Miss California – Carrie Prejean
In my old age, I am a bit behind… so I didn’t hear about the whole Miss California, traditional Marriage thing until last week. And when I did, the first thing I thought was, “Perez Hilton is not the same as Paris Hilton?!” Go figure! For someone who grew up in a family that watched the Miss Universe and Miss World pageants faithfully year after year (not to mention the Miss Panama pageant), I’m really letting it slip.
So, in case others out there are just as lost as I am: Carrie Prejean is the 21-year-old Miss California who was one of the 5 finalists for Miss U.S.A. two weeks ago. During the portion of the contest when she has to answer a question, she randomly (was it random?) picks a judge, who will ask the question. She picks judge number 8 — Perez Hilton, born Mario Armando Lavandeira, a well-known gay-rights activist, blogger and trouble-maker (Why is he a judge on this pageant?). Again, as in Britain’s Got Talent, we question whether this was planned or not. The young contest hostess exclaims, “Should we be worried?” Like she didn’t know what the question was going to be.
So here is it: Do you believe every State (in the U.S.) should legalise same-sex marriage?
Here is what Miss California, a self-professed Christian, responded: “I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman.”
And the media feeding-frenzy began. Needless to say, she did not win the Miss U.S.A. crown. She was the first-runner up.
But why? It’s not like statistically the majority of Americans do not agree with her. Thirty U.S. States have voted to keep the traditional defition of marriage. Carrie Prejean is not alone in her views. Perez Hilton is in the minority. But the media would have you thinking otherwise.
Carrie Prejean was put on the spot. No other contestant got a similar question. Of course she was not prepared for a question like that, but she should be. We all should be.
Here’s where I am going: What would I answer if someone asked me that? Would my answer be any different if it was asked on national television?
I don’t know, but here’s a start:
Even though it’s great we live in a democracy and we have freedom of choice, I don’t think Marriage is a right. Jean Vanier is famous for saying that all human beings have the right to be loved and to know that they are loved – but we don’t have a right to Marriage. I think that Marriage is much more than a loving-committed relationship between two adults. There are many good and loving relationships – they are free, they are faithful, many even fruitful. Are they bad? No. Are they evil? No. But are they marriage? I don’t think so… But what makes a marriage a Marriage…
And here is where I don’t know if I can continue with merely a short answer. This is getting too “theology-of-the-body”. And how can we explain all that in two paragraphs?
So we are stuck trying to define marriage to those who don’t see it as more than a loving, committed relationship between to consenting adults.
Here’s my attempt:
A Marriage is a relationship within which sex is guaranteed not to cause any problems, heartaches, disease, issues or any pain.
I’m curious to know what you think. Then I’ll post my explanation to the above.
Pedro
We sometimes forget that “the Church has always venerated Scriptures just as much as she venerates the body of the Lord” (Dei Verbum (herein DV) 21). I remember many years ago, having a discussion with a classmate about the most important part of the Mass. “It’s the teaching,” he said. “No,” I replied, “It’s Communion,” and so we continued our discussion, he with his “protestant” view (or so I thought), me, with my traditional Catholic one. But if we look at the Mass, it is divided into two equal parts: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Both are equal.
One of my favourite Scripture passages is from Luke 24: The road to Emmaus. We sometimes tend to focus on how the disciples, “recognised Jesus in the breaking of the bread” (24:35) but I love that Jesus “beginning with Moses and all the prophets, interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures” (24: 27). Jesus used Scriptures; He didn’t just quote Scripture, He interpreted Scripture.
And so, I’d like to offer the following tips to help you, not just read and pray with Scriptures, but to do so with your children:
Read them prayerfully: Fr. Graham Keep (you may know him from In Your Faith) suggests this prayer before reading Scripture: “Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts, which we are about to receive from your bounty, through Christ, our Lord.” Sound familiar? If Scripture is nourishment, then why not approach it as nourishment?
- Read them frequently: Do you include a short Scripture reading when you pray with your children? The Church offers several daily readings, in the Office of Readings, the Daily Office and the daily readings. Most of us have access to a Missal. Open it up and read the day’s Gospel with your children. Or simply read a Bible story with them. Do this every day.
- Read them again: Read the same story twice. Here’s a suggestion. Read it once and then ask your kids what one word stuck out for them. They don’t have to explain it, just one word. Or ask them which character in the story they would like to be. Then read it again. See if the word or the character has changed. There are many “lectio divina” style activities that you can do to help bring the readings to life and to help them make sense in your life and the life of your children.
Lastly, there are many resources. If you have a child who prefers comics or graphic novels, try the MANGA Bible. They now have several other publications: The Manga Messiah (the Gospels) and the Manga Metamorphosis (the book of Acts) are two of them. If your teen-age daughter is into magazines, get her the REVOLVE version of the New Testament (published by Thomas Nelson). They also have REFUEL (for Boys) and several others for working Women, for men and for younger children. Just note: These do not include the Catholic Deuterocanonical books, but the translation is generally the same.
Read the Bible. I am a great believer of reading it from beginning to end. But if you think that is too daunting, pick a book and read a chapter every day (a good place to start is the Gospel of Mark). Your children will see you spending time with Scripture and in time, they will learn to do the same.
