I've realized that maybe I don't need to vent as much as I thought I did.
It's good to have a place to rant about things... especially things about faith, but it's HARD. It's hard in real life, but it's also hard on the internet! But after a few years of hiatus in which I had a child, I realize that no one really sees this, so I shall continue to rant on, at my leisure, without fear of... I dunno... people? whatever.
I've also rebranded. I wanted to start a blog about my crafting... which is what THIS blog was supposed to be... and really wanted to use the previous blog's name "Things, stuff, things!" so I made a new name and focus for this space. This will be my faith blog.
These will be thoughts from someone trying to walk with Jesus, sometimes upstream.
Thanks for reading, nobody. I'm glad to know you're out there!
Wednesday, 31 August 2016
Thursday, 2 January 2014
Divisively Speaking: item #1
I said I would make a tally about fundamentalists in the Church.
I'm not doing this because I hate these fundamentalists, but because I am afraid of what they are doing to our Church.
I'm afraid they think they are making it stronger; more righteous, but they are only weakening it.
They are creating fissures in the foundations of the Church; the people of God. They are fostering hostility when Jesus calls for peace. They are trying to annihilate personal thought and conscience and differing points of view, but it is these points of view that let us continue to grow as a faith community. They are, if you will allow the clumsy metaphor, narrowing the gene pool for the sake of purity, ignorant of the fact that this will leave them more susceptible to disease.
I will continue to add posts in this line as I find more evidence of divisive behaviour in the Church.
I understand that this is all online, and I'm probably finding stuff by people who are not mainstream but that's the point. These people exist and they are praying for "their" Church to overtake and trump "my" Church. That's the problem. There is only one Church and it's beautiful and rich in its multifaceted nature.
So with that said, I have found my first entry. (Of course I've come across many in the past, which were the impetus for this whole thread in the first place, but I'm not sure where I saw them, or they just aren't clear enough examples.)
There is a post on Fr. Z's blog alluding to an article by the National Catholic Reporter about progressive Catholic youth communities.
Fr. Z doesn't have much to say about the actual article, except to re-post an earlier piece of "satire" about the future of the LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious).
Apparently by 2020 the LCWR will support:
-Transgendered Daughters of Charity
-President Obama's fourth term
-Polygamous lesbian marriages
-Lowering the age of sexual consent to 11
-Abortion
I know this is supposed to be funny, but it just perpetuates the myth that all "progressive" orders of women religious will support anything in the name of freedom.
Some of these things are obvioulsy more offensive than others (I happen to like Obama, and wouldn't blink twice at a transgendered nun, but that's just me) and although this is a satirical piece it does nothing but reinforce the idea that the LCWR and its members are truly off base and not a part of the "real" Church.
the problem is that I know for a fact that many orders represented by the leaders in the conference are working hard for good, and for the Lord. Take the School Sisters of Notre Dame, of which I happen to be a pre-associate. They are working against human trafficking in all parts of the world including North America, human dignity of all persons, the dignity and importance of the environment, peace and justice around the world, and the list goes on.
To poke fun at a group of people within the Church, is to poke fun at the whole Church, which causes rifts and unease within.
So now, lets go to the other article that this repost was in response to.
On one hand I find it interesting and possibly problematic that these people are gathering under the term "communion" without having Mass... but on the other hand they seem to be fulfilling all of what Jesus was trying to fulfill with His ministry. These "Guerilla Communions" are events that all people who feel marginalized and unwelcome in the Church can attend and feel part of the Church.
"Sharing our joys and our brokenness, sharing a meal, and discussing our faith helps me still feel part of the church." Witchger says. "It is one of the best experiences of church that I've had in a long time."
This is, ultimately, the most important first step. Jesus didn't go out into the streets proclaiming that all people who didn't follow x, y, z, weren't welcome at His table. On the contrary, this was the Man who went to eat WITH the tax collectors and prostitutes. Through this open door ministry, many were converted and saved.
Regardless of what I personally feel about what these people stand for (I agree with some, and wholeheartedly disagree with others) I believe they all deserve a chance to feel welcome at Jesus' table. And this is His table. After all, where two or more are gathered....
Is this a replacement for Mass and the Eucharist? No. There is no sacrifice here, but this is communion on a grand scale.
Now if only we could get the Trads at the table instead of demonizing the rest of us รก la LCWR satirical post... now THAT would be something.
