Bienvenue à mes lecteurs en France!

Bienvenue à mes lecteurs dans la belle France!

 

Pour ceux d'entre vous de nouveau à "The Path", s'il vous plaît prendre un moment pour passer en revue les nombreux postes énumérés à droite. Une explication de ce blog peut être trouvé dans mon prifile, également vers la droite. Mon premier post décrit ma vision de la Congrégation pour la tolérance religieuse, j'espère que vous prenez un moment pour le lire. Il ya une app Google Translate situé au-dessus des messages pour votre commodité. Il n'est pas parfait, mais alors, qu'est-ce?

N'hésitez pas à laisser des commentaires au bas de chaque message s'il vous plait, ou vous pouvez utiliser l'adresse e-mail situé en haut de la page. J'espère que vous apprécierez la lecture des nombreux messages qui sont destinés uniquement à vous faire penser à vos propres opinions sur chaque sujet.

J'espère sincèrement que vous allez revenir et visiter souvent.

Que Dieu vous bénisse ainsi que votre chemin.

Can a Pope Make Mistakes?

Can the Pope make a mistake?  The question falls under the heading of "papal infallibility" and that means the Pope is immune from liability to error.

 

What?  You may be asking the same question that slammed into my mind upon reading this.  As always, I jumped on the Internet to see what else was out there.  I got a quick lesson through Chapter XIV, "Papal Infallibility," in a text called "Things Catholics Are Asked About."  I offer up one paragraph, of this five page chapter, to give you the flavor of the Catholic viewpoint.

Infallibility means immunity from liability to error.  In reference to the Pope it signifies that he is special, divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.  Infallibility is sometimes confused with impeccability.  Impeccability means immunity from sin.  A man may be a sinner and yet have correct ideas.  The infallibility of the Pope does not mean that he is impeccable.  It does not mean that he may not sin.  But it does mean that as the official Head on earth of the Church of Jesus Christ he may not officially teach false doctrine; and this is not because he is wiser or more learned than other men, but because Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has pledged His divine word that His Vicar on earth will always be safeguarded against erroneous teaching in his office of visible Head of the Church.

In recent world politics we have come to humorously refer to this as "President for Life."  The, "no matter what I do you can't fire me," mindset. Neener, neener, neener!  If this makes your head hurt, let's take a look at what the authors of this chapter use as the reasoning for imbuing the Pope with the ultimate "get out of jail free" card.

Finally, at the close of His life, on the night before He laid down His life for the life of the world, He clearly announced the infallibility of His Church.  "I will ask the Father and He shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you forever.  The spirit of truth...He shall abide with you, and shall be in you...the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name, He will teach you all things" (John 16:16, 17, 26).

Clearly announced?  I can read several other interpretations into this statement, so there isn't anything really clear about it unless you're one of the faithful and believe everything the Church of Christ throws at you.  But, let's look at what they're saying.

 

"Infallibility means immunity from liability to error...in definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals."  So this immunity only extends to those decisions he makes specifically dealing with church dogma, faith, and morals.  Morals?  Isn't that a catchall blanket for anything?  If so there isn't much the Pope isn't immune from liability for.  I suppose this explains Papal decisions where the Crusades and the Inquisition were concerned.  God's voice on earth?  Must be nice.

 

"Impeccability means immunity from sin."  Yes, believe it or not, one of the definitions of impeccable is -- faultless.  "It does not mean that he may not sin."  So, the Pope must say, "Oops!" quite a bit? 

 

"Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has pledged His divine word that His Vicar on earth will always be safeguarded against erroneous teaching in his office of visible Head of the Church."  I want to see that sentence, verbatim, written anywhere in the Bible.  This goes back to my concern that "church" as a building is an interpretation arrived at by the Christian hierarchy to keep the faithful subservient to that hierarchy for their own good.

 

"A man may be a sinner and have correct ideas."  I suppose this explains how priests have been protected by the Church for crimes against children, as long as they have "correct ideas."

 

To be fair, I don't believe a Pope in our recent history would have intentionally pushed this issue.  The wake up call for the Head of the Church was when he was relegated to a small city state, as though he was under house arrest.  If the Church of Jesus Christ is guilty of anything, it is bringing the "money changers" into the temple.  The Church of Christ today is deeply invested in property and big business.  Even visitors to Vatican City fill the coffers through their purchases.  Like so many other Christian churches, it is all about money.  They seem to have forgotten Matthew 21:13,  

 

He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”

It wasn't proper in the eyes of Christ, but we are to believe that now the Church is good with it as long as the Pope says it is correct because, after all, he has "Papal Infallibility."  Really?

 

And then there is Pope Francis.  Talk about a breath of fresh air!  He fore goes all the usual trappings of a Pope in preference of more meager accommodations, dress, and a vehicle (including riding public transportation).  He eats meals in the Vatican cafeteria.  He is taking on the timely controversies of priests getting married, abortion, contraception and homosexuality in favor of a more merciful approach.  His latest refreshing comment, "The [papal] court is the leprosy of the papacy...  It looks after the interests of the Vatican, which are still, in large part temporal interests.  This Vatican-centric vision neglects the world around it and I will do everything to change it."

 

Did I equate the papacy to "President for Life?"  Maybe, in the case of Pope Francis, that comparison isn't a bad thing.  Many are saying that Pope Francis may have been a mistake, may not be good for the church.  God made a mistake?  My personal view is that, through Francis,  God might be correcting another great idea that man, more specifically the Church of Jesus Christ, has turned into an abortion.  Perhaps in the future we will see a Vatican that is more interested in feeding the poor than in cathedrals and art.

I leave you with one final quote from a Pope I am learning to love and respect:

 

"A Catholic God does not exist...I believe in Jesus Christ, His incarnation.  Jesus is my master and my pastor, but God, the Father...is the light and the creator.  This is my being."  --Pope Francis

 



What do you think?  Feel free to share, either through the comments below, or by e-mail shown at the top of this blog page.

Sunday Thought for September 29, 2013

 

I haven't been myself of late.  I have been worried about people in my life.  It's the psychic part of me that sets off an annoying "little buzzer" until I pay attention.  It could be nothing.  I have one egotistical trait, however, and, more times than not, it isn't a good one -- I hate always being right.

 

People have lost the ability to listen to their little buzzer.  We all have it, most of us have relegated it to a back closet in our minds and forgotten about it.  I think the atheists would probably find a scientific explanation for it, like, blind luck.  After all, if it can't be proven it doesn't exist.

