Trans-cendental

What if Beavis and Butthead got saved?

2008-08-25T02:06:33Z

Chris Rice's "Cartoons" is a funny song about cartoons becoming saved and singing "Hallelujah". Of course, each cartoon sings a variation, except for two: "How 'bout Beavis and that other guy? Nah!"

But I was thinking the other day...
What if Beavis and Butthead got saved?

And why not?

Sure, it's amusing to mention these two MTV cartoons and leave them out of salvation - but only if you're not Beavis and Butthead. If you've lived a life similar to theirs and have just come into a church in the hope of turning your life around, that sort of rejection isn't funny at all.

The Jesus of Record - the one we find in the four canonical Gospels, a few apocryphal Gospels and referenced in the Epistles - reached out to people that others thought were beyond redemption. He spoke to, and forgave, those who the religious leaders shunned.

True, it's just a funny song about cartoons, but we ought to be careful about the messages we send about how great God's grace really is. If hunters, cavemen, bears, moose, squirrels, frogs, and smurfs can be saved, we have to believe that a couple of contemporary teens can be saved as well.

How bout
Beavis and that other guy?

Cool.

Should America have a Sunni or Shiite president?

2008-08-22T15:42:54Z

In Iraq, there are three major factions: Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish. 60% of the Kurds are Sunni, mostly of Sufi sects.

We here in the United States are mystified, amused, or aghast at the influnce of slamic clerics in the politics of Iraq. They seem to be able to dictate who will vote for whom, and how the political leaders will act. And many of us decry the treatment of the religious minorities, such as Judaism and Christianity, in Iraq.

On the heels of Rick Warren's political debate at his Saddleback church, with an eye on James Dobson's and Pat Robertson's (et al) views on the candidates, and remembering the scandal of the sermons of Reverend Jeremaiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, we might take the time to recognize how the US is not all that different from Iraq.

]]> The myth that Barack Hussein (yes, I said it) Obama is Muslim wil not die, but why is it even an issue? Flip the issue and imagine it in Iraq: "William Bush Johnson denied widely circulated rumors that he is a Christian, and points out that he has been a member of a local mosque for twenty years." Many Americans would talk about how awful it was that someone would be attacked for being a Christian, and how backwards that country is.

Many of us actually look at the clerics at the places where one candidate worships and declare the candidate unfit because of a couple of sermons given by the cleric - while ignoring the fact that another candidate rarely attends services.

Many of us choose candidates based on their alignment with our faith, impugning the faith of those who are in a different denomination, and trust our clerics to tell us how to choose candidates.

In short, many of us choose candidates based on sectarian division instead of trying to choose someone with a vision for the whole of the country. We may not (yet) be forcing people out of their homes because they believe differently (well, except for the Muslims chased out of some neighborhoods), but we still divide our country based on a subset of doctrine.

For those of you who are thinking that the United Church of Christ attended by Obama isn't Christian enough, or McCain is too Evangelical, or your local candidate is too Catholic:

Stop.

Ask yourself:

"Should America have a Sunni or Shiite president?"

Or should America have a president for all of the people?

He who has ears

2008-08-17T11:45:27Z

Some very well-meaning hearing people believe that people, especially children, who can't hear should have surgery to help them hear - if such surgery is available. After all, Jesus healed the deaf too.

I know some Deaf people. The capital-D Deaf people I know aren't interested in cochlear implants; they don't want to be fixed because they don't feel broken.

So who is right? The hearing people I mentioned in the first paragraph are with Jesus: we should make the deaf to hear.

The Deaf people in the second paragraph have their own language and culture, and bring up their Deaf children to communicate through sign. They don't see the need to change who they are.

I was thinking about my Deaf friends this morning when reading the Discussing Homosexuality thread. True, there are arguments about whether people are born gay or not. But the parallels are interesting: people who are not [deaf, homosexual] want to fix the people who are [deaf, homosexual] so they won't be [deaf, homosexual] anymore - they will be healed and normal.

