religio4
Wed 04/11/07
was that a lot of catholics, they were in the working class.
for wadel's grandma , show didn't care who was running, she'd always vote democrat.
a switch starts to occur for two reasons
(1) wealth -- catholics start to earn a lot more money - money can make you forget cst pretty quickly
(2) abortion - republicans seemed to be saying in their statements taat they were prolife.
catholic bishops jump into this and focus so much on abortion that it is the beginning of what people call single issue politics.
abortion becomes the litmus test -- the defining social issue.
us bishops document "faithful citizenship"
in this document -- saying we're not trying to endurse any one party - not going to tell anybody to be replublican or democrat.
what they do say is that we want to inform people's consience on what is cst not just on abortion but on other issues.
despite thht, while it tells people you gotta vote you concience, still in a lot of statements from bishops, its still focused on abortion so much taht bush seemed to be the only choice.
republicans can talk a lot about being prolife, but were cutting a lot of programs thht were prolife - social programs for the poor. -- that means, as happened under reagon, abortion increases.
during this time, in 1983 (leading up to the '84 election), the archbishop of chicago, cardinal bernardin -- gave a famous public lecturee-- strongly prolife -- but what he was saying is taht if we single out abortin as the only social issue, then catholics can think that as long as i'm prolife (against abortion), then i can forget any other issue and still call myself a good catholic -- bernardin said "no you can't!"
if you're really prolife, then you gotta show respect for life not just at the beginning but throughout life.
so in taht lecture at fordam, he introduced "consistent ethic of life" ..
if you're prolife, be prolife on abortion, but don't stop there.
be prolife in terms of other issues such as health care, ways to help the poor, not supporting capital punnishment.
be prolife when it comes to euthanasia
image of a seamless garment. - you can't just pull one thread of abortion out -- all of these issues hold together.
you would think taht that would be widely received, but right away he gets cirtized by a lot of other bishops in the US who claim that by talking about a consistant ethic of life, he's "steering attention away from abortion " -- HE NEVER SAID THAT. a lot of his fellow bishops were extremely unfair to him.
"common ground initiative" - this question of abortion is dividing not just the country but the church .. again, he was strongly cirtized by a lot of other bishops -- on certain moral questons, they maintained, there was either right or wrong -- there was no room for dialogue.
cardinal bernardin eventually died of pancreatic cancer.
at funeral, people applauded the common ground initiative.
tomorrow - 2004 elections
celibacy
women in the church
-------
Thu 04/12/07
abortion continued
politics
since 1984, bishops have been making this issue more and more important. & politicians know this
bush visited the pope and asked for his support.
a lot of bishops were making this more and more a kind of litmus test for catholic politicians.
archbishop john o'connor .. geroldine ferraro - was catholic and prochild. o'connor attacked ferraro for being prochoice.
mario cwomo was gov of ny and also catholic .. he said he personally opposed abortion but though that it should be available. o'connor went after him too.
cwomo gave a lecture at notre dame -- how do you related faith to politics?
by and large, the response of catholic politicians was that they are personally aopposed but they have to represent their constituents.
cwomo was saying that in a ploralistic society that he has to respect the opinions of those who aren't catholic. but if you're personally opposed and you don't do anyting tto restrict it, aren't you going against your conscience?
in a pluralistic society he says, i'm not always going to bering by fatih convictions into my politics .. but doesn't taht mean you're compartamentalizing your life.
in 2004, became more contraversial over the issue of communion. some catholic bishops began to calim that since the catholic teaching is that abortion is wrong - if you're a politician that comes out prochoice, then you shouldn't be receiving comunion.
bishop ellis burke said this .. no catholic politician who says they're personally opposed to abortion but support it politicially should receive communion.
bishop chaput said the same thing.
most bishops were outraged by this -- is it right to take a sacrement and use it as a politican weapon.
JF Kerry was catholic - so when these gusy said this they filmed him going up to communion -- is the priest going to give him communion or not... now he was never refused.
but ifyo're gong to refuse catholics communion if they support abortion, should you refuse communion to catholics who disagree with other teachings of social justice.
this is not gong to go away -- going to remain a politcially charged question -- but denying somebody communion is a mistake -- that's making a public statement about the state of their concience.
