If I Ever Do This On Facebook, Call the Authorities!

Hello again, Coffee Talkers!

I want to let you know a couple things -- first, rest assured that just because last night's post and this night's post have to do with Facebook does not mean that all future posts will!

Next, if any of you ever see me do any of these things on Facebook, or anywhere else on the internet, or anywhere else on God's green (or any other land-type or water covered) earth, know that I have a.) been hacked, b.) been kidnapped, or c.) have gone a little crazier than usual and need my internet right taken away immediately. So call the internet authorities if you see any of these things posted under my name:

1. Me doing a kissy-face pose...
2. while wearing a very low cut shirt and/or bikini top...
3. and for some strange reason, feeling the need to squeeze my arms together near my chest region...
4. and of course, this picture has been taken myself, with my phone, in the bathroom mirror.
5. Me posting a picture which I have no rights to, but which has obvious emotional appeal...
6. asking you to 'like' said photo if you agree with whatever sentimental statement I made along with the photo (but which I actually do nothing to support in real life)...
7. and then telling you to 'subscribe' to me, so I can get you nine million new friend requests!
8. Me, explaining in a very lengthy status update or note how overloaded my life is with commitments and how I can simply NOT do another thing...
9. followed by me bombing your newsfeed with all of my progress reports from Farmtown, Castleland, and MyNewAquariumHasMoreLivingFishThanYoursVille.
10. Me posting anything about any of the Kardashians. For any reason. EVER.

(Now you know that, just because I threw that last one in there, some big news item relating to some Kardashian and the Catholic Church will transpire, and then what am I gonna do??)

You now, I just thought of one exception to the 'kissy-face' photo rule. If you ever see a picture like this posted...

...it might really be from me. What can I say? I'm a sucker for baby chub!

As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!

Peace and all good,
Leslie

Don't Judge a Family by their Facebook

Coffee Talkers!

Great to be back with you again! I have been intending to start writing more regularly again, starting this week, and then I got sick. But I've got some rockin' antibiotics now (I think the physician's assistant was afraid I would hug him after he said that he'd prescribe some) and so I'm happily taking advantage of this peaceful moment between feverish sweat and freaky chills to get back to Coffee Talk.

A while back, I saw a picture of a family on Facebook. I am not even Facebook 'friends' with whoever posted the picture, but I do know some members of the family. The picture was breathtaking. I mean, these are some really photogenic people! And to top off the loveliness of it all, the family looked happy and intact -- mom, dad, kids, all with very genuine smiles. And I felt happy for them, but at the same time, I realize now that I felt a tinge of jealousy -- why couldn't my family and life be so happy and perfect? (And while we're at it, why couldn't I look like a model?)

Weeks went by without another thought of the photo until one day I was introduced to the dad -- I had never met him before, and I just assumed that he looked a bit familiar to me from that Facebook photo. He shook my hand, and said hello, and it hit me. I realized where I had seen him before. And I realized that he is part of a 12-step program that meets in a building where I also have a commitment each week, and sometimes he would pass by and say hello or offer me some coffee.

And in that moment, I realized something wonderful -- that family is not perfect, that family is heroic. And heroic, we are all called to be. Because they got through some terrible times (I'll never know how terrible) and they got through them together. And now they are experiencing wonderful times (certainly still mixed with a fair amount of trial and suffering) and they are experiencing them together. Also, I happen to know that these people are people of prayer, and I am reminded of Mother Teresa's oft quoted, "The family who prays together stays together."

You know, I was gonna write a little more, but prudence calls to me, beckoning me to take a little Tylenol and head to bed, lest the crazy fever-induced dreams come again. Does that ever happen to anyone else? The best one I ever had was when, as a child, I dreamed that I was reading a book about a family who looked like the Jetsons and had a very large pet fish who got stuck in an air conditioning filter. And after I woke up, I searched around my house for quite some time looking for that book until finally someone convinced me that it did not actually exist. I'm still a little disappointed at not having found it.

As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!

Peace and all good,
Leslie

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Church?

Howdy, Coffee Talkers!

After my last post titled "A Call to Civil Disobedience: Why Catholics' Panties are in a Bind, and Why Yours Should Be, Too!" (on the HHS Contraceptive mandate and the so-called compromise), I had a friend post an article (regarding the GOP trying to introduce legislation that would allow employers to deny any preventive health service) and voice this concern:

"This is why I have a hard time getting behind the Catholics on this issue. I'm afraid of it becoming a slippery slope where any employer can deny any employee healthcare coverage based on their beliefs. I also worry that it will go beyond healthcare into lifestyle choices (like sexual orientation). I want religious rights to be protected, but as an agnostic who is borderline atheist, I don't want someone else's religious rights trumping my civil rights. I bring this up because I genuinely want your thoughts on my concerns. Why shouldn't I be afraid?"