One might argue that deafness is not called a sin in the Bible - but indeed some see staying in deafness to be sinful ([url=http://pilgrimandastranger.blogspot.com/2006/10/you-shall-not-curse-deaf-or-put.html]read here[/url]). And while Jesus didn't heal the homosexuals (or indeed say anything about them that was recorded), He did make the deaf to hear.

Why is it that we (and I include myself here, because I often find myself thinking this way) "normal" people want to make decisions for others to make them more like us? Should we make the little people grow? Should we have stunted the growth of tall people? Should we make the picky eaters eat more things? Where does our intervention in the lives of others end?

Perhaps the example is in the story of Jesus and the paralytic. Jesus is in a house that is so crammed with people looking for healing that the door is blocked. One man's friends are so bent on getting him healed that they lower him through the roof. Jesus responds by saying "your sins are forgiven".

We can think of sin as a lot of things, but in a large way sin is the difference between being in relationship and being out of relationship. When we sin against God, we damage our end of that relationship. Likewise, when we sin against our fellow human beings, we damage or break our ties with them.

Jesus's first response to the paralytic was not "your body is fixed". His first response was "your sin is forgiven". Jesus restored the man to society. Of course, the local religious leaders didn't like the idea of this human going around forgiving sin, and Jesus responds by healing the man's paralysis.

But it wasn't the ability to walk that the paralytic man most needed; it was being restored to society. He needed to be a part of the human family again. Without that, the ability to walk would have only made him a walking outcast.

I know that sometimes I want so badly to fix the thing I see wrong with a person. I need to remember that what I most need to fix are the relationships between me and others. I could say "love the Deaf, hate the deafness". But if I really love my Deaf friends, I will embrace them as they are, and not with an asterisk to a footnote about one aspect of their lives. I might not want to lose my hearing, but it's not for me to say that hearing is the best way for them.

He who has ears, let him hear.

What Would Jesus Do... ...about Church Safety?

2008-08-06T05:00:00Z

There have been reports of child molestation by church leaders. Firearm discharge inside churches seems to be on the rise.

With these and other recent events, any organization would do well to examine their security policies. Yet for churches, we might well consider the theological basis of our choices.

For Christians, there is the example of the one who walked with lepers, the lame, adulterers, prostitutes, people with boils, the demon possessed, women with chronic bleeding, and tax collectors. Yet we also have a duty to protect those who are vulnerable.

How do we live grace and faith in God's protection, while caring for those around us?

]]>
Our church will likely be voting on whether to become Open and Affirming within the next year. Will someone enter the church in anger with a weapon?

Our church is very open to newcomers. Will a person with a history of child sexual abuse be among those we welcome?

Do we risk more by being open or being closed? Is there a place of balance, or would that be a lukewarm stance that would neither offer hospitality nor safety?

In short, what would Jesus do about church safety?

I'll admit I don't know the answer. My heart of hospitality says "all are unconditionally welcome" but my head of pragmatism, safety, and liability says "protect the community against dangerous outsiders".

Misremembering the Sanctity of Sacred Space

2008-07-30T05:00:00Z

I sometimes wonder whether I have early-onset Alzheimer's disease. I forget a lot of things, and I seem to remember things that never happened, or were never the way I remember them.

This might be one of them.

I seem to remember a time when places of worship were held sacred, even by people outside the faith. I seem to remember a time when people respected these places even when those people did not believe at all.
]]> Kristallnacht. And there were the arsons against black churches in the 1950's and 1960's.

So maybe I'm just misremembering.

But I am still sad. I miss my naïve belief that places of worship - no matter who worships there or who or what they worship - are sanctuaries of peace and hope.

How long will it be before assembling for worship becomes the brave act of the early Christian church? Or of Jews in Egypt, Babylon, Russia, Germany, and the Soviet Union? Or of Buddhists in Tibet? Or of Falun Gong in China?

Perhaps it will be good for us to be aware that some of us may be martyred - witnesses of our faith. Perhaps, for those of us unwilling to step outside our safety zone, the safety zone will leave us, helping us to make more of a sacrifice than an hour on Sunday morning with the town's "in crowd".