... there was no move to deny communiin because politicians voted for an unjust iraq war.
not to be cavalier about communion but the very thing we say before we go is that we are not worthy -- its God's gift!
judas story -- he gets a bad wrap. he repents ... he did sell jesus for 30 peices of silver -- but he repents -- goes back to the high priests and says he's done something wrong -- and throws the money away .. and then kills himself out of despair.
interestingly, Jesus doesn't not let Judas go at the last supper until he feeds him.
aside: love by its very nature is diffusive -- love lives by giving itself away.
common ground initiative -- responding to polarization and fear. .. everything becomes toxic -- you deamonize the other .. happens in politics.. but can also happen as a theologian giving a toalk at a parish -- there can be people just waiting to pounce on you.
can we talk to one another in a spirit of charity -- instead of fear -- instead of assuming that the other side is evil?
1994 - jpii came out with a letter difinitively saying that women cannot be ordained priest in the catholic church -- and i don't want any more discussion on this --
if things are simmering in any organization, you can't control it by trying to silence it; just not healthy.
key issues for electing a bishops - loyalty and obedience - do you agree with the teachings on birth control, celibacy, and women's ordination .. during jpii.
what's happening now is a lot of caution
if something has authority, its because its credible. not on the core issues but on some of these moral issues - simply saying "this is what we teach; dont discuss it ; don't argue about it" isn't going to work -- catholics are a lot more educated these days.
you end up with this fragmentation -- cafeteria catholics -- you pick and choose what you believe.
.. not enough voices are really being heard.
the church is not a democracy -- but that doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to other people.
sensus fidelium - what ordinary catholics believe should also have teaching authority.
paul talked about unity in terms of basic beliefs but never uniformity -- .. paul recognized diversity in these christian communities -- that's why he was called the apostle of freedom.
for paul, don't put any kind of restrctions where they aren't necessary.
abortion.
when does life begin, and rights language -- important questions but they don't get to the heart of the issue.
maybe apporach it from a different angle.
(1) (oour take on abortion is generally far too individualistic) so what kind of community or people should we be in order to welcome children into the world.
simply relying on the language of child -- it tends to isolate the woman -- and can make abortion an extremely burdensome choice on the woman .
- so often, the whole question of abortion can revolve around the quality of the relationship
freedom of choice gets the rest of the community off the hook.
what are social bonds --
to frame abortion as a personal matter distorts it.
(2) how do we understand what it means to have a child?
that might seem like a strange question -- what are a community's beliefs about children -- the place of children .. we need moral communities to help us understand what exactly does it mean to have a child. - having a child is always going to spell a kind of loss of control -- your life is no longer your own.
(3) having a child reflects our confidence or lack of confidence about the future. having a child is at least implicitly a vote of confidence about the future. do we as people really have confidence about the future. bringing people into the world requires hope.
in order to know what it means to have a child & confidence in the future, we need a story worth handing on.
acedia - one of the 7 deadly spirits - heavyness of heart -- listlessness of spirit -- connected to a loss of any sense of a promise of the future -- there are a lot of people living in the grip of acedia -- and you can get caught in in without even knowing it.
so these questions put abortion into a larger framework. by and large -- do we know how to answer them. do we live in a society that has confidence about the future?
-- break --
celibacy was not always required. the priesthood needed to be reformed so in the 12th century, the practice of mandatory celibacy began.
argument in favor of celibacy
(1) can be seen as a whole hearted committment to the priesthood.. total dedication -- the priesthood is a life of service.. practicing celibacy can increase a priest's availability to people
.. lesson availability to family .. ie, not fair to the family .. time committment
(2) Celibacy - seen as a kind of higher state .. "state of perfection" .. based on a pessimistic view of sexuality .. seen as a more certain way of holiness. this contradicts what the church says about marriage, though -- marriage is a sacrement, so its a way to holiness.
(3) Jesus didn't _marry_ .. in that sense, celibacy can become symbolic .. if a priest is supposed to become another chirst, then celibacy can symbolize this.
(4) witness value of celibacy - Jesus's focus was on announcing the reign of god.
(5) a priest's closest relationship should be to christ.. nothing to undermine that... nothing should take the place of christ.
(6) economic cost to this
probably the first five tend to be the most common reasons in favor of celibacy.
suppose you go in the other direction ..