 

I was concerned about my girlfriend in Mexico.  I had a dream that bothered me about her.  I found out the other day they have a Dengue Fever outbreak in town and several people have already died, including a teenager that worked on her ranch.  He was sick on Sunday so she took him home.  He died by Thursday.

 

This ability is fun when you use it for analysis of Intelligence information to come up with a "best guess" estimate of a situation or possible outcome, not so much when it concerns loved ones.  If I was able to take the percentage I was correct in the military and utilize it in Vegas, I'd be pretty well off.  Problem is, my lion's portion of my tiny bit of talent only seems to tell me when its bad news.  This is why, "I hate always being right."

 

I have said this many times before, but it always bares repeating -- it is important to always stay in touch with those people close to you.  To show your concern, and love, by calling or stopping by to say hello.  It is one reason why I make a point to tell my friends how much they mean to me before I fly anywhere, so they know the last words I spoke to them were words of love and friendship, should anything happen to me.  Don't let your last thought of a loved one be, "I should have called."

 

Today, like every Sunday, is a great day to call those you love and just touch base.  Tell them how you feel about them, how much you miss them.  If you can, stop by and give them a big hug.  Hold them and squeeze them while you tell them.  This is something they will remember, especially if you do it always.

 

Our time on this earth is fleeting.  When we are young it seems we will live forever.  As we get older, time seems to fly by, there is never enough of it.  Family and friends are here today and gone tomorrow.  Make the most of your time with them.

 

I going to call my Dad now, see what he's up to, and tell him and Mom I love them.

 

What are you going to do?

 

I hope you all have a blessed day and a marvelous week. 

Breast Feeding Controversy

Yahoo! Shine posted another article that caught my attention on Wednesday.  It concerned that commodity, that most precious of resources that I consider of some importance and concern, at least to me.  That resource, as many of you followers of my posts know, is BABIES! I know, the picture shows a calf, not a baby, but really, you were expecting me to post a woman's bare breast suckling a baby?  Blogger might cancel me.  I'm not sure how narrow their view of pornography is.  And that comment goes to one point of this post, society's view of breastfeeding, the other concern being the mother's view of it.
 

For the most part, I felt the article did a good job of stating the issues many women feel about breast feeding.  The author's conclusions, however, became somewhat defensive.  As a father, I have my own views on breastfeeding and was going to write a post concerning her article.  As a man I knew the post would be greeted with, "But, you're a man.  Shut up and go fix something."

 

I decided the best response would come from a woman, preferably a mother that has breastfed her child, and preferably at a young age so she has had to confront many of the same concerns mentioned in the post.  I also knew I had to have a dedicated mother that I not only trusted, but respected as well.

 

I emailed my daughter.  (Quit looking at the cows and pay attention.)

 

The article, Study Reveals Why More Women Are Choosing Not to Breastfeed, was originally published by Babble.com in their Parenting section and was authored by Monica Bielanko.  I wish I could tell my readers something more about Ms. Bielanko's qualifications to address this issue, if they are any better than mine (other than being a woman, that is) but nothing was offered up in the article.  I can't even tell if she is a reporter, or just an opinionated woman.  I will pull excerpts from the article, but if you wish to read the short piece you can find it at www.shine.yahoo.com/parenting.

 

A study is a study, is a study, so I won't bore you with the meat.  Bielanko's "take away" on it was "during a baby's first two months of life almost every mom worries so much about breastfeeding they consider switching to formula.  She goes on to explain that the World Health Organization "recommends exclusive breastfeeding until a baby is six months old..."

 

Again, the article is pretty good at covering the reason why mother's should breastfeed, and discusses the stress involved in doing so.  Then we have Ms. Bielanko's personal opinion.  Now, remember my  mantra, "this is just her opinion, and we all have one."

 

"Here's what doesn't sit right with me: the implication that women are quitting breastfeeding because they're uneducated about its benefits and that most women really want to breastfeed, they just don't know how to navigate through the problems that arise or they don't have the proper family or community support.

That's a huge disservice to women who just don't want to breastfeed, for WHATEVER reason. Maybe it's uncomfortable, maybe they feel weird about it, maybe they're so stressed and tired and freaked out by new motherhood they just don't want to. It doesn't matter. We don't need another group of professionals insinuating that our decisions were based in ignorance and that if only we had the proper support we could breastfeed forever.

Newsflash: I'm well aware that breastfeeding is better (health-wise) than formula but I don't want to breastfeed for six months. I don't know if I even want to breastfeed for three months. Does that make me any less of a mother than the woman who's nursing toddlers? Nope. I was all set to get into the reasons why I don't want to breastfeed but I don't even need to. The simple point of the matter is that the act of breastfeeding doesn't make one woman a better mother than the next. We all love our children madly, we're all doing the best we can while balancing what's in everybody's best interest and if breastfeeding isn't in mom's best interest - for whatever reason - that's A-OK. She doesn't need your little "breast is best" guilt trip because inflicting a mother with that kind of stigma is just as bad as you think her decision is not to breastfeed.

Personally, breastfeeding stresses me out and I'm not talking about problems with latching or producing enough milk. Yes, being the only one who can nourish your child is beautiful. Also, being the only one who can nourish your child is really demanding and stressful. With my first two children I breastfed for as long as I could, which turned out to be two months and three months respectively. Ultimately it became overwhelming for me even though I am well-educated and had so much family and friend support, but it felt like peer pressure. Quitting breastfeeding, rather choosing sanity over breastfeeding, was me being the best mom I could possibly be.

So do we really need another study telling us we're falling short if we make choices that we feel make us better mothers in the long run? Nope."

I have highlighted those comments in blue that I feel are important to her argument.  I have asked my daughter to consider these last few paragraphs, in particular, while forming her response for this post.  I was allowed to use all or part of it.  I felt it was best to give you her entire response.  I have put those comments in bold that I feel of particular interest.  She writes the following:

 

"My son was born in 2008, just the second baby born in my group of friends, although several of us were pregnant at the same time. As a young first-time mom I was trying to learn as much as I could about motherhood and what was best for my new baby. One thing I felt very strongly about was breastfeeding and, in my mind, formula wasn't an option. I felt like formula was not only expensive, but the thought of having to get up in the middle of the night to make a bottle when my child was tired, hungry, and crying didn't seem like something I wanted to do. Breastfeeding is free, all natural, and readily available whenever, and wherever, my child needs to be fed. Sounds great, right? But formula companies start early with pushing their product at pregnant women. Somehow I ended up receiving two full size cans of formula in the mail, along with coupons and bottles, without ever having signed up for samples. I was told to keep them, from whom I can't remember, even if I didn't plan on using it because I may need it if breastfeeding didn't work out. Before my child even got here I was being told that I was going to fail!

