Blasphemy

WARNING: This is going to be a long blog. I'd apologize, but I think it's worth it. 

Today, I went to mass. Being the weird, semi-Catholic that I am, I for unknown reasons get the urge to go to church about the time Advent rolls around. It's a comfort thing, I think - looking for hope in the approaching winter, looking for a way to de-stress in the looming doom of finals. The hope that maybe, just maybe, I will have a break-through and everything about life will suddenly make sense. I also had an ulterior motive for going today - after several decades of using the same service, the Papacy decided that this weekend, the first of a new liturgical year, would be the time to premiere a new liturgy.

A quick word on the liturgy - it's the prayers the Catholic church uses, the responses the congregation says to the priest, the stuff that's based off the traditional Latin mass. I was aware about the changes, due to articles such as this and this. It's supposed to be closer to the original Latin wording, yet people say it's not a great improvement. But I tried to keep an open mind - I really did.

It totally sucked. Not just because everything I'd memorized over the last 20 years was kind of worthless now. Not just because it made the entire mass seem awkward. Not even because it the wording was poor and not at all the smooth, flowing prose I was used to. I mean, all of that could be fixed with repetition and getting used to the new words. No, I was mad because of all of the changes that the Church could be making, THEY CHOOSE THIS.

To add insult to injury, the church we usually go to, the Basilica of St. Mary's, did not have their usual pastor there (a very friendly fellow who, from the middle row of pews looks very much like Phillip Seymour Hoffman). No, we had a priest from Duluth, who had been there before and sang his praises about President Obama. That was very awkward then - Obama had just recently become president and won the Nobel Peace Price for unclear reasons. And Obama had nothing to do with the week's homily. I really don't care what a priest's political opinion is. But the homily - the sermon, the bit where the priest is supposed to connect the Bible reading to everyday life - generally shouldn't be a time for you to out your political platform for no good reason. This week, the visiting priest decided he should tie in the OWS protestors to the wait for Jesus to return. I didn't get it. At all. I think he was trying to make the argument that being supportive of the poor is not inherently Bolshevik or liberal and that questioning the way things are, the systems we're in, is something the Church has been doing for centuries, something Jesus did. And that's when I lost it.

For those of you who have never been inside a Catholic church, here's what the interior of St. Mary's looks like:

http://www.katiemoos.com/albums/blog/20080114/0012.jpg

Now, not EVERY Catholic church looks like this. But it's kind of a theme - you know, awesome splendor to celebrate the glory of God. It's part of the reason people Martin Luther decided to stop being Catholic and go and do their own thing - they got sick of the cognitive dissonance between what they were seeing and what they were hearing. "Yes, help the poor! Give them money! Go out there and support the OWS protestors. Bring them to our church and show them how great we are!" That was the gist of the priest's homily. What I see: marble. Gilded windows and altar. A priest who CLEARLY doesn't understand that the OWS protestors want nothing to do with the Catholic church - they most likely see it as another institution that's full of money and is not sharing it very well with the rest of the world. And if the priest supported the OWS people so much, why wasn't he offering to give the church's wealth to the poor? Why wasn't he out there protesting with them?

Because it's so much easier to talk the talk than walk the walk.

Religion comes easily to some people. I am not one of those people. I've had critical thinking in my life since day one - and because of that, I am overly critical about EVERYTHING. Have I doubted the existence of God? Yes, often. Do I believe in the kingdom of God? Bad question - it's recently occurred to me that I've never thought of God as a king. I'm American - the monarchical associations really don't set well with me (in fact, during mass, when we're supposed to bow during the presentation of the host, I thought to myself, I bow for no man! But I digress...) Do I think that, because the pope is supposed to be a conduit thru which God talks to us that he's always right? The man doesn't understand how condoms work - so NO (seriously, he previously said they spread AIDS. Check it out here). Perhaps it's not that religion doesn't come easily to me - it's that blind faith doesn't. Because I certainly don't have blind faith at all.