(1) married priests could connect with the experiences of most lay people, cost of raising a family
more approachable.
(2) way of responding to the priest shortage
[permenant decan sidebar]
(3) quality of life issue. 1965 - seminary booming .. most parishes had 3 or four priests, so they weren't living alone.. now they are.
celibacy should not be loneliness.
(4) marriage is not considered the end of your relationship with God -- it deepens it .. sacrement .. IN Christ.
(5) what can we learn from the experience of other churchs -- most other christian denominations allow married clergy. in that sense, the roman catholic church is an anomily.
model for ministry - priest and wife working together.
sacremental journeyman -- moving from parish to parish never setting down roots.
(6) if you take the incarnation seriously, God affirms our humanity in becoming one of us -- everything about us except sin .. so there's a way in which celibacy can overly spiritualize our human nature .. esp if you connect it to the tradition that sees virginity as something higher
what's a healthy life?
what the church says now is that any vocation to the priesthood automatically represents a call to celibacy. .. the two are inseperable.
so if you say you're called to the priesthood but not to celibacy, then the church says well you're not really called to be a priest.
how can we say this after previously haveing married priests?
instituted as a disciplinary practice -- the tehology kind of devloped after the dsicipline happened.
there's a tradition in the catholic church already for the married priesthood. .. there is a precident.
if someone who's wife dies becomes a priest.
under jpii, there were a number of espiscopalian and luthern priests who were feeling uncomfortable with change in their own denomination .. they came to the pope wanting to be roman catholic priests .. they had to agree not to remarry. now there are married priests that just weren't born catholic.
you can't erase your ordination (or baptism, confirmation) .. give a person an indellable character.
leaving the priesthood -
process of laicization, dispensation ..
just like with an annulment -- the catholic church doesn't recognize a divorse.
so, at thh very beginning, there was something taht was an impediment to ordination.
if you leave the priesthood without this, then the church says you are still a priest.
-------
Tue 04/17/07
celibacy
arguments in support of celibacy
right now , the teaching of the church is that celibacy and the priesthood are inseparable.
you can't have one without the other -- theological arguement.
but this is what people are starting to question -- are these snecessarily linked .. so much so that celibacy becomes a defining element of tee priesthood -- essentially quality of it
in that sense you're saying that this is what "makes" a priest.
could it not be the case that some one feels called to both the priesthood and marriage? becuase right now, you cannot pursue both goods.
then you're putting a person in the position where, to pursue the good of the priesthood, then you have to renounce a(nother) fundamental good.
.. the cost of living in the preisthood is another call.
s it always healthy to put people in that situation -- if they're not really called to celibacy and all their life they'll struggle with that question -- is taht really healthy.
arguements against mandatory celibacy
(1) current system ain't working.
the peak was 1965 -- by 1968, the numbers started to drop -- yes, there was an exodus -- but there were also far fewer seminarians -- really happened very qucikly -- the numbers started to drop .. and it hasn't been reverse.
result is that today you have far fewer priests and Age -- median age for many comunities is in the 60's.
awareness of extinction -- are we the last?
(2) quality of life.
40 years ago where you had anumber of priests in every parish and a large number in every age grou =- that could create a sense of community
where you have fewer people doing more things -- that's a recipie for burn out -- the church is growing even though priests are declining. that can't last.
.. starts to affect moral -- you can be sort of struck by this awareness of how much longer can I do this .. at some point that can cultivate resentment. - we're being penalized for remaining in a system that's not working.
.. and then this becomes a vicious circle -- if yo're trying to picture yourself as a priest .. and yo're in your 30's .. the largest age group is the 70's -- does that present itself as an atractive life -- somebody can have a call to the priesthood but as you live that out, it can feel like it just isn't working.
loneliness.
(3) quality of candidates .. if you're limiting your pool of possibilities to men who are willing not to get married, there can be a temptation to lower standards.. this isn't done deliberately, but a lot of diosese and relgious communities are up against the wall.
so back before 1968 when you had a huge pool, you could afford to be choosy.
when it comes to the priesthood, you ought to want your best ..
and then you can get your best and then its hard to keep them .. joining as a class of 1 is harder than joining as a class of 40.