When my son was born via emergency C-section and spent 4 days in the ICU, I thought my dream of breastfeeding was going away. I had very little help while in the hospital to breastfeed and gave in to the pressure of giving him formula. I remember one nurse telling me "Just shove his face into your breast and he'll start sucking," which wasn't very helpful and didn’t work at all, but I was determined to figure it out. When we were released I bought a breast pump to help with engorgement and so he would still be getting breast milk while we tried to work on it. Then I bought a nipple shield, hoping that it would help with his latch. I spent the first month of his life worrying that he wasn't getting enough to eat, supplementing with formula, crying at the pain, and trying my hardest to give my child the best nutrition I could. I didn't have help from professionals. I didn't have friends who breastfed. I did it all on my own, because I wanted to. I admit that it would have been nice to know a professional to answer questions or someone to talk to, but at that time I didn't know how to get the support I needed. I fought as hard as I could and can proudly say that I nursed my son until he was 27 months old.

Does it make you less of a mother if you don't breastfeed? No. But I still cringe when I see a bottle of formula being given to an infant, because I know that formula and bottle-feeding can never live up to breastfeeding and the connection it gives you with your baby. To know that your body alone spent 9 months growing this little person and now has the ability to feed them and still help them grow, it’s something that only females can say and we should relish in that knowledge. I get that there are important reasons not to breastfeed, like having multiples or going back to work, and I applaud the women who make educated decisions. But more and more often I hear moms say that they "just couldn't" or "didn't want to." Why would you not want to? It's FREE. Yes, it's hard work at first, but what part of motherhood isn't? It’s stressful, it’s painful, it’s yet another task that falls solely on mothers. I can see why mothers would choose not to do it. But breastfeeding, and all the trouble that comes with it, is a selfless act that many mothers choose over freedom and sanity for the sake of their children.

I agree that no part of being a parent should be judged, unless it puts your child in harms way. Breastfeeding or bottle feeding, disposable diapers or cloth diapers, purees or baby-led weaning, to vaccinate or not to, homeschooling versus traditional schooling. There is no single right way to parent. If you make informed, educated decisions then I say more power to you!

In the article the author says "Ultimately it became overwhelming for me even though I am well-educated and had so much family and friend support, but it felt like peer pressure." Pregnant women are pressured from the very beginning to use formula, so if we don't bend to that pressure, if we do nurse for 6 months or a year or even three years, why shouldn't we be excited and be able to share that with others? I am PROUD to have breastfed my son for over 2 years, and I'm coming up on a full year of nursing my daughter too. I will never apologize for breastfeeding or for trying to help new moms by giving them advice and I will never say that formula is better, or even as good, as breast milk because I know it’s not.

In the case of the author, I feel like she is trying to justify her reasons for not breastfeeding, but she comes off as hostile and judgmental towards breastfeeding women. At the end of the article she writes, “So do we really need another study telling us we're falling short if we make choices that we feel make us better mothers in the long run?” I’d just like to add that as much as we didn’t need yet another breastfeeding study, we also didn’t need another article about breast milk versus formula and how we are neither better nor worse mothers based on our decisions. Breastfeeding, more specifically nursing in public, has become such a hot topic of discussion recently and I personally feel like instead of talking about whether or not “breast is best” (because we already know it is), we should be discussing ways to stop sexualizing it in the media so that whichever way we choose to feed our babies we are able to do it wherever and whenever we please."

Is there any question why I love this girl?  I think not!  My daughter is much kinder than I was going to be with the article, and I don't necessarily agree with all of her opinions, because I am a man and have no frame of reference to the discomfort and stress mother's feel with breastfeeding.  This was my whole reason for throwing the issue in her lap.

My own opinion, for mothers that choose not to breastfeed, is that it isn't about you! It concerns your baby, and what is best for the baby's health.  Does it make you a bad mother to choose not to?  Does it make you a bad mother to blow cigarette smoke in your baby's face?  To do drugs or drink alcohol during pregnancy?  To feed your child junk food?  Oh, but that's not the same thing? 

Think about it.

God, or nature, gave women breasts for a good reason, and I don't think it was just to show off their cleavage to attract men (however secondary that reason may be, personally I think cleavage is overrated).  Babies do better with breast milk for the same reason nature gave women breasts.  They were meant to use them to nurse!

Again, these are just opinions about a still controversial issue that even mother's can't agree on.  They are just personal opinions.  We all have one.

For more information on the importance of breastfeeding, try starting with this site: http://www.womenshealth.gov/breastfeeding/why-breastfeeding-is-important/

I'm sure there are contrary points of view, I'd like to think we should always start with the positive side first, then we will be better prepared to deal with the negatives.

Cheesy Pasta with Artichokes, Amen!

The south has a lot of meaning for me.  My father's family are from Sicily, the large southern island south of Italy, and my mother's family are all from Mississippi.  Blending these two foodie paradises takes no talent for someone from these regions. 

 

Anything from the southern U.S. that crawls, swims, or grows in the dirt can be whipped into a Sicilian dish.  Any recipe from Sicily can usually fit between two pieces of bread slathered with mayonnaise, from eggplant Parmesan to lasagna.  Yes, you can put lasagna in a sandwich, the two starches do go well together, and the mayo mixes with the sauce and becomes a taste from heaven.  I always make extra so I have leftovers for several sourdough sandwiches throughout the next week.

 

So, you're probably asking yourself what this has to do with tolerance, religion, or spiritualism.  Plenty!  Food has always been a common denominator between cultures.  It is a way of "taking a moment" from the heat of disagreement, and finding common ground with your adversary.  There are stories on the field of battle where swapping rations would quell the fighting for a short period, reminding the soldiers they were all just people.  Both sides could sit at the same table and remember how similar they actually are.

 

Those of us that were brought up to sit at a table with family for our meals, probably say grace, thanking God for the bounty provided and the family and friends that it might have brought together.  And, personally, I have had some foods which were so flavorful I firmly believe to have had a spiritual experience while eating.  Ok, maybe that's pushing it, but it came darned close!