I'm not doing this because I hate these fundamentalists, but because I am afraid of what they are doing to our Church.
I'm afraid they think they are making it stronger; more righteous, but they are only weakening it.
They are creating fissures in the foundations of the Church; the people of God. They are fostering hostility when Jesus calls for peace. They are trying to annihilate personal thought and conscience and differing points of view, but it is these points of view that let us continue to grow as a faith community. They are, if you will allow the clumsy metaphor, narrowing the gene pool for the sake of purity, ignorant of the fact that this will leave them more susceptible to disease.
I will continue to add posts in this line as I find more evidence of divisive behaviour in the Church.
I understand that this is all online, and I'm probably finding stuff by people who are not mainstream but that's the point. These people exist and they are praying for "their" Church to overtake and trump "my" Church. That's the problem. There is only one Church and it's beautiful and rich in its multifaceted nature.
So with that said, I have found my first entry. (Of course I've come across many in the past, which were the impetus for this whole thread in the first place, but I'm not sure where I saw them, or they just aren't clear enough examples.)
There is a post on Fr. Z's blog alluding to an article by the National Catholic Reporter about progressive Catholic youth communities.
Fr. Z doesn't have much to say about the actual article, except to re-post an earlier piece of "satire" about the future of the LCWR (Leadership Conference of Women Religious).
Apparently by 2020 the LCWR will support:
-Transgendered Daughters of Charity
-President Obama's fourth term
-Polygamous lesbian marriages
-Lowering the age of sexual consent to 11
-Abortion
I know this is supposed to be funny, but it just perpetuates the myth that all "progressive" orders of women religious will support anything in the name of freedom.
Some of these things are obvioulsy more offensive than others (I happen to like Obama, and wouldn't blink twice at a transgendered nun, but that's just me) and although this is a satirical piece it does nothing but reinforce the idea that the LCWR and its members are truly off base and not a part of the "real" Church.
the problem is that I know for a fact that many orders represented by the leaders in the conference are working hard for good, and for the Lord. Take the School Sisters of Notre Dame, of which I happen to be a pre-associate. They are working against human trafficking in all parts of the world including North America, human dignity of all persons, the dignity and importance of the environment, peace and justice around the world, and the list goes on.
To poke fun at a group of people within the Church, is to poke fun at the whole Church, which causes rifts and unease within.
So now, lets go to the other article that this repost was in response to.
On one hand I find it interesting and possibly problematic that these people are gathering under the term "communion" without having Mass... but on the other hand they seem to be fulfilling all of what Jesus was trying to fulfill with His ministry. These "Guerilla Communions" are events that all people who feel marginalized and unwelcome in the Church can attend and feel part of the Church.
"Sharing our joys and our brokenness, sharing a meal, and discussing our faith helps me still feel part of the church." Witchger says. "It is one of the best experiences of church that I've had in a long time."
This is, ultimately, the most important first step. Jesus didn't go out into the streets proclaiming that all people who didn't follow x, y, z, weren't welcome at His table. On the contrary, this was the Man who went to eat WITH the tax collectors and prostitutes. Through this open door ministry, many were converted and saved.
Regardless of what I personally feel about what these people stand for (I agree with some, and wholeheartedly disagree with others) I believe they all deserve a chance to feel welcome at Jesus' table. And this is His table. After all, where two or more are gathered....
Is this a replacement for Mass and the Eucharist? No. There is no sacrifice here, but this is communion on a grand scale.
Now if only we could get the Trads at the table instead of demonizing the rest of us รก la LCWR satirical post... now THAT would be something.
Lines in the Sand
Fundamentalists.
They bug me. I was listening to a Tapestry podcast last night in which Franz de Waal, a biologist who works with primates has written a book about apes and their ability to be compassionate and moral called The Bonobo and the Atheist.
The conversation turned to how religious leaders and atheists reacted to his book. He said that most religious people didn't seem to mind too much (and I agree, if God can create people with a moral code, and all of creation is good, than why not apes and dolphins and who ever else too! We are special not because God made us special but because we are made and loved. That is enough.)
The people who seemed to have a huge problem with de Waal were the fundamentalists. Not just religious fundamentalists, but ATHEIST fundamentalists too. They didn't like that he criticized their black and white view of humanity and society.
Unfortunately, that's the point.