(4) availability of the eucharist -- the issue here is not just celibacy -- its also going to impact what's your theology of the eucharist
vatican ii said the eucharist was the source and center of the church -- the church comes into being when it celebrates the eucharist --
right now, only an ordained priest can celebreate it -- so with fewer priests, you're lessening the avilability of the eucharist.
in a lot of places, if there's not a eucharist, there's communion services. can outwardly resemble teh eucharist .. but this is not the eucharist.. become a substitute for the eucharist..
ultimately, if you're saying that you're willing to reduce access to the eucharist becuase of the shortage of priests, you're putting celibacy over the eucharist.
dutch theologican - sinces there's priests available -- thousands of former priests who could still celebrate the eucharist .. but they're not alowed to .. says why not use priests that have left to fullfill this need for the eucharist.
you have people going into lay ministry -- great -- part of vatican ii. that's fine. but a lay person cannot celebrate the eucharist, reconciliation.
married deacons are performing more and more roles in the church .. but they can't replace the eucharist.
-------
Wed 04/18/07
..
celibacy becomes more important than the eucharist
changing theology of the eucharist -- people have to right to the eucharist -- its a gift -- that's really troubling .. sacrements are about god wanting to connect with us .. grace
if the shortage of priests make the eucharist unavailable -- simply to let that go on is troublesome.
goodness of marriage.
marriage is seen as a sacrement -- once you say that .. once you call something a sacrement -- saying that its conducive to a holy way of life .. doesn't garentee it, but to say its a sacrement you're sayhing there something about this that is so embewed with grace that if you live in the sacrement it should help you grow in holiness, fullfill your baptism.
in the everyday life of marriage, you can encounter christ.
.. when a couple gets married you don't say that its going to weaken your relationship with god
.. you could use this as an argument to say that marriage is not inherently incompatible with the priesthood.
there were married priest up until 1139 -- celibacy made mandatory --
but even then it didn't take right away -- they said if you're married you should leave your wife -- and start living celibately --
so something that occured eventually.
prior to that, priest could marry, but at least foom the fourth cetnury on , then were supposed to abstain from sex on the evening before they celebrated the eucharist ..
.. this reflects ritual purity laws -- book of leviticus.
the idea of abgstaininng foom sex before ceebrating the eucharist reflected a ritual purity law ..
suggests that sexuality is something unpure -- not a positive view -- but not just a christian practie.
but what's behind it -- when you're dealing with the holy, you should be as pure as possible.
.. when the eucharist was celebrated once a week, this wasn't a big deal
.. with daily eucharist, always abstaining from sex.
so growing position that anything connected with sex is somehow less than holy and if yo're going to deal with the sacred, you should be pure.
that was the 1) reason for moving to mandatory celibacy.
2) need for reform in the church -- .. reform movements were initiated to deal with corruption.
by requireing celibacy -- was seen as a way to imporve the piresthood --
if you have higher standars, then maybe you'll have higher quality of people entering the priesthood
(3) property - if you're not married when you die, then the church gets the proerty -- not that the curch was greedy per se .. but concern about property rights. they need property.
so eventually celibacy is required but there is a tradition for married priests in the church.
you can make the same reform arguement today -- there's a need for reform .. and we can help it by alowing married priests.
sex abuse cases. --
some reports of this in the mid 1980's some in the early to mid 1990's .. but really broke open in Jan 2002.
so if the cases happened so long ago (60's and 70's) why did it take so long to blow open
.. back then, there was still such a mistique about the church .. that there was a kind of stigma against doing anything that might discredit the piiesthood.
there was also such a respect for teh priesthood .. credibility .. a lot of people just couldn't believe that this was going on .. so the tendancy was to just hush up. idea that the church was above all this.
what broke it open was
1) people started to tell their story & as one person came forward, others came forward as well.
when you're finally able to voice something that you've been holding onto for years, that can be a liberating moment.
when people started telling their story, you begin to see that its not just isolated incidents.
now, most priests weren't involved in this, but those that were did incredible damage.
