Erin Manning: June 2008 Archives

Now that Rod's back, I wanted to write one last post before rejoining "all of y'all" in the comment boxes.

Last week, after I'd just started guest blogging here, I had a funny dream. In it, a series of frustrating coincidences kept me from checking in with the blog for several hours, and I was getting worried. When I finally managed to get to the computer and log in, I saw that Rod had apparently noticed my prolonged and unexplained absence and had interrupted his vacation to file about twenty posts in succession; I stared at the screen in disbelief. I tried to read the posts, but there were two problems--the first involved the font, which looked like someone had taken an old IBM Selectric typewriter to my screen, and the second was that each post was so brilliantly, powerfully written that I was having trouble understanding even the vocabulary.

When I woke up, it took a minute for me to realize I'd been dreaming. Even then, I had to go check the blog to make sure everything was all right--which it was, of course.

Thinking about the dream later, I realized what my subconscious was telling me. It's not something I don't realize consciously, but I think my brain took advantage of the sleep state to hammer the lesson home.

This blog represents an incredible gift, not only of Rod's talents as a writer and an observer of life, but even more fundamentally, of his time. And before the usual suspects--and you know who you are--start muttering about compensation, let me assure you that the kind of time and effort Rod pours out here so generously goes way beyond questions of remuneration. Where else on the Internet are there professional bloggers so willing to roll up their sleeves, dive into the comment boxes, hand out the beer and pizza and not only keep things civil, but also keep them interesting and challenging? Many professional writers who also blog don't even allow comments on their sites, but Rod not only allows them--he makes sure that this blog remains the kind of place where traditional Catholics and devout pagans and committed atheists, where die-hard Republicans and die-harder Democrats, where organic produce buyers and junk food junkies can all converse together about the things that interest us all. We may never find some perfect level of agreement with each other, but I think we may have found something even more valuable--respect for each other, though our lives and ideas may never be even remotely similar.

And that's a rare thing.

We all know of other blogs that don't produce this effect, where anyone who disagrees with the magisterial authority of the Republican or Democrat in charge of the site is attacked by a pack of hyenas who will laugh the offender off of the page, where the blog author or authors want only to surround themselves with an echo chamber of agreement, and use scorn as their shield to protect themselves from the detonation of an idea that challenges their way of looking at the world. Such, alas, is more of a reflection of the world of political discourse than this Crunchy Con blog, because the cheap satisfaction many bloggers get from relentlessly labeling others as morons and idiots is more important to them than a quest for consensus, or the uncommon goal of finding some common ground--just as it is in the real world, where the scoring of political points often takes precedence over any real compromise. I don't think that's how it has to be, or how it should be.

And I know that most of you will agree with me on this--because why else would you come in such amazing numbers, to read, comment, contribute, discuss and participate? I know I've learned from many of you, and am still learning. We have a lot to teach each other, but without the time, attention, energy, talents, and care Rod gives to this site, most of us would probably have never "met."

And that would be a shame, because I enjoy your company, whether or not we always--or even ever--agree.

So I want to thank Rod for giving me the opportunity to guest blog here again. I'm both humbled and uplifted by his willingness to entrust this blog to me in his absence, and can't thank him enough for the chance to write and engage in conversations with all of you. It really is a privilege, and one I enjoy more than I can put into words.

See you back in the comments!

Pope Benedict XVI has declared that from June 28, 2008 to June 29, 2009 is the year of Saint Paul, commemorating the 2,000th anniversary of the saint's birth.

His Holiness is encouraging such things as liturgical celebrations, pilgrimages to the saint's tomb, scholarship, and various diocesan efforts around the world to focus on Saint Paul, whose contributions to the early Church can hardly be overestimated.

This report from Zenit goes on to mention something else:

Benedict XVI explained that this year must have an important "ecumenical dimension."

"The Apostle of the Gentiles, who dedicated himself to the spreading of the good news to all peoples, spent himself for the unity and harmony of all Christians," the Pope said.

