I'm So Glad

This blog is dedicated to discerning why I am so glad. This may be of interest to others besides myself . . . or not. It did occur to me that at some future time I will become sad. Should this happen I resolve to close down this site immediately.

4.13.2005

Defining Character II

What is character as refers to our politician? LAGuy has a very modern idea that how the politician lives his life is separate from his political ideas and plans. This is the compartmentalization idea, that was popular during the Clinton scandal. (forgive me LAGuy if I mischaracterize you.) Whereas, I believe that ideas have consequences and the corollary that actions spring from ideas. Therefore it would be very hard for a person to not want to enact his/her perfect world.

The ideal world of Hillary Clinton is intimately linked with her character. (Because I disagree with it does not mean I think she is wholely a-(or im-)moral.) LAGuy says that he will vote for ("hire") the person who most represents his programs etc and conversely will not vote for the person who represents programs he hates. "the more "character" he has, the more reason I have to vote against him. That's how little character matters. " But in saying this he narrowly defines character to mean only the integrity of the politicians stated political ideas with his intent to enact them. He misses what is the larger point, which is that the political ideas and ultimately actions are directly related to who this person is. Now LAGuy I think will argue that this is a distinction without a practical difference. The who of the politician is not really what he hires. A machine could as easily do his theoretical politician's job.

Of course there are two big practical objections to this theory. One is that we don't know ahead of time all the issues that will come before a politician. We only know "how they would generally vote" by knowing their character which is " the inherent complex of attributes that determine a persons moral and ethical actions and reactions." Thus we need to know their character to know how to judge their possible actions in the unknown.

Two, our vision and the politican's vision compare ultimately as our characters do. Our loftiest ideals cannot rise very high if we do not have actions which have supported them in the past. This is something which he will probably strongly disagree with and so I will try to clarify as much as possible ahead of time. My own knowledge of this comes from practical experience. Whenever, I have endeavored to actualize (George Orwell cringes as I add -ize to nouns to verbify them) an ideal, I realize how hard it is. And as I persist or retreat, my own courage to achieve this end defines my belief in its potential for success by anyone. In other words, if I do not really have the courage and persistence to see an ideal brought closer to a reality, I do not really believe that ideal. I believe something less than that ideal. Thus my own personal belief in keeping promises, for example, does actually determine my faith in anyone's ability to keep promises. The more I struggle and persist in my goal of keeping promises, (the more reliable or trustworthy I am) the more I will believe in the ideal of trust and reliability. Obviously I will not always succeed, still my habits do affect my politics. If I don't trust people (or myself) then I might be more inclined to allow artificial barriers (laws) to exist that might not be necessary if people could be trusted.

I hope this clarification of what character means, and how in practice it does not work as LAGuy theorizes it, makes his idea of compartmentalization of character unrealistic.

Defining Character

One of the reasons I wanted to bring this debate to my blog is that LAGuy seemed to be wanting to end the debate and I don't think it has really begun. First of all, I think we are talking past each other to some extent because of a disagreement about what character means. While both of us have some idea that it means integrity with one's ideas and actions. LAGuy seems to limit character to mean just this minimal honesty. So, with some help I would like to define character more clearly.

OneLook.com has a quick definition of character: " the inherent complex of attributes that determine a persons moral and ethical actions and reactions."

The etymology from dictionary.com: "[Middle English carecter, distinctive mark, imprint on the soul, from Old French caractere, from Latin charactr, from Greek kharaktr, from kharassein, to inscribe, from kharax, kharak-, pointed stick.]"

And well-known quotes:

Sow an act...reap a habit; Sow a habit...reap a character; Sow a character...reap a destiny.--George D. Boardman

Such as are your habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of your mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts.--Marcus Aurelius

Thoughts lead on to purposes; purposes go forth in action; actions form habits; habits decide character; and character fixes our destiny.--Tryon Edwards

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle

Truthfulness is the main element of character. --Brian Tracy

Put more trust in nobility of character than in an oath. --Solon

Reputation is what the world thinks a man is; character is what he really is. --Anonymous

Everyone tries to define this thing called Character. It's not hard. Character is doing what's
right whne nobody's looking. --Anonymous

You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for
him. -- James D. Miles

Character is what you are in the dark. --Dwight Moody

Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing. --Abraham Lincoln

How can we expect a harvest of thought who have not had a seedtime of character? --Thoreau

There never was a good knife made of bad steel. --Benjamin Franklin

The best index to a person's character is (a) how he treats people who can't do him any good, and (b) how he treats people who can't fight back. --Abigail Van Buren

"Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character." — Albert Einstein

"Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike." — Theodore Roosevelt

“Character is that which reveals moral purpose, exposing the class of things a man chooses and avoids.” — Aristotle



Of course the rule on this blog concerning quotes is: Always End with Chesterton.