3) there was a practice of coverup -- if a preist was accused of sexual misconduct, he was not confronted but transfered to another diosese.. this angered catholics -- what became clear is that people in high authority knew about this .. wadell doesn't buy the arguement that we don' understand sexual misconduct the same way back then.
so this more than anything brought it out -- because people didn't like the deception.
the media got involved -- the story just exploded. - dominated the news for a long time. some people were critical of the press -- but more than anything, it forced the church to deal with this.
sad thing - incredible effect on the priesthood -- extremely demoralizing - felt guity by association.
the church has never really recovered from this.
every diocese had to set of procedures to deal with this .. as soon as any accusations are brought against a priest, he's supposed to be removed from ministry until its clear what happened.
lawsuits - a number of catholic diosese have declaired bankruptcy.
for a lot of people, it raised questions of leadership and poer -- is there something wrong with the strcuture that allowed us to be quiet about it - so do the very struchtures of leadership and power have to be examined.
catholic layity said "we need more of a voice" - "voices of the faithful" ..
they said who has authority of of thh church.
what bothered people more than anything was that it was covered up .
wadell doesn't think this is over yet .
"what was it about the system that allowed this to happen in the first place?"
women in the priesthood.
in once sense, women run the church already -- women are more involved than men .. many more women than men .. and church on sunday , too.
the question of ordination.
the church wants to uphold the euality of men and women in terms of social justice.
when it comes to the question of ordination and says "well there's equality, but men and women have different roles." - complementarity - men and owmen complement each other -- in terms of their differences.
because of those differences, some roles are more suitable for men, some for women.
arguements from the church against the ordination of women ..
[not a recent issue ... started back in the early to mid 1970's
in 1975 - first women's ordination conference held in detroit
"women in future priesthood now: a call to action"
so they did not evision this as a talking about it theoretically -- they wanted it now .. and a focus on a call to action
14000 people attended .. 600 were turned away .
these convferennces are still held every year.
at the same time, in the mid to late 70's, theologians were starting to write about this.
so the issue was sturring a long time.
in 1796 - paul 6 issues a letter dealing with women's ordination.
- reaffirms the church's position against the ordination of women. .. he knew this was going on .. but summarizes the arguments and said that this is the way that its going to be.
at that time 40% are open to women ordination
by 1992, 2/3 are open to it .
1994 - jpii "longer letter "ordinatio sacerdotalic"
"on the ordination to teh piresthood" ... takes a harder stand on it than paul vi did.
three points.
1) the church has absolutely no authority whatsoever to ever ordain women to the priesthood.
- the reason: it would contradict the will of christ.
2) this teaching against the ordination of women has to be feinitively held by catholics -- saying that this is a definitive teaching of thh catholic church -- essential part of what it means to be catholic.
then you're saying, in order to be a catholic, you have to assent to this.
every catholic has to accept this.
3) because its definitive, there should be no more discussion.
so why did jpii do that -- discussion was becoming stronger and he wanted it to stop.
the question then became, if he puts it that strongly, was paul vi declaring this as an infallible teaching?
but he never explicitely said this. - glimmer of light through the door.
two weeks after it came out, cardinal ratzinger (our current pope) came out with a statement saying that it was meant to be infallable .. but you cant do that.
in effect though .. even though it was not publicly declare infallable, this jpii statement comes very close to it.
four arguments for the stance against ordination:
1) the male only priesthood was instituted by christ and willed by christ.
therefore, if the church is going to be faithful, it can't go against the example of christ.
A) 12 apostles were male - jesus's inner circle was all men.
- one reponse to that is that the 12 apostiles represent not the priesthood but teh 12 tribes of israel.
B) priesthood said to be instituted at the last supper.. its hard to say that -- its hard to say that on that night, jesus instituted the priesthood as we know it today. it is clear that he wanted a community to continue what he began .. so that much is clear.
but in that sense, the priesthood evolves from the lifes of the chirstian community.
what is clear from teh gospel is that not only were there close women disciples, but the gospel holds them up as examples of disciples -- its the males that don't get the message.
so hard to claim that the priesthood is intituted by Jesus.
the strongest argument is the argument from tradition .. at least the priesthood as we know it today -- has been a male priesthood -- you don't have an opposite tradition
the fact that this is a long standing practice is probably the besst arguement ..
you don't change traditions quickly, but they do change.
if you look at the earliest church documents, its clear that women had prominent leadership positions in paul's documents.
so the very earliest church seems to reflect the inclusivity of Jesus.
so it was not about gender for paul, but charism.