Then today, I saw another friend suggest in a post that the Catholic Church is trying to wage war with everyone on the planet who doesn't agree with them.

Do people, especially American people, really view the Catholic Church as a frightening warmonger?

Well, apparently, many do, so I'm here to help clear up some misconceptions, and ease your fears, my friends.

Here's the main reasons I think that no person should be genuinely afraid of the Catholic Church:

1. The Catholic Church has been pretty much teaching the same things for about 2000 years;
2. The Catholic Church has nothing to hide;
3. The Church is not going to come after you;
4. For better or for worse, the Catholic Church is painfully slow to change.

Allow me to elaborate a bit on each point. First, the teachings of the Catholic Church have not changed substantially since the Apostolic times. Sure, doctrine has been developed and disciplines (such as how long you fast before communion) have been adapted, but the fundamental teachings of the Church have remained pretty much the same. And these teachings are easily accessible. So if you want to find out what the Church really teaches and where she stands on any particular matter (not what the media says or what some misinformed self-professed-but-hardly-practicing Catholic moron spouts off on national television), you can find out. And you can be assured that the Church (as an institution) isn't going to do anything that will deviate from those teachings. Lots of people have misunderstandings or misinformation about what the Church teaches. This is why, in my own teeny corner of cyberspace, I write Coffee Talk to explain these teachings to anyone who cares. You can agree, you can disagree, but you can do nothing until you know what the teachings actually are. And once you know, you'll find the Church and her actions pretty predictable.

Number 2, I know people love stuff like the DaVinci Code and wondering about the Vatican's secret archives. But from all of my experience with the Catholic Church (which has been pretty wide and varied, I'd say) I have not once had the experience of being deliberately deceived or misled by the Church. By individual people, of course (in and outside of the Church -- people are people). But I have never felt the Catholic Church to have some sort of hidden agenda by which they were trying to brainwash or oppress me, or anyone else. Really.

Number 3, I don't quite get it, but a lot of people seem to think that the Catholic Church is some sort of monster, trying to enforce their 'rules' and teachings on everyone in the known world. In fact, there could be nothing further from the truth. Just tonight, I asked the teens in my parish's confirmation program if they had ever received a call from a Church official asking why they missed Mass on any particular week. They laughed, of course, and said no. I asked them if they had ever been asked to punch or swipe a card to prove their attendance at Mass or other church function. Again, of course, the answer was no. (To be honest, I have witnessed these practices in other Christian settings, but never at any Catholic Church or institution of any sort.)

People in the Catholic Church violate the Church's teachings all the time. I say this not with any pride, but to point out that no one in the institutional Church is forcing anyone to follow her teachings, even among her own members! People leave the Church all the time, out the back door, so to speak, and no one hunts them down. To be frank, I think it would actually be nice if the Catholic Church were a little bit better with relational ministry and would follow up with or reach out more to these fallen away members (mostly so everyone felt that they had their chance to say what they wanted to say to someone in the Church, even if they still chose to leave). But the point is the Catholic Church ain't in the business of hunting anyone down. I personally have come to the Catholic faith quite openly and willingly, knowing that I am free to remain or to leave at any time I wish without fear of anyone or anything in the Church itself.

Number 4, the Church is slow. Super slow. Painfully slow. Those 'new' Mass translations that are getting implemented in English were many years in the making. And do y'all remember the whole Galileo controversy? Took a few hundred years to get that all straightened out. I'm not bragging about the slowness, by any means, but I am saying that we can all rest assured that the Catholic Church isn't gonna pull a fast one on us. The Catholic Church in the modern world (especially in the USA) does not have any special wealth, power, or political allies and they are very slow to change anything.

Back to the fear-inducing article, let me discuss a quote from it briefly before I wrap this up; my comments are in red:

"But Republicans and some conservative Catholic groups [Who are they? And why does this article not mention very liberal to very conservative Catholics are united in their opposition to the mandate, not to mention many other non-Catholic faith based groups and public entities?] are not satisfied with the accommodation [What accommodation? The so-called compromise is a rhetorical joke] and hope to use their false claim [fair and balanced reporting?] of “religious persecution” to deny women access to preventive health services [does anyone here really believe that all Catholics, along with all Republicans, are in cahoots to deny preventive health services to women?]. Despite Obama’s decision to shield nonprofit religious institutions from offering birth control benefits [this is an outright lie...I can't even bring myself to continue]...

