Monday, December 22, 2008

Weinen-Achten


I just wish I could translate for you the pun ― dropping the "i" out of "Weihnachten" to give you "Weh-nachten". Oh, never mind! 
-----Original Message-----
From: Beate Kanntin [mailto:BKanntin@EPost.de]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 4:08 PM

To: Aging Child
Subject: Re: Wenn Es Nicht Zu Spät Wär...  
Hallo Eugen, nun bin ich wieder voll im Netz, durch meinen Wohnortwechsel hatte ich einige Probleme eine neue DSL Leitung zu bekommen, hier ist ein totales Dorf, aber nun klappt es wieder. Ich wuensche Dir ein schoenes Weihnachtsfest mit deiner Familie. In den naechsten Tagen kommt wieder mehr aus Deutschland. Einen lieben Gruss BeKanntin 
-----Original Message-----
From: A. Gene Childe [mailto:AGeneChilde@YouWho.com]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 12:08 AM
To: 'BKanntin@EPost.de'
Subject: RE: Weihnachten, Weh-nachten, und Weinen-nachten  
Liebe Beate:  
Vielen Dank für den Gruß! Ich bitte um Vergebung, daß ich so ruhig geblieben habe. Die (dauernde/feste) Anstellung suche ich immer noch, und drauf liegt mein ganze Hauptaugenmerk. Während dieser Rezession ist so eine Suche natürlich besonders schwer; daher auch überaus frustrierend, niederdrückend. Das Geld läuft gleich voll aus, und darüber bin ich sehr besorgt.  
Diese Woche arbeite ich (nur als Zeitarbeiter) zwei Tage, nächste Woche vier Tage bzw. Jede Woche sende ich viele Lebensläufe ab, und nehme Teil an Vorstellungsgespräche (z.B. zweimal letzte Woche)… bisher total ergebnislos. Die Suche gebe ich aber gar nicht auf – kann sie eigentlich gar nicht aufgeben.  
Aber bei dieser heiligen Jahreszeit ist es zu schwer (und paradoxerweise zu leicht) bedrückt zu bleiben, wegen des Festschmucks, des Adventgeschichtes, des Weihnachtsbaums, der Weihnachtskarten, usw. usw. Besonders zur diesen Zeit glaubt man an die Wunder, an das Wundertätiges, und an das größte Geschenk.  
Und a propos Geschenken: gratuliere zum neuen Haus, Frau Dorfbewohnerin! Hast Du schon Fotos davon? Na, habt Ihr schon SCHNEE? Hier ist es kalt und sehr windig, aber dieses Jahr haben wir wiedermal kein weiße Weihnachten... obwohl hatten wir vor ein paar wochen Puderzuckerschnee. Dafür drücke ich die Daumen.  
Und Mutti ist ja immer etwas besser – sie hat ihre einige Weihnachkarten geschrieben! Und die Krakelei mußte ich manchmals für mehrere Empfänger übersetzen! Damit hatten wir Spaß.  
Na, bis gleich, Elfin! 
A. Gene
 

