To Perceive or Misperceieve

People say things they don't always mean. Often times they become angry from some perceived injustice or insult done to them and they retaliate with a finely orchestrated vitriol meant to cause equal, if not greater injury, than was done to them. These things happen. But with most reasonable people the anger dissipates, and they come to regret their comments and wish for a chance to take back their diatribe. Unfortunately, once the words are delivered it's too late to un-ring the bell.

"Don't worry about trying to figure out the Trinity. You can't even figure out yourselves." ~ A wise priest I know.

I think communicating with another human being can bring a hornet's nest of possible misunderstandings. You never know if your message is coming across with clarity and precision, or if aberrations you failed to account for corrupt the essence of your point-of-view. This type of miscommunication reminds me of the analog signals that until recently were used to transmit audio and visual signals to many television sets across America: A transmitter (this would be you, the speaker) sends a series of signals to a receiver (the person you are communicating with) that can be processed in some useful way. As those signals travel to the receiver, distortions and electrical pollutants can corrupt their integrity and consistency, and the picture and sound delivered to the receiver are unrecognizable and indiscernible.

Can you imagine how many faulty conclusions people have made and are making around the world (even as you read this) and will react to in some method? How many of these will involve violent reactions? How many will damage the reputation of the individual who wrote or spoke the words? How many of these misinterpretations will go undiagnosed as a misperception, failing to yield the opportunity for explanations and clarifications. Such a scenario could not only perpetuate a misunderstanding, but it could do so indefinitely. I've actually seen a scenario like the one I just described begin to take shape, but thankfully I had the good fortune to catch it in time.

Such an admonishing is especially true, here, in the written world, where communication is devoid of facial expressions, mannerisms, and a tone of voice to help place ideas and opinions in their proper context. I know I've written things that came off wrong and the individual who read them - either out of politeness or self control - chose not to offensively repudiate what they perceived was incorrect. I have had, however, commentators that took issue with some of the criticisms that I've leveled against certain individuals and specific groups by taking my words completely out of frame.

These types of inexactitudes make me wonder how much I really know. And out of those things and individuals that I think I do know but have dismissed as absurd and thoughtless, how much of those should I re-visit and re-evaluate to form a more accurate and respectable opinion of what they were all about. Can we say with absolute and unequivocal certainty that misperceptions or misunderstandings NEVER - not once - played a role in the censure and/or excommunication of any one individual in Church history? Some people argue that in the case of Teilhard de Chardin, a serious misjudgement occurred when authorities evaluating his writings never understood them in great depth.

By the way, this post is actually about the culinary experience of eating tainted fish with root beer and scotch;0) What were you thinking it was about?

Two Sets of Rules

Can you tell me how the combined scandals of every pedophile priest and priests who have tossed out their sacerdotal vows can ever stigmatize the Catholic Church to the same extent that radical Muslims have demonized Islam? Islam - however undeserved - has an anathema grade that could only be surpassed by the Nazi party at the height of their menace during the first half on the twentieth century. Yet despite this reality, Catholicism faces greater collective scrutiny and criticism from loudmouths who simply don't like the Church. My Lord, speak ill of someone who is of Muslim affiliation and watch what happens.

I don't dislike Muslims or have anything personal against Islam. But the hypocrisy and double standards that are applied to this situation irritate me to no end. (Yes, some of you have written about this).

Don't be a Miser, my dear Grumpy

Okay, grumpy, we're almost there! Advent is just three short weeks away and I for one have added Christmasy music to my blog to (hopefully) irritate those few misanthropes who are nostalgic for Ebeneezer Scrooge before his conversion.

Yes, Christmas has been commercialized, subverted, perverted, homogenized, brutalized, demoralized and denatured by deviants who had what were once hidden agendas. But no more! We know those serpentine scoundrels all too well and their failed and futile attempts at removing Christ from Christmas . They can no longer operate freely without detection. Having said that, I'm celebrating Christmas starting RIGHT NOW, with or without you!

Why don't you start planning ways to celebrate the great Yuletide jamboree. Certainly Midnight-Mass on Christmas Eve and all those other little rituals we perform during Advent are a must. But also in ways you haven't celebrated before (no, I don't mean getting hammered).

Merry Early Christmas!!!

National Adoption Month

Did you know that November is National Adoption Month? I'm not sure how something like this could have passed me without notice. Anyway, this month has been said aside as a time to "raise awareness about the adoption of children and youth from foster care."