Susan Boyle
Since currently there are over 40 million hits on You Tube, and Matthew wrote about her yesterday, I probably don’t need to introduce Susan Boyle, the underdog story of the day – the woman whom everyone judged and turned out to blow everyone away.
When I finally watched the clip, I did not have any particular reaction. I already knew the end of the story. I knew Susan could sing, but honestly, the way people spoke about it, I thought she’d be horrible-looking and completely ignorant-sounding, which she is not. In fact, my youngest son, looking at the video exclaimed, “She’s not fat.” And, it’s true. She’s not.
What was terribly obvious to me, however was how fixed this all was. I may not know much about the actual show, “Britain’s Got Talent” and how they make it – but I do know something about how TV is made. It is very obvious that the three judges, as well as many in the audience (if not everyone), knew Susan could sing. The whole show was presented that way. Had it been a surprise, it would have been shot differently. Just listen to the reactions of the two hosts backstage, throughout.
Had people really been surprised at her voice, they would’ve had taken a little longer reacting to it. Instead, as soon as Susan opens her mouth, the audience bursts into an uproar of cheers and applause. Immediately, the three judges produce the biggest smiles ever (and when have you seen Simon smiling?). But more importantly, the cameras capture them. Had it been unexpected, the director would not have known to go to them right away for the reactions. In fact, my initial thought was that those reactions were shot afterwards. I am convinced that the whole eye-rolling-exchanging glances-thing, before she sang, was, if not rehearsed, shot afterwards. I’m serious. Watch it again and look at the way it’s edited. Look at Piers Morgan’s face. Watch when Amanda Holden’s stands up to clap in the middle of the song. Listen to the music crescendo at the end when she’s given the “yes” to move on. That’s reality TV.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the show producers, looking to improve their ratings and to guarantee successful CD-sales afterwards (you watch, Susan, whether she wins or not will go on to record an album, produced maybe by Simon Cowell himself and sell millions – in fact, sales would be better if she doesn’t win, but comes in second), went out looking for a “frumpy-looking-every-woman” who could sing. That’s how these things work. (Remember Paul Potts’ performance in the same show last year? He’s gone on to record 2 albums.)
How is it that no one knew she could sing? Did she not audition for the show? Surely this performance in front of two or three hundred people was not the initial audition! I don’t buy it.
And the dream? Even the song she chose is too obvious. These are some of the words to I Dreamed a Dream, from Les Miz: “I had a dream my life would be, So different from this hell I’m living, So different now from what it seemed, Now life has killed the dream I dreamed.” Is this not part of the whole manipulation thing?
In fact, watching the Britain’s Got Talent clip made me react a little bit the same way I reacted when I first saw Les Miz. I felt manipulated. And don’t get me wrong – it’s a great show, with a great message. I love the music. But it’s designed to make people cry and to stand up in an ovation at the end. I refused to stand. I felt manipulated to respond a certain way. And it was the same all three times I watched the show.
But honestly… so what? Why would the show producers choose this scenario to boost their ratings? What is it about the underdog, slum-dog-millionaire, story that appeals to people? Or are they really trying to make a point of showing us how judgmental we are? Or are they trying to clean up the image that these shows have of being ruthless and demeaning: let’s give a frumpy woman a chance – and show the world how we are not really that judgmental (just imagine what it would have been like had Susan not been able to sing!)
And not to put Susan down – because whether real or not, it is an inspiring and positive story, and she can sing – but when I first heard her sing I thought the same thing I thought when I first heard Andrea Bocelli sing: can he sing? Yes. Is he good, yes? Is he better than a Pavarotti or a Domingo? Not really. Is it worth listening to? Yeah. Is it worth buying a CD? Maybe. Is it worth all the hype? No, it isn’t. Why then, all the hype? Because he’s blind. But his blindness doesn’t make him a better singer. The same with Susan: her ordinariness doesn’t make her a better singer than anyone else in that competition. But perhaps she will win in the end. Why? Because she’s the better singer, or because she’s the ugly duckling?
I wonder what the reactions would have been, had we heard her sing first before seeing her (and not coloured by the reactions of the judges and the audience, manipulated by the show’s producers). We would’ve heard a beautiful voice, imagined the face and body of the person to whom it belonged and then been surprised to see the actual owner of the voice? I don’t know.
Hermana Glenda
I had the same reaction when I first met Hermana Glenda. I am a bit ashamed to admit this, but I had been listening to a Hermana Glenda tape for about a year or two before I met her. If you don’t know who I’m talking about, she has an angelic voice. Have a listen. It is beautiful. I heard it and imagined a beautiful 18-year-old. I imagined the most beautiful young girl in the world. Who else could have that voice? In truth, Glenda is not 18 and she’s not the typical magazine-cover model. She’s short, stocky and in conversation, a bit loud (and lots of fun). But she has a beautiful singing voice. As far as Hollywood and Broadway go, despite her voice, (and despite Britain’s Got Talent’s new non-judgmental approach) she’d never get cast as the leading lady, only as the stepsister. And the singer who gets cast as the stepsister can’t have an angelic voice. So she wouldn’t get cast at all. That’s the sad reality.