Closing the Single-Versus-Singular Issue, pt. 2


While catching up on my Catholic-media reading this weekend, looking for Father Dietzen's writeup on G. K. Chesterton and Santa Claus, I found a Catholic News Service article titled "Confession Not Obligatory for Catholic Obama Voters", and caught the name of Father Jacob Hujus. 
Back in our childhood – some 35-plus years ago (how can it be so many years??) – Jake had been a close friend of my brother Doc… and, to a good degree, of mine as well. Sometimes I'd join Doc when he'd visit Jake and his large family at home, wander Dad's campus together (I think Mr. Hujus taught there too, just like Dad), and so on. His parents were friends of our mother… still are, in fact; Mother sent them a Christmas card this year, signing it herself in her own still-shaky (but more-and-more-legible) handwriting. 
I heard from Doc only a few years ago, that Jake had long-since gone into the priesthood. So I tracked him down and sent him an email, a year or two back, asking if he could drop Doc a warn, gentle line when my brother – and his wife and daughters – were working their way through his father-in-law's passing.
I mentioned to Father Jake about my own interest in entering the priesthood or/and professed-religious life (time and money and college-credits permitting) and he responded with some back-then memories, and a bit of suggested reading (e.g., Trochu's definitive biography of the gentle priest-saint John Vianney… a volume I already have, and had begun reading). 
Now, here he was, in 2008, seriously ruffling feathers over the contention that voting for Barack Obama was tantamount to a mortal sin. As I've been pointing out here for some weeks now, concurring with U.S. bishops and priests, this is incorrect. Although… let me also say that I do not profess to be wiser or more moral or more correct than any professed Roman Catholic priest. My old childhood-friend and I simply do not share the same interpretation of Church teaching on this. 
I also lack his education and experience. 
Having said that, I reproduce below the article in full; it comes from the American Catholic website – no author's name is given. [Disclaimer: ©1996-2008 AmericanCatholic.org; website from the Franciscans and St. Anthony Messenger Press.] 
Catholic News Service
STOCKTON, Calif. (CNS) — A Modesto pastor urged his parishioners to receive the sacrament of penance if they voted for President-elect Barack Obama, who supports legalized abortion, but Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton said the sacrament was not obligatory for Catholics who supported Obama. 
"Requiring all Catholics who voted for a candidate with a pro-abortion record to go to confession is not in accord with the moral guidelines set out in 'Faithful Citizenship'," said the bishop, referring to the U.S. Bishops' 2007 document on political responsibility. 
Bishop Blaire, in a statement released Dec. 1, said that "determining the moral culpability of an individual Catholic who votes for a candidate with a pro-abortion record is a very complicated matter." 
He said that if a Catholic voted for a candidate "with a pro-abortion record with the motivation of supporting that abortion stance, then that is a grave moral matter." 
This may be what friend Father Jake was getting at, and I very much agree with that. I plan to send him an email asking him… asking him what? – to clarify? Probably, as with all priests, he's extremely busy (and not just due to Advent), and doesn't need the distraction of a non-pastoral inquiry from the other end of the country. I may just let him know that he has my full support in all things… but this one. How do I do so without seeming sarcastic, or holier-than-thou? Brother! 
Anyway, the article continues: 
The bishop's statement came in response to a Nov. 21 letter sent to parishioners by Father Jacob Hujus, pastor of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Modesto, that urged parishioners to "go to confession before receiving Communion" if they were among "the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate" and had a clear understanding of the candidate's abortion stance. 
According to exit polls, 54 percent of Catholics across the country voted for Obama. 
The priest said he could not say if parishioners should refrain from receiving Communion, because he didn't know what they were thinking when they voted, but he stressed that "voting for a candidate who promises 'abortion rights'...is voting for abortion. It is a grave mistake and probably a grave sin." 
The priest's letter, available on the parish website gained attention beyond the parish after it was reported in the Modesto Bee daily newspaper Nov. 29 and picked up by other media outlets. 
Since then the parish has added a special link to its website to enable people to e-mail their comments on the letter. 
[note: I couldn't find that "special link"; my own link above comes from a public-media source] 
The priest also clarified the meaning of the letter in a Dec. 1 homily [and in a December 19 letter to his parishioners], stating that he never meant that simply voting for Obama made it necessary to go to confession. Instead, he stressed that parishioners risked a "state of grace" if they voted for Obama while fully aware of his position on abortion. 
Father Hujus said the president-elect has publicly supported the Freedom of Choice Act. The latest version of the legislation, introduced in 2007, would establish federal protection of abortion as a "fundamental right" throughout the nine months of pregnancy, regardless of existing state laws to restrict it. However, it is not clear it will even be reintroduced into the new Congress. 
The California newspaper reported that Father Hujus had a long line of parishioners greeting him after Mass Dec. 1 offering their support. The priest told the paper that he never "condemned Barack Obama." Instead, he said, "we must condemn a policy that eliminates the rights of a whole class of people." 
In his letter, the priest said he knew that many people were "confused about the issues. It is a difficult time for us all, and we are facing new social and cultural issues." But despite such confusion, he said, "one thing is clear and certain: We can never vote for a candidate who promises to promote abortion." 
A more detailed read of this full article sets my mind at ease; the couple-paragraph excerpt printed in the Baltimore Archdiocesan newspaper did not include Father Jake's clarification, and seemed to cast him and his viewpoint as practically demanding Obama's Catholic voters hit the confessional en masse (pardon the unintended pun), and was in hot water with the Bishop. I gather he's still a one-issue voter… but now his heart and compassion show through as well. 
I must add that I'm very much with Father Jake on this Freedom of Choice Act legislation; I hope to address that here at some later point. 
Stop the presses!
I was about to sign off when I caught one more article, this posted today at the website for Father Jake's hometown newspaper: 
Modesto pastor admits confession request went 'beyond' church
By Sue Nowicki
last updated: December 22, 2008 03:57:51 PM 
The Rev. Jacob Hujus, pastor of St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Modesto, made national headlines last month when he sent a letter to parishioners saying they might need to go to confession before receiving Communion if they voted for a pro-abortion candidate such as President-elect Barack Obama. 
In the new letter to the 5,600 households in his parish, Hujus does some confessing of his own. 
"I realize that [my previous letter] goes beyond what the Church has actually stated," he said in the letter, dated Dec. 19. "The Church does not state that voting for a candidate who promotes the practice of abortion is always a mortal sin." 
He added that in his personal opinion, abortion outweighs other moral issues, such as war, capital punishment, poverty, racism, hunger, etc. But, he added, he submits to the authority of Bishop Stephen Blaire on this issue. 
He concluded his letter with this: 
"During Advent, we meditate on the mystery of the God's Son forming in Mary's womb. May Our Lady intercede with her Son, that we may cherish all human life, particularly the smallest and most vulnerable."  
Hear, hear! 
The letter of clarification was sent after a tidal wave of national publicity drenched the parish and diocese following the earlier letter, dated Nov. 21. CNN had asked Blaire for an interview about his priest's statements. Four television networks and a handful of radio stations carried the news far beyond Hujus's intended audience. 
"My brother in Denver called and said, 'Hey, dude, you're on the news.' " Hujus said on Dec. 1 about the impact of his initial letter. "We are flooded by calls and e-mails from all over the country. Some are cheerful and grateful. Others are enraged at me." 
The vast majority of Hujus's parishioners supported the priest's stand. He said most of his e-mails — before it hit the national news — was running about 12 to 1 in favor of him. 
Hujus said Monday the parish has received about 825 e-mails, phone messages and letters since his initial letter went public. About 40 percent of those — mostly from people out of the area — criticized his views. The rest supported him. 
He doesn't anticipate another landslide of comments following his second letter. 
"I think it's over," he said. 
"I learned that it's important for spiritual leaders to engage the current moral issues of the moment," he added. "I feel we've had an open and respectful dialogue overall. There were lots of good comments. It was fairly constructive. The nasty letters were minimal. 
"It's important for the churches to be involved in the democratic process, just like churches were involved in the civil rights issues in the 1960s." 
[name withheld], a long-time St. Joseph's parishioner, was one of his parishioners upset by Hujus's initial letter. "I was steaming," she said in an early December e-mail. 
She said Monday she was "glad to get the [second] letter. This kind of cleans things up a little bit. I like him, and I feel a little bit bad for him that he had to soften the edges." 
But, she added, "I think he was dead wrong [in the earlier letter]. I believe in a loving God who understands. ... How can we tell people they are in mortal sin?" 
Blaire was traveling Monday, but issued a brief statement through Sister Terry Davis, director of communication for the diocese. 
"He appreciates that Father Hujus made some necessary clarifications," Davis said. "The bishop would like to highlight the two areas that required clarification: No one can make general statements about the imputability of guilt. Each person in his or her own conscience stands before God. And second, no one can make general statements assuming the intentions that people have when they vote." 
Jan Tsaki, a spokeswoman with the Obama transition team in Washington, D.C., said Monday, "We're going to decline to comment" on Hujus's letters.
 