Perhaps we will awaken to the idea that truly following Christ necessarily means taking real risks in order to share the good news with others.

Or perhaps we will tighten our security and guard our doors to protect what's ours against those who do not have it.

I miss the good old days, but I may be misremembering.

Jesus's acceptance of crucifixion supports capital punishment

2007-12-12T17:49:56Z

Candidate and ordained minister the Reverend Michael Dale "Mike" Huckabee find support for capital punishment in the death of Jesus:

Interestingly enough, if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued against the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, "This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency."

After all, if Jesus wasn't OK with it, he might have prayed "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want." Oh, yeah, he did - as documented in Matthew 39, Mark 14:36-39, and Luke 22:42-44.

Well, why didn't he say something about his unjust treatment on the cross, like "you guys are wrong" or, knowing his gracious nature, "Father, forgive them." Oh, yeah, he did - as documented in Luke 23:34.

Yet if we are going to use the death of Jesus, who by tradition and faith was innocent and blameless, as justification for capital punishment, it is only a minor step to say that it justifies the execution of the innocent.

That's the problem with using past violence to justify violence in the present - it assumes we cannot learn a better way. The rule of "an eye for an eye" was meant as a limit - that one could not extract more in vengeance than the initial harm. Yet even "eye for an eye" leads to the eternal violence of retaliation.

There is a better way - the way of deescalation, of relaxing the tensions, of mending relationships. That does not mean we should let murderers go free - but it means that revenge does not offer anything more than temporary satiation of our own blood lust.

I cannot make my enemy stop hating me by killing his loved ones.

References:
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/12/huckabee-faith-baptist-pastor-sermons.html

CRUCIFY HIM! CRUCIFY HIM!

2007-12-11T17:18:38Z

What would lead people to call for the death of a person?

Perhaps their pastor.

The Reverend Wiley S. Drake,(First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park California) asked people to pray for the deaths of the Reverend Barry W. Lynn (United Church of Christ), Joseph Conn and Jeremy Leaming. The three men, leaders of People United for the Separation of Church and State, had filed a complaint with the IRS because Drake had drafted an endorsement of Presidential Hopeful Mike Huckabee on church letterhead.

Perhaps the prayer went something like this:

Heavenly Father, we call upon you to send death upon the Reverend Barry Lynn. We pray that you would make a widow of his wife, and orphans of his now grown children. We pray that his grandchildren would seek and yet not find him, and that his denomination, the United Church of Christ, would mourn his loss.

As I wrote the above in jest, I found this:

He gave as examples of imprecatory prayer:
"Persecute them. ... Let them be put to shame and perish."
"Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."
"Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg."

- http://www.civilbrights.net/node/4673

I am overwhelmed by shame: shame that a member of the body of Christ has called out "I have no need of you" to other members, shame that an ordained minister has cried to God not for blessing but for punishment for men and their families.

Not all Christians are like this.

I promise.

References:

Golden Rules

2007-12-05T20:27:54Z

In nearly every language, there is a variation of what Christianity calls the Golden Rule.

What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. --- Judaism: Talmud, Shabbat, 31a

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself. --- Zoroastrianism: Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5

This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you. --- Brahmanism: Mahabharata, 5:1517

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. --- Buddhism: Udana-Varga 5:18

Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you. --- Confucianism: Analects 15:23

Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. --- Taoism: T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien

All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets. --- Christianity: Matthew 7:12

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother what which he desires for himself. --- Islam: Sunnah

*In that it harm none, do as ye will. --- Wicca/Pagan: Wicca Rede 1

* --- Shintoism:

* --- Native American

My duty towards my neighbors is to love him as myself, and to do all men as I would they should do unto me. --- Book of Common Prayer: Catechism

All things whatsoever that thou wouldst not wish to be done to thee, do thou also not to another. --- The Diache, Teachings of the Twelve Apostles

Do as you would be done by. --- English Proverb

What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others. --- Epictetus: Encheiridion

Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others. --- Isocrates

This is the sum of all true righteousness: deal with others as thou wouldst thyself be dealt by. Do nothing to they neighbor which thou wouldst not have him do to thee hereafter. --- The Mahabharata

To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbor as one's self, constitue the ideal perfection of utiltarian morality. --- John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism

Treat you inferiors as you would be treated by your betters. --- Seneca: Epistolae ad Lucilium, Epis. XLVII, 11

Be excellent to each other. --- Bill and Tedism

This is a very nearly universal idea. And yet, we are willing to apply this only to people who believe in our own version, and sometimes only a subset of that group.