I cannot have 100% trust in the Catholic church because I disagree with so many things they do. They are hypocritical to the point of being painful. The priest up there today was talking about equality and I'm back there in the pews thinking about how unequal the Church is - how women can't be priests, how homosexuals are condemned, how until rather recently divorcees were excommunicated. The priest is talking about the important political issues he thinks that the Republicans are refusing to talk about while I know once, ONLY ONCE out of the several hundred times I've been to church in the last few years, I've only heard ONE priest (the Phillip Seymour Hoffman look-alike, actually) accept that: A) the Catholic church has a problem with pedophilia among their priests, B) this issue is a BIG DAMN DEAL and has been kept quiet, and C) something should be done about it. So go ahead and talk about issue that deserve better coverage - I'll keep in mind why you have no right to throw stones from glass houses. And of all the things the Church could have changed - rules about the celibacy of priests, rules about women being allowed in the priesthood, any of the number of huge issues  in the Church, they change the wording of the Liturgy. Really, guys? Really?

What made me saddest, I think, is looking around at the kind, sweet people around me, stumbling through the new Liturgy, doing their best to sing choral music, trying not to twitch as the Homily stretched past fifteen minutes, and realizing: THEY DESERVE SO MUCH BETTER. They deserve more than a Church that's on the divide - trying to keep old members and recruit new members at the same time. Trying to resist becoming modern by making changes to reflect the old Latin. Seeing change as something that is done for long-term, divine reasons, not for present, bodily circumstances. Preaching socialistic or liberal views while the overall structure is incredibly conservative and sovereign. Communism versus monarchy. Black and white. Forgetting that there are so, so many shades of grey in-between.

That's the problem with this divide in the Church - the priests are no longer preaching what the pope says. Which is great, I think - I mean, I totally believe that priests should be allowed to say what they think. But the thing is, I don't know what the Catholic church IS any more. Is it what I see in the Papacy? Is it what I see with the priests - totally individuated and unique, depending on who's doing the service? I feel like there must be a way to reconcile the two, to allow for freedom of expression yet still keeping a cohesive continuity together, without all of this political squabbling. Of course, I have no idea what that might be. The Church is totally built off sovereignty - but it also has a more recent history of Socialist connections. And I feel like it's not working. I feel like people aren't happy about this, that it's just causing hypocrisy. I mean, there's only so many times I can say, "It's just one man's opinion, it's just want one priest says" or "I don't have to agree with the pope" without feeling like I don't belong. There's only so many times I can walk out of mass feeling angry and upset and betrayed.

I'm thinking about going to Lutheran service sometime soon - I mean, I've already gotten the whole "I'm mad at hypocrisy and I'm mad at the pope!" thing down pretty well. But I also think that maybe I'm not meant for organized religion. I really love going to mass - the tradition and ceremony of it is comforting. But the politics driving it really bothers me - maybe because it's a battle that's becoming more and more obvious and I don't want to have to take a side. I'm not a socialist, I'm don't put my faith in the sovereign, I'm not a very good capitalist (well, it depends on your definition of capitalist. I'm not a very good capitalist as defined by a cursory look at Wall Street). It seems that I might just believe in The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith (yes, THAT Adam Smith - he's not just an economist, Wall Street people and OWSers. I believe he deserves a huge second look) (I also realize I should really discuss my perception of politics sometime. But not here - this damn long enough). And despite our efforts to separate church and state, one has to admit that religion is pretty damn political in many ways. So maybe, being the weird person that I am (a moral sentimenter and a reverent agnostic-Catholic mess) I should just stop pissing myself off and going to mass. And yet at Christmas, I just keep finding myself drawn back to those cool stone walls, that scent of spicy incense and the guttural rumble of the organ, the haunting glimmering stained glass - and thus I put myself through it all over again.

Maybe I'm a hypocrite too.

The Doctor, God, and Life

So check this out on: How Doctor Who Became My Religion. Not only does it talk about how awesome the TV show is, it also features Craig Ferguson (I love how all of my interests seem interconnected. Like within a few degrees of each other. I wonder where Kevin Bacon fits in...)

Okay, okay, so I don't watch Doctor Who, I watch Torchwood. BUT they are connected. Thus I am kind of almost a Doctor Who fan. I have seen the episode about the weeping angels... but then again so has everyone else.

