nancynall.com » That kind of Catholic.

That kind of Catholic.

I was raised a Catholic, one of a long line of Catholics, which is to say, we were not all that Catholic.

We went to church on Sun­days and holy days of oblig­a­tion. We did the sacra­ments — bap­tism, first com­mu­nion, con­fir­ma­tion, con­fes­sion. My older brother and sis­ter went to Catholic school; but when we moved, the sum­mer before my first-grade year, to a house with an excel­lent pub­lic grade school at one end of the block and a junior high at the other, my par­ents lost their com­mit­ment to Catholic edu­ca­tion. (My sib­lings were released from uni­form bondage at the same time.) When we mis­placed some­thing, my mother told us to say a prayer to St. Anthony. We lit can­dles in front of saints’ stat­ues. My dad ran the church soft­ball team.

What we didn’t do: Pray the rosary at home, put a holy water font by the door, dis­play reli­gious art in the house (although there were cru­ci­fixes in the bed­rooms). When I had a headache, my mother didn’t say, “Offer it up.” My prayer life was pretty child­ish and never really pro­gressed — I prayed to pass fourth grade and later, for world peace, with a 50 per­cent suc­cess rate. When my later teen years came along, I found it easy to skip church and then stop going alto­gether, although my mother attended Mass until she couldn’t drive her­self anymore.

In our prac­tice, I’d esti­mate we’re right in the mid­dle of the Catholic con­tin­uum, at least for our time. We weren’t holly-lily scofflaws, but it’s fair to say we chose what we wanted in the cafe­te­ria line and didn’t con­sider our­selves bad Catholics as a result. I was taught the Com­mu­nion host becomes the actual body and blood of Christ in CCD class, but even as a second-grader, I under­stood it as a metaphor. I sup­pose this, by church teach­ing, makes me a Protes­tant, but all I have to say is: Please.

One rea­son I’m so fas­ci­nated with Amy’s blog com­menters is, they’re the kind of Catholic I never knew grow­ing up. They don’t prac­tice birth con­trol, they march for life, they think Nino Scalia is a great man and are very big on Opus Dei. I’m sure these folks were in my church — there were a few fam­i­lies with 10, 12, 13 kids — but they didn’t stand around after­ward talk­ing about it. Of course, there were no blogs then.

So the other day I drop by Rod Dreher’s blog, who con­verted to Catholi­cism and then left it for East­ern Ortho­doxy, and has writ­ten approx­i­mately 8 mil­lion anguished words about it — he’s quite the hand-wringer. He’s writ­ing about a crim­i­nally cor­rupt priest who died recently:

Samuel Greene was a con man. He was a TV pitch­man who got reli­gion and founded the Christ of the Hills monastery in rural cen­tral Texas. At some point, he affil­i­ated with the Russ­ian Ortho­dox Church Out­side Rus­sia (ROCOR), which cut him loose after the child abuse scan­dal hap­pened in the late 1990s. But his trailer-park monastery was quite the spir­i­tual hotspot for a while. When it became known in the early 1990s that there was a mirac­u­lous weep­ing icon of the Vir­gin Mary there, the monastery began to attract lots of pil­grims — many of them Catholics. I was one of those pil­grims. When I’d go visit a Catholic friend in Austin, we’d drive out to the monastery, and I’d wait in line with the faith­ful — most of them poor His­panic Catholics, as I recall — to ven­er­ate the mirac­u­lous icon. The monks would hand out cot­ton balls with her sweet-smelling tears on them. The sub­stance was said to be myrrh. Years later, I found one of the cot­ton balls — this was before the fraud was exposed — and noticed that it smelled acrid and chemical-like. But I didn’t want to accept that it was a fraud.

Need­less to say, mirac­u­lous weep­ing icons were not part of my reli­gious expe­ri­ence. I can’t imag­ine even my faith­ful mother falling for such bull­shit. That even a con­vert like Dreher could stand in line to “ven­er­ate” such a thing seems sim­ply ludi­crous to me, makes me want to look at a point on the hori­zon until some­one changes the sub­ject to base­ball or the stock mar­ket. I was never that kind of Catholic.

Gene Wein­garten is the Wash­Post humor colum­nist, but every so often he writes a long piece for the paper’s Sun­day mag­a­zine, fre­quently of a seri­ous nature. Here’s one that’s nine years old, but I read only recently: Tears for Audrey, about Audrey Santo, a Mass­a­chu­setts girl who fell into a back­yard swim­ming pool as a tod­dler, was gravely brain-damaged, and lived the rest of her life with­out regain­ing con­scious­ness. She died only recently, and in her short life­time, became a fix­ture of reli­gious ven­er­a­tion. Peo­ple believed she was a “vic­tim soul,” a per­son cho­sen by God to suf­fer for oth­ers. Peo­ple believed she had the power to cure, to heal, and wrote let­ters ask­ing for her help. In her life­time, she was dis­played to vis­i­tors, although — allow me to say “blessedly” — never for profit. Her home was filled with reli­gious stat­u­ary, and much of it also wept mirac­u­lously. Oil.

Weingarten’s story is very long, but I urge you to read it, if this topic inter­ests you. It’s very deft, very sen­si­tive, and very telling. There’s not a hint of sneer­ing or snark­i­ness at this bizarre sub­niche of Catholi­cism, but as you read it, one thing becomes entirely clear: Her mother was mak­ing the “mir­a­cles” happen:

In the back yard, the Rev. Mike McNa­mara is cel­e­brat­ing Mass. Linda Santo takes a con­se­crated wafer on a brass plate and dis­ap­pears into the house with it. Every day she gives Com­mu­nion to Audrey. (Audrey has a feed­ing tube; the wafer is the only solid food she receives by mouth.)

A few min­utes later, Linda returns. There is a pecu­liar look on her face. She is hold­ing the empty Com­mu­nion plate gin­gerly, and replaces it on the altar.

Liq­uid sloshes out and onto the tablecloth.

“Sor­reee,” she whis­pers to the priest.

After the cer­e­mony, four priests crowd around the Com­mu­nion plate. It is filled halfway with opales­cent yel­low oil, maybe three or four table­spoons of it, and on top of that is a large, float­ing bead of clear liq­uid. It smells of pure roses, eerily strong. It wafts up and out into the swel­ter­ing sum­mer air.

Linda Santo meekly explains that the plate quickly welled up with this sub­stance as she walked alone from Audrey’s bed to the back porch, a trip of some 30 feet.

The priests nod. It is a mir­a­cle, every­one agrees.

I mean, come on: Isn’t it obvi­ous? Well, maybe that case. The story is sev­eral thou­sand words long, and lots of peo­ple are quoted say­ing these things are mir­a­cles, that this statue “hem­or­rhaged” oil when Linda Santo wasn’t around, that this hap­pened, that that hap­pened, and sorry, but what­ever it takes to believe such things are pos­si­ble with­out human inter­ven­tion, I don’t have it. I’m doubt­ing Thomasina, sorry, Jesus. (For what it’s worth, I also don’t believe in non-religious spir­i­tu­al­ism — ghosts, spir­its, auras. I fig­ure if I can’t believe a saint can help me find my car keys, I also can’t believe the spirit of my dead grand­mother guides my hand when I’m cook­ing din­ner. I also acknowl­edge I don’t know every­thing, and am always pre­pared to be sur­prised, one of these days.)

Weingarten’s story does find a mir­a­cle, by the way. You have to read all the way to the end; it’s very art­ful. A few weeks back, in his weekly chat, he said he thought the way he ended the story was a mis­take, but I think he just needs smarter readers.