When someone suggests that the Catholic Church is waging war on anyone in the planet who disagrees with their beliefs, I find this patently absurd. The Catholic Church is doing the same things she's always done, proclaiming those same teachings she always proclaims, but the Church is not forcibly requiring anyone to do anything, nor forcibly preventing them from receiving any service or care of any sort. Sure, the Catholic Church has a moral problem with abortifacients, for example, so Catholic institutions aren't going to pay for them. But they're also not gonna keep people from buying them. People have the right to do whatever they choose, and the Church has the right to proclaim her teachings. Since when did not paying for something amount to denying someone's right to that thing? That's like saying that, because my college charged me tuition rather than fully subsidizing the cost of my education, they were denying my right to access that education. Doesn't fly.

Should anyone be a little afraid of the GOP? Probably. Should people be mistrustful of the Democrats? Quite possibly. Politicians do not abide by any definitive set of social or moral beliefs, and so they can change what they're up to at any given moment. But to be afraid of the Catholic Church? To me, it seems silly at best.

As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!

Peace and all good,
Leslie

A Call to Civil Disobedience: Why Catholics' Panties are in a Bind, and Why Yours Should Be, Too!

Friends, Americans, Country people, Coffee Talkers,

The matter that brings us here today is the nonsense that is referred to as the HHS (Health and Human Services) Contraceptive Mandate, and today's alleged compromise. I think that most of us are confused on what is going on with the whole thing (myself included), and that with all the back and forth going on in the media, many have been left confounded by what the big deal is, anyway, especially for Catholics.

This is where I come in, to explain what I can of the Catholic deal.

First, let me address a couple common questions:

Question: Why do you Catholics have your panties in a bind over this whole contraceptive mandate thing, anyway? It's not like Obama is going to make you take birth control or abortion-inducing drugs personally, or make you go to get sterilized.

Answer: Let me address the second part first: not yet. But it is correct to say that, at this point, no one is forcing Catholics to use contraceptives, abortifacients, to get sterilizations, etc. However, the federal government is trying to force Catholic employers into PAYING for these procedures, which are contrary to the church's moral teachings. In other words, the federal government is trying to mandate material cooperation in a moral matter that the Catholic Church has always (and will always) preach, through her moral authority, as being gravely wrong. (If you'd like to know more on why the Church takes this position, read this excellent article from a totally secular source, shockingly titled "Time to Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right on Birth Control.") In the past, there have always been exemptions for objectors for reasons of religion and/or conscience, not just in the realm of health care, and when those conscience clauses are taken away, all people who value liberty and good will among all people should be alarmed, to say the least.

Question: But doesn't the Catholic position violate the rights of others? What about non-Catholics (for whom birth control is not a moral issue) who work for Catholic employers? Shouldn't they have access to birth control, too?

Answer:  As I overheard one person amusingly explain, "the Catholic Church isn't saying that you can't get birth control or abortions; we're just saying, if you do, pay for it your own damn self!" Maybe the Church wouldn't use that exact language, but that's pretty much the sentiment behind the Catholic position. (Besides, there are plenty of ways that women can access these forms of non-health-care for free, if memory serves, but I'm not going to mention them here, because you are free to find out on your own from a non-Catholic source if you want them!) To explain another way, people are free to do or not do whatever they want. But when it comes to Catholic institutions, they are not going to give material cooperation to anything they see as a serious moral wrong.

Also, besides violations of religious liberty and attacks on freedom of speech, the next thing that really gets my goat (what does that saying mean, anyway?) is the misuse of rights language. In America, we agree primarily to the common rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No where in there do I see a person's right to require that their religiously-affiliated employer violate their own conscience and religious moral teaching to provide them with access to free abortifacients (which, by the way, violate the right to life of the newly formed person).

What follows is a poor analogy, so I apologize in advance, but maybe it will make the point more clear to some -- if I worked for a company that was run by observant Jews, and I personally had a dietary need for pork (let's even go so far as to say that my own non-Jewish doctor had directed it), it would not be my right to demand that my employer provide pork for me at all staff luncheons. It would make even less sense if I asked them to provide pork for all employees at these luncheons, and it would be patently absurd for the federal government to require all Jewish employers to start making pork readily available, free of cost, for all employees. Now, like I said, the comparison is rather weak, but hopefully you get the idea.

