Some Catholic Obama supporters have reacted as if to a slap in the face. Well, they clearly weren’t paying attention to what the President has done for the past 3 years, nor his record before then (slim as it was).

I don’t think this was a slap in the face. I don’t think this was the administration telling us Catholics to “go to Hell”, as Bishop Zubik of Pittsburgh said. I think this is, flat out, plain and simple, an attempt to get organizations who do have a prohibition against such things to stop offering health coverage. On purpose. They want things to get worse, so the government can come to the rescue.

Think about it. Health insurance companies will be required to only offer plans to larger organizations that include contraceptive coverage.  Catholic organizations, unable to get the exemption (which only lasts until Novermber anyway, IIRC) will have two options. Violate their conscience and get coverage that includes contraceptives, or to stop offering any coverage at all. Some places have already opted for the second choice.

I think that’s part of the plan. If churches, schools, and other Catholic organizations cancel their medical insurance plans, their employees will have to get it on their own. It will be a hardship for those individuals (especially since they will be limited in options as well), and some won’t be able to afford any insurance. This will, in their minds, increase the demand for universal coverage.

To sum up:
1 – Require organizations to violate their consciences if they want to offer health insurance.
2 – Organizations that refuse to violate their consciences will cancel insurance.
3 – Large groups of people will have to obtain private insurance.
4 – The government gets to fine the organizations that don’t offer insurance to their employees  (income!)
5 – The government gets to fine people who don’t get private insurance (income!)
6 – The number of uninsured increases, thus “proving” the need for universal healthcare.

I think that’s the plan. It’s not an attack against Catholics because we’re Catholic, it’s an attack against a strategic target to reach an ultimate goal.

ETA: By the way, I’m uncomfortable with how Bishops and others have been reacting to this. I think they’re months behind, and arguing the wrong point. NOBODY should be required to offer coverage that violates their conscience. For example, if the Chick-Fil-A owners (Corporate Purpose: To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.) want to provide health insurance to their employees, but don’t want to cover abortions or contraceptives, that should be their right. The outrage shouldn’t be limited to religious institutions being forced to pay for this coverage. I realize it’s easier to argue the Free Exercise clause, but what about all of us other people who want to follow our consciences?

I was happily surprised to see this. Yeah, it’s from 2008 and I just saw it. Shaddup, you.

Then I read the comments. Well, some of them.  It’s been 3 years, there are a lot of comments.  While most that I saw were good, there were a few that showed confusion surrounding God’s prohibition against false idols. He was not speaking of  these types of idols, where we look to people as role models or recognize and admire the talents or skills present in others. No, He was speaking of false gods, idols fashioned of human hands that were considered to somehow embody a higher power, that people would worship as a god.

The World English Dictionary’s 3rd definition of idol (scroll down, the first definition set isn’t quite accurate…”blind”?) is the usage in American Idol: a person who is revered, admired or highly loved. I very much doubt that anyone at Fox is propping these people up as deities to be worshiped.

Stop being stupid.

Now, that said, there is a real problem when people place greater importance on things than on God. Anything can become an idol in our lives. A quick list of common idols today includes money, self gratification, power, and “stuff” (by which I mean material possessions). Some people do anything to get more money, or seek pleasure through indiscriminate sex (mistaking sex for love, usually) or drinking/drugs, or try to gain power and influence, or think that having more material goods is all-important.

There’s nothing wrong with earning money, or having sex (inside marriage, of course), or drinking (so long as it is not in excess), or obtaining power, or getting stuff. No, the problem comes when any of those things become the most important thing in our lives. We make idols out of these things, and they can come to supersede God in our lives.

And, really, if you think about it, all of these things involve placing ourselves above God. They are all about “me”. I have more money. I am having sex. I am pleased by food or drink or drug. I have power. I have stuff.

It’s the deification of self, where I alone determine what is right and wrong, where I alone am to be pleased (if others are pleased by something, that’s fine but not the goal). By placing importance on money or power or pleasure, one is really placing all importance on self.

Having idols (i.e., heroes) to look up to, admire, and appreciate, is not idol worshiping in the Biblical sense, although it can become that. So have role models, heroes, “idols”. Just remember that they are as human as you, and not the second coming of Christ, and you should be fine.

