About Funky Dung
Who is Funky Dung?
29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic.
I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil.
Why Funky Dung?
I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!"
Whence Ales Rarus?
I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P
Wherefore blog?
It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907)
Statement of Faith
I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements.
I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church.
I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.
Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces.
May He take full possession of me for ever.
May His divine unction cause my face to shine.
May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart.
May His understanding enlighten my darkness.
May His counsel guide me.
May His knowledge instruct me.
May His piety make me fervent.
May His divine fear keep me from all evil.
Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it.
Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005)
I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't
we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o'
the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your
neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback.
Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester"
Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without
further ado, here are my answers to his questions.
1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you
favorite Pink Floyd song and why?
Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for
singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to
pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if
it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather
unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music,
but the lyrics describe me pretty well.
New World Man
He's a rebel and a runner
He's a signal turning green
He's a restless young romantic
Wants to run the big machine
He's got a problem with his poisons
But you know he'll find a cure
He's cleaning up his systems
To keep his nature pure
Learning to match the beat of the old world man
Learning to catch the heat of the third world man
He's got to make his own mistakes
And learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know what's right
But young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
He's a radio receiver
Tuned to factories and farms
He's a writer and arranger
And a young boy bearing arms
He's got a problem with his power
With weapons on patrol
He's got to walk a fine line
And keep his self-control
Trying to save the day for the old world man
Trying to pave the way for the third world man
He's not concerned with yesterday
He knows constant change is here today
He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church.
At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of
obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately
to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the
Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me,
even as a former Lutheran.
During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "
Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph
in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself.
Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith.
Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a
particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To
know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is
something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing,
thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is
alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil.
3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever
done?
I set up
WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews
of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :)
4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman?
"Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be?
That's a tough one. As a member of
the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of
Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick
one, though, I'd probably pick
"Sing
of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.
Wow–great articulation of the issues at play here. Good read!
My only regret is that there was not at the time a willing secular ruler to tie dissenters (“within”, so to speak, the Church mind you) to the stake and burn them alive.
Instead we have lived (these nearly 40 years) with what George Weigel called the Truce of 1968. Paul VI was at the time rightly concerned about schism. But some things are more dangerous than schism, and mixed messages on timeless and unalterable truth (a.k.a., the Protestantization of the RCC) are among them.
[/end_vein_popping]
the people who left the Church over this issue were never faithful Catholics in the first place. I mean, thatÂ’s a pretty flimsy excuse for leaving
disagree. IÂ’ve not seen anything in scripture against birth control. Reasonable people (who believe themselves faithful Catholics) can decide for themselves birth control is really ok. Once you open that door, it is easy to keep deciding on other individual issues that you are right and the church is wrong. Finally you leave the church altogether.
IÂ’d very much like to know how the Catholic ChurchÂ’s stance on contraception weakens her message on abortion and bioethics.
First I donÂ’t agree with all your given statements. Sex is not just for procreation. Most people find the churches stance again birth control out of touch. The result is that most people decide the church doesnÂ’t know anything about sex, and therefore do not even consider the church may have something worth hearing on abortion or bioethics.
“IÂ’ve not seen anything in scripture against birth control.”
Umm…basically any sort of unfruitful sexual relationship, including one fellow who got struck down for essential practicing coitus interruptus, was condemned in the Old Testament. Anyone have access to more specific citations…?
The consistent teaching of the Church Fathers, including the 1st century catechism, the Didache, continue this outlook into the Christian Era as well.
“My only regret is that there was not at the time a willing secular ruler to tie dissenters (“within”, so to speak, the Church mind you) to the stake and burn them alive.”
I realize you’re being facetious, but it’s possible that outsiders might not. Some Protestants bring up the Spanish Inquisition like it 1) happened yesterday and 2) happened throughout the Church. IOW, it’s a stumbling block and a hinderance to ecumenism.
“IÂ’ve not seen anything in scripture against birth control.”
Why do we need it? It’s been unbroken Tradition for at least 2000 years. It’s probably older than that, but I’d have to check. There’s plenty of scriptural evidence for oral traditions being handed down. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Gamarah and/or the Talmud had a prohibition against contraception.
“Scripture alone”, by the way, is a Protestant invention. The Catholic Church doesn’t always need scriptural support for Her teachings.
“Reasonable people (who believe themselves faithful Catholics) can decide for themselves birth control is really ok. Once you open that door, it is easy to keep deciding on other individual issues that you are right and the church is wrong. Finally you leave the church altogether.”
Reasonable Catholics ought to contemplate whether they really know more than 2000 years of learned men and women. One cannot obey both a private Magisterium and the real thing. A man cannot have two masters; he will love one and hate the other. To have a conscience formed by orthodox teachings is a different thing. More often than not (and I’m guilt of this, too), deciding the Church is wrong about something is more about succumbing to pride than having come to a profound realization.