Also, if we extend this analogy to address today's so-called compromise given by Obama, here's what he's saying now: alright, you don't have to tell your employees that you are paying for pork for all of them to eat. What we'll do is hire a catering service (who, of course, you will have still contracted with and paid) and the catering service will provide the pork. So now, the employer is not paying for the pork specifically, but as a part of the larger package offered by the catering service.

Obama has offered a very similar 'compromise' in regard to the health care mandate, which in no way addresses the moral issue at hand, nor the issue of religious liberty. Read more about the so-called compromise here.

Also, this federal mandate goes against the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, attached to all federal health-spending bills since 2004 (except Obamacare, of course) which prohibits state governments from forcing any agency, including insurance providers, from paying for abortions, on pain of losing federal health funding.

This is much more than a Catholic issue -- it is an attack on conscience and freedom for ALL people.

I hope that it did not go unnoticed that religious liberty is not the only freedom under attack when military chaplains were recently silenced; they were prohibited from reading a letter to their Catholic congregations urging them to resist this federal mandate that would essentially violate their religious beliefs, consciences, and their ability to not give material participation in something they found morally objectionable. They were ordered not to read the letter, lest it be 'potentially misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.'

I think  that the letter would not have been at all misunderstood. I think it would have been perfectly understood. The time for civil disobedience is NOW. Either the mandate gets rescinded, or those of willing to stand up for what is right and good will be willing to go to bat for true freedom -- even if these demands risking steep fines, imprisonment, or worse. Trust me, I'm not some sort of ridiculous dreamer with a goal of martyrdom -- I'm a working, single mom who would much rather practice my faith freely, keep my job working for the Catholic Church (who may not qualify for the very narrow exemption of the current mandate, even in it's 'revised' form), and care for my children. But while I'm still free to say so, may I mention to everyone that Obama is a two-faced liar (I say this not as a means of name calling, but as away of identifying what he did when he recently assured the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, that he would do all that he could to preserve the religious liberties of Catholics in particular, just before he had Sebelius issue the contraceptive mandate as a clear attack on Catholic institutions). This is not about politics, my friends, this is about freedom, and NOW is the time for civil disobedience, not just by Catholics, but by all men and women of good will who value liberty and free exercise of conscience (it's more than a cricket on your shoulder, my friends!).

I have more to say -- much more -- but you're in luck, as I'll commit myself to prayer and sleep for now.

As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!

Peace and all good,
Leslie

The Good, The Bad, and the Bacony: A Candid Review of Jack in the Box Bacon Shake

Hello, Coffee Talkers!

When I recently heard the news of Jack in the Box releasing a bacon shake, I knew I needed to try one ASAP and give everyone a full review. I mean, even if we can't all agree on politics and religion, can we at least agree that we're all kinda wondering what the bacon shake tastes like? A few days passed with no time for bacon shake searching or consumption, but yesterday, as I pulled into a parking lot for something else, I saw the Jack in the Box sign. I never go to Jack in the Box (this is not a matter of moral or religious conviction, in case you're wondering -- I just don't go there), but as I saw the sign, I suddenly remembered: BACON SHAKE!

So I pulled into the drive-thru. While the people in the car ahead of me placed their order, I frantically scoured the menu for a bacon shake. Nothing. Oreo shake. Vanilla, chocolate, strawberry, blah blah blah. Where's my BACON? Another car pulled up behind me, so now there was no turning back. What if this location didn't carry the bacon shake? What if this whole bacon shake thing was a hoax, and the drive-thru girl was just waiting to laugh and laugh at anyone who tried to order one? I looked at the menu again, looked around for any special signs or banners. Still no bacon shake, but I did see the weird picture of the guy trying to marry his bridal-veil-wearing bacon burger, so I considered that a sign of hope.

The car ahead of me pulled forward, and so did I. The moment of truth had arrived. I almost chickened out and just ordered an Oreo shake to save myself the risk of embarrassment, but then I decided to go for it. "Hi, welcome to Jack in the Box. Would you like to try our [some kind of special uttered so fast that I could neither understand nor recall it now]?" "Hi. Um... Do you have... a... a bacon shake?" "Yes, we do." "WOO-HOO!" Silence. "Uh, then I'd like one bacon shake, please." "Would you like to add cookies to that?" [Are you trying to kill me, lady? I'm about to consume a bacon shake!] "No, thanks."