When some English moralists write about the importance of having character, they appear to mean only the importance of having a dull character.

When a politician is in opposition he is an expert on the means to some end; and when he is in office he is an expert on the obstacles to it.

It is terrible to contemplete how few politicians are hanged.

A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.

If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.

The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog."

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong."

"Idolatry is committed, not merely by setting up false gods, but also by setting up false devils; by making men afraid of war or alcohol, or economic law, when they should be afraid of spiritual corruption and cowardice."

There is only one thing that it requires real courage to say, and that is a truism.

There is no such thing as fighting on the winning side: one fights to find out which is the winning side.

The Character Debate

LAGUY begins: "If I hire someone to paint my house, I'd be concerned about his character. Will he try to overcharge me, might he try to steal something? But when I "hire" politicians, character is pretty low on the list. I just want them to support programs I support, or do nothing. Character hardly enters enter into it. . . . [discussion about Hillary, Kerry, Swift boats] . . . In any case, I hope we don't see national office as a reward for being a good person (that should be its own reward), but as a job we're trying to fill with the person who'll do the best job."

My first response: "You are kidding, right? Worried about a painter who comes to paint your apartment and not worried about the character of someone who has control of many millions of dollars, who could sell every vote, who could run on one message and do the opposite (many repubs and dems have). Not to mention making decisions that effect EVERYTHING in your life. Your very freedom, your every action and interaction little and big. Too many things to list. (I will list some if you continue in this silliness). But no, you can choose to worry about your painter and whether his bad character will lead to a decorating disaster. Insert head in sand.Of course you think I care about character because I am a social conservative. I think that anyone: leftie, rightie, libertarian, or other should care very much about character."

LAGUY ripostes: "In response to Skip James comments (check out below), I'm quite serious about character not counting much. A national political figure makes huge decisions that effect hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars. That's what counts to me, not whether he sleeps around or drives like a maniac. Even if he hires family or takes a bribe, it's a small matter compared to someone of high character who supports bad policies. And don't forget what he does on his job is public knowledge, so whenever his "bad character" affects his judgment in a bad way, we can know about it and do something.That's why it's more important to know the character of a guy you hire to paint your house. A closer comparison, actually, would be there are two men, A and B. A is of the highest character and is an accountant who refuses to ever paint anything, B is a personal mystery but a great housepainter. Who would you rather hire paint your house? What matters foremost, so much that character should rarely enter into it, is what a politician will do, not how he acts in private moments."

My 2nd response: "Character counts. First, Rush Limbaugh is not my idea of character counts. He is arrogant and has flashes of strong work but day to day he does not approach great thinking. I know it is hard to maintain the kind of audience he has, but my judgement of talkers is based on whether they are thinkers. He does not have broad interests. He is moderately intellectually curious. There are much better right and left on talk radio.

Second and way more to the point, the guy who takes a bribe, is the guy who will screw you the voter. That guy will screw you publicly and somehow that makes it better for you. Once he has betrayed you, (publicly by not voting the way he said he would or privately by taking a bribe thereby selling your vote), it is too late. It is like having your house painted badly. You might be able to contact the BBB or complain but your house is still messed up and you still have to get another painter. Only now you don't trust painters so much.

Character counts in carpet installers. My carpet was installed by two guys who were high on pot at the time. And now my carpet is not laid properly. It is wearing out quicker in spots where it was not stretched out. And I can get someone else to relay my carpet at my expense or I can complain about these potheads. But to who? (Am I the victim of a victimless crime?)

So LAGuy's theoretical idea is: but what if these pot head carpet layers were geniuses at carpet laying? What if they did a fantastic job? What if the politician who lies and cheats in every other aspect of his life, really took care of his constituents? Its an interesting theory. It happens to be ridiculous in practice.

So, the next question is what if there are two guys, one who will paint your house but is a pot head and one who won't paint houses but is a good guy. I wonder why these are my only choices. Is this a false dichotomy?