Stop by, say hello and give a big THANK YOU to two individuals who put their money where their mouth is by not just adopting a child, but by adopting a child who was outside their race, and in one circumstance, a child with special needs. I've mentioned to both of them something they probably think it's melodramatic and hyperbolic, but which I nonetheless mean sincerely: PEOPLE WHO ADOPT SAVE LIVES.

The first blog is To China and Back...and Beyond, which you will find Mia (or as I call her Cutie-patootie) - who arrived in the United States just a little over two years ago - and her mom, Melissa. Melissa is a good sport for putting up with my notorious sense of humor on her blog:0) You never know the type of silly nonsense I'm going to leave behind when I visit.

The second blog is Tell Her This. There you will meet the newly arrived Ellis Gao Mei and her mom Kris. Kris and Ellis were involved in a traffic incident today (you'll see why I say "incident" instead of "accident" when you visit the blog), but they seem to have come out of it all right, thank God. Poor Ellis was shaken up, but TLC put her nerves at ease.

So please, don't be bashful. Stop by and say hi to these good folks: say hi to Mia and Ellis, and thank their moms for having enough humanity to look beyond mere genes and having the ability to share their love with a child that is genuinely theirs.

Remember National Adoption Month!

Has Mel softened up?

Actor Mel Gibson and his girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva are the proud parents of a baby girl named Lucia. Earlier this year, Mel and his wife of thirty years filed for divorce.

I'm a bit confused by Gibson's behavior. When he was filming The Passion of the Christ, he told interviewers that his wife would not have the gift salvation since she (I believe Episcopalian) was not Catholic. During this same period, reports of his "ultra- religious orthodoxy" surfaced when it became public that he is a part of a splinter Catholic group that does not recognize the authority of Pope Benedict or the changes of Vatican II.

Despite his very conservative adherence, Gibson filed for divorce this year and now has a child with a woman who is not even his wife. I know this makes me sound like a puritan, but doesn't this type of thing come into conflict with his Catholicism? Or has he softened up and relaxed his stringent beliefs? Is he still a part of his Catholic splinter group? Maybe I'm just picking on him unfairly.

All Souls Day

"Pie Jesu" and "Ave Verum Corpus"

The host, too, can assimilate

Don't put it beyond the scope of possibility that the influx of Anglican clergy making their way into Catholic ordination may act as a catalyst for the removal of the celibacy pre-requisite on Catholic clergy. Just because the Catholic Church is the host, it doesn't mean that some of what is inherently Anglican can't rub off on the Catholic majority.

I am aware that the Vatican is setting up a new structure to allow Anglicans coming into the Church the ability to retain their practices and identities. This does not mean that as new Roman Catholics, former Anglicans will be segregated from mainstream Catholic communities or operate disconnected from traditional Catholic circles. But it does mean that Catholic laity will see more and more married Catholic priests than ever before, and such a customary encounter might lift the taboo connotation such an arrangement has within some Catholic coteries.

Now, I know that for a change like this to occur the numbers of Anglican clergy coming back home will have to truly be significant. But you never know. On the other hand, Eastern Catholics have ordained married men but that's never changed anything in the Roman side of the house.

Should we be prepared for a possible shock?

Pray for our Priests

Tu es sacerdos in aeternum

Pray for our priests on All Souls Day and on the first Thursday of November. Terry is spreading the message. Please post a word or two on your blogs to encourage others to do the same.

BIG test in school tomorrow. Wish me luck.



Also, Toby turned one this month. He is a minion of the dark lord. Misbehaves to no end.

Gotta go study.

Rita, Aussie, Shirley, Cathy and Terry, thank you for your prayers and for your support. I'm not exactly sure how I did, but I'm glad it's finally over. And, Terry, you might be on to something there! LOL!

Monasticism

I don't believe that God is full of contradictions, but I do believe we often find some aspect of His Mystery revealed through paradoxes. In this video, an excerpt is taken from the work of Thomas Merton in which he tries to explain the nature of a Cistercian. This man, Thomas Merton, was no lunatic as some individuals might try to suggest. He simply was able to see the salvific presence of his Creator at work in places unfamiliar to him.

You might realize as you hear this excerpt that the life of a contemplative is characterized by a simplicity so complex, that those with insuficient faith who try to live as a Cistercian eventually walk away aflicted and frazzled.

This is Thomas Merton's real voice. I like what he says in this recording.