I pulled forward and got out my 3 bucks, trying to prepare myself for the bacon shake experience. I gave her the money. She gave me a dime. I waited for what seemed like a bacon eternity. And then, she handed me the shake. It looked just like in the picture:

I thanked the drive-thru girl, and she said, "Thanks for coming to Jack in the Box. Come again!" I almost said, "I doubt it," but I was so enamored with the bacon shake that I didn't have time to be smart-mouthed. After eating the maraschino cherry, I noticed something -- the shake was entirely uniform in color; it had no bits of bacon in it. I realized that, had I looked closely at the picture, I might have noticed that ahead of time. Still, I tried to give Jack in the Box the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe they had pureed the bacon into the shake. (A girl can dream, right?)

I took my first sip. As the shake went into my mouth, the ice cream reminded me of pancakes with syrup and bacon. "Yeah, that's a good taste combo. I'm down!" And then I swallowed the bite. That's when it hit me -- the strange bacon-flavored aftertaste, and the cold [pun intended] reality that this was just some gross kind of bacon flavoring! I started to suspect that no actual pigs were harmed in the making of this milk shake and quite frankly, I was offended. I took another sip to confirm my suspicion. The same experience repeated itself -- pretty tasty while in mouth, pretty grody aftertaste. I still drank the whole thing (I was gonna get my $2.90 worth, after all), and I decided three things:

1. I'm still glad that I tried the bacon shake, despite the aftertaste, and found the mysterious ordering process alone to be exhilarating;
2. The Jack in the Box bacon shake is definitely gonna be a one-time experience, and it's for good reason that they have it 'for a limited time'; 
3. I'm gonna make my own bacon shake! With vanilla ice cream! And maple syrup! And maybe even little pancake chunks! And lots of bits of actual BACON!!!

My friend Maureen confirmed the absence of actual bacon with this article from HuffPo. So vegetarians, Jews, and Lenten-Friday Catholics can try out this bad-boy. But only once. You'll see why.

Peace and all good,
Leslie

Some of the Most Beautiful People Are Missing...

At Mass today, I realized something. I was sitting in a side chapel with my fidgety girls, when a family across the chapel caught my attention. I have seen them before, but something really profound and beautiful struck me today when I saw them. A mother, a father, a boy of maybe 7 years old. The boy was the most noteworthy among them. He cannot speak, he cannot walk, and peeking out from just about the waist of his pants was a sight familiar to any mother -- the trim of a disposable diaper. But the most striking feature of the boy is that, every time I have seen him, he is smiling. The boy sat on his father's lap during Mass today, with his dad gently rocking him most of the time, and when it came time for communion the father carried the boy in his arms to receive the Body of Christ.

Tears came from my eyes. There was no thought behind the tears -- they came forth as a natural response to the mix of beauty and pain and suffering and love that I was beholding. And come to think of it, the response may have been more than natural. This boy and his family clearly pointed to the supernatural, to something beyond this valley of tears (which they most certainly have tasted rather bitterly) to a grace that both sustains them and directs them to something greater and more permanent than this transitory existence. That boy was cleansed from the stain of original sin at the time of his baptism, and he will (presumably) remain free from sin throughout his earthly life. When he received the very essence of the Godhead in Eucharistic communion, I could only imagine how tenderly and with what joy God communed with that innocent boy's soul.

I was transported back in time to the year when, while traveling with NET Ministries, I was at a Mass at a church in Louisiana. I saw a little girl and her mother enter the pew near me, but did not pay much attention until the little girl, completely out of the blue, scooted over to me to give me a hug and a kiss on the cheek. I looked over at the little girl, who had a big smile on her face, and I could not help but be won over by her guileless affection. She had Downs Syndrome, and her mother apologized profusely for the girl's unexpected display of affection, but to me there was no need for an apology; on the contrary, I wanted to thank that mother for bringing that beautiful girl to life and to Mass -- like the man born blind of the Gospels, this girl was born in the way she was "so that the works of God might be made visible through" her.

And as my mind returned to the chapel today, and to the boy and his family,  I realized something really shocking. I'd thought of it before, but today it became so real. Why do I not see more children like this boy, and why do I not see more families like this family? Perhaps not all families with profoundly disabled children go out as much as these people do, to be sure, but still, deep in my heart, I knew the real reason. Many of those children were aborted. And my tears continued, not as a sadness for this family and the difficulties that they have had to endure, but for all those families who never got to know their beautiful disabled child, and for all of us who have missed out on knowing them, too. I realized that, while many people talk about the famous people who could have been lost to abortion (Steve Jobs, for example), very few talk about the disabled who also could have been lost or the countless whose lives were lost prior to their birth.