 

I have gotten out of the habit of buying prepared foods for a meal.  No more ravioli, or chili without beans, from a can.  That crap can kill you.  It always amazes me when they advertise this mess as, "just like mom used to make."  Read the ingredients and ask yourself where in mom's kitchen she stored the xanthan gum, BHT, BHA, or high fructose corn syrup.  Not in my mom's kitchen.  We stopped buying food with MSG long before it became fashionable and the medical community finally realized that it was the cause of a cornucopia of health maladies.  Better living through chemicals.

 

There is nothing like a fresh vegetable, real cream, butter, and an extra large egg with a rich orange yolk to remind you why God gave us the ability to cook.  Not everything you eat has to be made from scratch, I'll admit.  I'm the one that wanders into the mayonnaise jar occasionally, and you just can't make a decent green bean casserole without canned green beans and mushroom soup.  Some things you just can't find fresh all the time, like artichoke hearts.

 

The next time you feel like having a something close to a spiritual experience, I recommend trying the recipe below.  I found this online and was taken by the photo provided of the, almost empty, pan.  Yes, I succumbed to the photographic manipulation. 

I sauté capers in with the butter, but then, I add capers to almost everything and cut I back on the salt.  Parmesan and capers add salt to any dish, as does anything canned, and too much salt can detract from the flavor instead of adding to it.  You can add more salt once the dish is served, and you've tasted it.  I also used the whole pound of pasta.  If you're making it for yourself you're having leftovers anyway, and if you have guests they'll eat it.  The recipe is so easy you can adjust the measures to make up for the additional quarter cup without screwing it up too badly.

 

 Even though this is so easy you will make it just for yourself, set the dinner table, light a candle, be sure to say grace and thank God for all you have, and have a toast to friends and lost loves.  I prefer a nice white wine, like Pinot Noir Blanc, with this dish.

Cheesy Pasta with Artichokes

INGREDIENTS
2 1/2 cups canned, drained artichoke hearts (two 14-ounce cans), rinsed and cut into halves or quarters
1/2 cup grated Parmesan cheese
1 teaspoon fresh-ground black pepper
2 cloves garlic, minced
3/4 pound fusilli (spiral pasta)
3/4 teaspoon salt
2 tablespoons butter
2 tablespoons chopped chives, scallion tops, or parsley
1 cup heavy cream

DIRECTIONS
1. In a medium saucepan, melt the butter over moderately low heat. Add the garlic and cook for 30 seconds. Stir in the cream, salt, pepper, and artichoke hearts. Cook until just heated through, about 3 minutes.
2. In a large pot of boiling, salted water, cook the fusilli until just done, about 13 minutes. Drain the pasta and toss with the cream sauce, Parmesan, and chives.

Peace, or War?

 Sunday morning I went out for my usual cup of coffee, at my favorite roaster, and passed by this display.  This is typical of what one can see in parks across this country.  Freedom of speech and opinion, which many of our fine young men voluntarily die to protect.  These same young men volunteer to serve in order to protect fellow citizens of the world that either cannot protect themselves from tyranny, or need assistance in doing so.   This particular display effects me on so many levels.

 

As retired military I have deep personal opinions concerning war and peace.  I hesitate calling them convictions, because the term offers little wiggle room if you want to change.  Kind of like saying you quit smoking.  It is only true if, at the time of your death, you have never lit up again.  Until that happens, you have stopped smoking.

 

I guess I have to agree with their moniker, after all, don't all veteran's want peace?  For that matter, I think all soldiers would prefer peace to dying alone on a foreign battle field.  I remember we had a banner in one of my offices that read, "PLEASE, put us out of a job!"  Maybe we felt a bit stronger about it because we were planning various conflicts to end all conflict, which was as insane as thinking, "Someone has to do it, might as well be me." 

 

Having said this, I have to admit I managed to be in a position that placed me away from the physical conflict.  Being in the Intelligence field, however, you could never escape the importance, or the horrors, of it.  Nuclear deterrence can have a different effect on one's global view.  All you have to do is look at the effects of radiation on the human body, or imagine a miles wide crater with even more miles of thermal and blast damage, then imagine the heat of the sun creating a vacuum that sucks all of that damage back to the detonation site and up into the mushroom cloud so it can drop as radioactive ash across most of the world.  But, it did away with the Berlin Wall and saw the collapse of the Soviet Union, so deterrence must be good for something even if its just psychological, right?  I'm very glad to be retired from it. 



 

 

 Peace -- War, you decide.  I was a bit thick this morning, as I couldn't figure out what a "peace war" was.  I really don't think this is a question most Americans would have a problem answering.  Convincing the lunatic fringe in the rest of the world is the biggest problem.  I think Americans would just as soon let the rest of the world blow themselves to hell and back, if keeps us out of conflicts.  Realistically?  We can't survive without each other.  We need each other.  When we look at the Syrias, Libyas, and Egypts of the world, one has to think, "There, but for the grace of God..." 

Doesn't the whole issue of what "war" is require more clarification, maybe even a better definition?  When was the last time we had a war?  Korea?  Vietnam?  I think those were considered "police action" by the United Nations.  Kind of the same thing we've been doing in Southern Asia and the Middle East.  By the way, if nations were "united" why do we have war, or police actions?  Isn't the very fact we find ourselves in these situations evidence of the United Nations' total lack of effectiveness?  Maybe if we had a Untied Nations with some balls, we would have peace.  I thought that was the whole concept behind their existence, or maybe I'm wrong. 

 

I didn't enlarge the photo above, or below, out of respect for those that lost their lives. 

 

I found it interesting that the non-American dead, shown above, are neatly printed in a nice, large font.  The names of American soldiers, below, are smaller and scrawled by hand.  I want to think they took the extra time for their fellow soldiers, and not that they deserved a less neat "tombstone."  Also interesting was the sign denoting it as an "Iraq War Memorial."  Most of the names I saw were late of Afghanistan.  One would think they would update their sign to reflect current conflicts.  Why don't they just make it another Vietnam War Memorial?  

 

I would have liked to know if they asked the soldier if they could use their name.  Maybe they asked the family, though sometimes what the family feels is tainted by the loss of the loved one and may not reflect the soldier's desire.  I know I would have minded.  But, then, I'm a patriot that believes we need to do a job until there is no more reason to do it.  I don't think this kind of display makes people give a tinker's damn one way or the other.  This kind of display has been put up many times and I never see anyone, take even as much time as I gave it, walk around and look. 