Closing the Single-Versus-Singular Issue, pt. 1


While I want very much for my postings here – when I can make them – to reflect for now on Advent and Christmas, I need for a moment to step back to some earlier postings on the idea of Catholics' single-issue voting: 
I'd intended to write this posting not to follow up – you folks can research and read up via avenues I've put up here, and through your own searches. But my readings of late in recent Catholic media caught my eye with a very familiar name; see my next posting… and I find I do need to follow up, and close this issue as far as my blog is concerned. 
As a bit of a point/counterpoint is, first, a reader's letter from The Catholic Review (or CR), the same Baltimore-archdiocesan newspaper referenced in my October 31 posting; this comes from the newspaper's November 27 issue. [Disclaimer: © 2008 The Cathedral Foundation, Inc., 880 Park Avenue, Baltimore MD 21201 (correspondence to: PO Box 777, Baltimore MD 21203), 888-768-9555, Mail [at] CatholicReview.org)
Don't be fooled by venomous writers 
I can't ever recall reading letters (CR, Nov. 20) filled with such venom. President-elect Obama was accused of being a Marxist, and prayers were called for his failure. Where was the outrage when President George W. Bush invade Iraq without provocation and began a war that has taken over 80,000 lives, many of them innocent women, children, and elderly? 
Over 4,000 of our own American soldiers have lost their lives, and many times that number are forever maimed, both physically and psychologically. Sen. John McCain wanted not only to continue this war but possibly to extend it into Iran and Syria for years on end. 
Where was the outrage when the U.S. began a program of torture? 
My faith has taught me that all life is sacred. The right to life doesn't stop with birth. 
Every four years, the Republicans trot out the anti-abortion / right-to-life mantra and hoodwink the Catholic bishops into giving them full support. As soon as the election is complete, the matter is forgotten by the politicians, and nothing is done. 
I'm largely in agreement with this writer (who I assume is, like me, both anti-abortion and anti-Bush). In all fairness, though, there must be pointed out a factor weighing deeply with many of the voters who cast their ballots by the candidate's/candidates' stance(s) on anti-abortion first: That over the course of this inexcusable, reprehensible shame of a war we've been in for nearly six years, with hundreds of thousands of lives lost directly because of it, many times that number, of the very youngest and most vulnerable of all lives were snuffed out through abortion. This abomination must stop – but the effort does not tie our hands and force us at election-time to be, pardon me, bedmates of Bush et al. 
That's what I've said here, and that's what the above letter-writer is saying as well. I did not close my eyes to that when I voted for Barack and the straight Democratic ticket, and I will not ignore it during his upcoming two terms in office – I hope, in fact, to begin engaging in more active anti-abortion activities, most likely (at least initially) through local-parish efforts, in particular via the Knights of Columbus. 
But I'm going off-track here. I do want to commend The Catholic Review for its fairness and balance in publishing letters on both sides of this (however needless, in my opinion) debate. Prime example: In that newspaper's December 4 issue, another reader writes regarding that previous letter: 
Agenda, faith collide 
[Your reader]'s letter (CR, Nov. 27) is the perfect example of a Catholic who is ready, willing, and able to throw the Church under the bus to promote her own political agenda. She states, in part: "The right to life doesn't stop with birth". Maybe, but by supporting the people and political policies that promote the slaughter of the innocent, [she] is not reflecting what I assume to be her Catholic faith, and what that faith has taught her in the past and does so until this day. 
I strongly disagree with this letter; a more realistic read of the previous one shows that that writer was speaking from a viewpoint of social concern, and peace activism, rather than mere politics… although her lump-them-all-together complaint about Republicans feeds into the perception of politicization, and should have been deleted before submittal. 
Here's another letter, published in the December 11 issue; we've already contrasted the views of the genuinely estimable George Weigel against the Bishops' document: 
Weigel column distorted by ideological bias 
George Weigel's recent review of the presidential election (CR, Nov. 20) was most disappointing. Without examining the reasons why 54 percent of Catholics voted for Sen. Obama or these voters' views on abortion, Mr. Weigel nevertheless describes these voters as "stupid" and "mindless". Mr. Weigel's view of the facts is distorted by his ideological biases. 
Preliminarily, Mr. Weigel's continued insistence that abortion must necessarily trump every other issue in a Catholic's selection of a candidate ignores the wise counsel of the U.S. bishops in "Faithful Citizenship": "Decisions about political life are complex and require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence." Although it may be difficult for Mr. Weigel to believe, faithful Catholics in good conscience may come to prudential decisions which actually differ from his. 
In addition, Mr. Weigel's analysis fails to acknowledge what is plainly obvious to the most disinterested observer – that, as a practical matter, the one-issue approach to the selection of candidates advocated by Mr. Weigel and others has failed miserably.
Clinging to an exhausted and failed political approach, and studiously avoiding any examination of the facts, Mr. Weigel is unable to provide any meaningful election analysis.
Finally, back in the December 4 issue of Baltimore's archdiocesan newspaper is this letter, which in particular rings a clear chime with me on the matter; here's a cooler, far more level head... and heart:
Prayer over rhetoric 
I was extremely disappointed to read the angry letters from writers who are upset by the election of Barack Obama. The majority of U.S. Catholics did not vote for Mr. Obama [merely] because he is "pro-abortion". I believe that I voted for a very moral man. 
It is time for American Catholics to take back our Church from one-issue Catholics. Isn't it time to ask ourselves if the strategies used by these reactionary Catholics are effective? Do people really respond in a positive way to strident – and, in some case grotesque – literature and pictures? I attended Mass at the Cathedral during Respect Life weekend. The priest spoke of the problems of abortion, euthanasia, and other life issues, but then went on to discuss the lack of respect we have for one another as evidenced by some of the mean, nasty, and judgmental things we say. 
I realize that many pro-life activists are very giving and charitable, and operate with the best intentions. I do believe however, that it is time for Catholics to evaluate the methodology and tactics used by some Catholics to determine if they are truly consistent with Catholic beliefs. More prayer and less rhetoric might be helpful. 
Again, I hadn't intended, first, a wrap-up at all here. Yet once I'd started, I found that's exactly what I was writing. And, second, I hadn't then intended to draw it out over two postings.
But I'll take up my initial objective in the next posting; as I started out saying at the top here, I ran into a very familiar name – person – from my childhood, and want to (with some genuine discomfort) put this up here as well: see the next posting.

