The Village Heretic Revisits the 1960 McGuire Baltimore Catechism, Lesson 7: The Incarnation

Posted on June 27, 2011 by mkp

Question 77: Did God Abandon man after Adam fell into sin? Answer: God did not abandon man after Adam fell into sin, but promised to send into the world a Saviour to free man from his sins and to reopen to him the gates of heaven.

It’s not so much that God would abandon man, but more that man would abandon God.  That’s what the “fall” is all about.  We are always connected to our Source.  We are an extension, an individuation of All-that-is.  If there seems to be a disconnect, we are the root of that.  We pretend not to be connected.

It is perfectly conceivable to me that a savior was promised through the ages to help mankind once again become aware of our connection to All-that-is or God. 

Everything we know about this promise was related via the Bible.  But I don’t know how much of the Bible is actually revelation and how much is left-brain fiction on the part of the Bible authors.  Seems to me there is a mixture in there.  Some prophesy seems truly amazing and some things attributed to God are truly repugnant.  This is a book that has been authored, edited, compiled and translated by man.  Prayerfully at times, and maybe not so much at others.

Whether the bringing of a Saviour to the world is the work of Jesus, or his and our Source, or the community of saints, or Martians, though, I can’t tell.

Question 78: Who is the Saviour of all men?  Answer: The Saviour of all men is Jesus Christ.

No argument here.  But I don’t think that Jesus is savior according to the manner described in Christian dogma.  But I agree he is savior.

Question 79: What is the chief teaching of the Catholic Church about Jesus Christ? Answer: The chief teaching of the Catholic Church about Jesus Christ is that He is God made man.

I believe that we are all God-made-man, or individuation of All-that-is into physical existence.  So, what is so special about Jesus having God-nature?  Answer:  nothing. 

What is special about Jesus is his expression of God’s nature through a human existence.  No one before or since has done it better.  To say that Jesus is God in a way that we are not, excuses us from attaining the level of awareness and loving-kindness that Jesus attained.  Why even try?  After all, we’re only human.

What was difficult through the ages was to provide a lineage and environment that would foster the development of the person of Jesus into our Savior.  In time, I believe we will eventually evolve to that level; Jesus said so, himself.  (John 14:12 – Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. [NASB])

Question 80: Why is Jesus Christ God? Answer: Jesus Christ is God, because He is the only Son of God, having the same Divine nature as His Father.

Jesus is God because he is an individuated extension of All-that-is into physicality.  This previous sentence says essentially the same thing as the answer, above.  However, this is the same description I had used for all human beings. 

Truth is, Jesus is not the ONLY son of God.  He is our brother.  He is our mentor and savior.  We are ALL sons and daughters of God, of All-that-is.  Most of us don’t know it, don’t WANT to know it.  We WANT Jesus to be what we are not so that we don’t have to take responsibility for becoming that which we could be and that which we should be.

Question 81: Why is Jesus Christ man? Answer: Jesus Christ is man, because He is the son of the Blessed Virgin Mary and has a body and soul like ours.

I question the virgin birth.  It’s not necessary.  It runs counter to all physical experience and contrary to  the description of any human births in history.  In an absolute sense, if any miracle is possible, a virgin birth is too.  However, I think it is astronomically unlikely.

Jesus as savior works better as a human story than as a God story.

If Jesus lived here on earth, and I believe he did, he was a human being.  He was an enlightened being who was on a mission and who expressed our Source better than anyone before or since, but he was human while he was here.

Regardless of how theologians turn themselves inside out explaining the dual nature of Christ, it doesn’t hold water.  There is no way that Jesus is fully human if he is also God.  Just sayin’…

Question 82: Is Jesus Christ more than one Person? Answer: No, Jesus Christ is only one Person; and that Person is the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Yes, Jesus is only one person.  And that person was a human who lived about two thousand years ago, and whose being yet exists.

Question 83: How man natures has Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ has two natures: the nature of God and the nature of man.

My take is that Jesus has one nature.  That nature is one that is his own.  Our Source is just that, our source.  No one being can be that.  No individuated conscious being can be both the extension and the Source. That is also to say that one being cannot be both that being’s self and some other being’s self.  We are what we are, one individuated conscious being that is an extension of our Source.  Same for Jesus.

Question 84:Was the Son of God always man?  Answer: The Son of God was not always man, but became man a the time of the Incarnation.

This is true of every being:  that we likely have existed before our physical expression on this planet as a human being.  This is also true of Jesus.  So none of us may have always been human.

And I sense that we will return to that state of not being human after we leave this existence.  It is also possible that we are both human and not human at the same time.  I don’t know that our physical existence is all there is to us.  Remember the earlier question posed in Lesson 5, “Do we HAVE a soul or ARE we a soul?”  Which is the bigger or enveloping existence?

Question 85: What is meant by the Incarnation? By the Incarnation is meant that the Son of God, retaining His Divine nature, took to Himself a human nature, that is, a body and a soul like ours.

We all incarnate.  That’s how we got here.  Jesus did a better job than the rest of us, and for a reason.  But he incarnated like the rest of us.

Question 86: How was the Son of God made man? Answer: The Son of God was conceived and made man by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I said before that I think Jesus’ human body was the expression of the love between Mary and Joseph.  There may have been lots of reasons for the virgin birth stories, but I believe they were just that, stories.  The virgin birth is not necessary for Christ to be the savior of the world.  And I believe it takes away from the credibility of his life and message.

Question 87: When was the Son of God conceived and made man? Answer: The Son of God was conceived and made man on Annunciation Day, the day on which the Angel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she was to be the Mother of God.

I do believe that Mary might have been made aware of her pregnancy and of Christ’s mission in a vision or dream of an angel.  But I don’t believe that the conception was immaculate.

Question 88: Is Saint Joseph the father of Jesus Christ? Answer:Jesus Christ had no human father, but Saint Joseph was the spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the guardian, or foster father, of Christ.

So, here is where I would have to say that Joseph was the real human father of Jesus, not his foster-parent.

Question 89: When was Christ born? Answer: Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary on Christmas Day, in Bethlehem, more than nineteen hundred years ago.

Yeah, but we seem to be a little squishy on the actual date.  It seems to have been somewhere over a 4-6 year period, close to two thousand years ago.  It was probably not on Christmas Day, and maybe not even in Bethlehem.

Share|
Posted in Catholicism, Series, Spirituality | Leave a comment

The Village Heretic Revisits the 1960 McGuire Baltimore Catechism, Lesson 6: Actual Sin

Posted on May 6, 2011 by mkp

 

This is it!  This is the one illustration that I remember from my catechism class in fourth grade.  I knew as soon as I saw it that I had the right book!  Interesting what sticks in the mind of a person to be remembered 50 years later, like an amazing blotchy milk bottle.

Question 63: Is Original Sin the only kind of sin? Answer: Original sin is not the only kind of sin; there is another kind, called actual sin, which we ourselves commit.

Lesson 6 Actual SinNo, I believe that actual sin is the only kind of sin.  I hinted at this in the last lesson.  What the church calls original sin is, I think, just a propensity toward baseness.  The world we live in is just that way.  It seems very early in the evolution of being, with a lot of  self-perpetuating negativity. 

It doesn’t have to be that way, but it is that way.  It is the reason we need a savior.  But it is not sin.  The map is not the territory.  Nor is original sin our real nature.  The world veils us from our real nature. But we do commit actual sin and it has an actual, real consequence:  death.

Question 64: What is actual sin? Answer: Actual sin is any willful thought, desire, word, action, or omission forbidden by the law of God.

Actual sin, the only kind of sin in my mind, is missing the mark.  It is acting in a way that is contrary to our nature and best interests.  One of our best interests is acting from love and center.  It beats acting from fear and distraction.  The results are generally better.  So anything that keeps us from that path is sinful.  Do a sinful thing long enough or often enough and you will hurt yourself and others and possibly die of it.

I don’t think sin necessarily merits punishment aside from the negative consequences of the act itself.  I don’t have a sense. that our Source is keeping score.  Consequences, though, are part of the rules of engagement for life as we know it.

I also don’t have a sense that it makes much difference whether or not I am willful.  Ignorant negligence appears to be just as damaging as willful errancy.  It might be more acceptable on the part of others, but the effects are similar.

And then there is the “law of God”.  Jesus summed up the law pretty well when he said that the two great commandments were 1.) Love God with your whole being and 2.) Love your neighbor.  Love is the command and acting without love is the sin.  The rest is details…

Question 65: How many kinds of actual sin are there? Answer: There are two kinds of actual sin: mortal sin and venial sin.

Talk about legalism.  The Pharisees were really good at this one.  Tell me how far I can go before I am breaking the law.  It’s just a matter of degree.  It is missing the whole point. All sin leads to death of some sort.  I can’t see any reason to differentiate it.

Question 66: What is mortal sin? Answer: Mortal sin is a grievous offense against the law of God.

All sin is mortal.  What is called venial sin may be more insidious than mortal sin.  At least mortal sin is called out for what it is… deadly.

Question 67: Why is this sin called mortal? Answer: This sin is called mortal, or deadly, because it deprives the sinner of sanctifying grace, the supernatural life of the soul.

Sin is mortal because it kills.  Whether it kills our consciences or our bodies, it kills. It kills our life while we are yet living. 