What about the FACT that NOONE is not a hypocrite? All the character guys have flaws. All you gotta do is look closely and there is something in their life that conflicts with what they espouse. This is why character counts so much. Anyone can say what they think you want to hear. Only those who truly believe that their principles matter will stay the course and actually try to put those principles into practice. Of course noone is perfect but some people are trying to live by their principles and others are not. Those who are will fail, less often and enact what they set out to more often."

More Character by LAGuy:"Skip James replied to my "Character" post. Scroll down to see his comments. He feels, by the way, that character counts a lot. (Sorry Skip, last time I quoted you at length in the body of the post, but don't have time to now.)Actually, I agree with most of what Skip says. I just think he misses the point. Let's say you're a liberal in 1996, and think Clinton has less character than Dole. You may even think Clinton has sold out his party a few times. You will still vote for Clinton since he's far more likely to give you what you want than Dole.Which candidate had the most character in 2004? Was it Dennis Kucinich? Ralph Nader? Michael Badnarik? Some guy I never heard of? I don't know--it's never easy to tell. But who cares. If a guy says he'll fight for programs I hate, and fight against programs I like, then the more "character" he has, the more reason I have to vote against him. That's how little character matters. "

An Anonymous poster comes to my aid:"I think your analysis of character depends upon the shared value set you're talking about.Your point is a good one, that the more character a Democrat has, the likelier that I, a Republican, will vote against her--assuming I am worried about, say, raising taxes or gun control.But if I value sufficiently a number of other things that I think she values, such as our constitutional structure or any number of other things (let's say we both believe the senate filibuster should be maintained, even though I believe more than she does that it ought not to rise to the level of a minority veto), then it's exactly character that would cause me to vote for her.I will believe that she will do what's right as against her interest--a rough definition of character--while "my guy" who says the right things about issues I care about, but has no character, will abandon me on all counts (the specific Republican issue, e.g., guns, and the "shared value" issues) as soon as it benefits him to do so.This is the same thing Skip said, in a different way. Put another way, maybe you missed the point, not Skip."

LAGuy stays in the game: "I don't mean to argue this into the ground, but I think this still shows how little character matters.First, in the real world, it's almost impossible to gauge a candidate's character. For practical purposes, "character" is generally a sham issue, as you can see by the fact that most partisans only seem to attack the character of the other party. So many who claim it's important are merely using it as a pretext to vote for their side. (I'm not saying they're hypocritical, by the way--they honestly believe that people who make the arguments they believe in are of higher character than those who support programs that no decent person would honestly be associated with.)Second, even if you can separate out character, you're still going for the guy who supports your views most--that is simply 99% of what you're voting for.Third, most "character" deficits actually have nothing to do with politics, and aren't about selling you out, but are more about being a jerk in private life. These are just not things I believe in worrying about when I vote--as I said earlier, I don't believe in voting a guy in as a reward for being honorable (virtue is its own reward), but for being someone who'll properly represent me.Then, finally, there's the case where you have two candidates with the exact same views and you can actually tell which one has better "character." Even in this imaginary situation, you'd still often vote against character since 1) no candidate perfectly lines up with you so you'd want her to make compromises anyway and 2) someone who has so much character that she won't bend may not get anything passed in certain situations, and therefore you'll get nothing rather than the half a loaf a wheeler and dealer would get you."

Anonymous quips: "You're a lawyer, aren't you?"

Character Counts

I have been having an exchange of ideas with my friend LAGuy at his Pajamaguy Blog on the idea of character. I will bring this discussion over to this blog, so that I can complete my thoughts on it.

Theology of Prayer

On my recent reading list is a small book by Father John Hardon called Theology of Prayer. The book is small but is packed with helpful thoughts on the meaning of prayer and then how to pray. It appears to be a transcription of conferences on prayer as the format is very conversational. I find Father Hardon's insights very helpful in my own prayer. Recommended.

Likely you will find this as a used book as it was published in 1979. (the photos of nature scenes at each chapter opening have a certain 1970's religion style.)

4.04.2005

Fox and Friends

It has been amazing to watch the Papal reflections of many faithful Catholics. Some of them are even my friends. Christopher West (who I do not know) was explaining the Theology of the Body to one stunned and nodding correspondent. Chris was asked about why people don't want to listen to the teachings of the Church. He responded that some people say there is no truth. "And in response I ask them, Is that true? They say that we cannot know what is and isn't true. And I ask them, How do you know that? Then they say well we cannot be sure what we know and don't know. And I ask them, Are you sure?" I loved it.