--> read the first two chapters of st. maybe -- discussion groups.
-------
Thu 04/19/07
women in the church - ordination.
arguements for or against -
different from an emotion response.
long-standing tradition shouldn't be changed quickly because it represents things the community has done .. but it can change -- the church has changed it
our practices, esp when it comes to rituals shape the way we see things; shape the way we envision things. - "i can understand arguements in favor of ordination , but i have a hard time picturing it" -- new ways of seeing. --> that can be morally important
our practices form us in important ways -- ways of seeing -- but also raises questions about justice (segregation story)
change of practices: new way of seeing
listening to people's stories .. vocation story
have we developed raditions or pra ctices that can be at odds with christ.
our traditions have to be faithful to what really is the example of christ.
3rd arguement against females in the priesthood)
a priest is supposed to be another christ - a symbol of christ .. to represent christ.
.. a priest is called to act in the person of christ
if that's the case, then a man more fully represents christ because what paul said is that a priest should have to have a natural resemblance to christ
.. but if you take that arguement to its logical conclusion, then the best priest should be jewish palistinian men.
on one level, this makes sense -- that a priest should be another christ -- act in the symbol of christ - but what does it mean to be christlike?
ordinarily, we take that to mean, qualities of character - embody the spirit of christ
so if somebody is christlike , they've lived their life in immitation of christ to such a degree that they've taken on the virtues of Christ.
.. we're called to embody certain virtues .. not primarily understood as gender.
the fundamental sacrement is baptism .. you can't receive any sacrement unless you're baptised, so every sacrement takes its meaning in baptism.
in baptism, we say that a person puts on christ
and is supposed to take christ as a model for life
and to live in such a way that they become another christ in the sense we mentioned above.
if you say that a woman cannot be ordained because she cannot represent christ, then she shouldn't be baptised either.
so if that's your understanding at baptism, then that should be your theology at ordination.
if you say that by baptism all be come part of the priesthood of christ, then why doesn't it apply to ordination.
at baptism, every person is called to act in the person of christ; when it comes to ordination, only a man can really do that.
uses the same kind of language in both sacrements. but undrstanding it in two different ways.
the more recent one - complementarity - equal but different roles.
a typical response to this is that -- well you can celebrate the eucharist as a priest -- what could possibly equal that for a woman?
because the preist celebrates the eucharist -- that is seen as the key act of the catholic church -- the preist really represents the community.
interestingly, because of the shortage of priest, more and more lay are going into minestry -- most are women. .. so more visible roles for women.
but if there are enough priests available, they're supposed to give out communion; not lay people
so the lay person has been called an extraordinary ministers -- so tht says that the lay is an exception. the priest is supposed to give out communion when possible.
but we see things differently -- more and more lay eucharistic ministers.
what we see changes how we think -- women as ministers --> women as priests
all things considered, its good if leadership comes from the community - bishop ambrose . sometimes, a faith community can recognize who is called to lead us
another side to that
1) example of jesus - if anything is clear about jesus -- freightening creativity .. Jesus's aditude and behavior toward women is part of that -- its clear from the gospels that jesus was counter cultural -- he had women disciples and as we saw in the gospels, they are presented as models of faithfulness
not only does the church not write them out of the story but draws attention to them -- they are at the foot of the cross and at the toom.
and then everything about jesus seems to challege pratices of exclusion -- this is one of the things that got jesus into trouble -- sits down with tax collectors -- brings people into the community - his central message was to preach the reign of god.
the reign of god is not heaven but a new kind of social order characterized by equality and mutual respect.
so these were all examples of the freightening creativity of jesus
then, there's examples from the early church
(2) writing of paul --
... letter to the galatians 3:28 . in christ there's no longer jew or greek male or female slave or free .
- > jew and greek -- they were not only dvided but the alienation was seen as absolutey (unfixable).
no longer male and female , slave for free -- this was part of the baptismal hymn. .. part of a new community
if the rest of the world operates by creating barriers, the church should be different - a different kind of community
you also see it in the churches paul created -- early christian communities
its very clear that pauls understanding of the meaning of christ is not a community that operates along divisions - for paul, it was a charismatic theology of ministry -- in what way are you uniquely bless to serve the community -- connects to the "there are many parts " passage
so for paul, ministry is not divided along the lines of gender but about what's your gift
see this in several places
romans 16:1
paul was a misionary and he would found these churches but he wouldn't stay there -- so he would stay in touch by writing letters
at the end of each letter is a list of give my regards to.
