Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also

Recently the Roman Catholic church announced a streamlined way for Anglican Catholics to commit to Rome without giving up their own liturgy. That's cool, I guess. I see it as being similar to the EU making it possible to travel freely across European borders without showing a passport. The problem, of course, is that travel out from the Roman Catholic church is not so easy.

It would seem to be. After all, there is no Papal inquisition force anymore; no one will be burned at the stake for turning a back to the Pope.

Still, I have to wonder at the number of my acquaintances who call themselves "recovering Catholics." I have to wonder at the number of my acquaintances who prefer to be unchurched rather than attend a non-Roman Catholic church.

I find it morally disturbing that people who profess a belief in Jesus, and a desire to follow Jesus, are so adamant about taking their attitudes with them. Jesus talked about money a lot. There are more references to money in the gospels than anything else. Why is that? I have my own ideas, and since this is my blog, I get to express them.

"Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

People treasure money a lot. Listen to the reporting and the rhetoric surrounding the current economic problems, and the importance most people place on money is obvious. Jesus challenged the rich man to sell all he had, give the money to the poor, and join his ministry. Of course, anyone familiar with the gospels knows how that story turned out, and I'll bet almost anyone else can guess. Giving up the worldly security of financial means is a very scary idea, and few people are up to it. Think of how hard teachers (and even some parents) work to instill the value of sharing in children. It's an uphill battle, because giving away even a little means one has less in one's possession. Consider the rhetoric of some pundits about "redistribution" being the end goal of greater taxation. My take is one of, well, what of it? How much does one person need? If you can still live in your fancy house, and drive your fancy car, and send your children to fancy schools, what is the problem with the government taking a portion of the excess, and using that money to help other people fulfill more basic needs? If the rich, some of whom espouse "traditional values" and talk about how the USA is a "Christian nation," really prefer to see the government out of the charity business, then they have an obligation to put their money where there mouths are, and a lot of it, much more than a post-tax tithe.

I'm going off my point, time to regroup.

Money is not the only thing people cherish. As tight-fisted as some people are with their wallets, they are often just as tight-fisted with their opinions. These are the sort who consider agreeing to disagree as the height of tolerance, rather than seeing it for what it is - two closed doors next to each other, with no interaction, no give and take, no learning. I know I'm guilty of intolerance myself, because I tend to shut down when I hear someone saying things like this group is anti-American, this group is immoral, this group is worthless.

I get furious when I hear that God does not call women and homosexuals to the priesthood. How arrogant! In the book of Job, God's independent sovereignty is reaffirmed, that God can do things that people may not understand or even approve, because God is free. Anytime I hear someone propound that some of God's children are less than others, I think that the speaker is truly worshipping a lesser god.

Jesus talked about money, because it is something that everyone understands. If Jesus had talked about giving up preconceptions, bigotry, prejudices, selfishness, he would have lost a large part of his audience. It is hard to give up money, but in the end, money is part of the world. Attitudes and opinions are parts of our selves. Setting them aside, even scrutinizing them, is far more difficult than writing a check.

New to this medium

I've been meaning to start a blog. I figure it is a way for me to let the world know how much better off it would if I were in charge of everything. No, wait, that was my dad's idea.


I don't want to be in charge of everything. Sometimes I don't want to be in charge of anything.


I have a husband and three children. I often feel that I have no life of my own, which is crazy because I also work full-time for money, besides my full-time unpaid careers.


I guess I can use this space to express my own ideas about things. OK, I'll give it a go.


Health care: This is so whacked out at this point, that trying to make heads or tails of what is right is darn near impossible. Do I think life should be prolonged at all costs - NO WAY! Do I believe in social euthanasia - NO WAY! The sheer rhetoric of health care "discussions" is so over the top, no one can possibly be right. Where is the common ground? What is the common sense? I cannot imagine terminating a pregnancy, but I was blessed with three healthy and desired pregnancies. I cannot imagine having cancer either, because I never have. The best I can do is speculate, and law should not be speculative. It should certainly not reflect a narrow perspective. At this point, I'm leaning toward a preference for a two-tiered system, much as I hate the idea of it. The reality is that the greatest luxury is almost inevitably going to go to the person with the most money. Consider who gets to go to elite preparatory schools. It's hard to figure out what should go into a basic health plan: prenatal care - in, infertility treatment - out, appendectomy - in, heart-lung transplant - out. One of the hardest parts of coming up with a health plan is the lies that so many people believe in our society, that failure is never acceptable, and that death is a failure. Death is part of life as much as birth; nobody lives forever. Matter of fact, I often call life a terminal condition, just to keep things in perspective. People need to live their lives in a healthy way, respecting and maintaining the bodies we have each received. That way, fewer resources would be needed to prop up unhealthy lifestyles, and more could be available for the unexpected or unusual. We need as a society to take responsibility for self-maintenance, and give up this crazy reliance on chemical maintenance. We need as a society also to focus on the normal majority, instead of generating collective angst about what might happen. Overall, about 87% of women will never have breast cancer. With all the knowledge and technology and everything today, the most sensible thing to do is just to live our lives, eat well (that is, eat to live, not live to eat), and if one becomes ill, then deal with it. All the worry in the world will not keep a person healthy.