The 2006 Catholic Blog Awards are finally open for voting. This is the first year that Ales Rarus has been nominated for any awards. I’m up for Most Bizarre Blog and Most Creative. No, I did not nominate myself. ;P
What are you waiting for?!? Get your butts over there and vote! You can vote once per day, so vote early and vote often. 🙂
Be sure to visit all the nominees. I’m sure you’ll be exposed to blogs you’ve never even heard of. Expanding horizons is a good thing. 🙂
Calling all artsy folks in St. Blog’s Parish!
The Catholic Blogs and Resources page, St. Blog’s Parish Aggregator, and St. Blog’s Parish Web Ring are in need of promotional buttons. They should be at least 100px by 100px and no larger than 130px wide by 162px tall. Designs should be simple, elegant, and not based on any copyrighted images or phrases. An example from which to draw inspiration would be the Firefox and Thunderbird logos. I don’t want to offer any more suggestions for fear of stifling creativity.
I really have no way of rewarding the artist whose design is picked except in the form of attribution and gratitude. Are there any kind souls out there who’d be interested in helping out with this?
An interesting thought occurred to me as I listened to today’s scripture readings at mass. I’m speaking specifically of the Old Testament and Gospel readings. Here they are.
“The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘When a man has on the skin of his body a swelling or an eruption or a spot, and it turns into a leprous disease on the skin of his body, then he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests…[If] he is a leprous man, he is unclean; the priest must pronounce him unclean; his disease is on his head. The leper who has the disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head hang loose, and he shall cover his upper lip and cry, ‘Unclean, unclean.’ He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone in a habitation outside the camp.'” – Leviticus 13:1-2,44-46
“And a leper came to [Jesus] beseeching him, and kneeling said to him, ‘If you will, you can make me clean.’ Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, ‘I will; be clean.’ And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean. And he sternly charged him, and sent him away at once, and said to him, ‘See that you say nothing to any one; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to the people.’ But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news, so that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter.”
Today, I noticed an interesting contrast in these verses that I’d never noticed before. Hearing the passage from Leviticus, we picture a leprous man submitting himself to a priest. The priest declares the man unclean, thus sentencing him to a life outside of common society in order to prevent the spread of his contagion. Whereas in the gospel a leper approaches the Great High Priest, Jesus, who declares him clean and sends him back into common society. Once there, he tells of the good news of Jesus’ healing power, and that news spreads like a contagion. As a result, Jesus is unable to openly enter towns and remains in the country. In effect, Jesus takes the place of the leper.
I’m not entirely sure what to make of that, but I found it fascinating and wanted to share it. Anyone else have some light to shed on this matter?
I have a knack for offending people unintentionally. Anyone who knows me well knows that I hate doing that. Darn it, if I'm going to offend somebody, I want to mean it! 😉 Seriously, though, my recent post on legalizing prostitution offended someone, and that was never my intention. The following is from an email by a woman who has escaped the hell of prostitution.
"Your thought experiment is dangerously naive and bordering on offensive. I don't believe that the comment thread does quite enough to explain your position. You spend most of that thread defending your initial assertion. As far as I can tell, you are insufficiently knowledgeable to even broach a discussion of prostitution and the ramifications of making it legal."
I am very sorry that my naivite caused offense. For the record, here's how that post and ensuing discussion came about.
Sometimes the oddest thoughts occur to me right before bed. If I'm lucky, I write them down before I've forgetten then. I'll usually discuss them later with friends, with my spiritual director, or on my blog. A few nights ago, for reasons unknown, I started wondering why prostitution illegal. More specifically, I wondered what made it, among the myriad of immoral acts, illegal when so many aren't. I decided that I'd query my blog readers.
I explicitly cast aside moral arguments because I thought the inconsistency of which immoral acts are illegal and which are not would cloud the issue. I then proceded to break down the various amoral arguments that came to mind. I really wanted to know what made this activity unacceptable by society in 49 states. At no point did I, or would I, state that I actually wanted prostitution to be legalized. Granted, I used some provacative language, but I never endorsed the practice.
Out of a discussion about a strange random thought came what I believe to be very important to Christians wishing to interact with secular government. Occational contributer and frequent commenter Steve Nicoloso posited (disapprovingly) that this country was not founded, nor is it guided by moral priciples, but rather Lockean notion of social contract. Commenter Tom Smith, on the other hand, argues that one can justify moral legislation via natural law. Putting aside the inflamatory topic of prostitution, I'd like very much to continue this conversation. Some questions that I feel are worth answering:
Was our country primarily founded on Judeo-Christian moral principles or amoral social contract theories?
Even if it was founded on Judeo-Christian moral principles, is it still guided by those principles?
If it isn't, why not, and how can Christians help change that?
If it was on social contract theories, is it still guided by those principles?
If it is, should we seek to change that? If we should, how do we go about doing so?
The question that summarizes the preceding is, "How should Christians interact with secular government?" Many of the arguments given against legalizing prostitution amounted to "because it's wrong". Before one can argue that an act is wrong, though, one must define wrong. You cannot define a right to perform a wrong action, or lack thereof, until there is agreement of what is wrong. Who defines right and wrong? Should laws only pertain to those rights and wrongs that are nearly universally agreed to or should a mere plurality or majority of the electorate be allowed determine right and wrong for the remainder?
It is my hope that a rational debate about such matters will aid Christians in the pursuit of moral legislation on nonreligious grounds. Determining whether there are universal moral concepts to base such work on or not is a core part of such a discussion. If we could be convinced, and then convince the secular world, that there are good reasons other than divine writ to ban (or maintain bans) on practices like prostitution, we'd be well on our way to formulating and executing more effective plans for getting wholesome legislation passed. Learning how to argue better on secular terms would be an invaluable asset in our efforts to abolish abortion. As long as secularists can accuse us of trying legislate our faith, no progress will be made in any of the political arenas in which we find ourselves fighting.
The preample to the Declaration of Independence ought to inspire us in these endeavors.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed."
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
"Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
{All emphases mine]
We who believe in that Creator are among the governed from whose consent the just powers of the goverment are derived. If our government becomes destructive to the ends of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we the people have the right to alter or abolish it, to throw it off and provide new guards for our future.
I am not (and I cannot express this strongly enough) suggesting some kind of revolution. Rather, I would like to see Christians exercise their First Amendment right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" and to perform their civic duties of voting and running for office, at all levels of government, so that laws might enacted that, in accordance with the purpose our constitution, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". And if those laws should be found to be contrary to the Constitution of the United States, we should seek to exert our right under Article V of the that constitution to amend it.
So, dear readers, how do we go about doing these things?
Islam’s in the spotlight more than ever these days. If you’re in the Pittsburgh area and you’d like to hear about Islam’s relationship with Christianity, you’ll want to come see Fr. Mitch Pacwa tomorrow.
WHY: Christians and Culture Lecture Series WHAT: "Jesus, the Koran, and the Gospel" WHO: Father Mitch Pacwa, S.J. WHERE: Synod Hall, St. Paul Cathedral WHEN: Sunday, February 12, 2006 at 7:00 P.M.