So what of waterboarding?

Waterboarding was developed to help in converting people to Christianity by the Spanish Inquisition, so it does have a Christian basis. I wonder how many of the inquisitors were subjected to waterboarding?

Kaj Larsen was waterboarded as part of his training, and had it done again to demonstrate what was happening. I think this person may be able to judge what he would have done to him.

When will we learn to treat other human beings as human beings? When will we learn that torture encourages torture? When will we learn that killing encourages killing?

And when we we learn that mercy encourages mercy ?

Stop settling on same-sex marriage

2007-12-05T18:26:19Z

I'm really tired of settling. I'm not interested in incremental rights. I'm not willing to support a candidate who talks out of both sides of his - or her - mouth, speaking on one hand of "protecting marriage" from gays and at the same time "supporting gay and lesbian people" with domestic partnerships or civil unions.

]]>

Republicans:

Rudolph W. Giuliani (all data below found at http://www.joinrudy2008.com/)

believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He does not—and has never—supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans.

Michael "Mike" Huckabee (all data below found at http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.Home)

I support and have consistently supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman

Alan L. Keyes (all data below found at http://www.alankeyes.com/issues_list.php#homosexual_rights)

If we equate sexual orientation and race, we are saying that sexual behavior is beyond the individual's control and moral will. We cannot embrace such an understanding of civil rights without denying the human moral capacity, and with it the fitness of human beings for life in a free society.
The effort to equate homosexual and lesbian relations with legal marriage represents a destructive assault on the heterosexual, marriage-based family.

John Sidney McCain III (all data below found at http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm)

The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.

Willard Mitt Romney (all data below found at http://www.mittromney.com/img/pdf/SSA/Romney_StrongerAmerica_Booklet.pdf)

Last year the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck a blow against the family, as I’m sure you know. The court forgot that [traditional] marriage is first and foremost about nurturing and developing children. Its ruling meant that our society is supposed to be indifferent about whether children have a mother and a father.
Governor Romney supports a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Tom Gerald Tancredo (all data below found at http://teamtancredo.org/stands/)

Activist courts have ignored the principal legal argument that the state's interest in marriage is procreation. Population is power. Society needs a young generation to defend the country in battle, to support its programs with taxes and to carry on its culture and traditions. The mere fact that two people are in a loving relationship does not matter to the state. Society supports traditional marriage because it is the only union which, in the ordinary course, leads to children, without the intervention of a third party.

Fred Dalton Thompson (all data below found at http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx?View=OnTheIssues)

Strong families are the bedrock of our nation and our culture. They are built around the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman.

Democrats:

Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Could not find a stand at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/, but she has asserted that she is against same-sex marriage.

Christopher J. "Chris" Dodd (data below is from http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=53277#11271):

I don’t support a constitutional amendment dictating the definition of marriage. This constitutional amendment has no place in our founding document, because it runs counter to our most sacred constitutional traditions. [...] I’m a strong supporter of civil unions. All Americans should have equal rights regardless of their age, income, or sexual orientation. I also support legislation to prosecute hate crimes and end racial profiling.

John Reid Edwards (data below is from http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=21107#11271)

I support civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples. I believe that the right president could lead the country toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for all couples in committed, long-term relationships and oppose divisive Constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriages. Workers should be judged by the quality of their performance, not subject to discrimination. While in the Senate, I cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Maurice Robert 'Mike' Gravel (data below is from http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=69496#11271)

Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions? YES
Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry? YES
Do you support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman? NO
Should sexual orientation be included in federal anti-discrimination laws? YES

Dennis J. Kucinich

Could not find a stand at http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/, but he has asserted that he is for same-sex marriage.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

Could not find a stand at http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/, but he has asserted that he is against same-sex marriage.