I don’t agree with the concept of sanctifying grace.  We are never separated from our Source and grace abounds all around us.  We CAN pretend that we are separate from God, though, and sin helps to perpetuate and deepen that charade.  And in that way, it damages our lives. 

At any point in our existence, we can repent of our errors and begin again, aware of our connection to all life and our creator Source.  But the more we indulge in behavior that is contrary to our nature and best interests, the more difficult this is to do.

Question 68: Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, what else does mortal sin do to the soul? Answer: Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, mortal sin makes the soul an enemy of God, takes away the merit of all its good actions, deprives it of the right to everlasting happiness in heaven, and makes it deserving of everlasting punishment in hell.

Sinful indulgence deepens the charade that we are separate from our Source, All-That-Is.  Here we make ourselves incapable of relationship with our Source by our own foolish lack of interest.  But WE do that.  God doesn’t do that. 

It has been said that one “Aw, shit!” does away with a thousand “Atta boy”s. In human existence, this seems to be true.  When I was in the Navy my shipmates and I certainly thought so.  But this is human relationship, not divine.  God, our Source, All-that-is immediately ignores the bad stuff and welcomes us back into awareness of our relationship. 

In my mind, the only real hell is the one we create through our own sinfulness on earth.  It lasts as long as our charade of separateness and indulgence.  The consequences may last a bit longer, as it appears that consequence is part of the rules of engagement here in this world.  Fortunately, there is often providence to help with that.  And it appears the closer we live to our centers, the more providence we encounter.

Question 69: What three things are necessary to make a sin mortal? Answer: To make a sin mortal, these three things are necessary:  first, the thought desire, word, action or omission must be seriously wrong or considered seriously wrong; second, the sinner must be mindful of the serious wrong; third, the sinner must fully consent to it.

Some one sinning at this level is creating serious damage to themselves and others.  It is also my sense that it is rare.  The truth is that anyone sinning long enough at any level can do serious damage. 

All sin is mortal.  Do anything damaging for long enough and it has grave consequence.  We can deaden our consciences to sin and get into a deepening negative spiral.  I think this could be more damaging than a single wanton, grievously wrong episode.  And one would probably require years of sinning to be even capable of one majorly grievous act or omission.

We, as humans, grade on motivation.  We excuse on the basis of lack of knowledge, willfulness or intent.  I think that here we have projected that onto our Source, when that isn’t really appropriate or necessary.

Question 70: What is venial sin? Answer: Venial sin is a less serious offense against the law of God, which does not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and which can be pardoned even without sacramental confession.

Venial sin is the Pharisee’s friend.  Legalism.  It may be pardonable from a human perspective, but is still mortal in its consequence.  This is a slippery slope.

Question 71: How can a sin be venial? Answer: A sin can be venial in two ways:  first, when the evil done is not seriously wrong; second, when the evil done is seriously wrong, but the sinner sincerely believes it is only slightly wrong, or does not give full consent to it.

More legalism.  Like water dripping on a stone, repeated “venial” sin erodes our life.  I suggest we dispense with the distinctions.

Question 72: How does venial sin harm us? Answer: Venial sin harms us by making us less fervent in the service of God, be weakening our power to resist mortal sin, and by making us deserving of God’s punishments in this life or in purgatory.

The kernel of truth in this answer is the weakening of our power to resist.  Sin is insidious.  It is a slippery slope.  We die a little bit more in every encounter.  In this way, “venial” sin may be more corrosive than “mortal”, and may grease the slippery slope we’re standing on.

As for purgatory, I think we’re in it.  I don’t think that there is a place other than this life where we work out our salvation, and we are constantly at the mercy of the consequences of our past actions.

Question 73: How can we keep from committing sin? Answer: We can keep from committing sin by praying and by receiving the sacraments; by remembering that God is always with us; by recalling that our bodies are temples of the Holy Ghost; by keeping occupied with work or play; by promptly resisting the sources of sin within us; by avoiding the near occasions of sin.

I think that centering prayer goes a long way toward helping us avoid sin.  The more centered we are, the more we act in accordance with our nature and best interests.  By centering prayer, I mostly mean meditation and awareness exercises; physical, emotional and mental.  True confessions time…  I don’t do nearly enough of this!

The only sacraments that are frequently received in the RC church are Reconciliation and Communion.  Both are forms of centering prayer.  Reconciliation by way of a priest, another human, may be good for the soul, but just being aware of what is wrong, just asking forgiveness of those we injure and of ourselves does wonders. 

Communion is what you make of it.  It can be all or nothing.  Mindless communion isn’t.  Mindful communion is awareness.  Personally, I don’t believe that you need the outward signs of these sacraments.  But you do need reconciliation and communion.

If you are centered, you are also aware of what your body needs and how to take care of it.

Keeping occupied as a distraction is dangerous.  It can be sinful in itself.  It can be a defense against awareness.  However, being occupied AND fully aware is bliss.

It makes sense to avoid pitfalls.  But it also makes sense to explore why pitfalls are what they are.  This might be an instance of addiction therapy helping out.  Do this with a coach.

Question 74: What are the chief sources of actual sin? Answer: The chief sources of actual sin are: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth, and these are commonly called capital sins.

Notice how the root of every one of these capital sins is FEAR?  Fear of inadequacy, fear of lack, whether it’s pleasure, control, food, wealth, energy?  From love, all things are possible and providence abounds.  No occasion for sin there.

That’s why, I think, Jesus emphasized love as the solution:  Love of God, love of neighbor.  Love is like light and extinguishes the dark, the fear.

Question 75: Why are these called capital sins? Answer: They are called capital sins, not because they, in themselves, are the greatest sins, but because they are the chief reasons why men commit sin.

Fear is the chief reason we sin.  Love is the antidote.

Question 76: What are the near occasions of sin? Answer: The near occasions of sin are all persons, places, or things that may easily lead us into sin.

A few notes here.  Love heals; love banishes fear.  We need to be aware of love, aware of our fears.  We need to work on our fears in an environment of love.  This is the antithesis of the near occasions and will help keep us out of trouble.

Share|
Posted in Catholicism, Series, Spirituality, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Village Heretic Revisits the 1960 McGuire Baltimore Catechism, Lesson 5

Posted on April 13, 2011 by mkp

Question 48: What is man? Answer: Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made in the image and likeness of God.

I’m not sure it is that simple.  I don’t know if we have a soul, or we are a soul.  Which is principle?  Is it possible that our physical existence is happening within the spiritual?  That might explain things like our sometimes apparent connectedness, and other things like synchronicity.  It seems obvious at times that we are more than our physical bodies, but how that works I don’t really know.

Today I was listening to tape about ho’oponopono.  It’s a Hawaiian concept that is about connectedness and healing.  Part of the idea is that all of our existence is completely our own.  We need to take responsibility for ALL of it, even the parts that are played by other souls.  Heal ourselves and the rest is healed.  The kingdom of Heaven is within.  That doesn’t fit well with a discreet soul contained within a body, responsible for itself alone.

So, again, I agree that we are both physical and spiritual, but I can’t explain how it works.

Question 49: Is this likeness to God in the body or in the soul? Answer: This likeness to God is chiefly in the soul.

As an individuated extension of all-that-is, we are God’s likeness, individuated.  Again, having a suspicion that the “soul” is more than the traditional concept, I think we might be more soul than not, and in this way are like unto our Source.

Our physicality is a way of experiencing what we think we are not, maybe so that we can own more of what we are.

Question 50: How is the soul like God? Answer: The soul is like God because it is a spirit having understanding and free will, and is destined to live forever.

I think the soul and, maybe to a lesser extent, the body are creative, and in that way are alike our Source.  We are God, individuated and expressed into a physical existence.  Like God, we cannot fail to be what is our nature.  In this we do not have choice.  We CAN make decisions, but we make them in accordance with our nature.

We are still connected to our Source, one with our Source.  Once individuated, probably not resorbed, and forever.  But what exactly that means, I don’t know.  For immensely creative beings, creation is probably an eternal activity, part of our nature.

Maybe we are most like our Source when we express our love.  How’s that for a tangent?

Question 51: Who were the first man and woman? Answer: The first man and woman were Adam and Eve, the parents of the whole human race.

I don’t think so…I think Adam and Eve are an ancient attempt to explain our origin.  I do believe to a large degree in evolution.  Perhaps consciousness is evolving alongside our physical world.  There is deeper learning in Genesis than a simple story of origins, though.  Metaphorically speaking, the story is very true.

The descent into physicality, the placing of importance on knowledge, perhaps at the expense of spirit and emotion; these are a big piece of the cause of suffering.  They are documented, metaphorically, in Genesis.

I suppose you could have picked a point in the evolutionary process and said, OK, at this point, man is well enough developed that we will call him human.  But there were probably a number of parallel developments around the same time and I don’t believe that one set of parents occurred.

Question 52: What was the chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God?Answer: The chief gift bestowed on Adam and Eve by God was sanctifying grace, which made them children of God and gave the right to heaven.

Whoa.  Talk about left field.  Where did that one come from?  Actually it was constructed in theology.  Leave it to theologians to make a simple concept WAY more difficult to understand than it needs to be!

Grace is the process of being treated better than one deserves to be treated.  It implies a value that is intrinsic.  The recipient has that value.  But never being separate from our Source, we really are either aware of grace or not.  Grace, itself, doesn’t go away.  It appears to be God’s nature.