 

 

I would have liked to ask the questions, but no one was there at the booth.  It was raining, after all.  Maybe they weren't veteran's of conflicts requiring them to follow orders and tough it out in a monsoon, in some forgotten foxhole full of water, in some backwater jungle.  Maybe they never had to walk a flight line in sub-zero temperatures and have to huddle next to a landing gear on some ancient B-52 in order to get out of the bone chilling breeze.  Perhaps they just forgot.  Maybe their cause just isn't as import to them as they would have us believe.  Or, more likely, maybe they're just tired of the killing, remembering their dead comrades, and the insanity of battles that just don't seem to change anything.  I would have liked to ask all these questions though.  It would have been nice to know, and give you some answers.

 

What is better than war?  Peace.  I don't think peace will happen until there is worldwide tolerance and understanding, agreements to disagree, and all people are able to determine their own peaceful, national destiny without tyrannical rulers that have no concept of human rights.  Until that time comes, I believe there is the need to protect the helpless, the thousands of children being tortured and killed, like in Syria.  Do children die in the conflicts?  Without a doubt.  We all wish there wasn't collateral damage.  We all wish we could just take out the bad guys.  We all wish the people could stand up for themselves and move away from the target area to give us a clear shot.  We all wish they had as much respect for their own people to keep them out of harms way, instead of moving the targets into populated areas.  There are civilized rules against using the civilian population as shields, though they would blame us for their own immoral conduct as they shroud a missile launcher with a Red Cross tent, or make chemical weapons in a baby food factory, 

 

Now that I have, once again, probably pissed someone off, I must remind everyone, this is all just my opinion, and everybody has one.  It may not seem like it from my comments, but I give kudos and thanks to this organization for taking the time to try to make a difference in the world.  Whether this is the right way to do it, a waste of time and effort, or counterproductive, I leave that opinion up to you.  Regardless, I feel all those, civilian and military, that die in the horror of war, deserve to be honored by our remembrance of their sacrifice and this is one organization's way of doing that. 

 

Your constructive comments and rebuttal are always welcomed, either below in the comments area, or by emailing me at the address above.

God's Humor?

Really?  You think God has no sense of humor?  Look again!  Look all around you, at the wonders God presents as a gift for us to enjoy.  All too often we just don't take the time too notice. 

 

One reader was astounded to have grown up around this tree never noticing the "booty call" happening right in front their eyes.  There's even some hip sashay goin' on!

 

No sense of humor?  God created humor.  Comedy and drama, the good with the bad, it is all around us and sometimes in the oddest of places.

 

Take a moment out of your busy day and see what you can find.  Enjoy!

Sunday Thought for September 22, 2013

What to write about for this Sunday...I have nothing.  The 100th post pretty much depleted me.  It was hard for me to believe I put out 100 short essays since the middle of June.  I guess, if I have anything to write about for you, it would be how easy it was to find so many interesting things as subject matter.  The majority of it came from just walking around my little piece of heaven, here in sleepy Olympia.  The real eye opener for me was how easy they were to write about.  Most of the posts really wrote themselves.

 

If there is any lesson to pass on to my readers it would be, to write.  Write about anything, but just write.  You don't even need a subject or a destination to put pen to paper, it will come on its own.  While you are out and about, keep your eyes open for those bits of life that amaze you, and write about "why." 

 

Why.  I can't emphasize enough about how important I feel "why" is to all of us.  I think it is the root of all our knowledge.  It is the basis for all explanation.  Is it more important to know who we are, or why we are?  If the bomb will detonate, or why the bomb will detonate?  If you want to have a baby, or why you want to have a baby?  If we should go into space, or why?  If I should continue writing "The Path," or why?

 

I think the question for all of us is not whether we should be on our path, but why?  It does little good to try and discover your particular path until you know why you want to discover it.  What is the purpose of walking it, until you know why you want to walk it?  If you know the "why" then the what, when, where and how fall into place.

 

Why did I get up at 3:30 this morning and make a cup of coffee?  Because I hadn't written the "Sunday Thought" for my readers.  More importantly, I hadn't written it for myself.  I discover more about why I am here through writing than I do any other way.  I think writing can give all of us a chance to reflect on, not only who and what we are, but "why" we are.  I think that if you can answer that, you can find some peace and, in that peace, perhaps a love for God.

 

So much for having nothing to write about.  This makes 101.  I don't know why that matters.  I suppose knowing why it matters would help me know if it matters, or if it is really important to me continuing on my journey.

 

I think I'll have another cup of coffee and fry up a couple of eggs, and ponder 102.  The journey continues. 

 

Have a blessed Sunday!

Psychics (My 100th Post!!)

"... for changes are coming, this may be sure -- an evolution or revolution in the ideas of religious thought. The basis of it for the world will eventually come out of Russia. Not communism, no! But rather that which is the basis of the same as the Christ taught -- his kind of communism."   

Edgar Cayce

The third eye, second sight, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, ESP, NDE, telepathy, premonitions, mind reading, channeling, remote viewing, fortune telling, palm reading, phrenology, the list goes on and the names for each vary with the times and programs.

 

Nostradamas, Madam Helena Blavatsky, Daniel Dunglas Home, Jeane Dixon, John Edward, Theresa Caputo, my grandmother on my father's side, my mother and me, some famous and some not, all claim to have psychic ability or to have had moments of psychic intuition.  Is it real?  We keep interviewing the psychics, but aren't they the ones selling us this snake oil?

 

The Nazis of the Third Reich thought there was something to it.  The three strongest governments in the modern world seemed to think there was validity in it as well.  China, the Soviet Union, and the United States all had classified intelligence programs dabbling in the world of psychic phenomena for the last fifty years of the twentieth century.  If the government gives it that much attention, that much credence, why shouldn't we?

 

If you get a few minutes, look up "remote viewing" or any of it's shadowy code names: Grill Flame, Sun Streak, or Star Gate.  The read is quite interesting so I will not try to describe the program in any detail.  Suffice to say it dealt with trying to "see" intelligence from down the street or around the world.  There was enough success to keep the program opened for years.  American Intelligence would have us believe they ended such programs years ago, but the denials are half hearted.  But, let's define success.