Anyone who knows me (or even who regularly reads Coffee Talk) knows that I am not sharing this experience as some sort of rhetorical platform against abortion -- that's simply not my style. I share this as a true and profound moment of sadness, as a way to thank the families who have chosen to bring profoundly sick or disabled children to life and to care for them (National Catholic Partnership on Disability offers resources), and as a way to reach out to all the people who have suffered the tragic loss of abortion. Rachel's Vineyard offers retreats which facilitate an experience of post-abortion healing to those in need (post-abortive mothers, fathers, family members -- no matter how long ago the abortion was).

The mercy of God knows no bounds, for those who seek it with a sincere and contrite heart.

Peace and all good,
Leslie

Is This "Birthday Wish" a Little Bit Weird to Anyone Else?

Hello, Coffee Talkers!

Alright, some of you might remember my mentioning Fr. Frank Pavone in a few other posts, and I like what I know of him and admire his work on behalf of the unborn and other people who cannot defend themselves.

Still, when I saw this post today inviting people to 'visit' Fr. Frank's birthday wish, I found it strange. So I need to run it by all y'all to see if it is in fact strange, or if maybe I'm over-reacting. But first, check it out:

Frank Pavone's Birthday Wish  

Alright, did you click on it? Did it strike you as weird, too? I'm trying to identify what made it seem strange to me, and here are a few of my best guesses:

1. Why is there a need to raise $500 for "Pray to End Abortion"? Last time I heard, praying to end abortion was completely free. The economy must be worse than I thought if God's charging now.

2. If prayer is the most powerful weapon against the culture of death, why are you raising money?

3. Okay, I understand that there are many costs associated with the work of the Priests for Life. Fine. Clearly, that must be what Fr. Pavone wants people to donate to for his birthday. But I think he should be a little more clear on what the donation is going towards...

4. ...especially in light of the fact that Bishop Zurik recalled Fr. Frank to his diocese in Texas specifically because of his "deep concerns regarding his stewardship of the finances of the Priests for Life organization." Whether the Bishop's concerns were valid or unsubstantiated, this certainly does seem a time when Fr. Pavone might be particularly motivated to remain financially transparent, you know what I'm sayin'? 

5. And the last weird thing is that from the time that I first clicked on the birthday wish until now, the amount raised at the top reads $400, and the progress bar shows that 80% of his $500 'birthday goal' has been met. Has it really stayed at that same level all day, or is it just a way of getting people to think that since Fr. Frank has almost met his goal perhaps they should donate? 

    

   Alright, enough of my musings. What do you guys think? (Not that it really matters, but I'd like some feedback.) Is this strange to you, too? Or is it just a great idea lacking the best presentation? I don't know, but I'm gonna go pray for the unborn while it's still free in California. I'm sure that as soon the state gets wind of Fr. Frank's idea, they'll be taxing us for prayer, too!
    

   As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!

   Peace and all good,

   Leslie

Happy Blog-a-versary, SOPA, and the Oregon Trail!

Hello, Coffee Talkers!

Today marks the one year anniversary of my little Coffee Talk blog! It's also, coincidentally, the day of the widespread internet blackouts to protest the SOPA and PIPA bills. These bills were intended to stop internet piracy (arrr, matey!), but posed a real threat to the free internet as we know it, including such things as search engines, social networks, and [gasp!] blogs like little ol' Coffee Talk with Leslie! While this blog does not have an extremely widespread popularity (I suppose that reading about a Catholic perspective on news and reading answers to questions relating to Catholicism is an acquired taste), this past year of blogging has certainly made me appreciate the freedoms we do have and the widespread access to information (and even to personal opinion) that we have through web-based technologies. Honestly, for as small a scope as Coffee Talk has, a number of things still kinda blow my mind about the whole experience:

1. the fact that anyone reads this. at all.
2. the fact that the blog is nearing 18,000 page views!
3. the fact that regular readers of the blog come from dozens of countries around the world.
4. the fact that a few people have shared with me that they have been led to deeper understanding or practice of Catholicism through the blog.
5. the fact that my Protestant friends have asked questions, and have better understood the ties that bind us as Christians (happy week of prayer for Christian unity, y'all!).
6. the fact that a number of friends from non-Christian religions have dialogued with me on various topics thanks to the blog, and I am a better person for it.
7. the fact that even some atheist and agnostic friends have read (and enjoyed) the blog!
8. the fact that i can publish a blog, with virtually (ha -- punny!) no skill in web publishing.
9. the fact that i can say whatever i want on here, without fear or censorship, and that people can comment and ask questions freely, as well.
10. the fact that, when i was a kid, the idea of publishing a 'weblog' from my own home that people all over the world could read and interact with would have been completely and wildly unimaginable. because all i had then was the Oregon Trail game.