If anything, I want to watch the show to figure out where Torchwood came from (which I kind of know, it involves Queen Victoria and werewolves... and stuff). But I also feel like it's a show that's popular in the U.S. but not THAT popular. And Craig Ferguson loves it so obviously it's pretty cool.

Of course, some of my friends will say I started watching because they said it was cool or because Craig Ferguson said it was cool (which they' be some percentage right. It gave me initiative). But really what interests me is the bit about Doctor Who is the bit Cracked.com mentions that the show portrays - that we are not alone against evil. And the bit from Ferguson's sketch - about intellect and romance overcoming brute force and cynicism. WELL SIGN ME UP. I need way more of that in my life. Spending all weekend dealing with the remains of stress from school, working at the apartment and general everyday issues only to have [X] call me up with the need to complain about something petty and then suddenly have to go when I want to talk about myself is TOO MUCH. I need HOPE. I need romance and intelligence and faith and goodness to be rewarded at the end of the day. And I can get that in fiction, in sci-fi, in these two British TV shows. And if that makes me a nerd - well, I've always been a nerd. Or as Ryan, a guy in my Italian class said, "Nerds are just passionate. Everyone's a nerd." Damn right. Truer words have never been said. 

In Sickeness and In Health

I came across this article this morning while scanning the headlines on Google New: Pat Robertson Says Divorcing Spouse with Alzheimer's is OK.

Now, from the beginning, I should admit that I already have great dislike for this televangelist. He's way too focused on Armageddon. He condemns feminism, homosexuality, and liberal college professors. He describes feminism as a "socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." He states that acceptance of homosexuality could result in natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and other threats like terrorist attacks. Apparently Robertson thinks Scotland is a "dark land overrun by homosexuals" (this cracks me up actually. I'm not even offended by this one, it's so ridiculous). Don't even get me started on what he said about the earthquake in Haiti. (I admit that I got most of this info from Wikipedia - from Pat Robertson and Pat Robertson controversies - but I still stand by the fact that Wikipedia has good source links. Besides, it's less biased than this post is going to be).

Now that I've admitted I'm biased while subtly trying to persuade you to side with me, back to the thing about Alzheimer's. First off, he does say that he would guilt trip people for doing this. But why say it's okay in the first place then? He states that Alzheimer's is a "kind of death."

This leaves me kind of speechless. Yes, Alzheimer's is a terrible disease. Yes, it is incredibly hard for spouses to go through. But it isn't the only terrible disease out there. Once you say it's okay to divorce someone with Alzheimer's, it it okay to divorce someone because they have have cancer? Because they have lupus? Because they have depression? After stating that one disease is grounds to divorce someone, how can you keep this from snowballing into something uncontrollable.

And Robertson, who condemns abortion, who seems like the sort who could condemn taking someone off of life support or any sort of assisted suicide, has blatantly labeled this disease as a form of death. How is this different from euthanasia? Yes, you're not actually killing the person but you're already labeling them as dead. I simply don't understand how this sort of cognitive dissonance can exist.

And all of this coming from a man who belongs to the front crying that if homosexuals were allowed to get married, the institution of marriage would be destroyed. However, I think Robertson completely misunderstands the institution of marriage overall. Especially the little bit "in sickness and in health." Marriage is supposed to overcome all obstacles - that's what strong, eternal love is supposed to do. Of course, this isn't always the case - sometimes divorce is better for both people. Everyone's relationships are different, after all. But I feel like there's extreme differences between both people wanting divorce for the betterment of each other or one person or a couple needing divorce because their relationship is unhealthy, and one person wanting to divorce their spouse because they don't want to deal with their sick partner. Aside from what God says on the topic (there's plenty and I'm not going to try to paraphrase it here) Robertson's words weakens marriage by implying it CAN'T overcome something like this. Really, Robertson, you won't let two men or two women who love each other let their relationship get legitimized but someone who doesn't want to deal with their sick spouse can get divorced? Maybe I have a totally romantic, idealist idea of love. But somehow, I feel like I'm right on this one. Sickness is terrible, love is not easy, life is hard - but life and love will endure. Isn't the idea of marriage itself proof of that?