Sunday, December 21, 2008

The Big Man Looks at the BIG Man


I last turned to longtime Catholic columnist Father John Dietzen a few days before the recent US election; his column's handling of the matter of "single-issue" voting, something contested among Catholics almost as vehemently as the merits of the major candidates had been for the entire nation, put him in the same corner of the (nonexistent) ring as me, a loyal (yet very anti-conservative) son of the Church, pondering-yet-intractable on the matter. 
Early this month, he submitted a column looking at the figure of Santa Claus, himself bringing in a particularly delightful and refreshing voice of authority, G. K. Chesterton. Chesterton I've been getting to know just over the last couple years, owing to a series carried on EWTN, "The Apostle of Common Sense". (Late last year, regular MT2mb contributor Spartacus quite startled me by quoting Chesterton in one of his email signoff lines. Small world!) 
I reproduce here Father Dietzen’s column in full, as posted on December 7, 2008, at the website of the Catholic Times, "official newspaper of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois". (Disclaimer: © 2001 - 2008 Catholic Times
Now, Father Dietzen: 
Q. My question isn't very deep, but with Christmas coming I am concerned about the attitude of some friends who don't want their children to "believe in Santa Claus." 
From almost infancy, they tell their children there isn't really a Santa and that it was all made up to sell more things at Christmastime. I think they're missing something, but I'm not sure how to tell them. What do you think? (Florida)
A. I too think they are missing something - very big. It's always risky to analyze fantasies, but maybe it's worth trying for a moment.
Fantasies, perhaps especially for children, are critical ways of entering a world, a real world that is closed to us in ordinary human language and happenings. They are doors to wonder and awe, a way of touching something otherwise incomprehensible. Santa Claus, I believe, is like that. 
No one has ever expressed this truth more movingly and accurately, in my opinion, than the great British Catholic author G.K. Chesterton in an essay years ago in the London Tablet. On Christmas morning, he remembered, his stockings were filled with things he had not worked for, or made, or even been good for. 
The only explanation people had was that a being called Santa Claus was somehow kindly disposed toward him. "We believed," he wrote, that a certain benevolent person "did give us those toys for nothing. And ... I believe it still. I have merely extended the idea. 
"Then I only wondered who put the toys in the stocking; now I wonder who put the stocking by the bed, and the bed in the room, and the room in the house, and the house on the planet, and the great planet in the void. 
"Once I only thanked Santa Claus for a few dolls and crackers; now I thank him for stars and street faces and wine and the great sea. Once I thought it delightful and astonishing to find a present so big that it only went halfway into the stocking. 
"Now I am delighted and astonished every morning to find a present so big that it takes two stockings to hold it, and then leaves a great deal outside; it is the large and preposterous present of myself, as to the origin of which I can offer no suggestion except that Santa Claus gave it to me in a fit of peculiarly fantastic good will." 
Are not parents of faith blessed, countless times over, to have for their children (and for themselves) such a fantastic and playful bridge to infinite, unconditionally loving Goodness, the Goodness which dreamed up the Christmas event in the first place?
Call Santa Claus a myth or what you will, but in his name, parents (and for that matter, all of us who give gifts at this special time of the year) are putting each other in deeper touch with the "peculiarly fantastic good will" who is the ultimate Source of it all. Plus, it's fun! 
I hope your friends reconsider.
 