However, unlike many commenters at various places around the internet (the judgement is in the comments, not the posts for the most part), I don’t think the rush to judgement came from whomever it was who placed Fr. Corapi on leave. No, the rush to judgement is being done by those fervently defending the good Father. While I understand the desire to believe that Father has done nothing wrong, that he is being falsely accused, we have no way of knowing. We have no real information other than that letters were sent to several bishops (per Fr. Corapi’s note), and that he was placed on leave.

The first rush to judgement that jumps out at me is the accusation that due process was not followed, that there was no determination of credibility of the accusation. This is fueled, in part, by Fr. Corapi’s statement (“There seems to no longer be the need for a complaint to be deemed “credible” in order for Church authorities to pull the trigger on the Church’s procedure”), but to me appears to be a baseless complaint. Fr. Corapi was made aware of the letters and allegations on Ash Wednesday. He was placed on leave just this past weekend. That’s 9 days, give or take, from the time he was informed, but we don’t know how long the information was in the hands of the bishops (or his superiors) prior to Ash Wednesday. Thus, we have no way of knowing what type of investigation went into determining the credibility of the accusations. It was at least a week, probably more. So accusations that a finding of credibility was apparently not done in this case are mere conjecture. And those accusations are flying against anyone and everyone who could have been involved: the Bishops, the Regional Priest Servant, whoever, overreacted by placing Father on leave without checking the credibility of the accusation, or they’re taking down a popular priest because he challenges their authority, or whatever. Fr. Corapi is a popular public figure, a strong and powerful speaker, and as such we should hope that his superiors take due care with any accusations leveled against him. It’s important to presume that Fr. Corapi is innocent, but we must also give the benefit of the doubt to those who made this decision.

The second rush to judgement is Fr. Corapi’s absolute innocence. Again, we have no way of knowing this. We should presume his innocence, yes, but we aren’t a jury that has been given all of the information in the case. Citing Father’s holiness, and how much good work he has done, and how much he has helped so many people, is a fallacious argument. Look at Fr. Maciel. Fr. Corapi is a man, and as a man he is fallible. No amount of good works can change that, and no amount of evidence of his holiness makes him invulnerable to temptation. So he is presumed innocent, but stands accused of something deemed sufficiently seriously (and apparently credible) to warrant administrative leave. I hope and pray that Father is innocent. But ignoring an accusation because of his popularity is a bad idea.

A third rush to judgement is the guilt of the accuser. The accuser becomes the accused. And not just accused, but presumed guilty of lying. Just as Fr. Corapi is to be presumed innocent, so must she. An odd thing on this point is this: I’ve seen various people note that the accused should have the right to confront his accuser, which is a valid position. But they then go on to basically demand to know the accuser’s name. A note to those offering such a line of reasoning: YOU ARE NOT THE ACCUSED. You have no right to know who leveled the accusation, and no need to know who leveled the accusation. Your only obvious motivations in knowing who made the accusation are either for your own titillation or so you can “research” her history and see what dirt you can dig up, so as to help defend Father by destroying her. If the latter is the case, then you’re either looking to attack a lying woman who is sure to be found out anyway, or you’re going to attack a woman who is telling the truth, probably by trying to destroy her reputation.

Speaking of reputations, that’s the fourth judgement: that Fr. Corapi’s reputation is irreparably harmed by being placed on administrative leave. I acknowledge that damage has been done, but I disagree with it being irreparable. As one commenter at another site noted, look at Padre Pio’s history.

I know what it’s like to have a respected priest accused. The priest who celebrated my wedding Mass, who counseled Heather and me prior to our wedding during some turmoil caused by my own failings, who baptized our second child and counseled us with regards to medical concerns about our third, was accused of impropriety and placed on administrative leave. The action would have been legal at the time it is alleged to have occurred (30+ years prior to the accusation), and thus there was no criminal investigation, yet it would still have been immoral and a clear violation of vows. Many at my parish were shaken (he was our former pastor), and several were vociferous in their adamant belief that there is no way he could have done anything like he was accused of. While I completely respect him and believe that he is innocent, I also know that he’s just as capable of sinning as I am. I chose to presume his innocence but be patient with the process.