Steve Ray, Ed Peters, Jeff Cavins, and Jimmy Akins, all proclaimed the truth of Catholic teaching. The opportunity to publicly express how John Paul 2 has shaped us and our church has been greatly used and I am proud of the way many of our lay leaders have responded.

Also very interesting has been watching the various correspondents react to the Pope's challenge to their own faith. One woman stated clearly that she was a Cafeteria Catholic. You could hear in her voice that as she spoke it, she was uncomfortable with her own lack of integrity. She will now go to her family, her friends and her children and explain to them that she chooses to go only half way. Can she live with her own dysfunction? I believe a door was opened. I pray that her words prick her conscience and that she is led to a deeper relationship with God and a personal integrity. This is just one example. Several others openly expressed their Catholic identity in a very positive way.

How often does television really explore individual people's faith experiences? Not very! This has been yet another gift from JP2. Thanks.

4.03.2005

A Pope Like No Other

A Pope like no other
By Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein

Few Jews or Catholics appreciate how far one man went in redressing the wrongs of centuries. Looking into the early days of the late Pope, we find the roots of his friendship with the Jewish people.
Pope John Paul spoiled one of my favorite anecdotes. This may sound mean-spirited, but I can think of no greater tribute to the memory of a remarkable man.
Rabbi Yonoson Eybeschutz, one of the greatest Jewish scholars of the Eighteenth Century, stood as a young boy in the area in front of his house, peering over the fence at the pedestrian traffic. A local non-Jewish boor, half-drunk, couldn't resist the opportunity to take a pot shot at a Jew, even if he was a quarter his size.
"Hey, Jew!" he called to the boy. "What's the difference between a Jew and a pig?"
Little Yonoson did not have to think long to respond. "The fence, of course!"
This story speaks volumes of the relationship between Jews and non-Jews of that time in general, and the adversarial relationship between Jews and the Catholic Church — from whence flowed so much of the anti-Jewish venom — in particular.
Two Popes blunted the impact of that story, changing it from a definition of the present to a vivid description of the past. Both were affected, perhaps even radicalized in their relationship with the Jewish people, by the Holocaust.
Archbishop Angelo Roncalli helped save thousands of Jews as a Papal Nuncio, sometimes defying the policies of his superiors. As Pope John XXIII, he would preside over Nostra Aetate, which overturned centuries of Catholic attitudes towards Jews. Until then, Jewish-Catholic relations were a succession of footnotes to early Church leaders like Origen ("the blood of Jesus falls on Jews, not only then, but on all generations until the end of the world") and St. Cyprian ( "the Bible itself says the Jews are an accursed people .... the devil is the Father of the Jews.") Nostra Aetate made it Church teaching that the entire Jewish people of antiquity was not complicit in the crucifixion, and that Jews of subsequent generations should certainly not be saddled with any form of collective guilt.
What John XXIII did in the realm of theoretical teaching, John Paul translated into practical and unmistakable preaching by example. He did this with a flair for the dramatic, for the big moment whose eloquence did not fade when the crowds went home.
He was not only the first to visit a synagogue, but his embrace of Rabbi Toaf told of a willingness to reverse the antagonisms of two millennia. What he spoke went further yet, when he called Jews "our elder brothers of the Ancient Covenant never broken by G-d and never to be broken."
Many Jews, rightfully so, were skeptical of any warming up to the Jews that did not include an acceptance of the Jewish right to the Land of Israel. They assumed that the Church would be unwilling to part with its boilerplate reaction of so many centuries that saw the Jew wander in exile from place to place, banished from his Land for having rejected Jesus. The Pope did not mince words. He pointed to the debt that Catholics owed to Jews, and then drew his fateful conclusion. "The act of establishing diplomatic relations with Israel is simply an international affirmation of this relationship."
This attitude, as well, he turned into a succession of dramatic moments. He visited Israel. He made the pilgrimage to Yad Vashem. He said what Jews had bet no favorite son of the Church would ever say that the Church — meaning not only Christians, but Christianity itself — had to assume much of the blame for centuries of anti-Semitism, and for the Holocaust. As he put it, "the fact that anti-Semitism has found a place in Christian thought and teaching requires an act of teshuva", repentance.
He was certainly aware that teshuva connotes an active making of amends, not just the feeling of regret. How else to explain the prayer he composed asking G-d for forgiveness for Church crimes against the Jews, and the moving moment when he placed that prayer as a kvitel(petitioner prayer note) into the Western Wall in Jerusalem?
G-d of our fathers, You chose Abraham and his descendants to bring Your name to the nations: we are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of Yours to suffer and asking Your forgiveness; we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.
He grew up in a town with 8000 Catholics and 2000 Jews; his best friend throughout his life was Jewish. He understood Jews — and the horrors inflicted upon them — as none among his successors will.
A Jewish perspective on the career of John Paul will look beyond the center-stage moments and find the small episode that says it all. Yaffa Eliach (Hasidic Tales of the Holocaust, pgs. 142-147) found it for us decades ago. (Click HERE to purchase this truly incredible book. Sales help fund JWR.)
A Jewish couple in Cracow anticipated the worst, and entrusted their small son to a Gentile couple in the town of Dombrowa, who accepted the boy at no small risk to their own lives. The parents left directives to see to it that their son be raised Jewish and reunited with relatives in North America if they should not return.
They didn't, but the couple (who did not have children of their own) grew attached to the little boy. Over time, they decided to adopt him as their own, and asked the new parish priest to baptize him. The priest questioned the child's provenance. What had the parents said? The couple told him of their wish to have the boy sent to relatives across the Atlantic. The priest refused to baptize the child. In time, his relatives were located, and he was sent to them, and grew up to become an observant Jew.
The priest would later become Pope John Paul. When one of the most prominent pre-Holocaust Chassidic sages, the Bluzhover Rebbe, heard the story, he remarked, "Perhaps it was the merit of saving a single Jewish soul that brought about his election as Pope. It is a story that must be told."
As it turns out, it was an unfinished story. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate to see shades of the Talmudic maxim at work — "one mitzvah [religious act of compassion] drags the next in its wake." Karol Jozef Wojtyla's decision that day showed his acceptance of and regard for both Jews and Judaism. It led not only to his becoming the Pope, but to an unparalleled role in taking the Church to a different place in its relationship with the Jewish people. If both Catholics and Jews will study his teaching, if the story of the young Rav Yonoson Ebyeschutz becomes a relic rather than a reality, we will have created a memorial to him of that he would be proud.
Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein is the Sydney M Irmas Chair in Jewish Law and Ethics at Loyola Law School. He also coordinates intergroup affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and in that capacity has much more to say about the current state of affairs between Jews and many other faiths. Those curious enough to want to find out are invited to join him for Passover at the Hilton Torrey Pines in La Jolla, CA