I never know what to say when peo­ple speak of “mir­a­cles” like this, except to go into grad-student mode, and reflect that this is a very old church, that lit­er­acy arrived in the con­gre­ga­tion fairly recently in the grand scheme of things, and that one way sim­ple peo­ple keep their faith alive is by believ­ing in Mar­ian appari­tions and the heal­ing power of Lour­des water and mys­te­ri­ous weep­ing icons. When I’m feel­ing mean, I think Catholi­cism mar­ried Voodoo and had a baby daugh­ter they called Santeria.

But ulti­mately I shrug. What can you do? Given a choice between Catholi­cism, any kind of Catholi­cism, and, oh, Tim Goeglein’s Bartlett’s Famil­iar Lutheranism, I know what I’d choose. (The one where I already know the words.)

OK, so as we skip to the blog­gage, let’s make sure we pre­serve the rev­er­ent tone, OK?

Brit­ney got some glasses, which explains why she was always for­get­ting her pants — she couldn’t see!

Head­line o’ the day: Bill would ban tex­ting while dri­ving in Michi­gan. What is hap­pen­ing to free­dom in this coun­try? Next they’ll be mak­ing it ille­gal to stick your tongue into elec­tri­cal sockets.

From my night­time career farm­ing health-care news, I have learned one thing: No mat­ter how bad I feel, it could always be worse. Ebola is the one that fea­tures bleed­ing from the eye­balls, right? How do doc­tors dis­tin­guish it from PMS?

Some­times you read a blog for the post, some­times for the com­ments. Like here.

Time to go to work. If God doesn’t strike me dead!

78 responses to
“That kind of Catholic.”

  1. brian stouder said on September 19th, 2007 at 8:50 am

    pre­serve the rev­er­ent tone, OK?

    Alright! I was 6 in 1967, but this arti­cle cap­tures some­thing nonethe­less (about Coun­try Joe McDonald)

    http://​www​.msnbc​.msn​.com/​i​d​/​1​8​8​03490/

    I loved this bit

    Inac­cu­rate news cov­er­age of some parts of the ’60s and the roman­ti­ciz­ing of other parts are com­mon, Joe has found over the years. “The truth isn’t always enter­tain­ing and the media is in the enter­tain­ment busi­ness,” he says. “His­tory has kind of smooshed it all into one TV show.” The mem­o­ries of the par­tic­i­pants aren’t exactly flaw­less either, he notes. He recalls a recent reunion tour with the Fish in which band mem­bers agreed they had not played on the “free stage” at the Mon­terey Pop Fes­ti­val only to be asked a short time later by a fan to auto­graph a pho­to­graph of them rock­ing that very venue. And shown a list of his Fish and solo gigs from 1967, he is again shocked. Where he expected to see 30 or 40 dates, he sees more than 120. “Jesus Christ! We worked our ass off!”

    Joe gained much of his work ethic and insights about per­form­ing from Janis Joplin, one of his best friends and his lover dur­ing much of the Sum­mer of Love. It’s Joplin, felled in 1970 by booze and dope, whom he misses most from those years, he says, stand­ing out­side an apart­ment they shared on Lyon Street in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district.

    ‘We were incom­pat­i­ble as lovers’
    “We were incom­pat­i­ble as lovers, really,” he says. “There wasn’t a lot of siz­zle going on, but we were good friends. We were both Capri­corns, and had that lead­er­ship, take-charge thing going for us, and we got along really well. I do miss her; she’s prob­a­bly the one per­son from that time, in ’67, that I really wish was around today so I could com­pare notes with her.

    “She was very pro­fes­sional,” Joe says. “She liked to rehearse a lot, liked the struc­ture of it and to plan the shows. She’s the per­son that taught me that nine songs were a set. And gen­er­ally that’s the rule.”

    They did not make music together or with musi­cians out­side their own bands. “Janis and I had the same feel­ing about jam­ming; I’m not really a per­son that jams with peo­ple. She wasn’t either.”

    They did do a lot of walk­ing together, Joe recalls, lead­ing the way to the epi­cen­ter of the Haight at its inter­sec­tion with Ash­bury. Joplin had a lit­tle dog named George “and we would walk with George up to the Haight, and then we would walk down the Haight, and we’d see Free­wheelin’ Frank (a well-known fig­ure in the Hell’s Angels), or Myra, Janis’ old girl­friend, who had a new young girl­friend at the time, I can’t remem­ber her name, and we would talk, and Janis would get maybe a beer or some­thing, and we’d walk up to Golden Gate Park to Hip­pie Hill, and it was very casual and a lot of fun. It was a com­mu­nity feel­ing, and very relaxed.”

    The Bay Area would be an inter­est­ing des­ti­na­tion for a pil­grim­mage, and Coun­try Joe would indeed be an inter­est­ing icon to visit

  2. john c said on September 19th, 2007 at 9:46 am

    I’m not quite as lapsed as NN.c. But I’m pretty lapsed. I have all — well, most — of the Catholic hor­ror sto­ries. Angry nuns. Ter­ri­ble priests. (I actu­ally had a priest tell me, before I got mar­ried, to make sure my wife didn’t develop any out­side inter­ests. “Next thing you know, she’ll be sleep­ing with her ther­a­pist.”) But some of the best peo­ple I’ve ever met have been devout Catholics, includ­ing priests. I pray occa­sion­ally. But I know it’s an act of des­per­a­tion, as most of par­ent­ing is. (Gar­ri­son Keil­lor hit it on the head when he observed that par­ent­hood is 18 years of con­stant prayer.) I have a sister-in-law who is more devout than her sis­ter (my wife) and me. We often spend time up at the fam­ily cot­tage in north­ern Michi­gan with her, her hus­band, and their four kids. And they have a tra­di­tion of say­ing the rosary as a fam­ily when they miss Mass, which hap­pens from time to time on vaca­tion. I can’t say I ever laughed at this. But I remem­ber think­ing, sheesh, that’s too much for me. Then one day I hap­pened to be on the beach with them when they did it, so I joined in. After each Hail Mary some­one, in turn, offered a brief inten­tion. I’m quite sure no stat­ues will weep because of our hum­ble utter­ings. But, with the fine sand in our toes and the gen­tle lap­ping of Lake Michi­gan a few feet away, it was a beau­ti­ful moment. I can’t help but think some good came out of it. I think Nancy was mak­ing a funny lit­tle remark when she said she’d choose the church where she “knows all the words.” But there’s a lot in that. I know all the words when I go to Mass. And that makes it a com­fort­able place to be alone in a group. A few in the build­ing have so much faith that the blaz­ing flame of the Holy Spirit might as well be roar­ing over their heads. But more than a few of us are cup­ping a tiny match in our hands, try­ing to keep the wind from blow­ing it out com­pletely. I lot of hor­ri­ble things have been done in the name of reli­gion, I know. But it’s not the reli­gion, per se, it’s the peo­ple des­per­ate to find order in chaos. Say­ing you see a weep­ing statue hurts no one. But sooner or later some­one will say that statue is weep­ing because of all the fag­gots on tele­vi­sion, or because the Pres­i­dent stained a pur­ple dress. Then it becomes some­thing much worse than silly.
    Hmm. I think I’ve had too much cof­fee this morn­ing. Excel­lent post, though.

  3. John said on September 19th, 2007 at 10:16 am

    “Anti-mammite”, what a hoot!

    I’m wait­ing for a poll­ster to call me and ask my opin­ion. I’m four-square in the “pro-mammite” column!

  4. Connie said on September 19th, 2007 at 10:29 am

    I am always will­ing to admit that I am com­pletely and totally lapsed, after a child­hood filled with seri­ous guilt rid­den Dutch Reformed Calvin­ism. Worse than lapsed, a total unbeliever.

    On her death bed I over­heard my mother (dying of breast can­cer at 56) tell her pas­tor that the great­est regret of her life was that she had raised her 3 chil­dren to be Chris­tians and none of them went to church as adults.