Bill Richardson (data below is from http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/lgbt)

Governor Bill Richardson has the strongest record of achievement of any Presidential candidate on civil rights issues and support for the LGBT community. He proudly stands for domestic partner rights and against discrimination of any kind. He believes all families deserve our respect no matter their race, creed or sexual orientation.
Not on the site, but his equal rights end at marriage - no same-sex marriage.

I'm sorry, but hypocrisy isn't doing it for me.

Is my 19 year commitment at least equal to that of year-long, month-long, or even day-long Hollywood marriages? Or is it something less? If you can't decide, I'm not willing to decide to vote for you.

Rock, meet hard place. Hard place, meet rock.

2007-12-05T16:31:46Z

I'm in seminary because I have an irresistible, irrefusable call to ministry. Despite the fact that I would not choose myself for such a vocation, I cannot seem to resist the compelling force to walk this path. And, rather than telling me how foolish I am, many people who know me encourage me to persevere, saying they see in me something that tells them I have a true calling. Yet every time I try to follow this path, I hit insurmountable obstacles.

When I finally realize how impossible this is for me, a divorced, transsexual lesbian (now in my forties), with yet somewhat traditional and orthodox theology, I come to my senses and stop.

And then comes the intense feeling of loss. Some time later, perhaps six months or a year, I realize I cannot say no to this call. No matter how difficult, how impossible, how ridiculous it is, it is what I must do.

Now I have hit another immovable object. I have to stop. And yet the call is an unstoppable force.

I know the fault is in me. Either I am failing to understand how God is speaking to me, or I am failing in walking the path God has set before me.

And it makes me very sad.

I do not blame God. I blame myself for the failure - even for the failure to see where I have failed.

I cry out for help. I pray that God will grant me whatever I need to do God's will - whatever that will may be. I pray I will be made into the person God has dreamed me to be.

I pray for wisdom to know which way I should go - not the destination, but for the place to plant my next step.

I pray for the humility to accept whatever task to which I may be set.

I pray for the courage to do whatever I must do.

I pray for the strength to overcome the obstacles which I must overcome.

I pray for the acceptance that there are obstacles I was never meant to overcome.

And I pray that my love would always increase, to always care for the others I would find on my way, and for the grace to forgive those who I feel have harmed me, no matter how I felt I was harmed.

I don't know what to do, but at least I have the humility to admit that.

353

2007-11-20T12:34:30Z

Three hundred fifty three people.

Three hundred fifty three lives cut short.

Three hundred fifty three incidents of violence and neglect.

I don't like anger. I have seen anger turn to violence, and I do not like the results.

But I am angry.

I am angry because of the loss of three hundred fifty three lives - and more that are unreported.

I am angry because of the violence, abuse, and willful neglect of three hundred fifty three human beings.

I am angry because there are some people who support the killing of these human beings.

I am angry because there are many more people who ignore the killing of these human beings.

Today, on Transgender Day of Remembrance, I will remember my three hundred fifty three brothers and sisters.

I will remember that they have been shot to death, bludgeoned, drowned, strangled, stabbed, repeatedly struck by motor vehicles, fed ground glass, kicked, and refused medical treatment.

And I will remember that they were created in God's image, and that God called them good.

I will cry out:

How many more people must die before we realize we are all one?

How many more people must die before we realize that the violence we do to each other is also violence we do to ourselves?

How many more people must die before we learn to love one another?

Today, on Transgender Day of Remembrance, I will not fear violence because I am a person of transgender experience.

Today I will mourn the loss of my three hundred fifty three lost sisters and brothers, and I will pray for those who would seek to cause us harm.