I race sled dogs.

At your workplace do you have motivational posters instead of actual art? Now that alone should be enough to make you snarl. Then every once in awhile you actually look at the posters and see how ridiculous they are.

There is one that I see regularly. The company that prints it is called Baudville. "Putting applause on paper," is their motto. The slogan on this particular poster is: "Extraordinary! We are surrounded by extraordinary people!" Now this would probably be okay. Then the body of the poster has 36 cartoon people, each with a different interest or extraordinary activity. I race sled dogs. etc. Again what's the problem. There are two quotes that bug me: I'm an amateur astrologer and I write horoscopes.

Two people out of 36 who do astrology and not one of these extraordinary people pray? There is no allowance for religious expression in this diversity world. I want to be tolerant of our differences. Why doesn't diversity include me?

4.02.2005


Good and faithful servant. Posted by Hello

4.01.2005

Papal Reflections

On October 16, 1978, I was in the second month of my senior year of high school. Jimmy Carter was President. We were in the Cold War. Today, my eldest son is in the final months of his last year of high school. There have been four subsequent presidents. The Communist threat has changed to the terrorist threat. Most importantly and to the point, my spiritual life has gone through quite a roller coaster ride during this time, as well. Pope John Paul II has been the only Pope our children have ever known. For them his influence could hardly be measured. However, I am here reflecting on what JP2 has done for me.

Of course, I was in high school when Pope John Paul I was elected and then shortly afterward died. As with most men, I took awhile to mature. I remember joking (certainly not with originality) that the next Pope would be Pope George-Ringo. It was definitely a big surprise and therefore got everyone’s attention when a Polish Cardinal was elected. Because Detroit has a big Polish community, there was lots of celebrating locally. In 1987, he even visited Hamtramck. I was puzzled when at his first address, he said, “Be not afraid”. Who was afraid? I barely thought of the statement in theological terms.