    I work with a lot of peo­ple who can only be described as super Chris­tians. You prob­a­bly do too. I have to keep my lip zipped on a daily basis.

    Here’s what I can’t fig­ure out. Pon­der the uni­verse in all its infi­nite glory and mys­tery. How can you believe that this one planet, a speck in an infi­nite ocean of stars, has its very own cre­ator whom we must worship?

    Now I sit back wait­ing for the flames and prayer offers. Just because I don’t believe in any­thing that is super­nat­ural. Although some­times I resort to the Fly­ing Spaghetti Mon­ster. Can I have a ramen?

    Please don’t feel you need to pray for me.

  5. Marie said on September 19th, 2007 at 10:29 am

    John C. — Well put.

  6. brian stouder said on September 19th, 2007 at 10:36 am

    Pon­der the uni­verse in all its infi­nite glory and mys­tery. How can you believe that this one planet, a speck in an infi­nite ocean of stars, has its very own cre­ator whom we must worship?

    Con­nie, I have no answers, and no prayers.

    I will say, though, that boil­ing it all down to an unbe­liev­ably BIG ‘big bang’ sounds just as madly ‘faith-based’ as any­thing else one might sub­scribe to.

    What pre­ceded the big bang? What pre­cip­i­tated it? And — have you noticed that when the facts don’t fit the the­o­ries — then we get con­structs (such as ‘dark mat­ter’) so as to patch patch patch the ever-so-scientific theory?

  7. LA mary said on September 19th, 2007 at 11:02 am

    Con­nie, few orga­ni­za­tions spawn as many athe­ists as the Dutch Reformed Church. I have quite a bit of respect for some of the things the sis­ters do here at the hos­pi­tal, though, and one of the chap­lains, an Epis­co­pal woman, is a good friend, always up for a lively dis­cus­sion. No one give me crap about being a non-believer, and I pitch the core val­ues to appli­cants with­out feel­ing like a hyp­ocrit. Here they are:

    We affirm the dig­nity and worth of each per­son.
    We care for each per­son as part of our fam­ily.
    We con­tin­u­ally improve all that we do.
    We wisely care for and share human, envi­ron­men­tal, and finan­cial resources held in trust.

  8. nancy said on September 19th, 2007 at 11:14 am

    It’s been my expe­ri­ence most athe­ists come out of the big leagues — Catholi­cism, Judaism. Don’t know enough Mus­lims to make a decent sam­ple, but they have a much stronger cultural-strangeness fac­tor (in the west, any­way), and theocratic-government influ­ences else­where, so they prob­a­bly aren’t a strict comparison.

    It’s also telling that both Catholi­cism and Judaism have very strong intel­lec­tual tra­di­tions, and may tend to edu­cate their bright­est minds past the point of belief.

    Here’s my most recent epiphany: We had a “com­pu­ta­tional cos­mol­o­gist” as a sem­i­nar speaker when I was a J-fellow — basi­cally, a guy who runs com­puter mod­els of the uni­verse for a liv­ing. It was very much out of my com­fort zone, but for only a few short moments, I started to wrap my head around just how big the uni­verse really is. And then it came to me: If there is a God watch­ing over this cre­ation, S/He really doesn’t care who I sleep with, what I eat or whether I use birth con­trol. It was sort of the last shred of anx­i­ety I had over los­ing faith, and it felt very freeing.

    Alan, on the other hand, sat through the same sem­i­nar and had a dif­fer­ent con­clu­sion — watch­ing the guy’s slides of dark mat­ter com­puter sim­u­la­tions and so forth, he was taken by how organic all these strange con­cepts were. (Dark mat­ter looks like an orange peel, for instance.) And it made him think that maybe there really is a uni­fy­ing force to it all.

    Both of us, how­ever, freely accept that it’s entirely past our com­pre­hen­sion, though. And so we read the New York Times on Sun­day morning.

  9. Connie said on September 19th, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    On the sub­ject of comatose girls doing mir­a­cles.… I know I have rec­om­mended this book to you before. Maybe a Mir­a­cle, by Brian Strauss. Great novel about a teenaged boy watch­ing in dis­may as his comatose lit­tle sis­ter is made out to be a mir­a­cle worker. Great moment near the end that really makes the whole book.

    And Brian, who knows about the big bang. I am just talk­ing about the majesty of the uni­verse from what lit­tle I see and know about it. Nancy com­ments about the cos­mos above are a much bet­ter expla­na­tion of my views.

  10. MichaelG said on September 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    Here’s from another recov­er­ing Catholic. Don’t get me started on the failed poten­tial of Catholi­cism, the Papacy and the Catholic hier­ar­chy. Not to men­tion the orga­ni­za­tion wide code of silence on their recent and con­tin­u­ing scandal.

    I think you’re right about the ori­gin of athe­ists. And I would be will­ing to bet that among the gen­tle, peace lov­ing Mus­lims the num­ber of athe­ists rises with the level of edu­ca­tion. Real edu­ca­tion, I mean, not madrasas.

  11. Danny said on September 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    Although I con­sider myself a believer in Christ, I am happy to say that I don’t think any­one feels uncom­fort­able around me because of it. From a pros­e­ly­tiz­ing stand­point, I guess I always thought actions were more impor­tant than words. To para­phrase Paul, with­out love there is no faith (nor point to it).

    And any­one who says that they are of faith and has never had a cri­sis of faith, well, I just have to won­der if they have exam­ined life closely enough. We’re all in this together. Or we should be.

    Nance, I know you didn’t mean it all that seri­ously, but I would take slight issue with the “being edu­cated beyond faith” take. The car­i­ca­ture of the igno­rant, une­d­u­cated Chris­t­ian is often enough pro­moted by pop cul­ture. And some­times for good rea­son, as there is some truth to the say­ing that judg­ment should start in the house of the Lord.

    But, per­son­ally, I came to faith late in life and well into an edu­ca­tion in the hard sci­ences. Many of my fel­low believ­ing friends/acquaintances are of sim­i­lar edu­ca­tional back­grounds. Physi­cists, engi­neers, med­ical doc­tors. I even per­son­ally know at least three post-doctoral genet­ics researchers (one was an old roo­mate of mine). And we only han­dle “Speck­les” the poi­so­nous ser­pent on spe­cial days. Any­way, you get the picture.

  12. 4dbirds said on September 19th, 2007 at 1:14 pm

    I left lapsed a long time ago. I’m a total nonbeliever.

  13. Joe K said on September 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    If there is no Supreme Being, why can’t man make a tree? Who gives us wis­dom to per­form heart surgery’s? What hap­pens after we die? If there is a end to the uni­verse, What is on the other side? I am by no means a bible thumper, I did 8yrs in Catholic school and now attend a Methodist church. But there has to be some­thing big­ger than us. This all could not have just hap­pened. Part of being a Chris­t­ian is hav­ing FAITH in things you can not under­stand.
    I get a chuckle out of peo­ple who say there is no God,yet when put into a sit­u­a­tion of life and death, say a car wreck or in a war, or if a love one is dieing or hurt sud­denly find them self pray­ing. Remem­ber there are no Athi­ast in fox holes
    If you do not mind, when I say my prayers, I will say one for every­one on the board.
    Joe

  14. alex said on September 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    I was raised sec­u­larly and never indoc­tri­nated into any reli­gion, but came by my balls-out athe­ism largely in reac­tion to peo­ple get­ting ugly with reli­gion. And I wasn’t edu­cated in the hard sci­ences but the lib­eral arts, where his­tory tells us what an insignif­i­cant blip west­ern civ­i­liza­tion and Chris­ten­dom are in the whole scheme of things.

    Danny, my brother’s a sci­en­tist and he works with peo­ple who’ve got­ten Jesus and want him to get it too and he’s as per­plexed as I am as to why they’d buy into it. It’s really not all that uncommon.