Christmas Present, and Restoring the Past

I've been silent and absent from my blog, these past many weeks, owing simply to concentration on getting myself back into the workforce, and juggling too many bills with too little money. I've had several job interviews, including three or four I'm still waiting to hear back about, and will have to politely nudge the firms back on. 
Getting through this on a daily basis has been at times, I admit, all along the gamut from annoying to depressing to downright frightening. This leaves little creative energy to muse online, I'm afraid… and even that little, particular awareness is one more source of (slight) stress. Still, I'm itching to put up a couple essays here – neither one mine… and so, come to think of it, all the more worth the read – between now and Christmas. 
First, as a little bit of what-I've-been-up-to, here's a pair of emails to and from me. The sender, Augusta, is a writer and amateur genealogist I met online through trying to restore an old book to its owners' descendant(s). At an antique store early this year when I had the money, I bought a stamp-album almost a century old, with several hundred very old stamps in it, to augment my and my family's collection. The album had a handwritten inscription identifying its original owner by full name (and his gift-giver), including his somewhat unusual last name; indicators were that it had been given around 1907 or 1908, and used for just a couple years before being set aside for still-unknown reasons. 
…with some great stamps in it! These I removed carefully (though in two instances damaging a page), and then proceeded to track down the owner's family to send it back to them, given its great overall condition, and the name and personal inscription in it. Augusta responded to my inquiry, and I sent her the album; she was later able to nail the original owner down precisely – a brother of her great-grandfather, I believe. We also keep each other updated on some goings-on in our families. 
Yes, yes; this is pretty far afield from Christmas. Bear with me. 
I kept the stamps, of course… but ultimately decided to hang onto only those that were not duplicates of ones I already own. (I've still more than recouped the purchase price – several times over – in terms of market-prices on the stamps I kept.) All the rest I sent back to Augusta over the course of the year, a couple countries' worth at a time, after researching and identifying them for her so she could put them back in her ancestor's album and so restore it (as much as possible) to its condition when he'd owned it. I held back only the stamps of Germany and the pre-unification (1871, not 1990) German states, since the jewel and hub of my and my family's collection is what remains of my German grandfather's own collection, and these needed exhaustive looking-over before returning. 
Starting next year, other duties permitting, I'll send Augusta one each of all my non-Grandfather pre-WWI duplicates so she can actually augment her ancestor's album to perhaps what it could have been like had he kept at it, and as a kind of thank-you (or maybe apology) for keeping some of her great-grand-uncle's things. 
Christmas is a time of giving… and giving is not just a December-thing. Thank you. 
-----Original Message-----
From: Augusta Lovelace [mailto:
AgustaLovelace@CondeNast.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008
8:17 PM
To: 'Aging Child'
Subject: Hi A. Gene
 
Hi Gene, 
I am finally finished and can take a break for the day!  How are you? How is your Mother? 
I did receive your last batch of stamps.  I have them tucked away for the week after Christmas when everything dies down to a dull roar and I can have time to myself.  A snowy, cold day would be an ideal day to work on them.  I do appreciate you sending all of them to me.  It will be such a nice album when I have finished it. 
I have my projects lined up for after the holidays.  The stamp album, painting, getting back to my novel (practicing with my dragon naturally speaking).  I have tried using it before but it takes a while to speak clearly and slowly so that the computer types what you are saying and not some other words.  It is great for writing once you learn the ins and outs of it. 
Our daughter had a Christmas party at her place last night.  We didn't stay too late as I was tired after going all day.  She had about 25 people at the party.  It was nice thought to be able to sit, have a drink and have absolutely nothing to do but that. 
I received a Christmas card and a letter from a distant cousin who had sent me all his Lovelace genealogy.  He said that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease.  He and his wife are such energetic people and great travelers.  I felt so bad for him as in time he knows that he will not be able to do all that he loved to do in the past.  Sometimes life can seem like a cruel joke. 
Our tree is up and decorated, the house is done, the lights are up outside, the house is cleaned, the gifts are wrapped and tomorrow the cookies will be baked and then I will do absolutely nothing for two days. 
Hope that you have a Merry Christmas and the very best in the New Year! 
Talk to you soon, 
Augusta 
-----Original Message-----
From: Aging Child [mailto:AGeneChilde@YouWho.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008
12:47 PM
To: 'Augusta'
Subject: RE: Hi, Augusta
 