"May he guide us and protect us in this bimillenary celebration," he added, "helping us to advance in the humble and sincere search for the full unity of all the members of the mystical body of Christ."

The word "ecumenical" has taken something of a bad rap among many traditional Catholics; there was a time when the word seemed to be a code for the removal of all overtly Catholic elements not only of the Mass, but of Catholic identity as well, so that our Protestant brothers and sisters would not find our little quirks like statues and meatless Fridays and Eucharistic processions and Latin and incense etc. so terribly off-putting, and would see us instead as fellow casserole-baking and hymn-singing Christians, just like everybody else.

I may be engaging in just a little hyperbole, there. But traditional Catholics know what I mean. As aggravating as the misguided notion that we weren't supposed to adhere to our various Catholic customs in the era of ecumenism could be, this was nothing compared to what sometimes seemed like a wrongheaded attempt to water down central Catholic teachings and doctrine so as not to stand in the way of ecumenical goals--to disregard some very important truths for the sake of inclusiveness and the reaching out to those who don't share our faith.

It is very desirable, of course, that Christians of all faith traditions should be able to find common ground, places for unity to flourish, and ways that we can work together to advance the kingdom of God. But it is counterproductive for any faith involved in ecumenical initiatives to diminish those very real distinctions which separate us, and it is especially unbecoming, from my perspective as a Catholic, for Catholics to do so. The things that separate us from many of our fellow Christians are not small unimportant questions of semantics, nor are they mere customs or devotions which have arisen over the centuries; rather, they speak to our understanding of Jesus' words to us, in particular of two very important things He told us, one of which occupies the greater part of the sixth chapter of St. John's Gospel, and the other of which can be found in St. Matthew's Gospel, chapter 16, verses 18-19.

I'm not suggesting that the real disagreement concerning those parts of Our Lord's teachings means that we ought to stay apart from each other, and refuse to find any bond whatsoever. We do have to set aside our disputes and seek the fellowship that is available to us. But it will be a very false unity indeed if we pretend that these matters are trivial--for they are a central part of our understanding of what it means to be a Christian, a follower of Christ, and a member of His Mystical Body. Downplaying the significance of these matters by watering down Catholic teaching in an effort to pretend that we're all on the same page is going to backfire in the end, and has already, I think, begun to do so.

So when the Holy Father calls upon St. Paul to help us with, as he put it, our "humble and sincere" search for Christian unity, he isn't, I believe, suggesting that we overlook the truths of our faith, or stifle some of our traditions in order to appeal to those who don't share them--nor should we demand that our brothers in Christ hide from us their real conflicts with us. But we can, and should, reflect together on the words of St. Paul from the book of Ephesians:

I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:1-6)

In the post the other day about slavery I mentioned the FBI's "Innocence Lost" campaign and its efforts to remove children from underage prostitution.

Now this CNN article contains the disturbing report on the fact that girls as young as eleven have been posting ads and information to sell their services--on Craigslist:

Police say most of the ads appear on Craigslist, the popular and free Internet classifieds site, under a category named "Erotic Services." Even though Craigslist has posted a bold disclaimer warning against human trafficking and the exploitation of children, law enforcement officials said it doesn't seem to deter girls from posting the ads or men who are searching for sex.

Why use the service? One girl, now 14, talked to CNN:

She said she used Craigslist because it was free and she could post dozens of ads a day. Even though she understood the seriousness of what she was doing, she said she didn't care.

"You could put stuff in your ad like 'wet and wild,' 'fun and sassy,' things like that to catch their attention, to make them want you," she said.

Craigslist executives said they abhor the fact that their site is being used for child prostitution but believe that the problem could be harder to track if they removed the category.

"It would be a bigger problem if we removed that category and had those ads spread throughout the site," said Jim Buckmaster, chief executive officer of Craigslist.

The exploitation of children for sex has got to be one of the most evil elements of our society. These young victims deserve as much help as we can give them, and as for their "clients" and those who prostitute them--let's just say that we haven't yet used up all the millstones needed by the Church during the scandal, and would be happy to share.