    As for pray­ing for me, have at it Joe. It will do you about as much good as it ever did even if it does absolutely noth­ing for me.

  15. Danny said on September 19th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

    About fox­holes. That reminds me of the prayer at the end of a Clean, Well-Lighted Place. “Hail Noth­ing, Full of Noth­ing, Noth­ing is with Thee,” and “Our Nada, who art in Nada…” Tragedy affects us all differently.

    Yeah, I don’t get a “chuckle” out of aethism and I do not lam­poon or ridicule peo­ple who have that point of view. I was there, so I hold out hope for them too.

  16. Connie said on September 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    Joe K, in fact I do mind.

  17. Danny said on September 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    Oh, to be sure, Alex, I quite under­stand you and your brother’s point of view. I’m just say­ing that it is not axiomatic that Chris­t­ian = Une­d­u­cated or Crazy or Igno­rant. I think that some­times peo­ple just get more com­fort out of being able to ridicule some­thing that they do not agree with.

  18. nancy said on September 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm

    Of course, Danny, no one is say­ing Chris­tians are une­d­u­cated, only that edu­ca­tion fos­ters a cer­tain skep­ti­cism about every­thing, which in many cases ulti­mately extends to religion.

    The com­pu­ta­tional cos­mol­o­gist didn’t believe in God, by the way.

  19. Julie Robinson said on September 19th, 2007 at 2:24 pm

    Well, I’m a believer. And I might get kicked out of my church, but I don’t think my faith is supe­rior to any­one else’s. The Bible tells us there are “many rooms in my Father’s house”, and I take that to mean there may be good Uni­tar­i­ans, or Jews, or Hin­dus, or what­ever. I don’t think God has lim­its. (That includes how the uni­verse got started. Who knows? My mind isn’t able to grasp it, and I can live with­out knowing.)

    Sadly, I know many peo­ple who have been hurt or dam­aged by churches and/or reli­gion. To all of you I can only apol­o­gize and hope that there will be car­ing peo­ple of faith around you in the future.

    But I’m still a good enough Lutheran that when they crank up the pipe organ with “A Mighty Fortress is our God”, I get chills.

  20. brian stouder said on September 19th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    The com­pu­ta­tional cos­mol­o­gist didn’t believe in God, by the way.

    But iron­i­cally enough, Albert Ein­stein — the king of Rel­a­tiv­ity and quan­tum ran­dom­ness, would never accept that ‘God plays dice’

  21. alex said on September 19th, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    Really, Brian? I didn’t know there were any Judaic pro­hi­bi­tions on gambling.

  22. brian stouder said on September 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm

    See — the ran­dom­ness (and not the gam­bling) is the offense!

    The funny thing about the term ‘ran­dom’ (with regard to num­bers and prob­a­bil­i­ties) is that you can­not define it; if you could define it, then it’s no longer ran­dom. (not to sound like a ‘determinist’ — which is a thing to be loathed if you’re in the ‘in’ crowd!)

  23. Kirk said on September 19th, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    Re: prayers for me.

    I have a Catholic sister-in-law (who doesn’t like the news media because they have the audac­ity to report on things that are the church’s busi­ness, such as priests’ sex­ual attacks on chil­dren and the church’s essen­tial sanc­tion­ing of them). But she tells me some­times that she prays for me, because I don’t go to church. She’s not pray­ing for me, though; she’s pray­ing that the scales will fall from my eyes and I’ll become a good, obe­di­ent, money-paying Catholic, because it’s the One True Church.

    The world would be so much bet­ter off if there were more believ­ers like Julie, who isn’t obsessed with the supe­ri­or­ity of her faith. The whole “Mine’s bet­ter than yours” idea has screwed up so much for so long for so many.

  24. Futz said on September 19th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    I’m not sur­prised a con­vert could muster 8 mil­lion anguished words. Con­verts always seemed to be much more fun­da­men­tal­ist extrem­ist than multi­gen­er­a­tional Catholics. The con­verts acted upon some sud­den epiphany (no pun intended), while the multi-gens defined Catholi­cism as who we are and who we always were. Like Judaism, multi-generational catholi­cism is as much a cul­ture as a reli­gion. I may have gone over to the non­be­liever side (quite eas­ily, I might add), but if I had a con­ver­sa­tion with some­one who attended Catholic school in the 60’s any­where in the coun­try, large urban area, small town, rural set­ting, I wouldn’t be sur­prised to find our expe­ri­ences more sim­i­lar than not despite geo­graph­i­cal differences.

  25. LA mary said on September 19th, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    Did you see the NYT is no longer charg­ing for colum­nists or archives online? No more Timeselect.

  26. colleen said on September 19th, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    Bap­tized Catholic, but never got cor­rectly edu­macated. Am now in RCIA, head­ing to become full fledged at Easter. It seems to be the right thing FOR ME, so I am going with it. I think a huge fac­tor is the priest and the parish I hap­pened into. I feel bet­ter when I leave Mass than when I went in, which I could never say when I was attend­ing a local Lutheran church before we were married.

  27. brian stouder said on September 19th, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    Mary, I saw that, but I haven’t dipped in yet.

    I sup­pose it is another hit-generating way to show adver­tise­ments. One won­ders, espe­cially after hav­ing read Madam Telling Tales’ var­i­ous exam­i­na­tions of the con­tin­u­ing revolution/evolution within the news biz, whether such a cool thing is the Way Things Are Going to Be; or if it’s another after-shock in the darkness

    (non-sequitur: check this out -

    http://​www​.msnbc​.msn​.com/​i​d​/​2​0​8​7​0​2​4​7​/​s​i​t​e​/​n​e​w​sweek/

    Other than good ol’ Nance, Jean Baker is an all-time fave of mine)

  28. john c said on September 19th, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    As for edu­ca­tion and Catholi­cism, I did 8 years with the Jesuits. An over­sim­pli­fi­ca­tion of their phi­los­o­phy is this: Edu­cate the kids as much as pos­si­ble and teach and help them in every imag­in­able way to ques­tion every­thing about their faith. They believe this is a bet­ter way to encour­age a strong faith than just telling peo­ple to shut up with their silly ques­tions and go to Mass. Mind you, they lose more than a few believ­ers along the way, but still. Some of the best peo­ple I know are Jesuit priests. (and please, I know full well that the hottest places in hell have per­verted sicko Catholic priests sit­ting on the benches whin­ing. I’m just say­ing there are some good ones.)
    This is an excel­lent lit­tle blogver­sa­tion … I’m curi­ous Con­nie: I can under­stand you think­ing that pray­ing is silly or worth­less or what­ever. But why would you mind if some­one prayed for you? (This is a pure ques­tion. I’m not say­ing you shouldn’t mind. I’d just be inter­ested to hear your reason.)

  29. alex said on September 19th, 2007 at 4:14 pm

    I guess the rea­son “I’ll pray for you” sticks in some of our craws is that we’ve been accosted with it under some­what less than hon­or­able circumstances.

    My pat come­back to demon­stra­tors who used to say this to me as I broke through their ranks on my way to gay rights meet­ings in the ‘70s and ‘80s was “Don’t pray for me. Pray for wisdom.”

  30. nancy said on September 19th, 2007 at 4:23 pm

    Alex is right; for too many peo­ple (and I’m not includ­ing you, Joe), “I’ll pray for you” is another way to say “go fuck your­self.” I know a man whose father goes to Mass daily for the sole pur­pose of pray­ing for his gay son’s soul. They get along OK, but it’s safe to say this is a siz­able bar­rier between them.