God does not go away, grace does not go away, worth does not go away.  So, to my mind, the word sanctifying is redundant.

We are children of God by extension.  Heaven is our home because of Who extends us, who we are and how we function.  Being, existence is the chief gift.  Grace and Heaven are part of it.

Question 53: What other gifts were bestowed on Adam and Eve? Answer: The other gifts bestowed on Adam and Eve by God were happiness in the Garden of Paradise, great knowledge, control of the passions by reason, and freedom from suffering and death.

While we might be happy in paradise, we weren’t / aren’t necessarily satisfied.  Otherwise we would not be here trying to be what we are not…

Great knowledge can be a burden when it overshadows spirit and feeling.  It can be used as a weapon.  Do we know more when in spirit than when in the physical?  I don’t know.  We might.

Controlling our passions can be overdone, so I’m not sure this is a gift.  And Buddha was most insightful when he linked suffering to expectation.

The bottom line, I think, is that these gifts really are descriptive of our true nature.  The Buddhists call this our Buddha-nature.  We just lose track of it while trying to deal with pretending to be what we are not, so that we can know what we are…

Question 54: What commandment did God give Adam and Eve?Answer: God gave Adam and Eve the commandment not to eat of the fruit of a certain tree that grew in the Garden of Paradise.

Again, I think this is code or warning not to get too carried away with knowledge.  Being too intellectual can be a defense against feeling and against being spiritually aware.  Or maybe is is that the path of experiencing and knowing what we are not, experiencing and knowing physicality, is inherently dangerous.  Hence the need for a savior redeemer.

Maybe this part of the story comes from a deeply rooted memory that we were  warned about the dangers of participating in this physical existence before we came here.  Now that we are here, we are seeing the fruit of that decision.

What it might come down to is that the need to experience physicality and what we are not was more compelling than any dangers that might arise from participating in the human experience.

As is often the case with one of God’s “commandments”, the “punishment” for breaking it can also be interpreted as a simple statement of the natural consequence of doing so.  God doesn’t have to punish, the act meets its natural consequence.

Question 55: Did Adam and Eve obey the commandment of God? Answer: Adam and Eve did not obey the commandment of God, but ate of the forbidden fruit.

Of course not.  The physical experience is much too compelling for us to have forgone.

Question 56: What happened to Adam and Eve on account of their sin? Answer: On account of their sin Adam and Eve lost sanctifying grace, the right to heaven, and their special gifts; they became subject to death, to suffering, and to a strong inclination to evil, and they were driven from the Garden of Paradise.

No they didn’t.  At least, not on account of their “sin”.  In order to know what we are not, we have to live as we are not, and that would explain the thickness of the veil that separates physicality from non-physicality.  It is simply that in being here we have agreed not to have access to heaven and some special gifts and have agreed to become subject to suffering and death.

We weren’t driven from the garden.  We chose to forego it for this life experiment.

To say that we have lost sanctifying grace hides our “Buddha” nature and causes humanity to give up on itself prematurely.  Yes, this existence is full of traps and temptations.  It comes with the territory.  It is not, though, who we are.

Jesus showed us, though, that we can evolve into much more powerful creatures than the world would have us believe.

Question 57: What has happened to us on account of the sin of Adam? Answer: On account of the sin of Adam, we, his descendants, come into the world deprived of sanctifying grace and inherit his punishment, as we would have inherited his gifts had he been obedient to God.

Too much focus on sin.  We are not deprived of sanctifying grace.  Grace abounds.  Providence abounds.  Grace is not, though, a free pass to sidestep consequence.  Consequence is part of this experience, part of being who we are not, being physical.

We have not given up our heavenly birthright except to temporarily participate in this human existence. I believe that any soul that participates here does so by choice and inherits nothing.  It is not punishment. We assume, we don’t inherit.  We play by the rules or we don’t play.  Once here, we stay until death.

Question 58: What is this sin in us called? Answer: This sin in us is called original sin.

The whole concept of original sin is crazy.  Sin is “missing the mark”.  We hit the mark dead on.  We are here, doing exactly what we expect to do.  Yes we can sin while here.  But we don’t start out in a tarnished state.

Who can look at infants and children without seeing joy?

Question 59: Why is this sin called original? Answer: This sin is called original because it comes down to us through our origin, or descent, from Adam.

I don’t argue with why they call it what they call it.  I just think the whole idea is preposterous.

Question 60: What are the chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin? Answer: The chief punishments of Adam which we inherit through original sin are: death, suffering, ignorance, and a strong inclination to sin.

Ah, redundancy!  OK, once again:  no punishment; we choose to be here.

The suffering, death, ignorance, and inclination to sin are all part of the physicality.  It is what we are not.  We are choosing to learn our nature by exploring what we are not.

Question 61: Is God unjust in punishing us on account of the sin of Adam? Answer:God is not unjust in punishing us on account of the sin of Adam, because original sin does not take away from us anything to which we have a strict right as human beings, but only the free gifts which God in His goodness would have bestowed on us if Adam had not sinned.

God is not unjust, here, because God is not punishing.  Adam, or whomever our antecedents were,  did not sin.  They chose to experience what they are not and we are part of that experiment.  We choose with them.  We voluntarily give up the “gifts” because they would take away from our experience of who we are not.  It might be akin to cheating.

Part of the experience here is to learn to give up intellectuality (tree of knowledge) as a defense against feeling and intuition.  To the extent that we integrate our whole selves, there is probably way more providence and guidance available to us than we usually notice.

Question 62: Was any human person ever preserved from original sin? Answer:The Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin in view of the merits of her Divine Son, and this privilege is called her Immaculate Conception.

If you believe that Jesus is God in a way that we are not, then you might have to believe that anyone who would be his mother would have to be sinless.

If you believe that Jesus was human, but did a better job, was a better vessel of the divine essence than anyone before or since, then you could accept a normal mother.

To be sure, I think that Mary and the extended family in which Jesus lived might have been more evolved than your average person, but I don’t think you have to make a case for being completely sinless.

Then, again, if you don’t accept the idea that original sin is a valid concept, then you don’t need to worry about anyone needing to be exempt!

Share|
Posted in Catholicism, Series, Spirituality | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Village Heretic Revisits the 1960 McGuire Baltimore Catechism, Lesson 4

Posted on April 5, 2011 by mkp

 

Actually, this lesson is a only little bit about creation and mostly about angels and devils.

PART I:  The Creed

LESSON 4:  Creation and the Angels

Question 35. What do we mean when we say that God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth? Answer: When we say that God is the Creator of heaven and earth we mean that He made all things from nothing by His Almighty Power.

The original answer to this question implies a being that is separate from the world created. Better question: “Who became and is becoming all-that-is?”  My answer: “God became and is becoming all-that-is.”

John states in his gospel, that “in the beginning was the word”. The Greek word John used for word was “Logos”, one translation of which is mind or consciousness. The void becomes self-aware at some point. Can your mind comprehend a true void? Mine can’t. No matter what I try to imagine, there is always something in the void, even if it’s just the color black. My mind recoils from embracing a complete void, and I begin to have some idea of how powerful a concept I’m considering. God is the source of the void. God IS the void. From that void came everything we now know of in the universe and everything we don’t yet have any idea even exists, like maybe one or more parallel universe.

Our world, our experience is the “leading edge” of God, our Source, and we can not be separate from that Source, though we may fool ourselves into thinking that we can be.

The downside to this idea is that there is no being separate from ourselves who is God. We can’t find God somewhere outside ourselves. But we can know God, because we are the extension of God and very much connected to our Source.

Question 36: Which are the chief creatures of God?  Answer: The chief creatures of God are angels and men.

It’s fascinating that if you Google “chief creatures of God” the result set contains reference after reference to the Catholic catechism.  But if you Google “chief creatures on earth”  The catechism disappears and it it’s place are many references to quotes from Chief Seattle. 

I suppose men are chief creatures since they are at the top of the food chain and are the only creatures we know are self-aware and reflective, finding meaning in life.  Other creatures may have this ability, but they don’t have language and don’t communicate it as we do. 

It’s a pity, though, that we treat other sentient beings so shabbily.  Seems to tarnish our place as a “chief creature”.

Regarding angels, I‘m not sure.  I have said before that I feel I have benefitted from providence and the providers may well have been angels.  And possibly members of the communion of saints such as relatives past may have contributed.  But there is no way to know for sure that angels exist.  I can only guess.

Question 37: What are angels?  Answer: Angels are created spirits, without bodies, having understanding and free will.

Living on earth is dirty business.  And it is wonderful at the same time.  There is suffering and joy, sorrow and euphoria.  There are some who believe that, basically, all of us are spirits.  Those of us on earth are simply spirits engaged in a physical existence.  So, in that way angels are different from us.  Have angels EVER had a physical existence?  Are angels part of an evolutionary path towards wholeness?  Were we ALL angels to start with? 

I think the answer to much of this is that we are more like angels than we know.

But as for the original answer, I can’t fault it.  It does, to me, seem overly simplistic.  But then NONE of this can be proven either way with what knowledge we now possess.  Maybe never will, either.

I loved the movie “Michael”.  The idea that the archangel wanted once more to experience sugar and battle, things unique to our physical existence, amuses me. 