A man who wanted to sing in church was wondering if he should inquire...

I must have a flashing sign on my forehead that says, "Talk to me about religion!" I think I've gotten accosted more times on campus in the past few months than any other time in my life. The Mormons approached me last spring, then last week I got asked twice to join a Bible study, the second proposal within seconds of the last.

Then on Tuesday I was approached by two people, who seemed to be about my age, both of Asian heritage. They began talking to me about religion and I had no idea how to get them to stop - talking about religion always makes me a bit uncomfortable, especially in public, especially considering my unorthodox views. But on they went, and suddenly I found they were describing a sect of Christianity that believed that God was represented as both God the Father and God the Mother. That's right, there's a FEMALE version of God. I was suddenly totally intrigued. Curious, and ever the absorber of anything possibly interesting when it comes to culture, I arranged to meet them again on Wednesday.

Except I was majorly disappointed. No feminist teachings. No discourse on how God is both a man and a woman. Instead, we plowed through the end of Revelations and the two missionaries, of sorts, described how the Bible predicted World War II, how a fig tree represents Israel, and how Passover is the only way to receive the "seal of God" and thus truly become one of God's own and thus not be harmed in whatever terrible travesty is coming next. I'm not saying it wasn't interesting - it totally was. Especially as this group is Christian but practices Passover and believes Saturday is the true Sabbath. It was just not what I was expecting. They weren't trying to convert me - exactly. They weren't trying to say I was wrong - exactly. They weren't saying all the Jews were going to hell - exactly. But all the things they didn't say worried me more then the things they did. How did their church get created? How exactly do they worship? Who is their minister/priest/leader of mass in this institution? Why did I have to ask to get the name of their church? It's just a bit strange. And it's beginning to feel like I attract weirdness, like a madness. A bit like this... As Max Bialystock says, "They come here, they all come here. How do they find me?"

So conflicted... and still sort of Catholic

So I found this article on Sunday (couldn't ask for better timing, really) and I felt like sharing it: Pope Tells Pilgrims to Stay True to Their Beliefs 

This is the part where I get to blabber about my "Catholic upbringing." I was baptized, went to Catholic school (three different schools, to be exact) from pre-school through half of fifth grade, went through First Communion and First Reconciliation (or First Confession as it used to be called) and went to church nearly every Sunday until sometime during fifth or sixth grade. I cried the first time I said "hell" as a curse and was terrified that I would be in some sort of huge trouble for it. I wore uniforms. I loves singing church songs. I probably wanted to be a saint.

I am now not-very-Catholic-at-all. It's still a core part of my life, or at least my background - I mean, when people have questions about Catholicism, they often (foolishly) turn to me for answers (please don't ask me to explain how Holy Communion works. I learned the hard way that my brain somehow adhered to the Lutheran doctrine, not Catholic. Oops). When it comes to Christmas and Easter each year, I long to go to church, even though when I attend, I feel awkward and a bit too... well, "Cafeteria Catholic" to use the only phrase that comes to mind. It would be easy for me to say that being in a secular school (aka public school) made me "less Catholic" but that's not true. It was switching to a new church in a new state with a totally different outlook on faith. But I did meet people, for the first time in my life, who were NOT Catholic. I learned who Jews were (seriously, I had NO idea they existed until 7th grade. I am not kidding. That might have been an epic fail on my part though, so don't blame the schools yet...) And I started to think about how maybe there could be more than one right answer to how to practice religion. I could prattle on about this forever, but it'll have to wait - more explanation some other time, when it's not a total tangent.

Starstruck

To continue the post from yesterday, on things that make me happy...

5) Awesome sexy actors: So I'm going to sound like a ridiculous fan girl but I can't help it. I'm a cinephile, I'm a girl and I'm an American - we love our movie stars. And yet none of my favorite actors are American. Or really super famous. Or people my friends would have at the top of their "list.” I'm too disorganized to have a real list. Especially as my favorite movies have fluctuated a lot of the years. It seems to have stabilized after college. And now that I have favorite movies, I've finally advanced to having favorite actors. This sounds weird, but I just never really equated actors and hotness until I was probably… fifteen. Yeah. I know. I went to Catholic school, several different Catholic schools – that’s the only thing I can think of that delayed that realization. I mean, I didn’t know who the Spice Girls were until Spice World was already out and everyone had seen it twenty times, because no one at my old school were talking about them. Or maybe I was just a very unobservant, un-culture vulturey youth. Thus why I've berated myself for being a freak; I am not – I’m just different. Stubbornly different.