  31. john c said on September 19th, 2007 at 5:01 pm

    Yeah, I can see what both of you are say­ing. “I’ll pray for you” is often another way of say­ing: “I am right and you are wrong.” or “I am so, soooo much bet­ter than you that I will pray for you even though I hate you.” I just thought that, in this case, the tone was more: “I like you even though I dis­agree with you. And even though you don’t think it will do any good, I’ll pray for you because I think it might help you. Not that you need help any more than I do. But we all need help.” I could have heard it wrong, though. It’s sort of like the store clerks who say: “Have a blessed day.” At first it bugged me FNAR. Now I think its kind of nice.

  32. del said on September 19th, 2007 at 5:03 pm

    John c, I think that Con­nie objects to the impli­ca­tions of Joe K’s post; that non­be­liev­ers are some­how infe­rior to believ­ers and merit prayer; and that by grant­ing per­mis­sion to pray for them non­be­liev­ers impliedly acknowl­edge such infe­ri­or­ity (or per­haps admit that they are not really nonbelievers).

  33. Danny said on September 19th, 2007 at 5:15 pm

    I’ve never had a store clerk say that, but I have had wait­resses call me, “Hon.” Which is kinda nice.

    But two weeks ago, my wife and I were at Islands set­ting at the bar eat­ing a burger and hav­ing a beer and I innocu­ously said to the bar-maid, “here you go, Hon,” as I handed her my credit card. When she walked away, my wife looked at me side­ways and asked if I just called that woman “Hon” and told me I sounded like an old man. It was funny. She was just mess­ing with me, but I had to explain it was some­what of an East coast thing.

  34. alex said on September 19th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

    I remem­ber one time in Indi­anapo­lis where the pro­tes­tors weren’t offer­ing to pray but in fact threat­en­ing to do much worse. It fairly cemented my dim view of reli­gion, at least as it’s prac­ticed by a good num­ber of protes­tant fundamentalists.

    I remem­ber that day was the same day the news came on the radio that Mar­vin Gaye had been shot by his father. Luck­ily no other gays got shot that day, but it very well could have hap­pened. We were lit­er­ally under siege. A bunch of gay groups from the mid­west were con­ven­ing for a meet­ing at a YWCA. The Indi­anapo­lis Bap­tist Tem­ple dis­patched a huge mob to the Y demand­ing that “Chris­t­ian” be struck from the organization’s name for allow­ing us to peace­ably assem­ble and dis­cuss human rights in their meet­ing rooms.

    A batal­lion of police offi­cers had to escort us in; once there, we weren’t free to come and go. There were no females out­side among the pro­tes­tors, the ratio­nale being that “it’s not a woman’s place to be out­spo­ken in pub­lic.” No, there were men and boys, some very young boys, and it was appalling to me that any­one, much less some­one who’d call him­self Chris­t­ian, would take a child to a hate rally where there was a high like­li­hood of violence.

    The local net­work affil­i­ates were there and the Chris­tians put on quite a show for them, per­haps illus­trat­ing our plight bet­ter than any­thing else pos­si­bly could have. By the end of the day, when their num­bers had dwin­dled con­sid­er­ably, the police let us leave.

    You know, I agree, it’s not axiomatic that peo­ple of faith are une­d­u­cated or crazy or igno­rant. It’s axiomatic that une­d­u­cated and crazy and igno­rant peo­ple are invari­ably also reli­gious and have fairly poi­soned my mind against faith more than a good edu­ca­tion ever could.

    Maybe I don’t really lack faith. I just don’t put my faith in hatred. I put my faith in love. And reason.

  35. Connie said on September 19th, 2007 at 5:31 pm

    John C asked me: I’m curi­ous Con­nie: I can under­stand you think­ing that pray­ing is silly or worth­less or what­ever. But why would you mind if some­one prayed for you? (This is a pure ques­tion. I’m not say­ing you shouldn’t mind. I’d just be inter­ested to hear your reason.)

    Hmm. Feel free to pray away . Just don’t tell me about it. How is it I need to be prayed for? Why is it you need to tell me you are?

    There is a seri­ous gram­mar prob­lem in those last sen­tences, but I can’t come up with a fix.

  36. Julie Robinson said on September 19th, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    Colleen, I have to show my igno­rance; what does RCIA stand for?

  37. Connie said on September 19th, 2007 at 5:46 pm

    Julie, I already looked it up myself! But shouldn’t I let Colleen tell you?

  38. MichaelG said on September 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pm

    What is it with this pray­ing busi­ness? Why do peo­ple have to make such a large pro­duc­tion out of it? Take prayer in school. There cer­tainly is no pro­hi­bi­tion against qui­etly bow­ing one’s head and say­ing a silent prayer. Why can’t peo­ple do that? Why do they have to turn their per­sonal activ­ity into a spec­ta­cle? Why can’t reli­gion or spir­i­tu­al­ity be a pri­vate thing?

    Telling some­one you are going to pray for them is so arro­gant, so patron­iz­ing as to make me want to scream.

  39. Julie Robinson said on September 19th, 2007 at 6:37 pm

    Oh yeah, I guess I could have googled it before I wrote! I know that bring­ing new mem­bers in at Easter is an ancient tra­di­tion, and our Pas­tor is always thrilled when we do. But we also take peo­ple at other times of year, after new mem­ber classes. Wait­ing until Easter, though, to be a full mem­ber? They must be really thor­ough. Do you have to wait until then to commune?

  40. Connie said on September 19th, 2007 at 7:29 pm

    I will scream along with you MichaelG.

  41. Danny said on September 19th, 2007 at 7:45 pm

    Michael, I’m going to pray for you and then “lay hands” upon you. Just kidding.

    Actu­ally, I’ve never men­tioned it, but I have ocas­sion­ally prayed for peo­ple on this forum … pri­vately, with­out their request or knowl­edge. It can’t hurt.

    I didn’t men­tion it because I agree that some­times peo­ple can be arro­gant about such things. Plus I’m such a smar­tass that most of you would prob­a­bly tell me to go gen­u­flect myself. :-)

  42. Colleen said on September 19th, 2007 at 8:11 pm

    Rite of Chris­t­ian Ini­ti­a­tion for Adults. In the Catholic church, becom­ing a mem­ber involves tak­ing RCIA, which starts in the fall, then new mem­bers are wel­comed at Easter Vigil. I’m enjoy­ing it right now on the basis of learn­ing stuff I didn’t know before.

  43. MarkH said on September 19th, 2007 at 8:55 pm

    MichaelG, it’s because much of the Chris­t­ian faith­ful have not fully grasped cer­tain ele­ments of, if not all, of Jesus’ teach­ings, such as the Ser­mon On The Mount. He deals very specif­i­cally with how to pray, give and fast: in pri­vate, “where only your Father can see you”. These pas­sages are best recounted in Matthew 6:1 – 18. This is a basis of my faith, in humbleness.

    I’m not prosyel­tiz­ing here; my tes­ti­mony is avail­able to any­one who wants to hear it, but not unso­licited. I’m just point­ing out that, yes, not all Chris­tians “get it” (yours truly, a work in progress). And I agree with you that there is an arro­gance in a believer telling one he or she per­ceives as a non-believer, “I’ll pray for you”, for that rea­son only.

    I’m no Bible scholar, and this may seem too sim­plis­tic, but I would urge you to break char­ac­ter for a moment and take a look at that pas­sage, that’s all. It could lead to fur­ther ques­tions and answers for any of you here.

    I find it inter­est­ing that a thought­ful thread Nancy started cen­tered on some aspects of the Catholic faith has gen­er­ated some angry responses about reli­gion in gen­eral, Chris­tian­ity in par­tic­u­lar. Hypocrisy abounds in any reli­gion, to be sure. But I would just say that some of the peo­ple described here as speak­ing for Chris­tians by vent­ing anger, cer­tainly don’t speak for the rest of us (me, in par­tic­u­lar), and I would ven­ture, the vast major­ity. A Pat Robert­son doesn’t speak for me; nei­ther does a Ted Hag­gard or any of that ilk who seek only expo­sure for them­selves. They just get more press.