Question 38: What gifts did God bestow on the angels when He crated them?  Answer: When God created the angels He bestowed on them great wisdom power, and holiness.

You could read this such that the attributes discussed here were not granted to man.  However, I believe that great wisdom, power and holiness are our birthright, too.  We can get lost in our physicality and animal nature, our egos.  The veil that St. Paul speaks of can be terribly thick at times.  But the fact that some of us seem to find this wisdom, power and holiness gives hope to the rest of us. 

Question 39: Did all the angels remain faithful to God? Answer: Not all the angels remained faithful to God; some of them sinned.

I believe that we never are unfaithful to God.  God cannot be unfaithful to God’s nature.  We cannot be unfaithful to our nature and our nature is that of God extended into physicality.  God is all-that-is and life IS what it is.  We are God experiencing what God is not (you have to read the “Conversations With God” trilogy to understand this better.)  In short, in the absence of what we are not, what we think we ARE, is NOT.  Without its opposite, a thing or concept is meaningless.  Light is meaningless without dark, tall means nothing without short.

We CAN pretend that we are not God-stuff.  I think that is what we often do.  It doesn’t change our nature, though.  Some of us are pretending much harder than others.  And the apparent evil of that is more obvious.  Some of us are more deeply into the physical experience than others, pretending harder that we are not beings of light and love.  In this deeply immersed state, where the ego rages, we pretend harder, and more often do things that run counter to our best interests.  This is sin.  This is missing the mark.  We do it.  Yet I don’t believe we are being unfaithful to God. 

in “What’s so amazing about grace?”, Max Lucado said that “There is nothing we can do to make God love us more and there is nothing we can do to make God love us less”.

In the end, God is the source and content of ALL of it. 

Question 40: What happened to the angels who remained faithful to God? Answer: The angels who remained faithful to God entered into the eternal happiness of heaven, and these are called good angels.

I think this one is more like:  those beings who elected to have a physical experience are more prone to pretending that they can be not-God.  Those angels who did not choose this experience don’t have to deal with the veil.  The rest of us do. 

Question 41: What do the good angels do in heaven?  Answer: I heaven the good angels see, love, and adore God.

They sit on clouds and play their harps…  Not.

They probably commune with God.  I don’t think God can be seen, though God can be experienced.  I’m not sure about the adoration.  I think the situation is more like joy and gratitude.  I don’t have a sense that God either wants or needs adoration.  But gratitude for the miracle of consciousness makes much sense to me.

And I think that angels might be instruments of providence, working with and for us in ways that we cannot directly perceive.

Question 42: How do the good angels help us? The good angels help us by praying for us, by acting as messengers from God to us, and by serving as our guardian angels.

No argument there.

Question 43: How do our guardian angels help us? Answer: Our guardian angels help us by praying for us, by protecting us from harm, and by inspiring us to do good.

I’m not sure about the prayer part.  Not in the sense that we often think of prayer, as beseeching the Godhead for specific outcomes.  You know, the cosmic ATM machine…However, the never ending gratitude, compassion and intercession on our behalf among the community of saints; that kind of active prayer makes sense to me.

I have often felt the recipient of providence and angels could be the instrument of delivery.

When it comes to inspiration, I wonder how much of what comes through our intuition comes from angels. 

Question 44: What happened to the angels who did not remain faithful to God? Answer: The angels who did not remain faithful to God were cast into hell, and these are called bad angels, or devils. 

 

I don’t think hell is a place.  I think it is a state of consciousness.  I suppose that it may be possible for any conscious being to pretend that they are separate from and opposed to their Source.  If a being is about hate and aggression rather than love and compassion, they create a state of hell around themselves. 

And misery loves company. 

But I doubt that our Source would cast these ones into a place called hell.  I think they choose that state for whatever reasons.  I believe that the communion of saints is relentlessly open to repentance and pursuing reunification with such as these.

Nature abhors discontinuity.  Everything is a continuum or an approach to a limit.  Those on one end of the continuum are experiencing endless gratitude and joy.  Those on the other end are exploring selfishness and sorrow.  Yet, it is all one and I think it will all be healed.

Question 45: What is the chief way in which the bad angels try to harm us? Answer: The chief way in which the bad angels try to harm us is by tempting us to sin.

I don’t doubt that there are some forms of evil among beings in the world of disembodied consciousness; those exploring selfishness and sorrow, some to an extreme degree.  But my sense is that we are far more responsible for our own sin than any third party. 

We need to stop blaming “Satan and his minions” for our failures and take ownership.  Our egos are the real culprits here.  The bible writers may have been trying to tell us this metaphorically in the scriptures. 

Possibly, when some of us achieve a pinnacle of holiness, we might attract a marauding troublemaker spirit.  But most of us have a long way to go before we experience anything like that. 

Question 46: Do all temptations come from the bad angels?  Answer: Some temptations come from the bad angels; but other temptations come from ourselves and from the persons and things about us.

I think very, very few temptations come from anything other than our experience and our nature and physicality. 

Question 47: Can we always resist temptations?  Answer: We can always resist temptations, because no temptation can force us into sin, and because God will always help us if we ask Him.

I think this is a myth.  True, no temptation can force us into sin.  Maybe true that the community of saints may help us in some way, especially when we are focused and meditating on right-living and are open to suggestion.

And when we see things differently, we will act differently.  Experience is a relentless teacher. 

But we gain experience through interacting with life and physicality.  And in doing so, we will make some bad choices, choices that are not in keeping with our intentions and purpose, choices that are not loving.  Sometimes, when I look back at a decision I can now see was flawed, I realize that without additional input, or additional receptiveness on my part, I could never have made the decision differently.  At times like these we need to forgive ourselves and move on towards the light.

Share|
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

We Interrupt This Program…

Posted on March 20, 2011 by mkp

Why, to bring a special announcement, of course. 

Take a look at this!  This looks really interesting and fits right in with the catechism review.  Actually it’s good for anyone who has ever encountered, embraced or criticized Christianity (did I miss anyone?).

http://ComingHomeIntegral.com

Share|
Posted in Spirituality | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Village Heretic Revisits the 1960 McGuire Baltimore Catechism, Lesson 3

Posted on March 17, 2011 by mkp
 

Kind of appropriate, we’ve just passed St. Patrick’s day and are about to talk about the Trinity.  Good timing.  St. Patrick was a champion of the Trinity.  Actually, according to Wikipedia, that St. Patrick used the shamrock to teach the Trinity is likely a myth.  But it makes a good story, though.

Part One: The Creed
 

 

Lesson 3: The Unity and Trinity of God

Question 24: Is there only one God? Answer: Yes there is only one God.

No argument here.  Since I believe that God is all-that-is, there is only one, by definition.  Even if there are multiple universes, that is still part of the one all-that-is.

Question 25: How many Persons are there in God?  Answer:In God there are three Divine Persons – The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Here is one place my thinking and belief departs from tradition.  I consider the three persons to be aspects of all-that-is, of which there is only the one.  The aspects of Source (Father), Manifestation (Son) and Inter-connectedness (Holy Ghost or Spirit) of all-that-is are more in keeping with my experience.

So my answer here is that there is only God, and the “persons” are aspects of God. The Roman Catholic considers this a heresy – Sabellianism. 

The church’s explanation seems to come from an attempt to reconcile the words of Jesus in the NT, coming from the perspective that the NT is the inspired literal word of God.  In his gospel, after all, John quotes Jesus saying that he and the father are one and that he will send the spirit after he is gone, among other things.

Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus say that he is something that we are not.  We can make an assumption of unworthiness and that Jesus’ words apply only to himself, but that is just an assumption and one the Catholic Church makes. 

The church has made it clear that many passages in scripture are metaphorical or allegorical.  Why not these passages?  Jesus can rightfully claim unity with the Father without Jesus having to be God .  We all should be striving for awareness of that unity.  And awareness in that unity is comfort, which is one of the other names for the Holy Spirit.

Question 26: Is the Father God? Answer: The Father is God and the first Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Yes, the Father/Mother/Parent is the aspect of God that is ultimately the source of all-that-is.  I can’t imagine putting all that is God simply into a single male personality, though. 

Question 27:  Is the Son God? Answer: The Son Is God and the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

The Son/Daughter/Child is the manifestation of the Father/Mother/Parent as we know it, in our physicality, including us.  Jesus was/is part of that.  It is equally an aspect of God or all-that-is.  It includes what we know as our physical universe.  The Source is not separate from the Manifestation.  Since the physical manifestation is not separate from the Source, the Manifestation is God.  Some have referred to this aspect of God as representing the masculine, the builder, the initiator, bringing the Source into fruition.

That’s probably a Catholic heresy, too.

Question 28:  Is the Holy Ghost God? Answer: The Holy Ghost Is God and the third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

The Spirit or Inter-connectedness of all-that-is is equally an aspect of God.  It is the turning inward, communicating, the intuitive, the receptive, and perhaps the feminine aspect of God or all-that-is.  It is the comforter.

When we are aware of our connectedness, we are aware of the Holy Spirit.

Question 29: What do we mean by the Blessed Trinity?  Answer: By the Blessed Trinity we mean one and the same God in three Divine Persons.

I mean, by the blessed trinity, the union of these three aspects, Source, Manifestation and Inter-connectedness or Spirit; one and the same God in three Divine Aspects.