Today I was chased by an albino through London - and why I shouldn't Google random crap

So I Googled "Weird stuff going on," hoping to find a weird news story to talk about. Instead, I got this: The End Time: Very weird things going on in Sicily with clocks (another blog! Hello, friend) If you think this is weird, you should experience the dreams I've been having after I watched "The Da Vinci Code" too late at night. Hence the pointless blog title.

I'm having a hard time following the idea though... so apparently because clocks are acting weird in Sicily, there is a demon realm and it's the end of the world? I guess my Catholic upbringing didn't really stress the threat of demons (unless it involved exorcisms and that was never addressed in school or church. I actually blame Hollywood for that fear and infatuation in my life) or the end of the world. Maybe it's because I don't have a very good streak of reliability with technology, but it seems like electronics exploding and clocks not keeping time is, yes, some very freaky shit and I would not want that happening, but also not out of the realm of "normal" happenings. Electronics do weird stuff all the time. I've seen a waffle maker flip itself over and spit out a waffle for no reason at all, but I didn't think it was demons (though, come to think of it, half the electronic stuff didn't work in the townhouse. Hmm...) Also, not that I'm a demonologist or anything, but wouldn't demons have more important things to do than fucking with our clocks? I thought they were supposed to be more evil than that. But that's just my humble opinion.

Love and Loss, or: too much info about my personal life, Part 1

I’m making myself write this or I’ll never do it and I’ll regret it. Not because I think anyone cares but because this is my modern way of journaling and it’s not healthy for me to keep a bunch of thoughts like this piling up in my noggin, which is cramped for space as it is. And it is a huge cultural study – one I’m actually really interested in *cough, probably because it involves myself, cough*. So here goes nothing.

This starts with another blog for class that I wrote months ago (which stemmed from something I said in the blog about White Noise, actually). I’d been thinking a lot about what it’s like to be single in America and how much it fucking sucks. Not only is there an edge of loneliness to it, there’s this whole idea that you’re screwing up your life because you haven’t gotten a boyfriend or a girlfriend yet. And I especially noticed this when one of my friends from high school got her first boyfriend. As I’d said before regarding this topic, this runs the risk of sounding like a Dr. Phil show or me psychoanalyzing myself (which would both be lame and totally awkward). So I’m going to try very hard not to do that. It’s going to run like this – the first part is going to be a rough rendition of my original blog about capitalism and why that affects me being single (I know, I’m recycling another blog. Give me a break – it was one of the hardest I’ve ever written. Except for this one). The rest is going to be my reflections and how it’s gotten weirder. It’s gonna be long, so hold on for a bumpy ride.

I.

My friend, who I will refer to as [X] (because I can’t use “her” a thousand times, I can’t think of any girl’s names that start with [X], so no hints at who I’m talking about and, even though not many of my friends read this and if they do, it’ll be easy for them to figure out who I’m referring to, I’d rather be safe than sorry and at least show that I’m not trying to bitch about people online. It’s my way of working through feelings – and cultural concepts. Okay, I’m just a bitch, I admit it. But I’m working on it)… anyway, [X] is nice person (I emphasize she’s nice because, despite anything disparaging I say about her, you the reader should remember that I am biased from knowing her and not without faults myself. Thus it’s a hell of a lot easier for me to point out her downfalls). [X] was my best friend in high school and we bonded over a mutual appreciation for sarcasm, English literature and a sort of solidarity from both being only children. However, now that we’re in college, things are weird, possibly because we both have communication issues (she’s never online the same time I am, I apparently don’t know how to use a cell phone, she won’t really message me first unless it’s really important, and I don’t know how to begin conversations). But then things have gotten really weird.