 

In the mid-1990s the Stargate Project came to a close.  The data that gathered and analyzed.  The success rate was around 15%.  This was significantly better than the control group.  But, is 15% really that good?  Would we base an investment on the possibility of a 15% success rate?  Of course not, but this was government intelligence and national security.  This was trying to stay ahead of the communist hordes.  One would think a true ability could garner better scores than 15%.

 

Psychics tend to make predictions that are sketchy enough to be interpreted several ways.  John Edward would have readings where the questions he asked seemed to have significantly less than a perfect rate of return, even less than the governments 15%, but he was still able to spin that information into a seemingly astounding feat to his audience.  Showmanship is more than half the battle.  We love being entertained.

 

And what of Teresa Caputo, the Long Island Psychic?  Aren't her techniques similar to other frauds?  She seems to use the same techniques as John Edward while reading a client.  But, she can do this at the drop of a hat, and simply state what the specific message is for a total stranger on the street, and be correct!  She seemingly defies the Edward mold and the governments 15% threshold.

 

I often felt that psychics might be telepathically picking up information we might be subconsciously transmitting, which would still be a phenomenal feat, but Teresa says these messages come from loved ones departed.  I would have to think that she would be able to tell the difference between reading a mind and getting a message.  She also seems to have no problem coming on camera with Dr. Oz and undergoing some brain scans to learn more, for herself, about what is happening when she channels.  They indicated on this segment that studies show people saying they have psychic ability also report having a history of anxiety, an unusual spiritual experience, family history of these abilities, brain trauma.

 

Of all the psychics I have ever watched, Teresa Caputo is the most relaxed, convincing, and seemingly spontaneous of all of them.  Is she real?  I think she believes so.  Her ratings evidence that most of her viewers believe so.  Psychics like Teresa are used by police departments more and more for cases that have run aground.

 

Psychic abilities differ so much, there is bound to be enough of the "unknown" left for government study.  As much as I believe in Teresa, I can't help thinking that the government wouldn't have asked her to assist in some testing by now, if she was all that.

 

Not long ago the CIA's covert intelligence remote viewer wunderkind, Ingo Swann, passed away.  Unfortunately his talent wasn't seeing into the future or he would might have seen it coming.  He left us with a tale of a black ops program to psychically scan the moon, ongoing extraterrestrial activity here on earth, and E.T.'s building of something on the moon's dark side.  As men of moral conscience get older, the allegiance they hold toward classified programs become of less import than their perception of a greater good.  Was his death of natural causes, or was he too dangerous to allow to live?  If he was, isn't this the ultimate proof of a government's belief in the psychic realm? 

 

We may find out, one day.  In the meantime, Teresa's show has been renewed for another season.  I will be watching. 

“I suspect everybody has a degree of psychic ability, just as a everybody has a degree of athletic or artistic ability. Some people have special gifts; other people have a particular interest that leads them to develop their abilities. But the phenomenon itself is ordinary and widespread.”

Michael Crichton

 

The Root of All Evil?

Is money the root of all evil?  Maybe not so much anymore.  Its easier go on welfare than it is to work.  If you're not willing to work, why would you want to make the effort to steal.  Most of the people I see on street corners with a sign, lying for money, can't even do that right.  I suppose there is the argument that they are lying to get the money, so that in itself evidences evil in the activity.

 

In reality the phrase really held no water from its inception.  Murder, rape, child molesting, not done for money.  Well, not always.

 

Then there is Christian Ballard.

 

Christian just up and walked away from the Minnesota Vikings training camp.  What?  But, what of the money?  That pro football paycheck?  Seems like Christian had an epiphany.  In his own words as he stated in an interview:

 

"I wasn't really having a good time playing football.  It wasn't fun for me.  It wasn't a blast for me. Making that much money, that was fun. But money is still a material thing. You can always make money. You can't make that time that you lose with your friends and your loved ones. Time is something that you can never get back."

 

So Christian discovered that the money wasn't enough, there was more to life.  He will continue his education and spend more time with his son.  For some, the lure of lights, cameras and fame is what they live for.  For others, like Christian, perhaps the lure was there but the fame and the money just wasn't everything they hoped for. 

 

Sometimes money really isn't everything.  Like Christian says, "You can always make money."  I'd like to get this across to the panhandlers on those street corners, but they have no intention of looking for a job as is evidenced by them occupying the same street corners year after year.  You can't look for work if your feet are cemented to a curb. 

 

Christian is also right about not being able to get back the time you lose.  I know this from experience.  I lost much of the time in my daughter's life, and a bit of my son's, due to my divorce.  Time I will never get back.  More than money, time is the most precious commodity.  Many of us have not had that realization yet.  Many of us have, but refuse to admit it to ourselves.  We're too busy making money.

 

Money isn't always the root of all evil, no more than time heals all wounds.  I think money is supposed to make life a bit easier so we can enjoy the time, and the people, we have here on earth.  You don't need a lot of it, just enough to allow you to have the time.  We get caught in the vicious cycle caused by our desire for "stuff," mistakenly thinking that this "stuff" will make our lives fuller and happier.  We work ourselves to death to keep this lifestyle of "stuff."  God forbid we should lose it all, we'd kill ourselves.  Over stuff?  Its just stuff!

 

I wake up every morning and know I have food and a roof, clothing and a little cash in the bank.  I have two children that are thriving, two grandchildren that are precious, and parents that have their health.  I am blessed with what I have.  If I have no job and no money, I would still consider myself rich.

 

What makes you rich?

Nonbelievers - The Six Atheists?

One in five Americans claim no religious affiliation, at all.  Some periodicals are labeling all of these people, "unbelievers."  Are they?  These articles are either mistakenly including spiritual folks with those of religious affiliation, or defining spiritualism as a religion.

As I understand it, you can be religious and spiritual, religious but not spiritual, or spiritual but not religious. 

 

Spiritualism aside, isn't it possible that some of these "unbelievers," if not a great portion of them, are simply spiritual?  This is a question that has concerned me from time to time since my stint in the military when I listed myself as agnostic for a short period.  It wasn't that I was an atheist, I simply didn't know what I was.  I didn't know whether I believed or not.  I certainly didn't know what to believe.  What I did know, however, was that I wanted to know.  To me, unbelievers are like undecided.  They are the group in politics that can swing to either side depending on the better argument.  An "unbeliever" may become a believer at the drop of an epiphany.