Fundamentalist ANYTHINGS have a very hard line, black and white view of the world, and if you disagree with them, you will find yourself on the "other" side. De Waal is an atheist, but the "new atheists", the fanatical fundamentalists are the ones who most strongly oppose his work, because he believes that there is still a place for faith and religion in society, even though he personally doesn't believe in God.
Do you know what else bugs me?
Catholic fundamentalists.
I shouldn't say bug. Catholic fundamentalists sadden me. And I know that Catholic is Catholic, it's universal, there is no us and them in the Universal Church. Trust me, I've tried to believe this to be true, but I can't. It's not true. there are real and scary divisions in this Church. The divisions are not coming from the "left" or "right", but from the fundamentalists. They are the ones drawing lines in the sand, making everything black and white, while the rest of us are trying to hold this ship together with grey ropes.
Why can't we all just get along? I say.
Why can't we focus on the real message of Jesus; to love God and to love each other?
Why can't we leave our troubles at the door, or in the confessional, and just go to God?
Why can't we appreciate the difference of values and opinion within the church and use those to make our church stronger and our experiences deeper?
Why is this thing going to fall apart but by the help of the Spirit?
Because of the fundamentalists.
Because it isn't enough to say, "I believe we should do x, even though it's not a rule right now, so I'm still going to do it for my own personal benefit. We all have our own way to God."
The fundamentalist says, "I believe we should do x, and everyone who doesn't do this is ignorant and misinformed and evil, and I don't even go to parishes where they don't do this because those parishes must be run by evil or apathetic clergy who shouldn't even be clergy and who were ordained as priests by bishops who are also good for nothing for not insisting that every parish do x either. It's my way or the highway, boys. Who's in?"
Who are the fundamentalists?
Essentially they are the ones who believe what they believe or prefer what they prefer and who think that anyone who does not agree with them are idiots. Or they just don't love God enough.
They are the ones drawing lines in the sand and forcing the rest of us in the grey to be "other". Sometimes I think this goes so far as to "other" our Pope as well. This is a real problem. It's a problem of pride. It's a problem of idolatry; what is more important, the love of God, or the ways in which we love God? I will not worship the medium, but the Message. But the medium IS the message. This is a very fine line we are talking about. (more on this later)
I'm going to make a tally. Who are our Fundamentalists? What are they so divisive about? Where are the lines drawn? How can we heal our Church despite them? And how do we heal our Church while still including them?
NO MORE US AND THEM
Holy Mary, Pray for us.
They bug me. I was listening to a Tapestry podcast last night in which Franz de Waal, a biologist who works with primates has written a book about apes and their ability to be compassionate and moral called The Bonobo and the Atheist.
The conversation turned to how religious leaders and atheists reacted to his book. He said that most religious people didn't seem to mind too much (and I agree, if God can create people with a moral code, and all of creation is good, than why not apes and dolphins and who ever else too! We are special not because God made us special but because we are made and loved. That is enough.)
The people who seemed to have a huge problem with de Waal were the fundamentalists. Not just religious fundamentalists, but ATHEIST fundamentalists too. They didn't like that he criticized their black and white view of humanity and society.
Unfortunately, that's the point.
Fundamentalist ANYTHINGS have a very hard line, black and white view of the world, and if you disagree with them, you will find yourself on the "other" side. De Waal is an atheist, but the "new atheists", the fanatical fundamentalists are the ones who most strongly oppose his work, because he believes that there is still a place for faith and religion in society, even though he personally doesn't believe in God.
Do you know what else bugs me?
Catholic fundamentalists.
I shouldn't say bug. Catholic fundamentalists sadden me. And I know that Catholic is Catholic, it's universal, there is no us and them in the Universal Church. Trust me, I've tried to believe this to be true, but I can't. It's not true. there are real and scary divisions in this Church. The divisions are not coming from the "left" or "right", but from the fundamentalists. They are the ones drawing lines in the sand, making everything black and white, while the rest of us are trying to hold this ship together with grey ropes.
Why can't we all just get along? I say.
Why can't we focus on the real message of Jesus; to love God and to love each other?
Why can't we leave our troubles at the door, or in the confessional, and just go to God?
Why can't we appreciate the difference of values and opinion within the church and use those to make our church stronger and our experiences deeper?
Why is this thing going to fall apart but by the help of the Spirit?
Because of the fundamentalists.
Because it isn't enough to say, "I believe we should do x, even though it's not a rule right now, so I'm still going to do it for my own personal benefit. We all have our own way to God."