    I will, how­ever, defer to those, such as Rick War­ren or Robert Schuller or even Billy Gra­ham, to make expres­sions of my faith much bet­ter than I can.

    Speak­ing of expres­sions, may I add my endorse­ment, as well, of the sen­ti­ments of John C. and Julie; very nicely put.

    And, finally, Pas­tor Jeff: You fre­quently have gen­tle expres­sions of wis­dom on rel­e­vant mat­ters, includ­ing faith, yet you are con­spic­u­ous by your absence here today. Just won­der­ing about the view from lovely Granville…

    :)

  44. Jeff said on September 19th, 2007 at 10:51 pm

    Now i know how Nancy feels when she skips a day and we get frac­tious … actu­ally, i just hopped on-line here at (check­ing) 11 pm. My week­day job is with a county juve­nile court, and we have a Sep­tem­ber flurry of fine young peo­ple who have found that school is too small to con­tain the great­ness of their souls, or the world is too vast not to explore immediately.

    Or they just wanna keep watch­ing TV like they did all summer.

    I enjoy the irony that it was try­ing to fig­ure out what, exactly, was bug­ging me about Bob “Bex­ley is May­berry” Greene that led me to NN.C, which took me to Amy Wel­born, which opened up a world that i was neigh­bors with, grow­ing up in Chicago, though not Catholic myself. Nancy says she didn’t encounter this kind of piety much in her youth; my neck of the woods (Da Region, north­west Indi­ana) was full of eth­nic statuary-oriented Catholi­cism, Slo­vak and Pol­ish and Ital­ian, with the Irish Catholics of Chicago chortling their way through on the South Shore to Notre Dame games to our east. I’ve got a sense of famil­iar­ity around Catholic devo­tion that is entirely from prox­im­ity, not prac­tice, but there it is.

    Rod Dreher quotes Wen­dell Berry often enough he can never entirely drive me away, but i can go weeks with­out read­ing his blog — then spend hours catch­ing up through the com­ments and the (occa­sion­ally self-absorbed) poetic posts.

    Alex notes folks like Indy Bap­tist Tem­ple, who with Greg Dixon and his son were the Fred Phelps and his Topeka fam­ily chapel hate-mongers of the 70’s and 80’s. My moti­va­tion to stick my 2 cents in on reli­gion and soci­ety dis­cus­sions is largely based on my own belief that a very small num­ber of mean, nasty peo­ple man­age to make the head­lines and B-roll in the name of Jesus … or Muham­mad, et cetera.

    What Hitchens and Dawkins et alia are some­what will­ful in miss­ing is the vast, decent, steady influ­ence of faith in a wider real­ity for fam­i­lies and com­mu­ni­ties. Nei­ther bin Laden nor Dixon or Fal­well or Phelps rep­re­sent much of any­one, but the other sto­ries are like ask­ing for more report­ing on “14,000 planes landed safely today.” Ditto the priest scan­dals, which deserve cov­er­age, but in terms of per­cent­age, are just as bad with Luther­ans or South­ern Bap­tists or high school sci­ence teach­ers. Now, look at the Boston dio­cese, where the curve is shat­tered by the vol­ume of molestors among clergy, and you do have to ask about “the cul­ture of co-operation,” but Catholi­cism has no more prob­lem in this area than any other denomination.

    What we Chris­tians should be haunted by (and most of us are) is that our lead­ers are not sig­nif­i­cantly more moral than the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion, and that our mar­riages are no more suc­cess­ful than any­one else’s. The National Asso­ci­a­tion of Man­u­fac­tur­ers did a sur­vey some years back to look at the con­sumer habits of this new­found “Evan­gel­i­cal Chris­t­ian” pop­u­la­tion, and were greatly relieved to learn that they didn’t have to do any­thing dif­fer­ent, because there was no dif­fer­ence in how many cars, or the length of boats, or the money spent eat­ing out. They gave a bit more when includ­ing church offer­ings, but they saved as inef­fec­tively as the gen­eral population.

    As G.K. Chester­ton might have said, it isn’t a sign that Chris­tian­ity isn’t valid so much as a sign that few are val­i­dat­ing it. But when i’m work­ing on lob­by­ing for hous­ing issues, build­ing Habi­tat houses, sup­port­ing food pantries and agi­tat­ing against preda­tory lend­ing, i run into lib­eral Protes­tants and con­ser­v­a­tive Catholics and cheer­ful Evan­gel­i­cals almost entirely. Faith still has a pretty good track record for show­ing up when the messy, dirty work of build­ing a bet­ter com­mu­nity and tear­ing down injus­tice needs to get done.

    Now i’m con­spic­u­ous by my verboseness …

  45. John said on September 20th, 2007 at 6:59 am

    “What we Chris­tians should be haunted by (and most of us are) is that our lead­ers are not sig­nif­i­cantly more moral than the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion, and that our mar­riages are no more suc­cess­ful than any­one else’s. ”

    This is so true and speaks volumns about the adher­ence to Matthew Chap­ter 7.

    Danny, after I turned 50, I started call­ing all the wait­resses and counter help young ladies “sweetheart”.

  46. alex said on September 20th, 2007 at 7:55 am

    I hope those who are earnestly reli­gious here real­ize that my tizz is directed only at those who think they have the right to per­se­cute oth­ers on reli­gious grounds. I don’t advo­cate or pros­e­le­tyze athe­ism. I don’t think the world would be a bet­ter place with­out faith. I do think, how­ever, that the world would be a bet­ter place if all peo­ple were more thought­ful about what they pur­port to believe.

  47. Jeff said on September 20th, 2007 at 8:02 am

    Heard, noted, and heartily agreed, Alex! And you’ve been clear about that before, which is appre­ci­ated. I just hadn’t thought about Greg Dixon’s Bap­tist Tem­ple for a bless­edly long time, and i’m sorry you had to cross paths with them.

    To use a tech­ni­cal the­o­log­i­cal term: yii­i­i­ic­c­ckkk. Empha­sis on the three “k’s” at the end.

  48. nancy said on September 20th, 2007 at 8:14 am

    Sounds like the Chicago ver­sion of the Rev. Rod Parsley.

  49. john c said on September 20th, 2007 at 8:40 am

    I’ve never under­stood how Chris­tians can be so hate­ful to homo­sex­u­als. I under­stand that some peo­ple are uncom­fort­able with homo­sex­u­al­ity, prob­a­bly because of some com­bi­na­tion of uptight­ness and lack of expo­sure to gay peo­ple. But the word I always come back to when I think about the response of so many — but by no means all — reli­gious folk to gay peo­ple is unkind­ness. The best peo­ple I know are, at their core, kind. You cer­tainly don’t have to be reli­gious or have faith to be kind. But there is no kind­ness in per­se­cut­ing peo­ple just because they are different.

  50. Cathy D. said on September 20th, 2007 at 9:10 am

    A brave post.

  51. Dorothy said on September 20th, 2007 at 10:31 am

    Indeed a brave post by john c. I agree completely.

    As for me, I keep my pray­ing and my faith to myself as much as I pos­si­bly can. It’s much too per­sonal to me to share with other peo­ple, and I don’t think I have to explain any of it to any­one. I’ve really come to believe that so many things are pre-ordained and we just don’t have much effect on day-to-day exis­tence. Except for mak­ing good and ratio­nal deci­sions so as not to put our­selves in harm’s way. Does that make sense?

    Hey Jeff — when are you going to come by Kenyon and go to lunch with me?! I go from noon to 1 Tues­day through Fri­day. On Mon­days I have to be the one who answers the phones, and go to lunch 1 – 2. Keep me in mind — I work directly across the street from the book­store, and right next door to the post office.

