holy day of obligation because modern life is so stressful and hectic.

However, if someone has tickets to a Billy Joel concert mid-week, they will probably leave work early, have an early dinner and get to the concert that night.  The same story if someone has tickets for a baseball game or some other event - or maybe they just want to dash off to the casino for a couple of hours.  In other words, we can make time for everything else in our lives, but getting to Mass on a holy day of obligation is an undue burden.

It seems to me the breakdown of tradition has led to this.  Little, by little, traditions fall by the wayside…and then we wonder why there is so much liturgical abuse in the post-Conciliar Church.  Everything becomes optional, out of a ”pastoral concern” - which sometimes seems more like misplaced charity so as not to inconvenience anyone.

(I’m not the only one protesting this - Mitchell at Stella Borealis has a post on the “other” reason for the switching of the feast day.  It’s just as bogus as the “pastoral concerns” that I posted here.)

Home-schooled and sheltered. 

In my former employment, I had occasion to work closely with Catholic mothers.   A couple of these moms often commented upon how home schooled kids, though well behaved, were not very sophisticated and rather naive  ‘Little House On The Prairie’ types, as one of them liked to say.  These working wives and mothers questioned home schooled kids social skills and ability to get through the challenges of college, if they attended at all.  I know an owner of a Catholic business, herself a mother, who suggested that many home schooled girl’s educations pretty much only prepared them to be housewives and mothers. 

CBNNews.com has an article dealing with the prevailing prejudice against home-schoolers claiming home schooled kids are not well socialized, as well as claiming they are narrow minded and judgemental concerning the ‘outside world.’ 

“92 percent of superintendents believe that home learners are emotionally unstable, deprived of proper social development and too judgmental of the world around them, according to a California study by researcher Dr. Brian Ray.” - CBNNews.com 

As a single man, I’ve seen the difference.

Having worked in Catholic retail, I’ve had the good fortune to meet a variety of Catholic home schoolers and their children.  I have to say I have been impressed.  Most mothers and fathers who home school are college educated, well rounded Catholic people, not at all provincial or small minded.  Indeed, their children seem to be above average intelligence, well read and very well spoken, friendly, polite and highly socialized.  (They are even capable of engaging in an intelligent conversation with another person, even if he happens to be an adult.)

Are they judgemental regarding the world and public education?  I wouldn’t say they are judgemental, rather they are discerning and knowledgeable concerning what is out there.  Unaffected by trend and pop culture, they tend to have a sophistication and style many public/parochial school kids lack.

I laugh to myself when I think of some of the criticism leveled against home school kids by some Catholic working women.  Many of the moms, while continuing to work, have sent their own daughters and sons to Catholic schools from kindergarten through college.  As their children mature, many have nothing to do with the Catholic Church save for weddings and funerals.

It seems obvious to me that their kids, believing themselves to be better educated and coming from a more ‘privledged’ home, can often become more judgemental than their home schooled counterparts.  In the case of some of the women I’ve worked with, it appeared to me their kids were rather poorly socialized.  Their kids routinely ignored people in social interactions, they rarely acknowledged or greeted others when visiting the office, and when spoken to, they seemed capable of only one word replies, etc.  It’s been my experience that these ‘better’ educated kids lack rudimentary social skills regardless of their age.  Whether it’s nurture or education, or both, I’m not certain, but they fall short of their home-schooled counterparts.

Case in point, a recent Catholic college graduate, who now works for her family in an important capacity at a company, which will remain un-named, often demonstrates an appalling lack of courtesy, as well as other social skills.  In that sense, she, though well educated and ostensibly well-brought up, nevertheless seems to be the poorly socialized one.  For instance, in office situations, she only speaks to other non-family members if her job demands it or when spoken to, ignoring most employees who are beneath her.  Very often, she is generally just plain rude to co-workers and strangers alike. 

On the other hand, some more sophisticated career-oriented Catholic moms, who spend a fortune on educating their kids in Catholic schools, end up raising them to be snooty little brats.  While it is not uncommon for their kids themselves to have children out of wedlock, or get married outside the Church, dress like sluts, and drink like fish.  These are the very same Catholic moms who think home schooled kids are weird, unsocialized, frumpy, simple minded, unsophisticated, naively - if not poorly educated, country bumpkins.  

There is an obvious anti-home school prejudice in this country.  I hope home schoolers can retain the right to educate their children at home, and continue to prove everyone wrong. 

It’s a little like the Seinfeld episode wherein an angry Jerry didn’t get his rental car and proceeded to chide the reservationist behind the counter, “See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don’t know how to *hold* the reservation and that’s really the most important part of the reservation, the holding.”

.

It seems to me, modern psychiatry is facing a similar dilemma, “They can diagnose a disorder, but they can’t do much about it.”  Or, “They can diagnose a psychopath, but they can’t hold him for treatment.”  Or - the or’s can go on and on.

Today it comes to light that the killer in the Virginia Tech killings had been previously diagnosed as mentally ill.  This from ABC News:

April 18, 2007 —- A Virginia court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was “mentally ill” and potentially dangerous. Then the state let him go.

In 2005, after a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho was either a danger to himself or to others — the necessary criteria for a detention order — he was evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care. - ABC News 

Some will say it is the State’s fault, or blame the legal system.  Although, many are unwilling to admit there are flaws in  the psychiatric profession and the mental health system in our country.  The professionals get the part involving diagnosis - but what’s the treatment?

The “easy button” for treating mental illness seems to be handing out medication - and that’s pretty much it, save for an occasional check up to see how the meds are working or to get the dosage adjusted.