Have you ever had to reschedule a vacation, or cancel it altogether, because of a crisis at work that demanded your immediate attention?

If so, maybe you should consider a career in Congress. Your vacations would be safe, according to this ABC piece by John Cochran:

With Americans still reeling from this week's report that gas may cost $7 a gallon in a few years and with millions either losing their homes to foreclosure or unable to sell their homes, people are looking looking for help.

Well, don't expect quick action here.

Congress has gone on holiday and told the nation, "See you after July 4th." Nobody here but tourists, who can't understand why Congress would leave with so much undone.

"I can't really say I know what they do in there," a man from Bakersfield, Calif., said outside the Capitol building. "I know what they're not doing."

Congress failed to agree on energy legislation and in the most surprising failure, lawmakers couldn't come to terms on a housing bill to rescue homeowners threatened with foreclosure.

But don't worry; our members of Congress aren't just making progress in the art of blaming the other side of the aisle for the lack of progress:

Congress is also making great progress on something it promised it would not do: loading up spending bills with those earmarks that critics call pork-barrel or pet projects.

In one spending bill alone, earmarks are already up to $619 million compared to $278 million last year, which just goes to show that Congress can act, when it wants to.

This would almost be funny, in the tragicomic sense, if it weren't so unconscionable.

From the New York Times comes an amusing look at a problem some of us may have had, or may yet have, involving the cherished possessions of previous generations:

Here is the problem with family furnishings: they are never simply stuff. As hard as it may be to dispose of a piece of furniture you bought with the fellow who turned out to be your ex-husband, it is far more difficult to get rid of a piece bequeathed to you by a member of a previous generation, which carries with it not only your memories, but his or hers as well.

Even today, when so many people favor simple, modern décor, turning your back on a grandmother's tea set or ornate settee can feel like betrayal. Admit to your family you're thinking of getting rid of such a piece and you're likely to kick off a family opera, with crescendoing wails of "How could you?" Quite likely, you'll be torturing yourself with the same question.

Ambivalence and guilt, it seems, are central elements of furniture inheritance, the anchoring pieces around which everything is organized, like the sofa in a living room. Barry Lubetkin, a psychologist and the director of the Institute for Behavior Therapy in Manhattan, has observed this in a number of patients living with inherited furniture they hate. It's an unhealthy setup, in which people become "slaves to inanimate objects," he says. "Once you're defining it as something you can't get rid of, you're not in control of your life or your home."

On the one hand, I'm a big believer in the notion of not becoming a slave to one's possessions. My parents' many moves helped create a mindset for me that is not at all inclined to save things that aren't necessary, won't pack well, or will cost more to move than they do to replace; one of my mother's favorite quotations is the saying "Three moves are as good as a fire."

On the other hand, though, I cherish a beautiful carnival glass bowl that belonged to my grandmother, who died when I was a little girl. My mother never admired it much, but because she kept it, and realized that what to her seemed a little gaudy was my idea of lovely, I have a little piece of my grandmother's life that makes me wonder if our tastes in other matters might have coincided as well; I think about my childhood memories of her when I look at it.

And that's something that many in the Times article understand quite well:

Melodie Bryant, who keeps her less-than-handsome Uncle Ivins on the wall opposite her bed, has dispatched any lingering ambivalence, reconciling herself to the inconveniences the family pieces have caused her. Sitting on an old red settee in her sofa-less living room, she needs only the piece itself to explain why.

This settee, she says, belonged to a well-to-do great-great-aunt named Nelly, who lived with her husband and 4-year-old daughter in Philadelphia in the early 1900s. The child died of typhoid. After her death, the couple closed the house and never returned. It remained closed for 35 years. How could Ms. Bryant ever get rid of the red settee? Get rid of the family furniture and you're sure to lose the stories, she says; you'll lose your history.[Emphasis added-EM]

There may be a fine line between cluttering up your life with the flotsam and jetsam of previous generations, and preserving your family's history and your own heritage. And it may be hard, sometimes, to figure out where that line is--but it's worth the effort.