"remember me to phoebe"
16:3 - house church -- an earliest form of the eucharist - agape meal .. something like a pot luck supper, but at one point they'd have a little eucharist where they'd take the bread and share it.
but its clear that this couple presides at this agape meal.
later on .. another couple -- refers to them as apostles - freely calls himself an apostle
so very early on , paul is free to break that tradition that connected the apostiles with the only original 16
to him, anyone who spreads the gospel is an apostle. .
in timothy - we start to see some restrictions ..
bishops -- only male.
paul has been called the apostile of freedom . he is very reluctant about creating new restrictions.. an example of that are the greeks who became christians .. they shouldn't have to follow the jewish law.
there were practices that he say that really opened up the charism of the community.
*break*
Questions:
chapter 1.
1) What is the danger of acting on unproven assumptions? Do you think Ian is right about Lucy?
2) what is dangerous about acting under the influence of anger? How do you see that played out in Ian's behavior?
3) what do you think ian's motives are in revealing his suspitions about lucy to danny?
4) do you think Ian should feel guity about Danny's death (his brother(?))?
from one angel, there's certain signs that, as ian sees it, seem to suggest thht lucy is cheating.
if i see a certain reality, then i'm going to see everything as pointing to confirmation of that.
2) why is ian angry? going to see is girl (?)
anger gives us ungery for action and that's important. if you've really been angry about something, there's really a lot of adrenalene involved.. taat can can be good .. but can also create more problems when anger gets the best of us.
why does he tell his brother?
sibling rivalry
some of it is anger -- upset because his evening has been ruined.
revenge on lucy
(4) feels his brother is being played for a fool. - way of protecting his brother.
1) intention -- why?
2) means -- how he does it.
means and circomstances
timing is off -- doesn't take into account thht danny's been drinkiing
says this as if its absolutely certain .. and he doesn't know for sure.
... and then he leaves danny alone -- because he wants to get to sicly's house asap
so he thinks he's done what he needed to do -- he's assuming what will be done.
leaving the children -- doesn't anticipate the consequences.
suicide
what's ian's responsibility?
he's a moral agent -- he does something anticipating a certain set of consequences.
how much are we ever in control of the consequences of our actions?
what happens when an act results in unforseen and unintended consequences
for tuesday, read through chapter 3.
-------
Honors book discussion
" the company car"
4/19/07
1995-2005 writing process for company car
wrote another shorter book inbetween
wanted to write a big fat baggy monster of a novel about the last 50 yers of the 20th century
but not a treatus ; fiction
echos of his family life - felt that his was a lot like many others of the time
so his family was kind of part of the great wave of migrations and his parents like wally and susan were looking for a safe place to raise their family -- wanted the kids to grow up clean andpristine -- a great idea that didn't work out in his family -- but there was a lot of love in that.
didn't want to be limited to the facts -- didn't want to write a memoir .. so started inventing things -- wanted to write the scenes so that at least two emotions are involved -- ie, drama to comedy or comedy to comedy -- "to write until i gave myself the gigles"
first draft 800 pages
over about four years, paired it down to the 400 page form now.
his dad used his share of cleches; he was also a traveling salesman.
started collecting cliches -- and after the book came out , more people came up and gave theirs - he has enough for another book -- oh great.
poem at the start
tone is really important -- trying to strike the right tone -- when i cameee upon the idea of having an retrospective narratior -- someon who could look back and could write in the voice who could transport you back to what it was like to be a kid but using vocabulary of an adult.. one of the things that happens is that you end iwth a tone of forgiveness .. reading poems by this herbert guy and it just knocked him out .. this line.
did i feel i losed a lot when i cut it down
yes and no. what i orignallh wanted .. there was a chapter to each of the kids .. so they got a moment. somethings gotta go .. you find out what it is .. but in doing that, i left out a lot of chapters there was a long chapter for example .. windshielf walking ..