The fundamentalist says, "I believe we should do x, and everyone who doesn't do this is ignorant and misinformed and evil, and I don't even go to parishes where they don't do this because those parishes must be run by evil or apathetic clergy who shouldn't even be clergy and who were ordained as priests by bishops who are also good for nothing for not insisting that every parish do x either. It's my way or the highway, boys. Who's in?"
Who are the fundamentalists?
Essentially they are the ones who believe what they believe or prefer what they prefer and who think that anyone who does not agree with them are idiots. Or they just don't love God enough.
They are the ones drawing lines in the sand and forcing the rest of us in the grey to be "other". Sometimes I think this goes so far as to "other" our Pope as well. This is a real problem. It's a problem of pride. It's a problem of idolatry; what is more important, the love of God, or the ways in which we love God? I will not worship the medium, but the Message. But the medium IS the message. This is a very fine line we are talking about. (more on this later)
I'm going to make a tally. Who are our Fundamentalists? What are they so divisive about? Where are the lines drawn? How can we heal our Church despite them? And how do we heal our Church while still including them?
NO MORE US AND THEM
Holy Mary, Pray for us.
Friday, 20 September 2013
Red Hairing
Ok, I know the VMAs were weeks ago, and I know most of the hoopla about Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke's preformance has died down, but it didn't stop me from seeing an article on facebook about Miley twerking and exploiting her black back up dancers... you know, one of those facebook time wasters where I feel like I'm doing something productive by reading an informative article but I eventually get sucked in to the vortex of youtube... yeah one of those.
So after reading an entire article on twerking I decided I needed to see if Miley really twerked that much in the video (The VMA performance was my only encounter with the song. What... I don't listen to pop radio OK?)
I watched the video (in which she only "twerks" once or twice... and even at the VMA's she really only stuck her butt in the air. Heck, even I can do that.) and wondered what all the fuss was about. I'm pretty sure Miley is not twerktastic.
What bothered me the most was the parts with her lying on the bed with come hither eyes grinding and gyrating. I felt like I was watching the opening minutes of a "solo girl" porn video... you know before she takes her clothes off.
But, OK, it's a music video for a song about taking drugs and going wild. What did I expect? That's not what bothered me. Well, that's not what bothered me enough to actually get on here and write about it.
This is what bothered me:
I read the comments section. Oh, Lord, why do I read the comments? I am addicted.
In the comments there are many who like it, lot's of spam trying to get me to look at their videos and a few too many people who care not about the twerking, not about the gyrating, not about the drugs and the laissez faire "I'm the centre of the universe" attitude. No no... what these people are concerned about is her HAIR!
"Oh, she used to be so pretty! Where did her hair go?" "It all went wrong when she cut off her hair" "oh boo hoo hair hair hair."
OK, OK, a lot of people did care about all the other stuff... but honestly, if the majority of teenage girls watching this care more about the length of Miley's hair than how slutty she's acting that's a problem.
"Twerking is so in right now! Oh look at her butt! I really like that outfit. They look like they're having so much fun at that party! I wish I could move like that on a bed... I'll practice later. OH, but that hair! It's so bad. She looks way prettier with long hair! I miss Hannah Montana"
I'm hoping that what's happening is that these kids are watching this and sensing that something is not right. When Rihanna or Britney act slutty in a video it's fine, because they have always been slutty. Yes, Britney Spears was also on Disney, but she became famous by dancing in a school girl outfit tailored for 6 year olds. When Miley Cyrus acts slutty there are echoes of Hanna Montana gyrating on a bed. I think this strikes a teeny chord with these young people; they know it's not Hannah Montana, they know people grow up, they know they are growing up themselves, but somehow they can see that Miley's trajectory has turned slightly trashy. The problem is that they are young, and inundated with sex and drugs, so this is par for the course for a music video. Somethings wrong, but they can't put their finger on it. So they worry that her hair isn't feminine enough. Because to them, girls are supposed to be flirty, funny and sexy... with long hair.
It hasn't occurred to them that maybe the problem is the sexual objectification of a sweet girl that used to be just like them. That in order to be "grown up" a girl, according to pop culture, must sell her sex. She must be into drugs or alcohol, because that's how you have a good time. She must be willing and able to do anything at all, even if that means she becomes nothing to herself.