The first time he really impressed me spiritually was early in his pontificate. Jimmy Carter did an interview with Playboy magazine. In the interview, he said he lusted after women. It made all the papers. Without mentioning Carter by name, the Pope publicly quoted the Scripture in which Jesus says that if you only look lustfully upon another woman you commit adultery in your heart. Further, he said if you look lustfully upon your own wife, you commit adultery in your heart. Of course, the world at large sorely misunderstood the whole situation, (probably Carter’s meaning, and definitely the Pope’s.) Many thought the Pope was saying it is wrong to desire your wife. Now some of this is foggy, but I remember distinctly being surprised that this Pope was engaging the culture and this was different.

I cannot summarize twenty-six years of the Pope’s accomplishments or my spiritual pratfalls in short space. My spiritual growth has been profoundly affected by John Paul 2. I have read all of his encyclicals at least cursorily. I remember particularly being impressed by his interview/book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope as another important attempt to engage the wider culture. He has taken people, even people who strongly disagree, seriously. The 1993 Catechism was a major work, which brought the teachings to the world and to many Catholics in a straightforward way. Though he did not write it, he nurtured it and brought it to fruition.

Still it took until 1995 for me to accept my full Catholic identity and to understand that my life must be dedicated to Christ in His Church. I have been a regular Sunday Mass attending Catholic all of my life. When I was in Catholic school for three years, my faith deepened in mysterious ways that helped me through my own many faults over the years. In 1994 on my thirty-third birthday, I made a blasphemous joke, that I was unsatisfied with my progress to date since I had accomplished so little compared to Jesus. Though I quickly repented of the blasphemy, the thought of how little I had accomplished spiritually was brought to my attention in a new way. What kind of relationship did I have with God? Could I afford to take him so lightly?

Many things combined that year to bring me to a decision point with God. First, my son, Jim, challenged me in my faith. He was precociously asking many questions that I sheepishly was completely inadequately prepared to answer. You cannot give what you do not have. Jack Kevorkian was roaming the state snuffing out lives at an astonishing rate. As a new homeschooling parent, I took seriously my role as a teacher and actively began reading prodigiously. All around me were people who were being awakened, just as I was to our faiths. Many of us felt energized by this active, brilliant, engaging Pope. Some were moved specifically by his writings, which were frequent, and accessible, others by the way he related to people. Lastly, I sinned grievously. I did so knowing I was wrong but also rationalizing that many Catholics and even clergy approved of my actions.

God have mercy on me. God had mercy on me. I was brought to my knees. I knew that I had offended my God and I asked for his mercy. I received that grace. How, in the midst of a renewal of my faith and the beginning of my adult education in it, did I go so far off course? I know now that God brought me to the point where I had to decide if I really believed in Him, really trusted Him. If I took him at His Word, I must be obedient to him. This was the most cleansing moment of my life so far. Conversion is miraculous. I was able to unload many burdens, chronic sins that I had struggled with for all my life up to that point.

After conversion is conversation. Conversation is still turning, turning ever toward the face of God in interaction with Him. Prayer. Still I needed much more education. I come from the poorly catechized generation of Kumbaya Catholics. The Pope was very helpful here. Now I read encyclicals, saint biographies, and everything I could get my hands on. The Pope had set up (just for me) a revolution in Catholic publishing. There was (and is) quite a bit to access in spiritual reading today. John Paul 2 rightly receives much credit for this revival.

Several years ago I read the George Weigel biography of the Pope and was bowled over by his life. Now as I watch his final sufferings as this once athletic man is crippled and this smiling Pope’s face becomes a mask, I know that there is a deep integrity about his person and all of his teaching. He takes God seriously. He has taken us seriously. Yes, he preaches the faith but importantly he lives it. God bless you John Paul II. Thank you.

Pictures of Nicaragua

I finally learned how to upload pictures to my blog. It turns out it is really easy. These are the pictures I wanted to share from my trip to Nicaragua. The trip is journaled in the mid-February posts on my blog. Enjoy these pictures, I enjoyed this trip.


Jorge, Jessie and Nancy take a swing. Posted by Hello


Edith sings. The bed and breakfast at the bio-preserve. Posted by Hello


Processing the image of Guadalupe through Esteli. (Charlie and Roger.) Posted by Hello


Our hotel lobby in Managua. Posted by Hello