The not-so-sad reality is that I know many people who sing beautifully, but are ordinary-looking. I also know many ordinary-looking people who are beautiful people. I also know many gorgeous people who should be modelling, who can’t sing and/or who are not beautiful people. But I know some gorgeous-looking people who can sing very well and some not-so-good-looking people who can’t sing – some of them are nice and some are not nice. Get my point?
It’s not about judging or not judging – I think most of us will catch ourselves when we judge – and we do judge all the time. For me, it’s about how we let popular culture shape our lives and our beliefs. If pop culture says it’s ok to laugh at someone, we do. If they say it’s not ok to laugh, then we become all self-righteous. Don’t get your truth from popular culture, because tomorrow, despite all the Susan Boyle-hype about not-judging a book by its cover, those same reality shows will continue being just as demeaning and making fun of people and their dreams. And they’ll still have 40 million hits on You Tube.
First published March 31, 2009
We know that Jesus himself interpreted Scripture (see Luke 24:27). Last time we looked at how the Church encourages us not to just read Scripture but also to interpret it. A document that outlines this is the Second Vatican Council document Dei Verbum (DV).
“The Church has always venerated Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord.” (DV 21 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 103). She gives to both equal weight as seen in the Liturgy of the Mass, divided into two equal parts: The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist, for “one does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God”( Matthew 4:4 ).
The Catechism makes very clear that one must approach Scripture making a distinction between the literal sense and the spiritual sense (CCC 115). It subdivides the spiritual sense into the following categories: allegorical (what is their significance in Christ), moral (how do the events lead us to act) and analogical (what is the eternal significance) (CCC 117). In order to interpret scripture in a complete manner, one must look at all of these aspects.
St. Jerome is famous for saying, “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” This makes perfect sense. If we believe that Christianity is not simply a philosophy or way of life, but a loving relationship, and that the key question in Scriptures is not “what” but “Who,” then we must learn as much as we can about our “Beloved” and one way is through Scriptures. We must do so, however, not so much to learn “about” Him, but to “know” Him. And so, we come to the question at the heart of this debate: How do we interpret scripture, so as to know Christ? Many suggestions have been made over the centuries, let me suggest three:
- Scripture must be read and studied: “The Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology” (DV 24). Careful reading of Scriptures demands study and Dei Verbum paragraph 25 makes the following suggestions:
- The use of instructions suitable for the purpose (of study) and other aids.
- Verbal Instruction provided by priests and Bishops, who have been instructed to teach.
- The use of Bibles with suitable footnotes.
- Scripture must be read as a “whole” (CCC 112): “Since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out” (DV 12). This means that no one passage of Scripture can be taken out of context. We must read a verse of Mark, for example, with the whole of the message of Mark in mind. In fact, we must read that same verse with the whole Bible in mind. We are so accustomed in Catholic tradition to receive Scriptures in such a fragmented way (mostly with the Sunday readings), that we forget that these verses or stories are not mere sound-bites, but part of a greater message. My own experience tells me that the more I read the Old Testament, the more I understand the New Testament and the more alive it comes.
- Scripture must be read prayerfully: “In His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will (see Eph. 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph. 2:18; 2 Peter 1:4)” (DV 2). If Sacred Scripture is the word of God, who in His goodness chooses to reveal Himself to us and to show us His will – in essence, it is the story of God’s love for us, then we must approach them prayerfully, for every encounter with Scripture is an encounter with God. Using Scripture in prayer, praying the Scriptures or merely reading them prayerfully is of utmost importance.
“For the word of God is living and active” writes the author of the Letter to the Hebrews (Hebrews 4:12 ). Sacred Scripture is not just a story of what happened long ago. It is not a compilation of facts and events the way we understand history in its strictest sense. The Bible is a collection of books that point to who God is and where we fit in the world. It is the story of God’s love for us, of God’s promise, the story of our salvation. It is a collection of every possible form of human writing: poetry, allegory, metaphor, history, lists, letters, love stories, laws, parables, stories, rituals, riddles, jokes, hymn-prayers, notes and drama, to describe our relationship to God and God’s relationship to us. As books of the Bible, the four Gospels do not just show us what happened 2000 years ago, but rather, who happened and why, and how He loves us.
St .Paul writes in the letter to the Romans, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith” (Romans 1:16 ). The Gospels are to be read in order to find out what God has to say about our life today and how God acts in our life today. Can they be read literally? Did Jesus really do all those miracles? Were those the exact words that were spoken in those exact places? No one really knows. Does that take away from the Truth of the message that “God so loved the world that He gave his only son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but may have eternal life?”(John 3:16 ) In that sense all four Gospels agree (all New Testament books agree) with the words of Peter that the Good News is:
… how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day… He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one ordained by God as judge of the living and the dead… All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name (Acts 10:38-43 ).
St. Paul summarises this core message of the Gospel more succinctly: “That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4 ); a message of belief that has been enshrined in our Creed. That is the basic truth of the Gospels and in that truth is a place where we can meet Christ.
deacon pedro 