As a final thought, play a mind game with me. What if the accusation against Fr. Corapi is true? What if he admits it, asks for forgiveness, offers reparations? Will you turn away in disgust, that such a respected priest could have fallen so far? Or will you understand his failings, his susceptibility to temptation, and continue to honor, respect, and support him?

I made my decision on that two years ago. Even if they fell. Especially if they fell.

By the way, “awkward” is, appropriately, awkward to type, and looks…well…awkward. Seriously. Look at it.

Anyhow, that, along with Fr. Z’s post sharing a reader’s first experience, got me to thinking about the TLM (or Extraordinary Form), and my first experience with it. It was less than ideal for multiple reasons.

1. We were late.
2. We weren’t really prepared.
3. I was expecting High Mass and it was Low Mass.
4. We had 6 children with us, including the youngest who knocked her head on a pew.

To answer my own list:

1. Nothing new (but getting better). We’re working on this weekly.
2. How can one be prepared beyond intending to worship God?
3. Mass is Mass, NO or EF, High or Low.
4. Kids benefit from coming to Mass.

The one thing I will say is that the children definitely complicated getting an understanding of the EF. I think I might go again sometime soon (I think there are a couple in the area), but without the children. I certainly can’t explain to them what the Priest is doing and why if I don’t know, and I can’t know/understand the Mass until I actually go.

Having a list like this lining up the parts of the EF with the familiar NO will help greatly, as will having a Missal.

One last thought: When do we change the name? “Novus Ordo” means “new order”. Shouldn’t there be some other term? I think from now on I’ll just use “OF” for “Ordinary Form”.

Yes, parents.

Oh, one could make an argument about bad teachers, unions, excessive administrative overhead, wastefulness, and all the rest, and some of the blame does lie there.  But the major fault lies with parents.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it well (imagine that), in the very first statement under the heading “The duties of parents”:

The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. “The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.” The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable. (CCC2221)

The part in quotes comes from the Vatican II document Gravissimum educationis, which makes it even clearer:

Since parents have given children their life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators

As parents, we must educate our children. And whether we intend it or not, our children learn from us…their primary educators.

But what does it really mean, and how does this tie in with schools?

Before I get back to that, a side note.  Heather and I teach a class for engaged couples about Conjugal Love and Natural Family Planning.  In the first half of the class we go over what the couple is promising by getting married in the Church (the Church’s expectations of their behavior).  One of the three questions asked of the couple during the Rite of Marriage is “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”  We make sure in our class to point out that, in order to “bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church”, we as parents need to know the law and we need to live the law.

Any child psychologist will tell you that a big way children learn is through modeled behavior. What they see in front of them greatly influences how they behave.  If dad is rude to mom and shows her no respect, most likely so will their children.  That also comes up in our class, when we discuss Family of Origin.

Now, back to the main topic.  Children can see the level of importance parents place on the education they are receiving.  If a parent is involved (clearly showing a high level of importance for education), the child will see it.  If a parent is disdainful of the education (or any aspect of it…it transfers from one thing to the other), the child will see that.  And what the child sees, he will model.

Why do private schools and charter schools do a better job than public schools?  It’s clearly not money.  Many failing public schools get as much per pupil as private schools.  It’s not quality of teachers, as there are many great teachers in public schools, and private schools have their share of bad teachers.  It’s not even the “exclusivity” that private schools get to practice, pick and choosing the cream-of-the-crop students from wealthy families that can afford the school, no matter what teachers’ unions want you to believe.  Do you really think that a private school is going to turn down someone willing to pay the cost of tuition?  Or that children of people able to afford said tuition are somehow smarter?

No, the answer is parental involvement, and how they’re involved.  Private and charter schools can, and usually do, expect/demand/require parental participation in the school.  Homeschooling is, of course, all on the parent (Heather can’t be more involved with the kids’ education…she’s the primary educator, even in the general and not Catechetical understanding of the phrase).

I don’t envy public school teachers.  They deal with a mixture of involved parents, antagonistic parents, and completely indifferent parents.  The involved parents are a blessing.  The indifferent parents just don’t care…they basically abdicate the responsibility of educating the children to the teachers.