Instead of wrestling with their feelings about her actions, she simply becomes "ugly". The problem is that one doesn't become ugly by cutting off one's hair. Good hair isn't going to help if you're a real "butter face". Somehow I think these girls are subtly picking up on the fact that her behaviour is unappealing and her outfits are ridiculous. They are projecting that onto her hair, the only obvious physical thing that has changed about her. The only thing that they can conceivably pick on with out their own hair catching fire. Her hair is the only thing that makes her different from the other girls in the music industry putting out slutty videos (I know Rihanna has short hair, but again, she always had short hair. Young people don't always make sense.)
Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Maybe I'm delusional, but I hope that this generation sees what's what eventually. Otherwise we're in trouble.
And for the record, I love Miley's new haircut. I think it's sassy, a little edgy and a little classy. I think she's got a lot of great things going for her, I just wish she'd stop trying to sell her sex as if she's worthless without it, because she's so not.
So after reading an entire article on twerking I decided I needed to see if Miley really twerked that much in the video (The VMA performance was my only encounter with the song. What... I don't listen to pop radio OK?)
I watched the video (in which she only "twerks" once or twice... and even at the VMA's she really only stuck her butt in the air. Heck, even I can do that.) and wondered what all the fuss was about. I'm pretty sure Miley is not twerktastic.
What bothered me the most was the parts with her lying on the bed with come hither eyes grinding and gyrating. I felt like I was watching the opening minutes of a "solo girl" porn video... you know before she takes her clothes off.
But, OK, it's a music video for a song about taking drugs and going wild. What did I expect? That's not what bothered me. Well, that's not what bothered me enough to actually get on here and write about it.
This is what bothered me:
I read the comments section. Oh, Lord, why do I read the comments? I am addicted.
In the comments there are many who like it, lot's of spam trying to get me to look at their videos and a few too many people who care not about the twerking, not about the gyrating, not about the drugs and the laissez faire "I'm the centre of the universe" attitude. No no... what these people are concerned about is her HAIR!
"Oh, she used to be so pretty! Where did her hair go?" "It all went wrong when she cut off her hair" "oh boo hoo hair hair hair."
OK, OK, a lot of people did care about all the other stuff... but honestly, if the majority of teenage girls watching this care more about the length of Miley's hair than how slutty she's acting that's a problem.
"Twerking is so in right now! Oh look at her butt! I really like that outfit. They look like they're having so much fun at that party! I wish I could move like that on a bed... I'll practice later. OH, but that hair! It's so bad. She looks way prettier with long hair! I miss Hannah Montana"
I'm hoping that what's happening is that these kids are watching this and sensing that something is not right. When Rihanna or Britney act slutty in a video it's fine, because they have always been slutty. Yes, Britney Spears was also on Disney, but she became famous by dancing in a school girl outfit tailored for 6 year olds. When Miley Cyrus acts slutty there are echoes of Hanna Montana gyrating on a bed. I think this strikes a teeny chord with these young people; they know it's not Hannah Montana, they know people grow up, they know they are growing up themselves, but somehow they can see that Miley's trajectory has turned slightly trashy. The problem is that they are young, and inundated with sex and drugs, so this is par for the course for a music video. Somethings wrong, but they can't put their finger on it. So they worry that her hair isn't feminine enough. Because to them, girls are supposed to be flirty, funny and sexy... with long hair.
It hasn't occurred to them that maybe the problem is the sexual objectification of a sweet girl that used to be just like them. That in order to be "grown up" a girl, according to pop culture, must sell her sex. She must be into drugs or alcohol, because that's how you have a good time. She must be willing and able to do anything at all, even if that means she becomes nothing to herself.
Instead of wrestling with their feelings about her actions, she simply becomes "ugly". The problem is that one doesn't become ugly by cutting off one's hair. Good hair isn't going to help if you're a real "butter face". Somehow I think these girls are subtly picking up on the fact that her behaviour is unappealing and her outfits are ridiculous. They are projecting that onto her hair, the only obvious physical thing that has changed about her. The only thing that they can conceivably pick on with out their own hair catching fire. Her hair is the only thing that makes her different from the other girls in the music industry putting out slutty videos (I know Rihanna has short hair, but again, she always had short hair. Young people don't always make sense.)
Maybe I'm reading too much into this. Maybe I'm delusional, but I hope that this generation sees what's what eventually. Otherwise we're in trouble.
And for the record, I love Miley's new haircut. I think it's sassy, a little edgy and a little classy. I think she's got a lot of great things going for her, I just wish she'd stop trying to sell her sex as if she's worthless without it, because she's so not.