 

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, as part of a new project, has categorized "nonbelievers" into six categories.  I think these categories will help some of us determine where we are in our beliefs, and those that want to label atheists may have to rethink their definition.

 

1. The Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic: Sees his/herself as intellectually too advanced for religion and seeks to engage with other like minded individuals through writings, YouTube videos and talks.

 

2. The Activist: Proactively works for issues connected to naturalist or humanist causes.

 

3. The Seeker-Agnostic: Considers the metaphysical a possibility but is comfortable with uncertainty as it concerns the interaction of science and the metaphysical.

 

4. The Anti-Theist: Believes religion to be evil, thus actively works against religion and religious influences.

 

5. The Non-Theist: Does not have much interest in religious concepts.

 

6. The Ritual Atheist/Agnostic: Does not have otherworldly beliefs but regularly attends a religious ceremony, finding that this meets some social or psychological need.

 

For me, I consider the first category of Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic to be where I have classified most Atheist's beliefs.  Categories 2, 3, and 6 can swing either way given appropriate information that might open their eyes to another belief system.  A person in any of these four categories could consider themselves "spiritual," or not.

 

Then, there is number 4.  I consider the Anti-Theist category, potentially, to be the most dangerous of all belief systems.  It ranks up there with the heretics of Islam which do their faith no favors in their interpretation of scripture.  Anti-theism, by the definition above, would seem to be another system of belief that, if not monitored, has the ability to bring the world into another holocaust.  If you believe in the anti-Christ, this may very well be the category from which it blossoms.

 

The anti-theist belief that all religion is evil would seem to make it difficult to tolerate.  Any definition of their belief system would negate categorizing them as a religion.  This would make it very easy for a person of religious tolerance to not tolerate them, yes?  Remember that a vital aspect of tolerance is practicing your belief in peace.  With this in mind, I have no problem tolerating the anti-theist as long as they are peaceful in their belief.  My issue with this group is, once you decide an entire culture is evil (in this case, those of religious conviction), how soon will it be before the peace is shattered?

 

I sincerely believe those of religious and spiritual conviction shore up our sense of morality and define our values as those for the greater good.  What would happen if there was nothing to keep our sense of morality, of right and wrong, in check?  It might survive, for a while.  But, would it not soon succumb to the dark side?  Consider the debauchery at the close of the Roman empire, Caligula, et alii.

It was found that education had "a significant correlation with non-belief."  This is not surprising when you take into account that most colleges in the U.S. are liberal in their political slant to the point of being very far left.  If one accepts that the far left, by definition of belief, are socialist/communist, then doesn't this seem to explain their difficulty with a "God" concept?  What I find interesting is it seems the farther from the Constitution we drift, the farther from God our citizenry seems to wander.  This conversation then digresses away from God and into discussions of the collapse of the American family, drop-out rates in our schools, gang violence, etc., etc..

All things taken into account, I feel the study does change the stereotypical view of atheists as godless hate mongers, Category 4 being the exception.  Atheist, nonbelievers, are as diversified as believers and, generally, no different in societal concerns or their love of mankind.  They are us and we are them.

Remember, this is just my opinion on the study.  We all have one, and are interested in hearing yours.

 

I will continue to abide and tolerate, to agree to disagree.  It is what we have to do to keep a sense of moral right, acceptance, and diversity in our world.  We are all children of the same universe.

 

I will sleep with one eye open, though, watching Category 4.

Include Love on Your Path

Do no harm.  Know you have done well in all things throughout your day.  Be able to look in the mirror and like the person looking back for the way you have treated others and the decisions you have made.

Worship your God, in your own way, without violence, with respect and tolerance for others as they worship in their own way.

Find the path that God has set forth for you.  Travel your path in peaceful discovery of all life’s wonders we have been privileged to experience due to God's grace.

Most of all, love.  Love like there is no tomorrow.  Love your enemies, your friends, and yourself.

The Bible I love gives me life lessons that are free of religious overtones.  Verse that holds truth which can transcend cultural, religious, and political boundaries.  It is unfortunate that most truth is easily recognized, has the ability to bring peace throughout the world, but we seem to have difficulty getting behind as a species. 

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.  If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. 

Love is patient, love is kind.  It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always preserves. 

Love never fails.  But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.  For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.  When I was a child I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.  When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.  For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.  Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 

And now these three remain:  faith, hope and love.  But the greatest of all is love. 

 -- 1 Corinthians 13

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

The basic tenets, of almost every religious or spiritual belief system, include a love a fellow man and peace.  Yet religion has been the double edged sword at the forefront of almost every major conflict in the history of the world.  Where Christianity, Islam and Judaism is concerned, their God of "love and peace" has spoken through heaven's angels to go forth and decimate each other for the greater glory in the name of God.

Really?  And, the masses seemingly ignore what is written in their own scripture in favor of their religious leaders interpretation of God's demands.  They get caught up in the bloodlust of leaders with agendas, contrary to the agenda of God, and in the process damn themselves in the eyes of God through guilt by association.  I can just see God passing judgment reasoning that ignorance is no excuse.  God gives us the tools, but we rely on someone else to interpret those rules?  That dog just don't hunt!

One can almost understand conflicts between cultures with unrelated religious philosophy.  But with these three major world religions we have philosophies that enjoy a common historical root--Abraham. 

What is even harder to understand is the ongoing conflicts within the religions themselves.  Persecution of sects within the religion based on their particular interpretation of scripture.  We have seen this early on in Judaism, again during the growth of Christianity, and after the death of Muhammad, the splintering of the Islamic faith has given us the latest heretical division of the faithful.  Islam has the order from God to do no harm to the "chosen people," the Jews, yet, not only can Islam not wrap their minds around this simple task, they can't even wrap their minds around doing no harm to each other! 

Remember, though, this is not just an Islamic issue.  This is an issue mankind has had to grapple with since the beginning of time.  The debate over whether they worship the same God continues to this day.  But is this really the issue?  Why should this even be more than a footnote for discussion between the religions?  I can understand back in the day, when man was not as advanced and the masses not as educated as we are today, how the rabble could be whipped into a murderous frenzy in the name of God even though the Almighty never condoned it.  But, in today's world?