  52. brian stouder said on September 20th, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    Well, I say we should all arrange (loosely) for an unof­fi­cial NN.c lunchapalooza/gabfest, some­place where Diet Coke refills are free

  53. Connie said on September 20th, 2007 at 2:15 pm

    Where Brian? Colum­bus? Fort Wayne? My deck in Goshen? Or Nancy’s newly fixed up back yard. Will we pray before the meal?

  54. brian stouder said on September 20th, 2007 at 2:20 pm

    Will we pray before the meal?

    depends where we’re eating!

    As to ‘where’, I’m always look­ing for an excuse to go here and there and everywhere.…so any­way, the long-range plan­ning com­mit­tee (us!) should study this and report back

  55. LA mary said on September 20th, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    Let’s all go to Dorothy’s new office.

  56. A Riley said on September 20th, 2007 at 5:16 pm

    I’m one of those chortling Chicago Irish Catholics Jeff men­tions above, and when I first dis­cov­ered blogs it was the Catholic blo­gos­phere I dis­cov­ered (and from Amy to Nancy). And most of those peo­ple who pop­u­late St. Blog’s Parish (yes, that’s what they call it) are noth­ing like the Catholics I know — I mean *noth­ing.* The fear, the snob­bery, the cler­i­cal­ism, the will­ful obscu­ran­tism, the mag­i­cal think­ing (and I use that word with thought) — that’s so com­pletely *not* part of my lived expe­ri­ence of Catholic culture.

    I’ve got a rel­a­tive in Indy who was brought up with­out reli­gious prac­tice, and became Catholic in adult­hood (bap­tized at the Easter Vigil) — and she’s become one of those. Mys­ti­fies me. I don’t know what but­ton in the psy­che that pushes, I really don’t.

    So any­way.

    I worked for City News Bureau in Chicago for a while in the 1980s and that lit­tle news­room was, as far as I could tell, a micro­cosm of news­rooms the world over, except with a younger, more tran­sient pop­u­la­tion. The reporters were almost all kids right out of col­lege, at least par­tially sub­si­dized by the Bank of Dad (because no way could any­one sur­vive on a CNB reporter’s pay­check, espe­cially while main­tain­ing a car, which they had to), and oh, they worked *hard* to live up to the rep­u­ta­tion of hard-bitten, hard-drinking, hard-screwing Chicago jour­nal­ists. Pey­ton Place, hon­est to God.

  57. nancy said on September 20th, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    When Pope Bene­dict was elected, Rod Dreher echoed the lead­ing right-wing Cat’licks of our time, who hoped that his term would lead to “a smaller, purer church.” I can­not help but note that Dreher chose not to stick around for it. So much for the smaller part.

    As for con­verts, I think their fre­quent ortho­doxy is pretty well-noted and has been for some time. I fig­ure they have a role to play — they remind the con­gre­ga­tion of what they’re sup­posed to be doing, hav­ing cov­ered the texts fairly recently. I only wish more of them paid atten­tion to the lif­ers, who by their own prac­tice show what stands the test of time.

    Oh, and speak­ing of gay peo­ple, re John C’s com­ments above: Did you know there’s a Catholic Med­ical Asso­ci­a­tion and that this is part of its posi­tion on homosexuality:

    Indi­vid­u­als expe­ri­ence same-sex attrac­tions for dif­fer­ent rea­sons. While there are sim­i­lar­i­ties in the pat­terns of devel­op­ment, each indi­vid­ual has a unique, per­sonal his­tory. In the his­to­ries of per­sons who expe­ri­ence same-sex attrac­tion, one fre­quently finds one or more of the following:

    Alien­ation from the father in early child­hood, because the father was per­ceived as hos­tile or dis­tant, vio­lent or alco­holic, (Apper­son 1968 ; Bene 1965 ; Bieber 1962 ; Fisher 1996 ; Pil­lard 1988 ; Sipova 1983 )
    Mother was over­pro­tec­tive (boys), (Bieber, T. 1971 ; Bieber 1962 ; Snor­tum 1969 )
    Mother was needy and demand­ing (boys), (Fitzgib­bons 1999 )
    Mother emo­tion­ally unavail­able (girls), (Bradley 1997 ; Eisen­bud 1982 )
    Par­ents failed to encour­age same-sex iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, (Zucker 1995 )
    Lack of rough and tum­ble play (boys), (Fried­man 1980 ; Had­den 1967a )
    Fail­ure to iden­tify with same/sex peers, (Hock­en­berry 1987 ; Whit­man 1977 )
    Dis­like of team sports (boys), (Thomp­son 1973 )
    Lack of hand/eye coor­di­na­tion and resul­tant teas­ing by peers (boys), (Bai­ley 1993 ; Fitzgib­bons 1999 ; New­man 1976 )
    Sex­ual abuse or rape, (Beitch­man 1991 ; Bradley 1997 ; Engel 1981 ; Finkel­hor 1984; Gund­lach 1967 )
    Social pho­bia or extreme shy­ness, (Gol­wyn 1993 )
    Parental loss through death or divorce, (Zucker 1995)
    Sep­a­ra­tion from par­ent dur­ing crit­i­cal devel­op­men­tal stages. (Zucker 1995)

    In some cases, same-sex attrac­tion or activ­ity occurs in a patient with other psy­cho­log­i­cal diag­no­sis, such as:

    major depres­sion, (Fer­gus­son 1999 )
    sui­ci­dal ideation, (Her­rell 1999),
    gen­er­al­ized anx­i­ety dis­or­der,
    sub­stance abuse,
    con­duct dis­or­der in ado­les­cents,
    bor­der­line per­son­al­ity dis­or­der, (Par­ris 1993 ; Zubenko 1987 )
    schiz­o­phre­nia, (Gon­siorek 1982)
    patho­log­i­cal nar­cis­sism. (Bychowski 1954 ; Kaplan 1967 )

    In a few cases, homo­sex­ual behav­ior appears later in life as a response to a trauma such as abor­tion, (Berger 1994 ; de Beau­voir 1953) or pro­found lone­li­ness (Fitzgib­bons 1999).

    (I love the part about hand-eye coor­di­na­tion. But they say noth­ing about hav­ing a great color sense!)

    More amaze­ment here.

  58. Dan said on September 20th, 2007 at 8:37 pm

    My next door cube mate is near­ing the end of his career, has a won­der­ful clas­si­cal edu­ca­tion via Hills­dale Col­lege, under­grad degrees in math and chem­istry and mas­ters in Chem. He is not on the God band­wagon and his kids never spent a day in church. They’re good decent peo­ple, all. We had an inter­est­ing con­ver­sa­tion recently about his grand­chil­dren, who are also unchurched. It seems that even though he, per­son­ally rejected reli­gion, he does bemoan the fact that his chil­dren and grand­chil­dren miss many cul­tural queues — like when peo­ple allude to the Promised Land or the story of Sam­son, or the story of Joshua, or pick your own Chris­t­ian story.

    On another issue, I won­der how much we all reap the rewards of liv­ing in a Chris­t­ian com­mu­nity whether we are Chris­t­ian or not. Oh, you can always point to bad acts Chris­tians have done, but it has often been the Chris­t­ian faith that also brought the world around to a more enlight­ened point of view. Dis­crim­i­na­tion, for exam­ple, ver­sus MLK. But the less hold Chris­tian­ity has on soci­ety, the less we’ll have Chris­t­ian morals to fall back on. It’s kind of like these folks who don’t vac­ci­nate their kids because they are afraid the vac­ci­na­tion will cause autism… they can get away with it because most peo­ple get their kids vac­ci­nated. Once the vac­ci­na­tion level falls below a cer­tain level of the pop­u­la­tion, the dis­eases start to show back up again.