A woman who worked for me, diagnosed bi-polar, was on so many meds that I was astounded.  Not too long ago her regular psychiatrist retired from practice, sending her on the hunt for a new compatible psychiatrist.  Most of those she encountered would not hear of seeing her on the regular basis her former doctor had scheduled her.  Their greatest concern seemed to be in getting her medications adjusted so she could function on her own - without the needed office visits.  (Office visits take up a lot of time, which equals fewer patients, which equals less money.)

It’s pretty much SOP in the mental health field nowadays - get them on meds and maybe into a self-help group, then shuffle the patients through - ka-ching!  Hence my conviction, “They can take the patients, and they can diagnose the problem, and they can even prescribe the medication, but they are not able to take care of the problem.”

Try seeing a Doctor for depression, or panic attacks - everyone I know who has, tell me they were prescribed anti-depressants - and that’s about it - little or no counsel, much less followup.  By the way - once they are on the meds - they say it’s like kicking heroin to get off. 

This is so not a good look…

In many offices Fridays are regarded as casual Fridays.  More often than not, it’s a day to come to work looking like crap.  I once worked in an office where the HR person came in wearing something similar to what is shown in this photo, only the jeans were faded and sort of ugly, and the heels were uglier than these.

Other people come in wearing sweat pants made out of teddy bear fur, or what is known as velour.  Not a good look, especially if you’re a chunk and you are wearing a tight top.  I used to say no matter how fat you are, if you have a tan, you look good.  I was wrong, a leatherette face is not attractive enough to distract from rolls.  (My apologies to overweight women.)

I’ve never understood guys who wear kahkis and cords to work every day, suddenly showing up for work wearing blue jeans because it’s casual Friday.  Kahkis and cords arecasual.  The same with women who wear flip flops and capri pants with T-tops all week, coming into work wearing something worse on casual Fridays.  (Worse would be running outfits.)

Since I worked at a Catholic Company where modesty was promoted, casual Fridays sometimes left little to the imagination.  Cleavage, tight clothes…butt- you may say, it’s casual Friday.  It doesn’t take much to turn a guy on - men are the weaker sex when it comes to T&A - please excuse the vulgar expression.

Some guys used to complain about the clothing of a couple of the girls, suggesting their style of dress became an occasion of sin for them.  That didn’t go over well with the predominant female management, especially since one of the accused happened to be a family member.  (Yet they would criticize a couple of women who always wore dresses or skirts, saying how dowdy they looked.  Office women can be a lot like those featured in “Ugly Betty”.  Meow.)

So, what’s my point?  Casual Fridays are pointless, society has become far too casual as it is.  Dress appropriately and cover up.  Maybe keep the flip flops for the yard or beach - the noise can be a turn-on for guys.  Oh, and don’t wear heels with pedal pushers - it looks dumb.  (Especially on the guys.)

Trivia:  Do you know one reason why women wear really high heels with pants?  They enhance the derriere.  It’s true.

[This has been  public service announcement for people without taste.]

Weblogs - boring! 

I actually love writing about blogging more than the ‘art’ of blogging itself.  (And I use the term ‘art’ loosely when referring to blogs.)  When I write, my latest - no - my biggest concern is that I don’t sound dumb.  I’m getting completely OCD about grammar, spelling, etc.  I read and re-read my posts and they still demonstrate how illiterate I am.  In addition, I’m trying not to be gossipy, whiny, or vulgar - yet that is what makes some blogs so damn interesting.

Since I left my job, all the magic has gone out of blogging - well, sort of.  I loved posting things that would upset people at work, or at least spark their curiosity about me.  It was so fun.  Drama is fun, and I expect the people at my old job miss the controversy.  But I must admit, I got most of the fodder for my posts from the characters I worked with.  (If only I could write about them more!)

Now, as I read various blogs, or see their hi-lights posted on a main page of a blog group, much of what people write seems so…ordinary.  It’s hard not to be ordinary without resorting to whining, complaining, gossip, and vulgar humor - or, God forbid, something original.   All of these things are fun, on occasion, but one tires of that stuff rather quickly - unless it is original of course.  And that incessant commentary on Don Imus and the whole controversy surrounding his bastard comments - it’s like beating a dead dog.  It seems to me everyone writes about the same stuff, and if I see another link to Open Book I am going to throw up.  (Link to the sources she does, because that’s pretty much all she does anyway.)

Blogs can be pretty boring.

To be sure, I like reading a lay person’s take on prayer or spirituality or something - how they pray - especially when they do pray.  But I have to say I’m not very interested in nun’s blogs however.  (Nothing wrong with nuns mind you!)  I just don’t identify with nuns though - I’m interested in what lay people have to say.  

I don’t mind some priest’s homilies, but my interest in homilies outside of Mass is…well, not so much.  A priest is best when he blogs his thoughts or writes about what he knows.  Everyone who knows me knows my interest is definitely in a contemplative monk’s thoughts, or a good parish priest’s thoughts - but not so much in the standard fare of a prepared homily for a diverse Sunday congregation - unless the priest happens to ’nail’ something topical - sort of like Fr. Altier used to do.  (Although people outside of the Twin Cities wouldn’t know about that.)  I’m afraid homilies tend to be pretty boring too - they are too formulated for me - no passion.

I like author’s blogs a lot.  They are usually very informative and insightful.  In addition, it is pretty cool to read an author’s thoughts on subjects they know well, and just because they are writers, to read what they think about.

Nevertheless, I’m pretty bored with most blogs.  I mean, what are they talking about?  Oftentimes the experience is akin to reading someone’s email to a family member or friend.  Or it’s like listening to someone’s conversation at donuts and coffee in a church basement.  (I never go to those things, so I am only imagining.)  Then again it can be like listening to an enthusiastic youth at World Youth Day.  I don’t know about you, but it’s kinda boring. 

Having said this, I imagine I’ll have to eat my words one day.