One would think we have grown to the point that we can recognize what the root cause of our conflicts are, and deal with them.  One would think we are intelligent enough to "bury the hatchet," preferably not in each other's backs.  A good example would be the Christian conflict between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.  Does anybody even care what started that?  Does anybody involved in it even remember?  And with the internal conflict of Islam, basically caused by the greed of Muhammad's own family after his death.  Really?  Greed overwrote the sacred text of law given to the faithful and Islam has been tearing itself apart for half a millennia?

To quote Rodney King's famous plea, "Why can't we all just get along?"

In an attempt to answer this question, I would like everyone to consider the following excerpts from an article, "Why Can't We All Just Get Along?" by Douglas E. Noll, Esq., a Fellow of the International Academy of Mediators and a Fellow of the American College of Civil Trial Mediators:  

"The truth is that we are 98 percent emotional and about two percent rational. Thus, the assumptions underlying many disciplines and practices, especially peacemaking, need significant revisions. Much remains unknown, but the implications of the research so far demonstrate that we must be far more aware of neuropsychological factors of human conflict. These factors explain much about conflict behaviors. They also provide insights about new interventions in serious and intractable conflicts. 

The path, however, is not easy. From anxiety and insecurity, we experience inadequacy (we don’t know what to do) and a drop in self-esteem (we don’t feel good about self). We ride on a broad emotional river and often experience fear of death, a drowning sensation, being shaky, or cold. Along this journey, our fear reaction system could pull us off the path of peace.

However, our self-protective system will override our altruistic system unless we choose otherwise. Because it is not the default choice, mobilizing the social attachment systems in conflict situations is challenging. The last thing a person wants is to feel altruistic towards her conflict cohort. As has been said to me many times, “I don’t want to sit around a campfire and sing Kumbayah!” Yet lasting resolution of difficult conflicts can only occur when our brains altruistic systems are fully operational. Thus, one challenge for peacemaking is to recognize when and why a person’s fear response system is dominating them, then craft an intervention that will allow the altruistic brain systems to take over."

 Yeah, like that's gonna happen.  And, maybe that statement in itself is our problem.  Our lack of belief that we can actually be disciplined enough to craft the intervention that will allow us to let our altruism come forth before we finally destroy each other, in the name of God!

Be at peace, and my God bless us all!

Sunday Thought for September 15, 2013

I originally posted an article last night to fill my "Sunday Thought" for today.  It was lengthy and concerned the possibility of future conversations in the Vatican on whether Catholic priests should be allowed to get married.  I didn't think it was an appropriate topic for my weekly slot, but I felt it was important.

I have since had the night to reconsider.  The title of that post has been changed to "Priests and Marriage." 

I was visited on Facebook by Rev. Allen Morgan, a fellow with the Universal Life Church, who shared a link to his site, http://www.reverbnation.com/revallenmorgan/song/14529911-fly.  I invite all of my readers to enjoy a morning of inspirational music with Rev. Morgan.  I'm not sure I captured the main link to his site, but where you are directed will probably get you to www.soundcloud.com where a good selection of his music can be heard.

Thank you, Rev. Morgan, for thinking of us!  I wish all of you a blessed Sunday!

The Vatican: Priests and Marriage

Thursday, the Vatican Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, made a comment in the Venezuelan newspaper, El Universal, that has everyone thinking the Pope is prepared to discuss whether or not priests should be able to marry.  Several things bother me, right off the bat, about this article.

 

Just to be clear, the photo to the left is of me, not Parolin.  He does not have male pattern baldness, although I think he carries a bit more weight around the middle than I do.  Regardless, I think I'm the one that has it all "goin on!"  I could be wrong, but I doubt it. 

Anyway, the Secretary of State makes a comment.  How many times have Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden talked "out of school" and done some serious "what I meant to say was" back pedaling?  Second, who did he make the comment too?  A Venezuelan newspaper.  Venezuela, well known for their stands on free speech and freedom of the press.

 

But, lets assume the statement VSS Parolin made had some teeth to it.  What is the issue?  Celibacy is not church dogma, it is tradition.  Some would argue, the Apostle Paul made this clear in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, 7:32-35, to wit:

 

"He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord--how he may please the Lord.  But he who is married cares about the things of the world--how he may please his wife.  The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy in both body and spirit.  But she who is married cares about the things of the world--how she may please her husband.  And I say this for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction."

This seems to make it fairly clear that in order to serve the Lord fully, you must be untethered by matters of the heart and things of the world.  The verse even covers women which, of course, would explain the many convents where nuns can ply their service to the Lord.  So, Paul seems to make a case for the Lord, except, there seems to be a small issue of authorship.

 

Like most of the rest of the Bible, the Epistles to the Corinthians may  have passages that were added at later stages.  Two passages of note are  11:2-16 and 14:34-35, the latter of which has been "hotly debated" for issues I will not bore you with.  Suffice to say that, for me, this calls into question what historians and Christian theologians classify as "undisputed" authorship.  There is no pure source document available.  I offer that there seems to be plenty open for dispute, especially when the issues are being "hotly debated" by the powers that be. 

 

I begin to think, believing what you read in the Bible is like believing everything you read on the Internet.  What we need for the Bible is an app directing us to a "Snopes" style site that would give us a Bill O'Reilly-esque "fair and balanced" opinion of everything we read, so we can make an informed decision on how much faith we should invest in any one verse.

 

Turns out, from the research I've done, the earliest textual evidence forbidding marriage lies with two councils, the Councils of Elvira and Carthage.

 

It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.  -- Council of Elvira, circa 305

  

It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.  -- Council of Carthage, circa 390

 For me, historically, this makes more sense given the political and religious climate of the time.  Once again it would seem the religious leaders of old, to accommodate whatever agenda was being force fed in this period of history, saddled priests for the next 1700 years with the curse of celibacy.

Celibacy has not always been an edict of the church.  Boston College theology professor Thomas Groome states, "all of the apostles were married, with the possible exception of John."  he goes on to note that the Orthodox Church has always had a married priesthood.

I believe this will go the way of "no fish Friday" and wearing a suit to church.  I also believe that there will always be a sect of the Catholic faith not willing to give up the old ways.  For all the naysayers there will be a number of the faithful unwilling to toe the new party line. 

Maybe that's a good thing.  There should always be a last bastion of the faithful, just in case we're wrong.

As always, this is just my opinion.  Yours are just as important, if not more so.  Feel free to comment or sent me a confidential e-mail with your own take on this controversial topic.

Be at peace and try to have a glorious Sunday of spiritual awakening or discovery!