Good afternoon, Augusta, and Merry Christmas! 
My mother's health continues to get much better – for example, she filled out her own Christmas cards… then I'd add a note from me to the recipient, translating my mother's scrawl (it's definitely improving) and updating them on her progress, before sealing, stamping, and sending off. I think she and my sister are actually shopping right now, something wonderful for my mother's morale (and the morale of the rest of us, too). 
For myself… well, the job hunt goes on unabated – if I even just slowed down at it, or gave up, the panic/desperation at the fringes would creep in, with money and resources just about entirely drained, and only very spotty work at best (filling in two days this coming week, and four the week after). On better days I feel very confident and determined and undeterred; bad days… well, it's almost as though I'm walking along a cliff's edge in a hurricane, and earthquake. But I go on… I have to. 
Though perhaps I could easily find reasons to justify it to myself, I can't buy into (not for very long) a view on life as a cruel joke. After a long busy life, your distant cousin now still has a good stretch of time to pull back in and reflect on the joys his life has been enriched with, and an opportunity to turn now to something even more internal and spiritual, with the love of his life to help carry him through. We have to look on the difficulties and hurdles coming our way as further avenues for God to reach us and vice-versa, opportunities of grace, not of cold blows. (This is something I really need to keep in mind!) 
With the support of his family, your cousin has it within and about him to deal very well, all things considered, with Parkinson's. The toughest thing isn't to bear up under the difficulties of that disease (as my mother and our family are bearing up under her strokes), so much as trusting in God, and allowing our lives and future to rest in His hands, in His control, while doing what we still very much can do. Yet I know this may provide little-at-all consolation, and might just come across as trivializing a very sobering diagnosis and prospect. So please pardon the preachiness; I suspect rather uncomfortably that your cousin would no doubt prefer my unemployment to his prognosis. I wish I could do more than add him and his wife to my prayers, but I do just that. 
And speaking of family, with a profound apology for the poor segue: 
I went through my German stamps and [your great-granduncle]'s, and am ready to catalog that last batch of [his] and send them back your way… though I'll wait for the postal system to wind down a bit, plus final Christmas preparations here – seems I spend all Advent, once I get started, always adding one more thing to the tree, and just one other decoration indoors and out. With Mother away and the economy and prospects extremely troubling, it's that much more important to embrace and engage in the traditions that are part of what make this time of year so special, magical, and holy. 
And so I wish you, your family, and especially your cousin and his wife and his own family, my warmest wishes and prayers for a good, lovely, Merry Christmas, and a sweet, happy new year. Till then! 
A. Gene Childe

Friday, November 7, 2008

Jesus Was a Socialist


Yesterday afternoon, iconoclast and keen skeptic Spartacus sent out an email I was intrigued to read and think on:
-----Original Message-----
From: "Spark" le Klaus [mailto:SpartaCuss@Yabbadoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 1:30 PM
To: Aging Child
Subject: Jesus Was a Socialist
Post election '08 and so many "Christians" are still having panic attacks over the "S word" (Socialism). The sad thing is, Obama is not a socialist, so they are worrying themselves over nothing.
What's so wrong about being a socialist anyway? Let them try to wrap their heads around this concept:
JESUS WAS A SOCIALIST
Think about it.
I found the following article quite interesting:
By David Chandler
[Originally published in the Tule River Times "Left in America" column.]
The "Religious Right" (Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, etc.) gets so much media attention for its conservative political activism that a casual observer would think conservative Christianity somehow equates to conservative politics. This is not the case. In fact many people with left-leaning political views find a solid basis for their positions in the Bible. There are many sides to this topic, but we will limit our focus to attitudes toward the rich and the poor.
America is as much an economic phenomenon as it is a nation. It is built on a system whose driving force is the profit motive. Our economy blatantly rewards greed. In classic economic theory greed is good. A person who is motivated by greed will create, as unintended byproducts, benefits for everyone, such as employment and the development of new goods and services. Let the rich get richer, the saying goes, and the benefits will "trickle down" to the rest of us. "A rising tide raises all boats." Under a pure capitalistic system, the government keeps hands off and allows the market to decide how the money flows. The problem is, as we have found in this era of deregulation, the money flows to the top. [The original article contained a variant on the graph shown on the L-Curve web site.] Tampering with the market system to redistribute the wealth or assure that the poor are protected is labeled "socialism."
[Take a moment and have a look at the data and analysis on the above website!]
By these standards Jesus was a socialist.
Jesus spoke remarkably often about wealth and poverty. To the poor he said, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God," (Luke's version). To the rich he said, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth," and "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor." When the rich turned away from him because they couldn't follow his command, he observed, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
For Jesus, helping the poor and the outcast is not optional: it is the essence of what it means to love God. In the parable of the last judgment, he welcomes the righteous into heaven, saying, "I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." When the righteous answered that they didn't recall doing any of these things, he said, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."