Wednesday, 4 September 2013
A Feminine Church?
There are a few things I've had on the back burner, and I'll get to those in the coming weeks, but today, I need to talk about this. Because it happened today. And I don't want to forget.
I am facebook friends with an old Priest of mine. He posts a lot of articles (most of them make me mad, all of them make me think and pray. One from today was about Masculinity and the Liturgy.
If you don't feel like reading the entire thing the author is essentially saying that the reason men don't go to Church anymore is because all of the masculine aspects of the liturgy have been edited or removed.
Here are my responses to his thoughts:
1. Lack of Order: The fact that some prayers have optional versions does not, for me, constitute a more feminine type of liturgy. I don't know what this guy's idea of masculinity/femininity is, but being able to choose Eucharistic prayer A, B or C doesn't really scream femininity to me.
 |
| ummm... |
2. No Longer Exclusively for Men: Apparently now that women can hand out communion, be lectors, be cantors and musical directors and even, *gasp* be altar servers, men just don't want to do it anymore.
Yes, seriously. Apparently all men are 5 years olds who are afraid of cooties or something. Let me be fair: he's actually saying that the laity in general shouldn't do any priestly duties, so no reading from the ambo, and no extraordinary ministers.
But he doesn't seem to have a problem with men doing these things, because I guess they could be priests one day. Women can't be priests. (sorry girl altar servers, although serving at the altar is not a priest's role, serving at the altar is like priest kindergarten, so you're out too)
The saddest part of the whole thing for me is that this stance reeks of latent sexism. I don't think he's trying to be sexist outright, but if a woman doing something, let's call it K, if a woman doing K makes K less appealing to men, it means that K has become less valuable because of it's association with women. So women are less valuable then men. Even Catholic men wouldn't outright say this, because they (are supposed to) believe in the complementarity of the sexes (equal but different), but if a women handing out communion sullies the sacrament... well, we must have dirty hands or something.
3. Sentimental music: He likes Gregorian chant. He doesn't like fruffy music that talks about icky things like "feelings" and "love". Sorry. I forgot that men are supposed to be robots.
4. The Priest Faces the People: See number 1
5. Sense of Ancientness is Lost: "Men love tradition. While women find their sense of community through shared conversation, men find it through shared action."
Yes, and men love hunting, and women love cooking. Men love fighting while women love writing. That's why no women own rifles, and there are no men chefs. Also there are no female boxers and all authors are women.
 |
| you tell 'em Michelle |
Case in point: I am female. I love tradition. I love DOING things with others (this is why drama games are so good for bringing groups together. I also find great camaraderie in playing board games). My husband is a talker, he asks questions, HE is the conversationalist. He does NOT get how playing board games can build relationships. Do I like talking with my friends? Yes. Would I like it if Church were sometimes a little more conversational? Yes, and I'll talk more about this later, but honestly.... just see number 1.
6. No More Latin: See number 1
7. Sacrifice is Downplayed: this is another "see number 1" but I would also like to respond specifically to this line: "Men love the concept of sacrifice".
 |
| Mary and Jesus |
well... sorry to say, women love it too. No, wait, sorry everyone... SOME women and SOME men love the concept of sacrifice. I know I used a gif of the Passion of the Christ, a movie that I have lots of problems with... but here we see that we are ALL called to sacrifice. What is pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding, caring for an infant, and raising it to be a beautiful human being but sacrifice. And you know what? A lot of women want this. And a lot of men love that concept too. See number 1.
OY.
So, that was that. if you did read the article and if you're one for reading comments, you may have noticed that I got into it a bit with someone. Well, I didn't get into anything really, but I find that many "conservative" or "traditional" Catholics tend to be pretty angry and really divisive. It's something that's been really bugging be lately, but I'll have to talk about that another time.
Coincidentally I went to Mass this morning at Holy Rosary Church in Guelph today; the only Catholic Church in town that I'd never been to. IT'S NICE! I had such a great time!! apparently it's run by the Jesuits in town which I didn't know, and I'm not necessarily certain that's the reason why the Mass was the way it was, it could have been just the Priest but I loved it!!
Do you know why I loved it? Because the Priest was conversational. Because he didn't just say "this Mass is being said for so and so the end" he mentioned each one and stated how much each member meant to the community; to the Church. I liked it because he used big gestures to show that he was talking to us and with us as a community, because after the formal prayers of intention he opened up the floor to anyone who wanted to add something (I'm fairly certain that's only a weekday thing). I loved that Mass because it was personal.