I was being facetious… but only very, very slightly. Maybe not burning at the stake, but maybe being dragged by a horse for a few miles… Maybe just some permanent scarring… That’d be okay. Sometimes, you’re forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
And this…
First I donÂ’t agree with all your given statements. Sex is not just for procreation. Most people find the churches stance again birth control out of touch. The result is that most people decide the church doesnÂ’t know anything about sex, and therefore do not even consider the church may have something worth hearing on abortion or bioethics.
This is so stupid that it hardly merits debunking, but what the heck, I’m in the mood for a little abuse…
First off, you’re right about one thing: sex is not just for procreation…. which is why Funky didn’t say that. Literacy, Mr. “Diabos”, doesn’t appear to be your strong suit.
And “some people” think the Church’s stance on contraception (which is different than “birth control” BTW) is “out of touch”? Really? Well, the Church just better have a world-wide plebiscite to just get more “in touch”… But I have to ask, out of touch with what? May I point out that Humana Vitae predicted with what one might almost call divine prescience the catastrophic rise in divorce, sexual abuse, illegitimacy (oops I mean “single parent” households), abortion, and euthenasia if the Church’s teaching on contraception were not respected. The eugenicists (e.g., PP) and dissenters and all the various and sundry “liberated” folk scoffed, of course. It was counter-intuitive. Artificially limiting fecundity would of course make every child all the more welcome and able to be better provided for. (Oh and shhh, we also won’t have so many brown and black babies running around as a drag on our economy.) The scoffers of course did not have (and to this day do not have) an understanding the effect of illusory “consequence-free” sex on human nature. Who’s out of touch? Two-thousand years of unbroken Christian tradition, or freewheeling teens in the back seat?
And the Church doesn’t understand sex? What a riot! I’d say they understand it at least as well as lions, tigers, and bears, which is to say that they understand is it at least about procreation. It is, of course, about much more than that, but it is at least about that. The Church is into sex… and not “safe” sex either, but real, hardcore, exchange of bodily fluids-style sex. No latex barriers. No artificially messing around with female fertility. No “medical” alteration of our bodies to make them NOT do what they were designed to do. Just raw, naked, pounding, juicy, throbbing sex. The Church is into that… big time.
No. It is rather those of a contraceptive mentality who are the adolescents who don’t wanna grow up, who don’t understand sex as 130 million years or so of mammalian evolution “intended” it. Those who want “consequence-free”, masturbatory, recreational, “safe” sex are the ones who don’t understand it, or what it truly means for a couple, or for a community, or for the society at large. And they’re the ones who when they’re old-n-gray and still adolescent and still sophomorically stupid who will find little comfort from their liberated lifestyle 30-40 years earlier, their accumulation of things (and likely debt) and trips to Tahiti. Luxury SUVs and luxury cruises can’t wipe your arse or turn off your stove.
Jerry,
The sin of Onan was not coitus interruptus, but rather the refusal to give to his brother his brother’s due. If you read a little further on, you’ll see what happened with the father and the “prostitute.”
The Bible teaches that, should a man die without an heir, his brother is to take the wife and give her a son. That teaching is clear in both the Old and New Testament. Any attempt to argue reproductive ethics from that would beg the question why the Catholic church doesn’t teach that any more. Come to think of it, why don’t the Protestants teach it?
We all like to ignore that one, even though Jesus had a perfect opportunity to nullify it and didn’t take it.
Sure Rob, but that’s because he practiced coitus interruptus. But seriously, I think the Talmudic tradition well down past the time of Christ held the Sin of Onan to be wasteful seed spilling (as it were). Any Talmudic scholars out there to help us out?
Rob, I would posit that Judaism’s primary means of transmission and expansion was through procreative growth of the nation of Isreal. Whereas, Christianity primarily spreads through evangelization. The command to give one’s widowed sister-in-law a son was a natural part of conquering by breeding, to put it bluntly.
According to jewish law, the use of any prophylactic is forbiden unless there is a life-threatening illness that would be passed without its use (HIV). This comes directly from:
See Nida 13b and Responsa Chavot Yair, no. 31. Responsa Sheilot Yaavetz, no. 43 argues that once the sperm has been deposited in the woman, the primary prohibition of hashchatas zera no longer applies.
– Talmud if I remember correctly
Hashchatas zera, the wasting of seed, is a sin in judaism which has been translated into the ban on prophylactics. They do however acknowledge that if young adults are going to have sex outside of marriage, that they should be careful and use prophylactics. This is due to the inherent violation of Hashchatas zera in the sexual congress outside of marriage.
Steve,
Calm down, reread my post, and try again.
Gets a little hyper at times, doesn’t he? 😉
Funky,
“Reasonable Catholics ought to contemplate whether they really know more than 2000 years of learned men and women.”
This cuts right to the heart of the issue. And the answer I believe is a resounding yes. I know many Catholics and former Catholics who feel exactly this way.