Question 30: Are the three Divine Persons really distinct from one another? Answer: The three Divine Persons are really distinct from one another.

The three Divine Aspects are just that, distinct aspects, and not three divine persons.

Question 31: Are the three Divine Persons perfectly equal to one another? Answer: The three divine Persons are perfectly equal to one another, because all are one and the same God.

This question isn’t really necessary.  Since I’m not making a case for persons, I don’t have to weight them equally.  Different aspects of something are, well, different!  It’s like comparing apples and oranges or joy and sorrow.  No one would call them equal.  Equally important, but not strictly equal or the same.  

Yet, these aspects are part of the one God, the God that is all-that-is.

Question 32: How are the three Divine Persons, though really distinct from one another one and the same God? Answer: The three Divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, are one and the same God because all have one and the same Divine nature.

The definition of a person implies a singularity or being-ness that an aspect does not have.  Since I’m using the word aspect, I don’t have to deal with that singularity.  The three aspects are really distinct from one another and all describe the same God.  Our experience of God is different in experiencing each aspect.  The nature of God, though includes all three aspects.

Question 33: Can we fully understand how the three Divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, are one and the same God? Answer: We cannot fully understand how the three Divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, are one and the same God because this is a supernatural mystery.

We can more easily understand the three aspects of God than trying to explain God as three persons in one.  Since God is all-that-is, trying to understand God as three distinct persons is just working too hard. 

We can understand the aspects of God through our experience and through practices like meditation and prayer.  With practice, we can deepen this understanding. There is no need for supernatural mystery.  Paradox, maybe, but not supernatural mystery.

Question 34: What is a supernatural mystery? Answer: A supernatural mystery is a truth which we cannot fully understand, but which we firmly believe because we have God’s word for it.

Supernatural mystery is authoritarian code for “we will tell you what to believe.”  It is the work of theologians who have nothing better to do and who are the only ones who could come up with such convoluted thinking. It’s all based on assumptions that are improvable, anyway.

No, we don’t necessarily have God’s word for it.  We have man’s word for it.  Were the men truly in communion with God while writing?  God only knows.  We should be careful, and read with discernment.

Share|
Posted in Catholicism, Series, Spirituality | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Village Heretic Revisits the 1960 McGuire Baltimore Catechism (continued), Lesson Two…

Posted on March 11, 2011 by mkp

In this next lesson, the catechism teaches us about God.  This lesson is a continuation of of Part I, The Creed.  The picture at left is a scan of the illustration that accompanies the lesson.

 

  

Throughout this essay, I will use declarative sentences about God.  Remember that these are my opinions and beliefs based upon my nearly 60 years of experience as a human.  Sometimes I will preface the statement with “I believe” or “it seems to me”.  Understand that these sentiments apply to EVERY declaration.  Take them with grains of salt, so to speak.

LESSON 2:  God and His Perfections

Question 8:  What do we mean when we say that God is the Supreme Being?  Answer:  When we say that God is the Supreme Being we mean that He is above all creatures, the self existing and infinitely perfect Spirit.

Back in question 2 we first saw the description of God as a being.  I really don’t know that being is the right word to use in describing God, unless you can consider “all that is” to be a single being.  Certainly, God is the word I use when I think of the origin of all things. 

My mind is incapable of imagining God as a being.  I can, though, think of God as all-that-is.  I can imagine the interconnectedness of God with all-that-is.  I cannot imagine God as being above all creatures, either.  God IS all creatures, and as such, is all creatures as they are born, developing, living, reproducing, pursuing, being pursued, eating, being eaten, joyful, suffering and dying. 

All-that-is extends from God.  God is first cause; God extends to all-that-is, God does not originate from all-that-is.  God very possibly is more than all-that-is in this dimension or universe.  And no, I can’t imagine that God ever did not exist.  And I don’t use the word universe as a replacement for God.  The universe is an extension of God and still remains within God.  God is more than the universe. There could, conceivably, be multiple universes.

As for perfection, I see that as man saying that God just has to be better than what we experience from day to day.  We live in a very imperfect world.  Or so it seems.  We dislike certain aspects of it, like evil, death, loneliness, taxes.  Is there a way that all of that can be perfect?  Would it be perfect if more of us were aware of our connection to God?  I can see room for such a consideration.  Mostly, though, I have to stay with God’s own description, “I am that I am”.  I am not able to see perfection now.  I am not able to see that evil is perfect.  “What is” is, well, just what is; perfect or not.  Maybe later I could be convinced of Its perfection.

Question 9:  What is a sprit?  Answer:  A sprit is a being that has understanding and free will, but no body, and will never die.

As stated, I might choose different words, but the essence is pretty much the same.  I would say that spirit is self-aware consciousness.  Understanding is certainly part of that aware consciousness.  Free will may be limited.  A being can make choices, but at some level, a being cannot stop being in accordance with its nature.  I mentioned this in the previous lesson with respect to God. 

Regarding death, once God extends self as a separate being, I have no sense that God would ever withdraw from that being.  So it seems to me that regarding spirits there is not death.  For me, consciousness that survives death is as much a hope as anything.  This is a major article of faith and since, for me, hope is tied to it, it is inextinguishable.

Question 10: What do we mean when we say that God is self-existing? Answer: When we say that God is self-existing we mean that He does not owe His existence to any other being.

“In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.”  I don’t quote the beginning of John’s gospel as authority.  I quote it as a glorious combination of poetry and definition.  For whatever reason, I have always thought of God in terms of Consciousness joyfully discovering self, becoming self-aware, a birth outside of time.

Time is a dimension of our physical reality that may be completely arbitrary from God’s perspective.  All spiritual works seem to point to God existing in the eternal now.  They seem to point out that time is meaningless from God’s perspective.  All the great spiritual traditions point to communion with God, ecstasy, enlightenment, as being completely timeless.

So the concept of a birth or beginning is likely meaningless when attempting to describe God’s perspective.  It may also be meaningless with respect to the birth of our universe, the “big bang”, as I’m not sure it had an instantaneous birth.  Nonetheless, this is the long way of saying I can still agree with this answer.  However God comes to exist, nothing gave rise to God.

Question 11: What do we mean when we say that God is infinitely perfect? Answer: When we say that God is infinitely perfect we mean that He has all perfections without limit.

I would offer that the concept of perfection is irrelevant.  God is all-that-is.  Period.  Nothing exists without God.  Nothing is apart from God.  Under these circumstances, I don’t understand the quest to know that God is perfect. 

Certainly there is much about God that seems perfect to our understanding, like the way the immense universe seems to run like a Swiss watch, never missing a beat.  There is the way that nature unfolds in all its beauty.  There is the never-ending cycle of life.

But there is also evil and suffering.  It is beyond human understanding to come to the conclusion that these are also perfect.  From God’s perspective it may be so.  It just doesn’t look that way from where I am.

Question 12: What are some of the perfections of God? Answer: Some of the perfections of God are: God is eternal, all-good, all-knowing, all-present, and almighty.

God, the source of all-that-is, also is the implicate order to which everything ascribes.  I think that there is a perfection in this.

God certainly is eternal, all-present.

All-good, all-knowing, almighty…  These are aspects of God that I can’t prove, nor do I think any of the existing arguments prove either.  Evil is, by definition, not good.  At some level, I think God is aware of all-that-is.  But I can’t get my arms around that one.  It’s too immense for human consideration in anything but the most abstract.  There is no feedback in our world that indicates God is that aware. And I already said before that God does not seem to violate God’s own nature.  

Question 13: What do we mean when we say that God is eternal? Answer: When we sway that God is eternal we mean that He always was and always will be, and always remains the same.

NO argument here…  The only issue is that we humans can’t really understand timelessness.  Time is one of the dimensions of our physical existence.  It would appear that God’s existence is timeless.

Question 14: What do we mean when we say that God is all-good? Answer: When we say that God is all-good we mean that He is infinitely lovable in Himself, and that from His fatherly love every good comes to us.

What means good?  If God is the source of the definition of good, then by definition, God is good.  However, God is the source of a world in which evil exists. God’s actions and the stories told in Christian scripture seem arbitrary to the some viewers and sometimes downright terrible. And, in the real world context, God does not appear to intercede to mitigate evil.

Truly, I believe that in the greater scheme of things, such evil may be more akin to mischief, but I don’t know that for sure. Surely, much of the evil is simply consequence to our actions as humans. And our inability to avoid evil and calamity may have as much to do with our lack of communion as anything.  If we would commune and listen, we would know and we could take action to avoid…

Much of the ferocious judgment, retribution and punishment attributed to God in scripture is, I think, a mistake.  So I think this evil can be discounted as nothing more than the consequence of human activity, maybe wishful thinking on the part of the authors.

It says much about our Source that the driving forces that seem to work best in the world for all concerned are love and integrity.  I think there is truth in this statement that God is all-good.  The truth is, however, dimly lit and obscure maybe because we just aren’t generally listening.

Question 15: What do we mean when we say that God is all-knowing? Answer: When we say that God is all-knowing we mean that He knows all things, past, present, and future, even our most secret thoughts, words, and actions.