Man, I'm getting old. Please tell me that someone else out there remembers the original Oregon Trail game? I tried to look it up online to give you a sample, but it's not there -- the oldest examples I could find were in color. But the original Oregon Trail game was usually played on a boxy monitor which only displayed one color -- yellow or bright green -- on a black background with one ugly font and bad graphics on a slow and very large computer (from which, if you were lucky, you could also print things in black on your extremely noisy dot matrix printer with that long weird paper).

(Oh, and another thing -- I just accidentally navigated away from this blog page without saving to look for the paper pic without any problem, but let me tell you how many lengthy documents I lost back in those early days of computers, even when I did hit save! It wasn't pretty.)

Anyway, the point of all this nostalgic rambling is that we've come a very long way with computers, and the access we have to web-based media is truly amazing. And as today's bills stand to remind us, these are freedoms that we should not take for granted.

Thanks, everyone, for making this blog possible, and in honor of the blog-a-versary (and of the death of the SOPA bill in its current form thanks to all the protests), feel free to comment about why you enjoy computers or the internet or Catholicism or freedom of speech...or WHATEVER ELSE YOU WANT! (But keep it respectful, or I might have to censor you, not Big Brother.) ;)

As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers.

Peace and all good,
Leslie

I Have a Dream...But What Was It???

Hello, Coffee Talkers!

I think everyone knows the opening words of Dr. Martin Luther King's 1963 speech, but I wonder if some people think that the dream he had was just to have a day off school and work (perhaps a day to be spent at the pool hall?).

But no, my friends, the dream was much more than that! If you haven't listened to this speech recently (or ever!), listen to it now. I just did, and found it to be 15 minutes very well spent. I hope you do, too!

The line that struck me most this hearing was "We refuse to believe that the banks of justice are bankrupt."  Feel free to share your favorite line in the comment box!

Peace and all good,
Leslie

The Questions I Never Answered #2: What's Up With Mormons?

Hello, again, Coffee Talkers! Here's the question from over a month ago -- I'm gonna catch up, oh yes, I am!

Dear Leslie,

I am writing to ask a question you might answer on Coffee Talk or you might decline all together. Obviously, the choice is yours. Let me come forward from the start and admit that yes my question is politically motivated.

What can you tell me about Mormons? Are they a cult?

I did research a little on the web at http://mormon.org/faq/
Of course this information was from the Mormon perspective.

If you choose not to answer, I won't be offended.

Sincerely,
Curious Catholic

Dear Curious,

Thanks for sharing your question! First, let me say this -- I like all of the Mormons who I know personally. And I'm a fan of some of the things of 'Mormon culture' -- big families, supportive churches, Mo-Tab (a.k.a., the Mormon Tabernacle Choir), and a commitment to stylish but modest clothing (check out these cute dresses, ladies!) just to name a few.

However, I am far from an expert in Mormonism. I know a lot about Catholicism, and a little teeny bit about Mormonism. But I do have a couple good Mormon friends who've helped me to understand a few important differences between Mormonism and Catholicism (and other mainline Protestant Christian denominations), so I can share a few of those things with you here. I looked briefly at the website you mentioned and I think that the main challenge that I find with both the website and with some of the Mormon missionaries I've spoken with in the past is that they are presenting their faith in entirely Mormon terms (natural enough). However, they use many of the same terms as Catholics and mainline Protestant Christians, but the words mean something entirely different. I'll try to break down a few key points as best I can, and translate everything into Catholic terms, since that's the perspective you (and I) are coming from. Again, keep in mind that I'll be speaking here primarily from a theological perspective now, and not from a more superficial perspective of "Do we think Mormons are nice or respectable or moral people?"