See a list of transgender persons lost to violence and neglect at http://www.gender.org/remember/

South Park, Imagination, the Self, and Homophobia

2007-11-08T15:27:42Z

For those unfamiliar with the Comedy Central series, South Park is a crudely animated show featuring four young friends - and crude humor. Over the last few weeks, they ran a three part series on terrorists attacking our imaginations.

Setting aside the obvious message of buying into terrorism by letting our imaginations run wild, there was another interesting idea regarding how we imagine others, and how that affects our relationships.

Throughout the three episodes, one character (Eric Cartman) was trying to get another character (Kyle Broflovski) to make good on a bet. Eric bet Kyle that there was a real Leprechaun, and if Kyle lost, he would have to perform a type of oral sex on Eric. (I told you it was crude.) Kyle lost, and much of the series was a debate about what was real and what was imaginary. In the end, Eric imagined he was receiving oral sex from Kyle - against Kyle's protests.

It occurred to me that this might be a basis for homophobia - not so much a fear of actual rape, but one of imaginary rape. It's also a fear of being made an object. In someone else's imagination, we have no control over ourselves, and that can be disturbing.

This raises the question of personal boundaries. Do we have the right to say "no" in someone else's imagination?

We don't want thought police. Yet there are certain things with which we might not ever want to be associated. How would we feel if we were to find out that someone was imagining us in those situations?

Imagination can cut both ways. People who oppose ordination of gay clergy, marriage of same-sex couples, and adoption of children by same-sex couples often speak of what gay and lesbian people "do" - sexually. Yet these are also often imagined: although some same-sex (and opposite sex) couples may engage in some or all of these activities, there is no way of knowing a particular couple's practices - unless they volunteer the information. The couple may even be celibate.

Offensive thoughts separate us from each other's true selves. We act on the imagined actions and motives of others rather than connecting with the actual persons. How destructive can that be? We can become angry at people for what we imagine. We can sever relationships with family, friends, employers, and businesses because of how we imagine the other. We can even kill in "self defense" against what we imagine the other was planning.

In the Decalogue (or, as popularly known, the Ten Commandments), the final item is "do not covet" - do not desire what belongs to someone else. This underlines the prior items in exhorting people to not even think about taking something that belongs to someone else, because that very thought creates distance between people. Jesus challenged people to go beyond "thou shalt not kill" to "don't hate others" and beyond "do not commit adultery" to "do not lust after someone else's wife". These thoughts may enter our minds, but it serves us well to not dwell on or encourage these thoughts that separate us from the real people around us.

We can't prevent others from thinking of us in ways that offend us, but we can try to avoid imagining others in ways that offend them. Staying with "what is real" connects the real persons involved.

I'll try to not imagine how my readers will react to this, and instead hope for comments to let me know the real readers.

On the door

2007-10-31T18:51:57Z

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

]]>

Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.

Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.

The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope. grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;

For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.

We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"

Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"

Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"

Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"

Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"

"Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"

To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

Waitin' for the Bus

2007-10-25T05:00:00Z

Have mercy, been waitin' for the bus all day.
Have mercy, been waitin' for the bus all day. - "Waitin' for the Bus", Gibbons, Hill

In the Chicago area, riders may be waiting a bit longer for the bus. In fact, depending on where they're waiting, it could be months... or years. Deep service cuts are about to take effect due to a lack of funding for public transportation.

]]>
The disabled may be even more disenfranchised. Cuts in paratransit service will reduce the coverage to within 1/4 mile of a bus route - if there's a bus route remaining.

I got my brown paper bag and my take-home pay. - "Waitin' for the Bus"

But not as much take-home pay.

For those of us (myself included) with decent salaries, November fare increases of 25¢ to 50¢, with another 25¢ to 50¢ tacked on in December, may not seem like much. But for the working poor, the increases can take a huge bite out of income. According to a 2007 study published in Urban Affairs Review, average annual income for parents who moved from welfare to work under TANF plateaus at less than $16,000.