I think this is a case of the tail wagging the dog.  It’s backwards, get it?  Kind of like doG is backwards for God…  OK, bad pun.  I was serious about having this backwards, though. I think it’s wishful thinking on the part of humans.  I think it is the result of humans trying to put into words what they believe God to be.

If God is perfect, then he MUST know everything, right?  Problem is, I don’t think most of us really understand who or what God is.  I certainly don’t. I believe that God is all-that-is.  God simply IS.  The idea that God is the source of all-that-is and yet still contains all-that-is implies an intimacy.  But does God have a personality as WE understand personalities? 

If God is all-knowing, I think it amounts to an intimacy and connectedness in the ever-present now.  It seems to me that for God, the past and the future are irrelevant.  God is the infinitely present lover of all creation.  If I, as a human, lose my sense of the intimacy, it doesn’t change anything other than my perception. 

Have you ever had a sense of being the recipient of providence and just at the best possible moment?  I don’t know how it works and I don’t know if it is God or the communion of saints or coincidence.  But I think at times it must be more than coincidence; and it is possible because of this intimacy and connectedness of all-that-is.

Kind of an all-knowing.

Question 16: What do we mean when we say that God is all-present? Answer: When we say that God is all-present we mean that He is everywhere.

Oops, I think I answered this one in the last question.  If God is the source of all-that-is and remains connected to it, then God is everywhere by definition .

Question 17: If God is everywhere, why do we not see Him? Answer: Although God is everywhere, we do not see Him because He is a spirit and cannot be seen with our eyes. 

To me, God is everywhere because God is both the source and content of all-that-is.  So, I DO see God.  Everywhere. To say that God is a spirit places God apart from ourselves and negates the intimacy I was discussing in earlier questions. 

If we become still enough, we can know God.

Question 18: Does God see us? Answer: God sees us and watches over us with loving care.

I don’t think that God has eyes.  So God cannot see in any sense that I can imagine.  God knows us intimately and deeply in the present moment.  Forever.  I like that idea better than I like being “seen” by another. 

God’s guidance is always with us since we are never apart from God.  If it seems like God’s guidance is not there, we probably just are not listening.  If we don’t listen, we don’t know where to intercept that loving care.

Question 19: What is God’s loving care for us called? Answer: God’s loving care for us is called Divine Providence.

I alluded to Providence earlier.  I mentioned earlier that at some times, more than at others, I was aware that I was the recipient of Providence.

About those other times, I was probably just unaware!

Question 20: What do we mean when we say that God is almighty? Answer: When we say that God is almighty we mean that He can do all things.

I pointed out earlier what I believe to be true about this and it means the catechism answer is patently false. God cannot “not be God” (there’s that double-negative again…).  God can no longer shirk God’s nature than we can as human beings.  So, this is one thing that God cannot do.

In Christian scripture, Paul wrote that He could do all things through Christ who strengthens him (Philippians 4:13).  (Lest you think I actually know the bible better than I do, know that I have to look all these things up, usually starting with Google and based on some weak or distant memory.)  I think there is a kernel of truth in this.  There is an unlimited reservoir of guidance for us in communion with God.

God does not appear to take sides, or meddle in the affairs of the world.  I’m not certain that miracles are acts of God, except maybe that through communion with God or the community of saints, or through our own desire we awaken an inherent ability in us that usually lies dormant.  Mind you, I DO believe in the miraculous.  I just don’t understand how it works.

I know, there are stories to the contrary in the Bible.  I do see a difference in the Old vs. New Testaments. I think God’s interventions in the OT are the result of the Bible authors making an attempt to explain their world and sometimes making mistakes in where they attributed cause and effect.  I don’t think God was any different then from what God is now.  I don’t see God at work doing almighty things, except maybe in communion with all-that-is, intimately, in the ever-present and unfolding moment of now.  Perhaps that is how Christ brought forth the miracles described in the NT when he was here.

Question 21: Is God all-wise, all-holy, all-merciful, and all-just? Answer: Yes, God is all-wise, all-holy, all-merciful, and all-just.

We, as humans, are definitely NOT these things.  So God MUST be, right? 

There is an inherent wisdom in the workings of all-that-is.  It has hung together for a long, long time and is capable of motoring on a lot longer.  Everything is working perfectly so. 

If God is the source and substance of all-that-is, then God is all the wisdom, holiness, mercy and justice that exists, has existed and will exist.

God is also primal, vast, relentless, fierce, terrible, cruel, wild and savage.  Why?  Because all of this exists in the universe, nature, and us.  These came from and are yet part of God.

Question 22: Can we know by our natural reason that there is a God? Answer: We can know by our natural reason that there is a God, for natural reason tells us that the world we see about us could have been made only by a self-existing Being, all-wise and almighty.

No.  If it were so, there would not be atheists.  They have and use the same reasoning faculties that I do, but they come to differing conclusions based on their experience and nature. 

I think that natural reason will always point to a source of all-that-is.  But the nature of that source is beyond any ability to know.  We must of necessity make assumptions about that source and natural reasoning is not consistent from one person to another in making those assumptions.

Question 23: Can we know God in any other way than by our natural reason? Answer: Besides knowing God by our natural reason, we can know Him from supernatural revelation – that is, from the truths found in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition, which God Himself has revealed to us.

To me, this is little more than a self-serving definition.  Catholic Tradition (with upper-case T) is a collection of a couple thousand years of papal decrees and collections of transcripts of verbal teachings said to come from the apostles (but originally not written down), under the umbrella of infallibility.  I’m sure there is some truth in it, but as a work of men I can’t deem it completely reliable.

I mean, the basis for insisting that priests remain celibate is in there.  This result of this decree is that in our contemporary society, the only men attracted to the priesthood are saints and pedophiles and there seems to be way too many of the latter.  This hasn’t worked out so well.

I also don’t think Sacred Scripture is infallible.  The bible authors did the best they could to convey what they understood about God, but I firmly believe there are cultural artifacts in there and other errors because the writers were human.  God may have inspired the work, but the receiving station was a human being. 

God does NOT visit genocide on a people.  God does not do this today and I believe God has NEVER done it in the past.  Humans do this.  It was wrong then just as it is wrong today.  But the Israelites did such things (and they weren’t alone).  Then they said “God told me to.”  Baloney.

From a story telling perspective, I think that the New Testament is more reliable than the Old.  But the NT writers were human, also.

The one biblical admonition that makes sense to me is “Be still and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10).  Meditate.  As human beings, we can never know with any verifiable certainty that we have, in fact, correctly received or interpreted any insights.  You just do the best you can and act on it with a liberal dose of humility.  And love one another.

As for scripture and tradition, read it and cherish it as your tradition and a rich source of archetypal treasures.  It is often the best wisdom available.  And sometimes it’s wrong.  Read with discernment. Be careful, and humble.

Share|
Posted in Catholicism, Series, Spirituality | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Village Heretic Revisits the 1960 McGuire Baltimore Catechism, Fifty Years Later…

Posted on March 3, 2011 by mkp

 

I have wanted to do this for a number of years.  Among other things, I am the product of 17 years of Catholic school.  Yup, kindergarten, grammar school, high school AND college.  I was an altar boy and even was a seminarian for a couple years (in high school, before I discovered girls). I memorized much of the catechism for my confirmation in 1962.  I am no longer a practicing Catholic, but the culture is thoroughly engrained in my psyche in a number of ways. 

Right now, I attend a Lutheran Brethren Church in my town of 800 or so families in Northwest Central Connecticut.  The pastor is a friend.  I don’t agree with all of the LBC teachings (who would have guessed…). 

I recently took some time off from attending Sunday morning bible study, being somewhat tired from a few years of tilting at dogma and not having much effect (so I thought).  I heard later that my co-studiers lamented that I was missed because I was the only one who would verbalize the questions they all wanted to ask, but didn’t.  Thing is, if everyone who disagrees with the teaching leaves, who is left to try to change the organization?

I no longer think that having middle school kids just memorize dogma and scriptures is a good idea.  I think it is better to begin teaching them to think critically, in a loving environment.  Generally, if dogma can’t withstand critical thinking, maybe something is wrong with it.

So, what does my experience over the last 50 years or so tell me about what I memorized way back then?  I wanted to put this down in writing for the main reason that it offers me an opportunity to make my beliefs concrete.  For whatever reason, I have a need to do that.  In doing so, I have to make choices in the words I use and the sentences I construct.  I have to have integrity if the exercise is to be worthwhile.   It is more difficult to know in the current moment that am speaking carefully and with integrity than it is to know that I convey with integrity when I am taking the time to write my thoughts down, review and edit them.  Doing this in public invites conversation and that will force me to think about things even more.

So, here goes!   Actually, in the fall of 1959, I would have started learning the Baltimore Catechism No. 2 from the 1953 Maguire edition.  Then in fifth and sixth grades, I would have learned from the 1960 edition.  I made my confirmation in 1963. In fourth grade we started with Part One:  The Creed, fourteen lessons about basic beliefs as stated in the Apostle’s Creed. 

PART I:  The Creed

LESSON 1:  The purpose of Man’s existence

Question 1:  Who made me?  Answer:  God made me.

Back in the fourth grade, I was a conforming child and I memorized the answer and didn’t give it a second thought.  It didn’t matter.  The approval of the sisters mattered a lot more.  I didn’t think about parenting or sex and thought, like the rest of my chums, that girls had cooties.  Now I know that I am the result of my parents’ sexual activity in September of 1950.  How did God factor into that?  Did God actually make me and put me in my mother’s womb?  Not likely. 