The most important thing for us, as Catholics, that leads us to not accept the Mormon religion as even a mainline Protestant denomination is that the Mormon religion was entirely founded on private revelation.  In other words, Mormons believe in a special revelation and knowledge given to Joseph Smith that told him to start a new religion and that led him to have published another book in addition to the Bible. The Angel Moroni gave him the Book of Mormon which he assured him contained the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's a big problem right there -- we believe that the original deposit of faith ended with the death of the last Apostle, and that any 'private' revelations given to people after that are only authentic to the extent that they do not change or add anything entirely new to that original deposit of faith. (Example -- the Divine Mercy devotion given to St. Faustina in 20th century Poland reminds people of God's mercy, a message significant for people in modern times, but does not add anything new to the original deposit of faith). So to the extent that the Book of Mormon adds to, deletes from, and entirely changes the original deposit of faith (which it does, even in ways that majorly affect their understanding of the Most Holy Trinity), we cannot accept their theology or even the basis of their religion. This does not mean that we cannot find certain points of moral and ethical agreement with Mormons, of course, but it's the main thing about Mormonism that I suspect most people don't understand.


The next MAJOR tenet of Mormon theology that we Catholics and other mainline Christians would disagree upon is our understanding of God as Trinity, and thus our understanding of baptism and of Jesus. This is a really complicated point, so I'm only going to give a brief and overly simplified explanation of the differences, but hopefully this will give some insight into the ways our belief systems differ.

Catholic Christians understand God as a single God with 3 'persons' -- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all ONE GOD. This is very important. It is from this understanding of God as Trinity that we derive our beliefs on Christology (or who Jesus is). Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. He is only one person, but at the same time Jesus is fully God and fully man. Jesus can only save us because he is God. When we profess in the Creed that Jesus was 'begotten, not made,' we are professing our belief that Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, was not a created being but that he existed in the single Godhead from all eternity. Even though he became incarnate at a certain point in human history, he was not created.

Mormons see this all very differently. I'll be honest -- I have a hard time explaining it because it doesn't quite make sense to me. But I do understand this: this is definitely a case where Mormon terminology sounds very similar to Catholic-Christian belief, but has a totally different meaning. A Mormon friend of mine gave this explanation:

"We believe in God the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost." -Joseph Smith. (First Article of Faith.) So, we believe God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost to be one in purpose, but we do not believe them to be physically the same being/personage [emphasis mine]. We believe them to be separate and distinct, but one in purpose or unified in their work, which we believe is bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. We believe Jesus Christ is the first born son of our Father in Heaven. That Christ was born of Mary, that He atoned for us and suffered death for us on the cross. That He is the one and only redeemer of all mankind. We believe the God the Father is our spiritual father, that He sent His son to die for us, and that He knows and cares deeply for each of us. We believe that Jesus and the Father both have physical bodies as tangible as man's, but that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. (http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/130.22?lang=eng)

So, with that understanding, when Joseph Smith recounted "The First Vision" (http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng) he explained that the Father and the Soon stood before him and ministered to him and instructed him. (Verse 17) "...I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"

That's how it's generally portrayed in artwork in the church, and that's our belief.

[Special thanks to my friend who explained this so clearly!]

Woah! Different theology ALERT! Did y'all catch that?  Even though Mormons give a very similar formulation of Trinitarian belief in words, once that belief is explained, it turns out to be radically different from the traditional Christian understanding of the Trinity. That is why many people do not accept Mormons as Christians and why the Catholic Church (who accepts Trinitarian baptisms from any Christian denomination) does not accept Mormon baptisms as valid -- not because we are a bunch of narrow-minded meanies, but because Mormons do not believe in a God who is one in being, but a Trinity of persons.

The other thing that I think it's important for Catholics to understand about Mormons is that, while they do have a lot of specific teachings that restrict or direct them in particular ways (most of these seem to come from the Book of Mormon), they leave some of the issues we would consider non-negotiables up to conscience. I was surprised to learn this, but while the Catholic Church always takes a stance against the use of artifical birth control and abortion, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) allow these things on some occasions. However, it seems that perhaps more Mormons follow the Catholic teachings on these subjects than Catholics do (in the US, anyway), so that's something to consider.


To answer your question, "Are they a cult?", I'd say this: the Mormons are following a religion founded by a particular person and based on his alleged vision, but the ones I know are certainly not up to anything freaky like the Branch Davidians, if that's your concern. From my limited perspective, Mormons are generally very good people with bad theology. Still, I value all of my Mormon friends, and am particularly grateful for their witness to family life and care of neighbor.


I hope this has been helpful. As always, thanks for stopping by, and be assured of my prayers!


Peace and all good,
Leslie