We are to "forgive our debtors" and "give to everyone who begs from you." But don't handouts contribute to moral decay? Jesus was more concerned about the moral decay in those who are so attached to their wealth that they would hoard it for themselves. In our better moments, most of us recognize that giving does not corrupt. We sacrifice to give good things to our children, and do our best to provide them with years of carefree existence as they grow up. We do this to give them a sense of security and a foundation for growth. People who have been devastated by misfortune, or for whatever reason are down and out, may need even more help because they may not have what it takes to recover on their own. Many of us will help a friend in hard times, even though we know we will never be repaid. It is when dealing distantly with people in the abstract that we fall back on the "moral decay" argument.
What's wrong with trickle-down economics? Every time I hear that phrase I think of the story Jesus told about a rich man and the beggar Lazarus "who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table." Needless to say, the story ends with Lazarus going to a better place than the rich man. Trickle-down theory is about crumbs. Those who say we should settle for crumbs would make us a nation of beggars.
Greed may be a driving force for the economy, but Jesus saw it is as destructive to community. Greed may leave a few crumbs behind for the poor, and it may do some unintended good, but it destroys compassion. Compassion is in short supply in our society today, where workers are being downsized in the name of efficiency, prisons are being expanded to insulate society from its underclasses, and the middle class is abandoned by the rich to fight it out with the poor for the table scraps.
Jesus' response to economic inequality is very direct: we are to share the wealth. I once heard a talk about world hunger. The point was that we produce far more food than is needed to feed everyone on earth. The problem is not lack of supply; it is maldistribution. Many people are simply too poor to buy the food they need. This talk gave me a new perspective on the story of the feeding of the 5,000. Jesus was out in the desert followed by a huge crowd. The disciples were concerned that it was getting late in the day and they didn't have enough food to feed the crowd. My suspicion is that Jesus sensed there was plenty of food in the crowd, but whereas some had plenty, others had nothing. Sensing an opportunity to make a point, he instructed his disciples to take their five loaves and two fish and distribute them freely to the crowd. By the sheer audaciousness of this act he induced those with food to join him in giving it away. The result is everyone was fed that day with twelve baskets left over. If Jesus simply did a magic trick and made food appear, what's the point? Whoopee! He's divine. He's not like us. But if, by his act of giving away all he had in the face of the overwhelming crowd, he demonstrated the power of a sharing community, he achieved a real miracle! Sharing is a lesson we especially need to learn today.
[Note: I don't buy into the stupid, deconstructionist assertion that at Jesus' and the Apostles' example and encouragement, everyone threw together their own fish sandwiches; my mind and heart can easily wrap around the concept of the miraculous. But this matter of faith/belief is tangential to the issue of Jesus and socialism.]
Is concern for the poor to be simply a private matter to be handled by charity, or does it have anything to do with politics or government? The Bible calls upon the rulers to create a just society. In a democracy, we are the rulers. We have the power to make the rules. The actions of the nation are extensions of our own actions. By our active participation or passive consent, we share responsibility for what our nation does in our name. We have inherited a system that works efficiently to produce tremendous wealth, but fails to distribute that wealth equitably. It neglects the poor and it corrupts the rich. On both counts it destroys community. A decent life for all is a matter of simple justice, not charity! There are remedies that will make the system work better in the interests of all the people, but it takes active political involvement to bring them about.
Is this "bleeding heart" liberalism? You bet it is! Jesus is the definitive bleeding heart, and he calls us to follow him.
For anyone who has studied and meditated on the life and teachings of Jesus – or even someone merely vaguely familiar with them – the argument and rationale are inarguable. This perspective on Him is awesome.
So being the socially-conscious Christian I am, I forwarded the article to a couple very conservative Christian friends to see how they might respond. This can be likened to poking a very short stick deep into the tiger's cage. Surprisingly, Anon E. Mouse answered very quickly – generally I don't hear from her when I send "left-wing" stuff her way… although I do rather regularly receive from her plenty of garbage from the other end of the spectrum, most of which I delete… unless I feel like poking another stick.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mouse, Anon E. [mailto:AEMouse@SOL.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:34 PM
To: Aging Child
Subject: RE: Jesus Was a Socialist
No, Gene, Jesus did want us to help (key operative word) our fellow man, I cannot believe that He wanted us to give and give to those who do nothing but take and won't do a days work for a days wages.  I see nothing wrong with the Puritan work ethic.  I don't get paid for doing nothing yet part of my wages go to those not willing to work.
I can testify from personal and professional knowledge that Ms. Mouse is indeed a hard-working woman. She has a big heart, too… it just doesn't bleed a whole lot. Still, since she was kind enough to clarify further her feel for this issue, I felt I needed to counterpoint:
-----Original Message-----
From: Aging Child [mailto: AGeneChilde@YouWho.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:00 PM