We know in excruciating detail how fertilization and gesticulation take place.  God may have had a hand in it somehow, but not by specifically creating little ole me.  I am the result of my parents’ dance; one step in a millennia-long cycle of evolving life that began with and yet is part of God.  I think this whole process originated in and remains in the Mind of God.  John says it best:  “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God…”  Ironic. This text is the beginning of John’s gospel.  I attended the fourth grade at St. John the Evangelist school.

Question 2: Who is God? Answer: God is the Supreme Being, infinitely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence.

This is one MONSTER question for a fourth grader to tackle!  But does memorization do it justice? 

I am a panentheistic, universalist, Christian-leaning agnostic.  How’s that for a mouthful? I cannot find God.  I believe in God, hope in God, but I can’t find God.  I think I see evidence of God, but I can’t prove it.  I cannot distinguish God’s voice from my own inner self.  Actually, I think I see more evidence of the community of saints than I do of God.  I believe I have benefitted of providence a great many times.  I think everyone has a story or two to tell of this.  But none of this makes me unique.

If I can’t find God, how can I possibly know who God is?  My experience leads me to believe that God is the source of all that is, but it has done so indirectly.  One bible author, Moses, wrote that God revealed God’s name to him and it is “I am that I am” (Ex 3:14).  And that is all God tells us directly.  I believe that to be true. 

I’m not using pronouns to refer to God because I have no sense that God is either male of female.  God is all that is and pronouns are inadequate.  Near as I can tell, God is apparently the same being or source that all religions honor and worship, albeit with differing names.  I know, many followers of these various religions will tell me I’m full of crap.   So what?  It’s not the first time I’ve been told that.

While I believe God to be the source of all that is, I see no evidence of God acting as a supreme being.  I do, though, feel as though to be the beneficiary of providence as I said earlier.  The concept of God being infinitely perfect is very difficult to understand.  After all this the same God who “created” earwigs.  God appears to have created an imperfect world. Those same earwigs might be part of a perfect ecology, but I find them revolting.  (And I insist that they have their ecology outside my house.  Gross.)

Worse than that, God allows suffering and death.  God also allows prayers to go apparently unanswered.  Try speaking of God’s perfection to someone going through these experiences. 

God cannot do everything.  For example, God is incapable of NOT being what is God’s nature.  I know it’s a double negative.  The positive just doesn’t have the same impact.  So read it again if you’re confused.

God may be the source of all that is, but I see no sense that God tinkers with what is at all or dabbles in the affairs of men, like someone pressing on the scale with their toe while you are weighing yourself.  I see no apparent preference on God’s part.  I do not see God taking sides. The rain falls on both the just and the unjust (Matt. 5:45).

I think life likely evolved, while yet it emanated from and is even now part of God.  I’m going out on a limb here, but I think that what emanated did so perfectly and still does.  There is perfection in the apparent imperfection. Even earwigs. Much of life is paradox.  Why not this as well?

There is no compassion without suffering, though most of the suffering is of our own making.  I have a therapist friend who often says that “Life always provides the perfect hassle.”  The meaning lies in that after working through an issue, the client usually comes to see that they would never have come to their new understanding and acceptance of what is, their growth, without first experiencing that particular difficulty. They often feel that the hassle was perfectly tailored to their nature and circumstance.

When it’s all over, when we are home, we may see that what we see as mortal suffering is more like the behavior of mischievous children.  Even torture and murder.  Ram Dass once said that “The world is perfect [as it is evolving, including things like starvation, violence (as life lesson or opportunity for compassion)] and so is our desire to change it.” (my understanding in brackets)

Question 3: Why did God make us? Answer: God made us to show His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven.

I don’t have a clue why God made us.  Why NOT make us?  Why make us the way we are?  I like the way this was answered in Neal Donald Walshe’s “Conversations with God” trilogy.  In the absence of what you are NOT, what you ARE is not.  One cannot love unless there is an OTHER. How can God know what God IS unless God somehow experiences what God is NOT?  We are what God is NOT.  We are mortal, finite, physical, ego-bound creatures who seem often to not have a clue about our spirituality. 

Or ARE we?  Might we be spirit taking physical form, extending God, and which is capable of soaring to great heights?  Some have done that. We laud them and then say we’re only human (cop out).  Perhaps we chose to participate in this experiment and in doing so agreed to be isolated by “the veil”.  The ones who gain those great heights of spirituality in spite of the veil inspire the rest of us.  Maybe that’s why we’re here.

Question 4: What must we know to gain the happiness of heaven? Answer: To gain the happiness of heaven, we must know, love and serve God in this world.

How ridiculously egotistical is this God to expect that?  What a Megalomaniac!  Yeah, with a CAPITAL M. Or is there another way to look at this?

The traditional view here is that heaven comes after we die, and only if we’re good.  Or only if we believe properly. But I think the real treasure here is that 1.) we can bring heaven to our earthly existence and 2.) we have help from beyond the veil.  Then, when it’s all over, we all go home.  Yes, all of us. 

While we’re here, some of us create a hell on earth.  To bring heaven to earth, we need communion with God and the saints, we need to love communion enough to seek it out. And we need to ACT. Given the world’s conditioning and ignorance, we need to practice communion.  That’s the love and know part.  The serve part is to act on what we learn in communion with God and that will always be to act from love.  In doing all this, we do our part to bring heaven to earth.

Question 5: From whom do we learn how to know, love and serve God? Answer: We learn to know, love and serve God from Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who teaches us through the Catholic Church.

I think the Church missed the boat on this one.  The answer just appears to be too self-serving of the Church hierarchy and existence.  Yes I believe that Jesus teaches us to know, love and serve God.  I also think the same is true of the Buddha, and others.  If you open your heart and eyes, you see an endless stream of teachers through the ages. 

I think the church, being a human institution, often gets in the way of Jesus’ teachings.  Dogma often trumps love.

But, yes, you can learn how to know, love and serve God from Jesus.

PS… About the phrase “Son of God”; more on the incarnation at Lesson 7.  No, we’re not going to skip that one.

Question 6: Where do we find the chief truths taught by Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church? Answer: We find the chief truths taught by Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church in the Apostles’ Creed.

Typical pharisaical response from a human institution.  You can use the Creed as shorthand for “We believe this and if you don’t believe it you are out…”

Truth is, Jesus himself summed up his whole ministry in the statement “You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matthew 22:37-39 NAS)  It’s not really complicated.  And it’s much easier to memorize.

I don’t think the church is living up to its potential.  To do that, there need be more emphasis on the spirit of law and less on the letter.  There needs be more compassion and less insistence on dogma.

Question 7: Say the Apostles’ Creed. Answer: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth;and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried.  He descended into hell; the third day He arose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, sitteth the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.  I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.  Amen

I can’t argue with a simple command to recite something.  I can, though, take issue with the content of that something.  Even though I attend Bethany Lutheran, membership is contingent on assenting to the creed as a matter of belief.  I can’t do that with integrity any more.  I believe the Church has inserted too much dogma, and that much of it is just wrong. So, I’m not a member.  Maybe I’m a groupie.

I do believe in God.  Jesus referred to God as Father.  I think of this as a cultural artifact.  I would prefer to use the word parent, gender neutral and completely appropriate.  Adding the word Almighty makes God virtually unapproachable.  God doesn’t seem to act in an almighty manner, anyway. God is in many ways incomprehensible to the human mind, well beyond our ability.  I prefer the word Source to Creator.  Somehow this Source extends self without separation. 

I do believe that Jesus existed.  I believe he had a messianic mission, but not in the way that contemporary Christianity understands. I believe that the spirit of God expressed through Jesus more perfectly than any human before or since.  I can’t say that he is accessible today.  Even if he is, I have no way to really know that.  I said before that the only internal voice I hear is my own.  What providence I have experienced I cannot attribute with any certainty to anyone.  I simply acknowledge it.

To say that Jesus is God’s only son is to render our son-ship nonexistent.  We are all God’s children, by extension, because we are part of all that is. I think we’ve had many messianic teachers. I have mostly looked at Jesus (and the Buddha) as our elder brother.  Only in understanding thusly do I believe that I can truly repent and have any chance of acting as Jesus taught.  Jesus eschewed titles and I don’t think he would have ever accepted one like Lord.  My sense is that the title rabbi was more to his liking.

I’ll address the incarnation, the crucifixion, resurrection and the balance of the creed in articles regarding the subsequent catechism lessons.

You are welcome to comment and join the dialogue.

 

Share|
Posted in Catholicism, Series, Spirituality | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Extremist, Schmeemist, Radical, Schmadical

Posted on October 14, 2010 by mkp

Is Glenn Beck really an extremist or radical?  I recently read the Sean Wilentz article in the New Yorker magazine entitled “Confounding Fathers, The Tea Party’s Cold War Roots”.   I have recently developed an interest in Glenn Beck’s TV show.  He had said a number of things about politics and economics and I researched what he had stated.  I was surprised to find that his comments were largely true.  Two of the episodes that I had watched were on manifest destiny vs. divine providence and on the socialization of business losses by private business.   I researched the one on slavery, too.  The only thing I couldn’t validate in the latter was whether or not Massachusetts actually preceded Virginia in legalizing slavery. 