If we take the 50¢ peak fare increase (during rush hour, when most working people are traveling) and double it (to cover both directions) and multiply it by 50 five day weeks, we take an additional $250 out of the pockets of these parents' meager income - and that's if they only take one bus. Unless they buy ahead with a transit card or Chicago Card, they will pay the fare on each bus because transfers are not available for cash fares.

While we are telling poor parents to work, we are cutting off their way of getting to work. This twisted message is confusing - and immoral.

Have mercy, old bus be packed up tight.
Have mercy, old bus be packed up tight.
Well, I'm glad just to get on and home tonight. - "Waitin' for the Bus"

When and if a bus comes, riders are unlikely to find a seat. Fewer routes and greater time between buses (and trains) will lead to overcrowding. Perhaps we can get the "pushers" from Japan to help load the trains.

Right on, that bus done got me back.
Right on, that bus done got me back.
Well, I'll be ridin' on the bus till I Cadillac. - Waitin' for the Bus

Of course, those of us with automobiles don't have to concern ourselves with public transportation. Unless, of course, we have to share the roads with others who have been driven out of public transportation and onto the roadways. Greater numbers of vehicles - many that may be more prone to breakdown - will be flooding the streets and highways, increasing commute times, causing gridlock, consuming more fossil fuels, increasing pollution and greenhouse gases. When one imagines the cost in lost time, fuel, auto maintenance, health, and climate change, it is good to consider what public transportation is worth to society.

The story of Nero Fiddling while Rome burned is a myth, but a vivid image. Likewise, Ezekiel notes that the sin of Sodom was being prideful, well-fed, and conceited while not helping the poor and needy. Those of us who are living on more than $16,000 a year ought to learn that this world is not just about us.

If we truly love one another - if we truly care about those of us who are so closely related that less than 1% of our DNA differs between people - we ought to rethink our priorities. As individuals, we can act by letting our representatives in Springfield know what we think. As employers, we can offer our low-wage employees transportation cards.

Time to hear it from Billy, Dusty, and Frank:

References:

Four Weeks until Transgender Day of Remembrance

2007-10-23T05:00:00Z

When Tyra Hunter was 24 years old, she was riding in a car in Washington, D.C. Her car was broadsided by another car. She was knocked unconscious due to the collision, but regained consciousness by the time emergency crews arrived. She was still dazed and had respiration problems because some of her teeth had been knocked into her airway.The paramedics went to work on Tyra, but in assessing the injuries they discovered she had male genitals.

At this point, one of the caregivers said "This ain't no bitch. It's a nigger. He's got a dick and balls." The paramedics ceased treating Tyra and instead laughed and joked about her while onlookers demanded they get back to work on her.

Later, after treating another injured passenger, other emergency workers found Tyra gagging and trying to move away from the insulting paramedics. Finally, a supervisor demanded that her airway be cleared.

In addition to these insults and lack of care, she was received at the hospital as "John Doe", given a contraindicated medication, and was not given blood that had been ordered for her. She died from lack of oxygen in her blood.

This is the kind of health care some transgender persons can expect. Value judgments can override common decency and mercy - and the basic job requirements. Amazingly, the District of Columbia defended the paramedics on the basis of their first amendment rights to free speech.

Time and again, I come back to what Jesus taught about how we treat others: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". "Love your neighbor as yourself" . The parable of the Good Samaritan, in which the person who acted as a neighbor to a victimized person was the one who didn't even get along with people of his kind. The parable of the sheep and the goats, where Jesus says that as you do to others, you do to him.

And yet, this is what we can expect from some of the people who choose a career in caring for others.

This is not how to do health care.

This is not how to do emergency care.

This is not how to be a Christian.

This is not how to be a human being.

Whatever one's opinion of transgender people, they are people. There is no excuse for allowing people to suffer while we laugh.

My prayer is that the paramedics learn to care for all others, and that they do not need to experience what Tyra did in order to learn it. I would not wish that on my enemies - because I love them.

Trial notes: http://www.gpac.org/im/tyra/tyindex.html

Remembering our dead: http://www.gender.org/remember/.
Transgender Day of Remembrance is November 20.