    This isn’t to say that Chris­tians are never immoral, it’s just that we have a cer­tain agree­ment about what’s right and wrong that pro­vides a back­drop on behav­ior. Throw that out and it’s not easy to know where you stand… soci­ety becomes like Red­dit or Digg or You-Tube where nobody even has a start­ing point for dis­cus­sion, let alone the tol­er­ance for any­thing but total freedom.

  59. del said on September 20th, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    Inter­est­ing. If Christianity’s influ­ence waned, hope­fully sim­ple good­ness, kind­ness, and love would be the “start­ing point” in a post-20th cen­tury world … of course the poten­tial for tak­ing a bad turn’s always present …

  60. Danny said on September 20th, 2007 at 10:58 pm

    Thanks, Dan. Very good. Don’t believe we’ve seen you around here before. Glad to have you.

    Jeff, as always. Awesome.

  61. Dan said on September 20th, 2007 at 11:51 pm

    Del,
    Don’t you think it dif­fi­cult to define “good­ness” and “bad­ness” with­out relat­ing to reli­gion? For exam­ple, is it bad to cheat on a test if the pro­fes­sor is not grad­ing on a curve? If so, I won­der why. Is it good to stay mar­ried to the same per­son your whole life  — even if there are rough patches when you’re both unhappy? Take away reli­gion and it all seems to twist in the wind. Before you know it, it becomes a good thing to euth­a­nize bur­den­some peo­ple and a bad thing to have a father around the house (see let­ter from Befud­dled at Slate’s “Ask Pru­dence” site http://​www​.slate​.com/​i​d​/​2​1​73651/ ).

  62. nancy said on September 21st, 2007 at 12:08 am

    You lose me when you start cred­it­ing reli­gion for good behav­ior, Dan. Is that the only rea­son you treat your wife with kind­ness — to get into heaven. One let­ter to one advice colum­nist does not a social trend make. Is it good to stay mar­ried to the same per­son your whole life, even through rough patches? I wouldn’t know, not being in a posi­tion to judge. A long mar­riage can be a won­der­ful thing, but the very fact of its length doesn’t make it so.

    As for reap­ing the rewards of liv­ing in a Chris­t­ian com­mu­nity, I’ll give this to the other monothe­ists in Metro Detroit (Jews and Muslims) — they have bet­ter food in their neighborhoods.

  63. Dan said on September 21st, 2007 at 6:23 am

    It isn’t vir­tu­ous to seek a reward for good behav­ior, so I would hope the answer is, “No, I do not treat my wife with kind­ness just so I can get into heaven.” Your com­ment, though, seems unre­al­is­tic. Is any­one really able to step out­side their own upbring­ing and the soci­ety in which they were raised and declare the rea­sons for each of their actions?

    As for the Jews and Mus­lims in Detroit vs. a Chris­t­ian com­mu­nity… how fairs the Jew­ish community’s restau­rants in Saudi Ara­bia? How fairs the Mus­lim restau­rants in Israel?

  64. brian stouder said on September 21st, 2007 at 8:15 am

    So — if the nn.c peanut gallery was to have lunch at a Mus­lim joint in D-town, what would the spe­cial be?

  65. alex said on September 21st, 2007 at 8:24 am

    Dan on toast.

  66. brian stouder said on September 21st, 2007 at 8:32 am

    haha­ha­ha­haha!!!

  67. nancy said on September 21st, 2007 at 8:57 am

    Kebabs, hum­mus, the usual Arab stuff, but what I’ve really found intrigu­ing is how many of the Mid­dle East­ern restau­rants offer com­plex, deli­cious, elab­o­rate juice drinks — veg­etable juice, fruit blends, vegetable-fruit mashups, the whole bit. Maybe it’s a no-alcohol thing, but man, they are good good good.

  68. brian stouder said on September 21st, 2007 at 9:07 am

    Well, I’m not averse to a wine cooler on the swing at the end of the day — but alco­hol at lunch sounds like a bad plan all around!

    ‘Course, when it comes to alco­hol, I’ve got a glass jaw. A lit­tle goes a long way with me*, (prob­a­bly a net-blessing, so to speak) and not much more than a lit­tle makes me ter­ri­bly sick; but I can drink gal­lons and gal­lons of abject swill like Diet Coke, and my teeth are fine and my heart beats regularly

    *Pammy points out that this is because I start out light-headed and some­what disoriented

  69. Danny said on September 21st, 2007 at 10:20 am

    Dan, just so you know, a good many of the peo­ple around here will vehe­mently dis­agree with you if you say any­thing good about Chris­tian­ity. It’s a reflex action. Kind of like vis­it­ing the “Argu­ment Clinic” in Monty Python, except with even less rea­soned posi­tions to the contrary.

  70. nancy said on September 21st, 2007 at 10:26 am

    Danny, I have less inter­est in debat­ing this than I do in insert­ing nee­dles in my eyes, but let’s at least get this on the table: When you’re talk­ing about reli­gion, “rea­soned posi­tions” don’t really enter the argu­ment. On either side.

    Ow, the needles!

  71. Danny said on September 21st, 2007 at 10:42 am

    Ah, Exhibit A.

    See here! A argu­ment is more than just sim­ple state­ments to the contrary.

    “No it isn’t.”

    “Yes it is.”

    {sigh}

  72. brian stouder said on September 21st, 2007 at 10:53 am

    Well, I still liked the Coun­try Joe McDon­ald arti­cle, fwiw

  73. Pauli said on September 21st, 2007 at 11:58 am

    LOL. Mark Shea had a piece on Dreher’s naivete, but he deleted it — not sure why.… I pre­served it here.

  74. del said on September 21st, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Dan,
    Yeah, it’s hard — maybe impos­si­ble — to declare the rea­sons for our actions. Is it good to stay mar­ried to the same per­son your whole life despite some rough patches? I dunno. We’re get­ting into the realm of the unknow­able. You seem con­cerned about a moral slip­pery slope. I’m not as uncom­fort­able as some with moral ambi­gu­ity, but yes, I too have my lim­its and reach a point at which I crave clar­ity (wimpy as I am). To me it’s like neat­ness. Every­one likes a clean room, but some peo­ple are more tol­er­ant of of messi­ness. Every­one craves moral clar­ity, but some are more tol­er­ant of ambi­gu­ity. I think virtue tran­scends reli­gion. We all know good­ness when we see it: Mus­lim, Jew, Hindu, agnos­tic, Inuit, what­ever. It’s kinda the con­verse of what Supreme Court Jus­tice Bren­nan said about “obscen­ity” … Can’t tell you what it is, but “I’ll know it when I see it.”

  75. Dorothy said on September 21st, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    twenty three hours ago Mary made a sug­ges­tion. And my response (like the lit­tle lady in “Poltergeist”)

    ALLLLLLL are wel­come!!! ALLL are welcome

  76. MarkH said on September 21st, 2007 at 3:00 pm

    del– fwiw –

    It was Jus­tice Pot­ter Stew­art who “knew it when he saw it”.

    Great con­tin­u­ing thread here; I have so much I can say in response, but it will have to wait for the week­end when I am not at work; and I can be even MORE con­spic­u­ous in my “ver­bose­ness” than Pas­tor Jeff (!!!).

  77. del said on September 21st, 2007 at 4:28 pm

    Oops. (poor google site-checking)

  78. alex said on September 21st, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    To para­phrase Jus­tice Pot­ter Stew­art, “It’s not the teat but the tumidity.”

    I stole that line from William Safire. I just googled it a sec­ond ago and see it’s get­ting quite a lot of mileage with­out appro­pri­ate attri­bu­tion. Speak­ing of doing the right thing.