Given the level of catechesis that most ordinary folks receive, particularly in this country, rejecting 2000 years of accumulated theological wisdom is like a child rejecting the accumulated wisdom about physics.
Also, I think it’s worth pointing out that there’s a BIG difference between questioning authority and putting your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALALALALA. If you’re going to question authority, have the decency and humility to 1) wait for an answer, 2) listen patiently to that answer, 3) try to understand that answer, and 4) engage in a debate with authority about the answer. Perhaps there are folks who have done those things, but in my experience just about every Catholic dissident made up his/her mind without questioning authority. They’re not interested in questioning. They’re interesting in casting off. Too many people want be their own pope, or worse yet their own Christ.
Someone once said that every Protestant has a pope in his belly; obviously, many Catholics do too.
“That encyclical prompted Catholics to leave the Church in droves…”
Obviously, His Excellency believes that every new pope has his own iteration of Catholicism, and has new and different “policies.” It just so happened that Paul VI had an anti-contraception policy.
“…and undercut papal authority.”
This is a flawed notion of authority. Authority exists independently of anyone’s perception of it. Authority is not lost by its exercise.
OK, I can’t keep track of who said what, but I’m going to say something anyway. The point that Humanae Vitae was considered “out of touch” is actually a pretty good one. The Pope used a language and style that was difficult for the common person to relate to; he was speaking from a very Thomist perspective (meaning St. Thomas Aquinas) that the church had been using for centuries while the philosophy of the day was something completely different. So while he very eloquently defended authentic church truths, he did so in the context of external, absolute truths such as duty, which was (and is) a four-letter word to the “I think therefore I am”, me-centered public.
As a wife, mother, and health-care professional, I have come to embrace fully the Church’s teaching on this matter more and more because I have had the opportunity to live it. And it’s just like Steve says :).
For a much better analysis of the Catholic Church’s stance on sex, love, and humanity, I strongly urge anyone with honest questions to look into Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. He really knows how to speak to modern man on his own terms, and brings the glorious truth about true manhood and womanhood to light in a way that can’t help but knock your socks off. It’s kind of a deep read, but there are plenty of summary/help type books out there to get you started.
I truly hope his teaching begins a sexual counter-revolution, both within and without the Church.
re: Jewish Law
I realized thanks to funky that some of the things in my cut and pasted comment might not have been known.
See Nida 13b and Responsa Chavot Yair, no. 31. Responsa Sheilot Yaavetz, no. 43 argues that once the sperm has been deposited in the woman, the primary prohibition of hashchatas zera no longer applies.
– Talmud if I remember correctly
Nida, Chavot Yair, and Sheilot Yaavetz are all commentators which appear in the Talmud (jewish commentary, on the Gemarah, which is commentary on the 24 books of the bible (Tanach)) Nida 13b refers to the thirteenth argument (chapter) by Nida, and Responsa, are responses given.
The Talmud is a dialogue between great jewish thinkers trying to descern what the commentators on the Torah meant, along with what they think the torah means.
Hope that helps understand what I said 🙂
I think the Catholic Church lost it’s way on sexual theology quite some time ago. The interpretation of the story of Onan focused on the semen and not on the duty; the church has since become obsessed by semen. Perhaps this was because of the scientific misunderstanding: even after the invention of the microscope, people were drawing little humans inside the head of the sperm.
The ranking of rape as a lesser sin than masturbation had to be the epitome of this wacked-out train of thought: the argument went that at least in rape, no semen was spilled.
We protestants do indeed reject Papal infallibility, as the ping-ponging on the subject of the beginning of life by Popes so aptly demonstrates (wasn’t it Pope Pius IX who came up with the doctrine of Papal Infallibility?).
Catholics who reject the church’s teaching on contraception ought to leave the church. We’d be glad to have them.
This would have the added advantage of solving the problem of the shortage of priests in the USA for you folks. The financial status of the church might not respond as well to my suggestion.
Rob, whether or not the Church actually taught sexual ethics as you’ve portrayed, or if she was wrong in doing so if she did, if very much a red herring to this discussion. You have failed to address Catholic sexual ethics as they are currently understood and taught. We can argue about development of doctrine some other time. 😉
I’m no expert on the subject, but I have one observation.
As the post mentions, Hmanae Vitae states “any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act.” Yet the Church advocates Natural Family Planning (NFP) as a form of contraception (though they don’t call it that). I don’t know about anyone else, but I think that sex by a stopwatch is just as unnatural as a condom.
Folks can throw about as many caveats as they like about how there’s still a possibility of pregnancy with NFP, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t designed to frustrate the possibility of pregnancy. Additionally, NFP advocates state that NFP is *more* effective than condoms or The Pill.
After making my last comment, Funky suggested it might be post-worthy. A post is forthcomming (within the hour) on my last subject. Look for it on the blog.
My post is up here: http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/2198