To: ' Mouse, Anon E.'
Subject: RE: Jesus Was a Socialist
Hi, Anon!
I hope all's well by you guys (and kids and pups) at the farmstead.
I don't disagree with you there, but how are we to tell… say, if faced by a total stranger hitting us up for a buck? Or someone passed out on the street? We just don't know, and this may be where we are told in the Bible not to judge. We can't ignore the needy because some small percentage of their number are lazy, or/and parasitical.
Go straight back to Jesus's bare words, and look also in Acts – where people in the early-Church community were designated to take care of the poor and widowed – and at the Letter of James (especially the second chapter) – where Christian faith without these deeds is, bluntly, called "dead". Jesus didn't put injunctions on His calls to us to see to the needy among us. At least, not in every Bible I've read.
If there is a need, we must fill it, or be hypocrites as Christians. And just feeding the poor isn't enough, nor is even helping them make ends meet. Retraining the unemployed for new types of work is often called for (e.g., Detroit and the Rust Belt), and implementing some functional means of bringing these people back into a productive segment of society. This is the old push of "A hand up, not a handout", with which I agree.
The Puritan work ethic is quite sound, but what about where there is no work? And there'll always be parasites, but why shut everybody out due to the handful of bad apples? I think you and I agree that there has to be accountability for those who receive assistance… let's just not make the problem all the more dire.
Disappointingly, yet typically, Anon did not respond further – I'm assuming she left work early yesterday and had today off. Just so he could see what was going on with the original article, plus to elicit a read from the farther left, I'd bcc'd Spartacus on my note back to friend Mouse; I followed up with a note to him:
-----Original Message-----
From: Aging Child
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:22 PM
To: "Spark" le Klaus
Subject: RE: Jesus Was a Socializer
Coincidentally, I was listening to Neil Young's "Sugar Mountain" while reading this article. I forwarded it (the email, not the MP3 track) right away to "Anon E. Mouse" and a couple other conservative friends (including brother Sarge, who tends to favor the Repugnicant ticket, and the tired old Reaganesque tinkle-on economics).
I'm mulling blogging this – will allow me to resume some religion-ruminations I'd like to put up soon. Any thoughts/background you'd care to add? You'll have the soapbox for this posting.
Regards,
Freddy Engels
I'd hoped to lean on his greater depth of knowledge/familiarity with economic and political issues. And Sparks never disappoints; he wrote back this evening (something's off with his email-clock, though):
-----Original Message-----
From: "Spark" le Klaus [mailto:SpartaCuss@Yabbadoo.com]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 12:18 PM
To: MT2mb
Subject: Re: Jesus Was a Socialist
"I don't want my hard earned to go to a bunch of lazy, good for nothing deadbeats!"
That is the automatic, guaranteed reaction when mentioning even the mildest, semi-socialistic ideas to any of the right wing persuasion. How about trying to think a little bit out of that worn out old box before reacting with that worn out reactionary response? Not everyone who is in need of help is a lazy, good for nothing bum. For the past 40 or so years, wages for the middle and working classes in the USA have either stagnated and/or declined (adjusted for cost of living). During the same period, income for the wealthy has more than tripled (adjusted for cost of living). Today the average American worker is working longer hours for the same or less money (adjusted for cost of living), and with fewer benefits than he/she did 30-40 years ago. The concept of "job security" is a joke. The risk of your job being outsourced, downsized, etc is great. Losing one's job, having yourself or a family member come down with a serious illness is a dire catastrophe in this economic climate. Yet with all this, American productivity measured per worker has never been higher. That doesn't sound like a bunch of lazy deadbeats to me! Why should working Americans be denied a fair piece of the pie?
Had the minimum wage kept pace with the cost of living, it would be over $20 per hour today. Conservatives are fond of talking about family values--what kind of family values can you have when mom and dad are out working 16 or more hours per day because the minimum wage jobs they have don't provide a living wage? And God help them if they develop a serious disease.
It is so easy for those ensconced in the middle class to dismiss those making less than them as "lazy deadbeats". Tell that to the former factory worker whose job was shipped overseas. Tell that to the single mom working at Walmart (part time with no bennys) and KFC, barely making it from paycheck to paycheck.
Hell--tell it to my sister--she worked for over 20 years as an electronics assembler. The pay wasn't great, but at least she got some bennys for her family. Her husband worked as a heavy equipment operator, which is basically a seasonal job (when the ground is frozen, not much earth gets moved, though he did pick up extra $$ plowing snow, doing odd jobs, etc). From early Spring to late Fall, he made good money, but no benefits. Between the 2 of them, they were able to live modestly with their young daughter. "Between the 2 of them"--that is key--neither one of them made enough $$ to provide a living wage on just one income--it took their combined salaries to make it.
Then the electronics job folded (shipped overseas to maximize profit) and her husband left her for another woman. My sister is no dummy and no lazy slob--while working her assembly job for all those years, she also took on the responsibility of helping the purchasing manager. Based on that experience, she was able to get a job as an assistant purchaser at another company, and started going to night school taking biz classes. Then that job folded (company went belly up). Through a friend, she got a similar position down in [another state]. Then that job died (the company moved its manufacturing operations overseas to maximize profits). Now things were really dire. She looked everywhere for a job--but employment opportunities are few and far between for a 40+ year old woman. She was reduced to going on food stamps, and getting whatever other assistance she could (and after Clinton gutted the federal welfare program, that wasn't much at all--certainly not enough to live on). Our family helped out where we could, but we are not exactly rolling in the dough either, so we were limited in what we could do. Finally, she was able to take advantage of a state program and enrolled in a re-training program. It took her 5 years to get her associate degree in medical office technology because she couldn't go to school full time (she had her daughter to take care of). She graduated cum laude and with a handful of glowing letters of recommendation from her profs and from the company she interned with--and couldn't get a job after over a year of looking--how many companies are going to hire an almost 50 year old woman when they can hire some 21 year old kid?
She finally took a job hounding people who are delinquent on the credit card bills (something she doesn't have to worry about because she declared bankruptcy a long time ago, therefore she has no credit card). The job is psychologically punishing and heartbreaking--she has to call people on the phone and ask them for money, people who are tapped out and can't make ends meet. She can't stand it, but it is the best paying position she was able to find--and even so, she is about a paycheck away from total economic disaster. She is now part of "the working poor". She still has to rely on foodstamps and local food banks. We pooled some $$ together so she could get a better car after her junker's tranny died and she needed $500 for the repairs. If she doesn't have a car she is sunk. She lives in a crappy little trailer on the outskirts of town, her next door neighbor is a drug dealer, and she prays that her daughter (who is now 18) will find a boyfriend and move out, because that would at least lower her living expenses--can you imagine the guilt and anguish that kind of thinking has caused in her?
There used to be concepts ordinary Americans tried to base their lives on, such as "the common good", "the Golden Rule", "social justice", "basic fairness", and "simple decency". It is abundantly clear those concepts are foreign to those on the right, people motivated by greed and fear.
I believe people have a right to accumulate wealth for themselves and their families, but I don't believe anyone has a right to make an obscene amount of $$ while others, who are just as hard working and worthy, struggle from paycheck to paycheck just because the economic structure is stacked against them. That's what it really comes down to--a system which is structured in favor of the wealthy. Is that right? Is that just? The working man contributes just as much to this society as the CEO, but he certainly isn't compensated fairly for his efforts. The essence of Socialism is social justice--all the rest is just details for the remedy.
Since I'd bcc'd Sparkle on that note to Mouse, he now has her email address. He's also a gentleman, and likely did not bcc her on his email to me… although I'm scared to ask. But I think I'll forward it her way myself; I suspect she'll simply delete.
She's also on my list of professional references – no need to provoke her, either. Tiger's cage, short stick… but underemployed. Uh –