I used to think of myself as liberal.  Now I’m not so sure.  What I’m more sure of is that whatever labels we give ourselves and others, we as a nation seem to have lost the ability to converse or to discuss important issues without sliding into derision.  We routinely vilify our opponents.  How on earth will we work out the solutions under these conditions?

To someone who is very very liberal, a person with conservative views might seem like an extremist.  But it seems very possible that this “extremist” is about as far right of the liberal person as the liberal person is left of center.  Where does that put the “extremist”?  In the center, of course.   Ditto for the conservatives.

I once attended a seminar where the speaker talked of a one percent change in viewpoint making all the difference and allowing both sides to thrive.  I tend to think that this would help.

Going back to Glenn Beck, Wilentz indicated that Beck is the most highly respected individual among Tea Party supporters.  Seems to me that Wilentz doesn’t like Beck, and he doesn’t like the Tea Party either.  Wilentz compares the party with the John Birch Society, which is generally considered a radical group.  I can’t help feel that it’s somewhat heavy handed and not a good idea if someone wanted to begin a dialog…  And not all of their tenets (Tea Party and John Birch Society) are aligned.

I perceive the Tea Party as fairly centrist.  They reject cap & trade and the health care bill.  They want tax reform, a balanced budget, no pork.  They want limited government,  fiscal responsibility, sound energy policy and an enforceable immigration policy.  What is so radical about that?

The rejection of cap & trade stems from their seeing the program as a whopping big tax bill that will not accomplish the stated goal of managing pollution, especially in a world where the developing countries are not capping their environmental impurities:  bottom line – loss of jobs and livelihood due to unfair competition and high cost of energy.  Is that what will actually happen?  I don’t know.  We need more discussion on this.

The rejection of the health care bill stems from the fact that so few congressional reps actually read the thing before voting on it and the fact that it was largely written by insurance companies.  From what I have read, I think that the party feels that what has been revealed in the bill so far doesn’t appear very inspiring and threatens to actually drive cost up.  I personally would like a LOT of discussion on this one, and without disenfranchising whichever party is the minority after the election. 

There were things that could have been done to improve the health care system that were far short of a progressive or socialist approach and would likely have been acceptable to the Tea Partiers.  Like immigration reform and torte reform for starters.  Neither of these were discussed at all. 

Tea Party candidates seem to be people who are outside the groups of elites.  They seem to be average every-day Americans who want their country back.  Basically, I think the prez has overplayed his hand, disenfranchising the current minority (Republicans).  He isn’t producing the kind of change that middle America wants.

So now what?  When the dust settles after the election in November, we will need to continue (or maybe re-start) the discussion.  There are a couple things we need to do in regard to this effort.  First we all need to regard our opponents positively.  After all, we are all Americans.  We need to listen.  We need to let them finish their sentences before we jump in with our own sentiments.   Did you see what happened on The View this morning with guest Bill O’Reilly?  I agree with Barbara Walters.  That was rude and should not have happened.  Joy and Whoopi should have stayed in the dialog, regarding their opponent positively and listening to him.   And they should have pressed their case, but civilly. 

We need integrity.  We need our statements and our actions to reflect each other.  The whole immigration mess is rife with lack of integrity.  The government, businesses and the constituency are all on different pages and neither enforcement nor reform are happening. 

We need to end our love affair with debt.  It’s killing us.  I think this is related to a sense of entitlement, which is another thing that needs to be excised.

But most of all, we need to stop demonizing each other.  We need to subdue this labeling of our fellow Americans as extremists and radicals.  To be fair, Beck and company are being heavy-handed in calling the current administration fascists and totalitarians.  Fighting words, all.  There are plenty of REAL extremists and radicals out there who are routinely attempting to use violence to further their interests.  But our fellow Americans?  Heck, we need to work together to fix this mess.  NOW.

Share|
Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Enough Progress for One Lifetime… Thoughts About Saving a Naval Icon

Posted on September 17, 2010 by mkp

No, the first part isn’t my sentiment.  It’s my father’s.   If he has said it once, he’s said it a hundred times:  “I’ve seen just about enough progress for one lifetime!”  Progress can be so relentless and inconsiderate.   This relentlessness and inconsideration could maybe turn anyone into a regular Mr. Kranky Pants.   I really understand why he feels that way.

I guess progress is inevitable as we wear things out and seek to solve problems.  And then there’s the incessant need for things NEW and EXCITING.   There are other factors, too.  Like the need for persons in third-world economies to gain parity with those of the first-world.  Computers and the internet are driving that equalization.  I can’t fault others for wanting to experience what we here in the United States have already achieved.  But, it is competition and it fosters progress.  Thomas Friedman’s excellent book on that subject is a challenging but informative read (“The World is Flat”, by Thomas Friedman, get it from your favorite bookseller).

We can’t freeze-frame the world.  We can’t save everything.  After all, the nation’s attic (The Smithsonian) only has so much storage space.  Museums and preservation organizations have to beg for money to save the best examples of our past.  We do it for the same reasons that folks collect and restore antiques.  We want to save the best examples of our achievements, artistic and technological.  We like touching our past.  We’re nostalgic junk collectors.  If we saved EVERYTHING, however, we’d have a collective illness.

We need to grieve for some things that we have loved and which have not been deemed worthy of preservation, like the average steam locomotive and the typical merchant sailing vessel.   There are remarkable examples of those two classes of vehicles preserved, thank goodness.   I’m thinking of the Cutty Sark in London and the Steamtown museum in Scranton, PA.   But the average examples are long gone.  I can’t explain why I personally feel nostalgic for these artifacts, but to me there is a real beauty in their form and function.  And, yes I am old enough to have ridden in a working, in-service steam locomotive.  I don’t have the same attraction to their modern day replacements.  Maybe others do and will be saving them in 50 to 100 years if any examples last that long…  Another aspect of progress seems to be that things are becoming more and more disposable.

I mentioned in the first post that I had recently shut down an attempt at starting up a business.  Didn’t go well.  And yesterday I drove the truck to Exton, PA to return it to the franchiser.  On the way home as I drove north on I-95 through Philadelphia I glanced to the right towards the Delaware river and saw four masts that obviously belonged to a really large tall ship.  I needed a lunch break and so I hopped off at the next exit, got a sandwich and chips, turned around and went back south to the previous exit.  The Independence Seaport Museum was what I found.  The tall ship Moshulu is located next to the museum and was what I had seen from the interstate.

But it was what I saw next that REALLY surprised me.  There, next to Moshulu was an ancient white-hulled warship that looked like something from the Great White Fleet of Teddy Roosevelt’s time.  There was a good reason for the resemblance.  I was looking at the Olympia, the flagship of Commodore George Dewey in the battle of Manila Bay during the Spanish American war.   She looked beautiful from the pier.  More about that later…

I’m a former Naval Officer.  When I was an NROTC midshipman at the University of Notre Dame, the halls of the Navy building were lined with watercolors depicting famous naval battles from American history.  Manila Bay was one of them.   The caption under the painting was Commodore Dewey’s famous quote,  “You may fire when ready, Gridley.”    And here was I, gazing directly at the subject of that painting.   This was the ship that put the world on notice that the United States was the up-and-coming world naval power.

Looks are deceiving.  I researched the Olympia for quite awhile, today.  In addition to reading accounts of the battle, I found that the ship is in grave danger of passing into oblivion and even being literally sunk as a reef.  Olympia is the oldest steel hulled warship afloat.  She looks good from 50 feet, but up close she’s in trouble.  She needs $20M in repairs, $3M of that almost immediately.  I read that the exhibit will be closed to the public this November.  She’s no longer safe.  The steel is getting a little thin in places, having been continuously afloat for over 60 years without any below-the-waterline refit.

I’m very proud of most of our national history.  And some of it is lamentable.  I recently listened to Glenn Beck talk about the difference between Manifest Destiny and Divine Providence.  The Spanish-American war may have been one of those times.  Olympia has been surveyed and studied, among other things, to try and determine why the battleship Maine blew up in Havana harbor in 1898, sinking and taking three quarters of her crew to the bottom.  It appears that we might have been looking for a reason to take on Spain.  Based on some later research, perhaps done on the Olympia, the real reason for the sinking might have been spontaneous combustion in a coal bunker that was too close to a weapons magazine.  But the official report blamed an underwater mine, presumably placed by the Spanish.    Popular sentiment wanted to believe the mine story.  Hence the beginnings of a rather imperialistic American foreign policy.  The Great White Fleet was “struttin’ our stuff” nine years later.

However one might feel about the Spanish-American war, the Olympia was of paramount value in the conflict.  She is an amazing example of naval architecture and craftsmanship from her era.  The only remaining example, too.  It would be a crying  shame (literally) if she passes into history by way of oblivion, another victim of progress and apathy.  In a time of deep, deep recession, I don’t expect or want the government to save her.  But those 90% of Americans still at work can help out.  If we preserve her, future Americans who see her will perhaps visit, touch and research her the way I did and learn a bunch about our history and heritage.  And history from which we learn is history we may not be doomed to repeat…

You can make a donation to her preservation here:  http://cruiserolympia.org/site/

Share|
Posted in History & Preservation | Tagged | Leave a comment