The author of that article probably would have thought it was a "feminine" Mass, whatever that means.
I know talking to my husband, a lot of the reason he doesn't like going to Church is because it's too formal, it's too boring, it feels (to him) like people just checking things off of a check list. It's not personal enough. You know what he doesn't like? Tradition. Latin. "masculine" Mass.
This whole man/woman, masculine/feminine natural law thing is a pretty divisive topic in the Church right now, and I'm not going to really get into it, but it is another thing that I have lots of thoughts about.
Needless to say, I think the whole idea of certain elements of the Mass being masculine or feminine is bogus. If anything is wrong with the liturgy, or the Church, I think it's that we are missing a sense that God's love is there. That we are welcome, that we are a part of something. It is so easy to go into a strange Church and feel isolated. I know that at St. Joseph's, my home parish, I didn't really feel like I belonged until I started volunteering there. I went to Holy Rosary and instantly felt part of the group. I actually had a brief thought of ditching St Joe's but I wouldn't really. If Priests are standing in for Christ at Mass, they need to focus less on crossing the t's and dotting all the lower case j's and focus more on treating parishoners as family and friends. They need to show the love of God through their actions and tone; through their very presence. Kind of like what Jesus did.
Get a Move On
Ok, this needs to happen.
I have so many thoughts in my head. I need to get them out. but I also feel that putting something up here somehow makes me a narcissist or a loud mouth or something.
Which is not what I'm going for.
So, I will write when I need to, I will share what I want to, and maybe someday I'll tell someone about this blog. Until then, I here by give myself permission to write. To share. To lay my soul bare. And I don't care, if you don't. (that was a poem.)
Theend beginning.
I have so many thoughts in my head. I need to get them out. but I also feel that putting something up here somehow makes me a narcissist or a loud mouth or something.
Which is not what I'm going for.
So, I will write when I need to, I will share what I want to, and maybe someday I'll tell someone about this blog. Until then, I here by give myself permission to write. To share. To lay my soul bare. And I don't care, if you don't. (that was a poem.)
The
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Happy Hallowe'en!
I just read a blog post about the Dia de los Muertos or the Day of the Dead... and I'm a little annoyed.
It's not that I disagree with the premise that sugar skulls are not appropriate Hallowe'en costumes, but the writer seems to think that hallowe'en has nothing to do with the day of the dead.
"Dia De Los Muertos is celebrated November 1st & 2nd (in alignment with All Saints Day & All Souls Day respectively). It is NOT celebrated on October 31st, it is not tied in with Halloween in America at all."
To which I say: what?!??.. AT ALL??
How about the fact that the very name "hallowe'en" comes from the old name for the holiday "All Hallows Eve" hallows meaning hallowed like holy.
All holy day = All Saints day
All hallows eve: the evening before All Saints day
for those of you who don't know, All Saints day and All Souls day are days where we honour those who have died and gone to heaven (saint) and those who have died and haven't reached heaven yet (all those other souls)
Back in the olden days, when All Saints day was a huge feast day, Hallowe'en or All Hallows eve, was a time to prepare oneself for awesome times (think Shrove Tuesday/Fat Tuesday/Mardi Gras: the day before Ash Wednesday/Lent).
Traditionally Holidays (from holy days!) began the evening before the day of the feast (like the Jewish Sabbath starts sundown friday night even though the Sabbath is Saturday). This is why you can open Christmas presents on Christmas Eve, throw a New Years Eve bash... and go to Easter Vigil Mass if you're so inclined.
Of course we don't live way back then. We live now, long after these ideas teamed up with pagan rituals involving the time where the veil between the world of the living and the spirit world is at its thinnest. So we get this eerie holiday where they reach out to us, and we commemorate their lives and pray for their happy deaths in the days following.
Of course we actually live NOW now, long after those ideas were hallowe'en candy coated with consumerism, marketing and secularism. And maybe the Day of the Dead doesn't have anything to do with this current mass marketed holiday, but it has a lot in common with what Hallowe'en was supposed to be, and still is for many Christians.
So Cheers to the holiday that lets us dress up like goblins and ghouls, and gives us a chance to laugh in the face of death by reminding us that death is just another part of life, and the scary things can't hurt us. Jesus conquered death and sin, so let's celebrate!
Day of the Dead indeed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)