The worst are the antagonistic parents.  Because of them, teacher get their hands tied by administrators who are listening to lawyers who are trying to protect the schools from stupid lawsuits like “Mr. Smith flunked my precious daughter and now she hasn’t eaten in weeks because of the emotional trauma”.  Some parents will call and dispute their kids’ grades.  Or curse out a teacher and issue a formal complaint.

And now this is happening in colleges.  Parents calling the dean to complain?  What the…?

This kind of behavior is observed by the child (or young adult, or adult-who-hasn’t-grown-up-yet).  What does Sally learn in 1st grade if mommy or daddy gets her grade changed, while yelling at the principal that Mrs. Johnson is a horrible teacher?  She certainly doesn’t learn to respect her teacher.

Wow, I started this almost a year ago (mid-March), and never posted it.  I think I intended to go back and edit it. I’m going to post it now, without change, because on rereading it I’m happy with what it says.

Before the comments were closed (it was an older post, with 130+ comments), I noted that there were several one-vote decisions that helped shape this country, and that there’s no way for us to know which time we vote could be “the one”.  Zippy Catholic responded with:

Not in the current presidential contest. Thinking that my vote is going to change the outcome of the current Presidential election in the age of mass market and mass media is like thinking that me buying one can of Pepsi will determine which soda, Pepsi or Coke, is the most popular. It is assuredly more efficacious for the rational man to pray for a miracle.

Now, I can understand such a pessimistic view of elections, but is he right?  (For the record, from what I’ve read, Zippy isn’t buying Coke or Pepsi, he’s going for RC Cola or maybe Jolt).

Now, in my comment at the above link, I noted the story (most likely a stretched version of the truth) of Freeman Clark leaving his deathbed to vote for Kelso for the Indiana state senate, who a year later pushed for Hannigan as one of Indiana’s US Senators, who a year later voted for Texas Statehood.  Kelso won by one vote (allegedly, Clark’s, who allegedly died on his way back to his deathbed), Hannigan won by one vote, and had Hannigan not voted for Texas Statehood, the US Senate vote would have been a tie.

But while Clark’s vote (Clark’s existence is really moot) was important, it was just one of however many Kelso got.  Had any of Kelso’s supporters stayed home, he might not have been elected to the state senate.  It wasn’t just Clark’s vote, it was every single vote that Keslo got that made the difference.

Now, all of those voting in the Indiana state election way back in 1844 (or whatever year it was…the places I’ve seen this story have variations…according to one site I saw, Kelso was a state senator from 1848-1849) had no idea that their votes, cumulatively, would make such a significant difference in the future of the country.

Coke and Pepsi aren’t successful because of mass-media and mass marketing, but because of millions of single votes.  One can boycott both Pepsi and Coke, and the companies will do fine, but boycotts work because of cumulative effect.  And voting works the same way.

Final thought, since it’s so late: I’m not impressed with the idea of voting third party, and I’m definitely not impressed with the idea of not voting at all.  Not voting is ridiculous, and voting third party is equally ridiculous, akin to Obama’s “Present” votes in Illinois.  Oh, I could understand going for a third party if the race was a blowout one way or the other.  But when the race is tight, and the stakes are as high as they are (especially for anyone coming from a pro-Life perspective), it’s utterly foolish to see one’s vote as meaningless.  If it means nothing, why are the candidates trying so hard to get it?

And, as if anyone needed me to state my position, I’m voting McCain.  While he’s wrong on ESCR, he’s right on just about every other Life issue.  I’d rather support a candidate who is 98% correct than deny him my support and let a completely wrong candidate win.  And that’s my prudential judgment.

With McCain, one can hope for (and lobby for) a change in his ESCR position.  The expectations one should have for Obama – well, one shouldn’t have any.  He would support more ESCR than McCain, in addition to signing FOCA, allow government-funded abortions, and everything else the Culture of Death advances.  I’ve started a post on this, and was planning on hitting several other topics on the election, but I don’t know if they’ll ever get posted.  Ahh well, living my life is more important than ranting and raving online anyway.