Belts and Buttons

Belts and Buttons

OK.  I have always had a knack for making astute observations that generally cause those around me to share in my amusement.  Maybe not a knack, but it does sometimes happen.  What I actually have a knack for is forgetting the observation later and generally failing to recapture the whimsy when retelling the observation to the second group.  Congratulations.  You are in the second group so I will do my best to surpass your expectations. 

                I work for a large company with many locations throughout the country.  On a daily basis I would say I easily see more than 100 people.  My company caters to every type of person.  I have ample opportunity to observe people at their highs and lows.  I see people in pajamas, suits, and everywhere in between.  Sure, there are websites devoted to people whose attire is dirty, ironic, oxymoronic, and still more that show wardrobe malfunctions and a complete lack of clothing all together.

                Generally, I would say that when you laugh at someone for what they are wearing, or what they are attempting to wear, that person probably doesn’t care.  They don’t care that their shirt is too dirty.  They don’t care that their belly hangs over their pants.  They don’t care that corduroy pants are better at making weird noises when you walk than at making someone look fashionable.  Some people care about not caring so much that they make sure you realize how little they care about it (and then think they are cool because you noticed).  I actually get all that.  I have had the pleasure of being every one of these people at one time or another, except corduroy guy … I could never pull that off.

                Anyway, here is what I don’t get.  People who obviously care about the way they look and the image they are projecting yet seem to do everything they can to make it difficult.  I have three examples.  First, a young woman came into the office the other day and was sitting with a coworker.  When she got up to leave, I noticed she was wearing a skirt.  She stood and talked with my coworker for about 2 minutes.  She kept tugging at her skirt the entire time.  Yes, the skirt was short.  It was very short.  No amount of tugging was going to make it even close to an appropriate length.  She did not possess the arm strength to stretch this fabric into a modest size.  But she kept on tugging.  It was apparent, both to me and my coworker that she was embarrassed about just how little her skirt covered.

                Similarly, today a woman came in wearing a very low cut top.  She had a long sleeve shirt on top of that which was unbuttoned.  The entire time she was there, she had one arm or the other held in such a way to block her readily visible cleavage.  After she left, I asked a female coworker if she thought the girl was trying to cover up and she said “definitely.”  It’s not like she just couldn’t find clothes to fit.  She had a perfectly good shirt available to cover up had she simply used the buttons the manufacturer provided.  Yes I know that clothes makers are making it tougher for a woman to dress modestly but that is only half the battle.

                Finally, a man came in wearing gym shorts.  Think 1995 Michigan basketball.  These were long shorts.  They were made even longer by the fact that the waist band was completely below his butt.  He also kept tugging them up.  He would tug and they would sag.  He would tug again and they would sag again. Sag and tug. Sag and tug. Sag and tug. Sag and tug. Sag and tug. He was like the little engine that could.  Then when he left he made sure to get them nice and saggy again.

                All three of these people genuinely cared about the message they were sending with their clothes.  The problem is that they are all trying to send 2 contradictory messages.  The first says “this is what I want you to see.”  The second says “this is what you ought to see.”  But they can’t win the argument in their own mind between the modest and appropriate choice versus the attention seeking exhibitionist choice.  Society tells them to flaunt it, and they try even though it bothers them deep down.  Maybe we should spend a little more time praising the modest.  With that, I want to congratulate them on giving modesty a chance.  They are trying, whether they know it or not.  In the future I know saggy pants will pull up his shorts and give the extra material to short skirt.  Short skirt will explain to low cut and saggy pants how to use buttons and then they will all be more comfortable in their own skin.

Is the Pope changing the rules?

     In the last few days, the media has jumped on a new comment from Pope Francis.  As usual, the coverage seems to promote that Catholicism is becoming more modern and inclusive.  While I agree that the pope has been less polarizing than previous pontiffs, nothing he has actually said reflects an upheaval of church teaching.  At the very least, he is simply trying not to push non-Catholics further away.  At the most, he is making a slight modification to ritual.  But it seems to me that he is clarifying church teaching with compassion and humility without really changing what it teaches at all.
     The most recent coverage stems from the pope issuing a decree that women who have procured an abortion may be forgiven if they show true contrition.  Let's take a look at what people assume this means.  First, some people think that the church may change its stance on abortion.  The Catechism would say otherwise:
                Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
     You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.⁷⁵God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.
It's pretty clear that the church won't condone an abortion. Notice the word "unchangeable."  When an ecumenical council is held and the pope makes a declaration regarding faith or morals in union with the other bishops, that decision is unchangeable.  Abortion will always be a sin.  That can't change.  The pope "could" allow for the ordination of women.  He probably won't any time soon, but it will serve as an example for the types of church teaching that may change.
      The second thing I have heard passed around the digital world is that the church has never forgiven women who have sought forgiveness with a contrite heart.  Lets again look at the Catechism:
               Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”⁷⁷ “by the very commission of the offense,”⁷⁸ and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.⁷⁹ The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
This one, I will concede is less clear.  Some would have you believe that every woman who ever had an abortion was automatically excommunicated and doomed to hell despite true sorrow.  First lets deal with what excommunication entails:
               Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them.⁶⁸ In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.
Excommunication means a Catholic cannot receive the sacraments. It is not a decree of damnation.  Second, the penalty can be lifted.  The pope has always granted the ability to forgive these types of sins to "certain" bishops and priests.  This year he is extending that ability to "all" priests.  He has not introduced a radical change in dogma.  He has simply opened the arms of the Catholic church a little wider.
               Finally, some have simply undermined the church's teaching on the Sacrament of Reconciliation itself.  I will more than likely cover the basis for confession in a future post so I will simply address a specific comment I read.  To paraphrase, the writer said: "Glad to know the pope is willing to forgive people.  I'm pretty sure that's why Jesus died on the cross.  Why do I need the pope's permission?  Two reasons.  First, Christ gave his apostles the ability to bind and loose. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (MT 16:19)  The sins of those your forgive are forgiven. The sins of those you retain are retained." (JN :20:23)  Second, the Bible is filled with stories of Jesus forgiving people of sins.  The most famous is when Jesus said the one without sin could throw the first stone.  He clearly offers her forgiveness.  This power to forgive is what he passed on to his apostles.  His death on the cross opens up the gates of heaven to those who repent of their sin and put their faith in him.  But repentance is not a statement of sorrow.  It is more than that.  It is a turning from a sinful lifestyle.  It is a cessation of sin.  Jesus himself makes this clear.  Many people seem to forget the last thing he says to her: "Go and sin no more." (JN 8:11)