had to find a way to recompress the novel .. actually added two extra story lines .. original draft had the mom and dad story straight through
added the looking back to the 50th at each start
added stuff about Emcee's marriage.
when he first wrote the chapters had a lot of historical context.
gender roles
female characters.
autobiographical
you can't not draw from your own life --
what i have as a kind of rule for myself is that i never let the facts take away from a good story.
so there are incidents based on things that happened in my family but a very small ammount.
rat hunt story
he did have a lumber pile as a family -- but it was one gun between the four of them and they spent all after noon argueing about it .. that's not a story.
there was a cocktail party at his house - but all he remembers is a women laughing.
the whole first chapter about getting married on tv started in graduate school -- he was on a picnic talking about how the parents got married -- one person said that her parents were married on tv
two amaerian influences -- tv and car
gap between fiction and reality -- even if you wanted to tell the truth exactly as it happened , you wouldnt -- you select .. you choose things you want to empasize ..
william maxwell - so long, see you tomorrow. .. murder, suicide .
i lie, i tell stories to get at an emotional truth.
title - knew the title almost from the begginning -- it just felt right -- the car really what shaped america from the 50s on .
i really like the idea of wally -- car symbol of the american dream but he never owned it -- first ar he onwns is after he retires.
writing process
writing as your job
get yourself a schedule .. set aside , block time.
you sit down and you work .. that's your time and that's what you're going to do.
writes in the morning -- tries to get up early -- get tool and on day s when he's not teaching, i'll sit down and work until lunch time -- 3 or 4 hours in a chair 11:30 sandwitch
and then a run or swim .. and even while he's clearing his head, the back of his mind is still working -- so then he comes back and revises.
ends stuff midsentence so he can continue the next day .
notes in the margin of where the next scene is gong to go.
tips for aspiring writers
1) get yourself a schedule -- even if you just stare at the page
2) read. like. crazy.
particularly, what is going on now.
read with the idea of figruing out how other writers do things.
we all have toolboxes -- how to handle a crime scene -- how to set up a scene setting and description -- reading for the pleasure of the story .. but also "how did they do that"
authors that have inspired him
writters i really like alice monroe -- canadian and just fenominal -- writes 40 to 50 page stories can encompass somebody's entire life in that passage of time -- has these radiacal shifts in time - 12, then something important happens.
laurie moore
charles baxter
richard russo
radically different
.......i give up.
farm women
men screw up a lot.
resists tying things up with a bow.
if i were to project the end into the end of the book - they'll settle down in a field a couple oof miles away and the kids are going to hhve to get them and then they aave to die .. i didn't want to write that .. comedy.
he's emcee.
this is dorie from american beauty. dorie's grandmother
human life changed on the start of world woar one
in tee wake of that you start getting kemmingway, fitazerld -.. treating aspects of life that happened but were not talked about.
hemmingway -- all maerican literature is indebted to huck finn
american excess .. when you do
walt witman.
-------
Tue 04/24/07
there's no such thing as a good act born from a bad intention
.. looking at the question -- is ian responsible for his brother's death?
2) means to an end -- here the means fall short -- he tells his brother under the inflence of angerr-- tells as if he knows for sure, but he doesn't
(3) circomstances -- extremely morally important -- what are the things that surround the act - morally relevant circomstances.
- one thing -- Danny has been drinking --ian doesn't take that into account -- not the best time for ian to say what he suspects
- the children -- ian was careless in regards to them .. he leaves them home because he doesn't want them slowing him down.
ian is rushed -- he blurts this out and then leaves his brother alone.
(4) foreseable consequences -- we can be overly confident about what we think will be the result of our actions- sometimes that confidence is misplaced -- we thnk we can control the consequences of our actions, but sometimes the most significant consequences are the unforseen consequences and also the unintended consequences
ian thinks that his brother will run into the house and confront lucky -- but that's not what happens at all .
what happens is not his but the act is his -- he's a moral agent.
the things that can really haunt us in life are the actions with unforseen consequences.
its as if the consequences of ian's actions take on a life of their own --
to what degree are we responsible for consequences we never intended - how do you asses that?
(5) are there alternatives -- are there better ways of achieveing what we want -- ways that do less harm -- ia could have waited -- could have brought it up in a completely different manner .. but he wasn't thinking of that -- 17 year olds don't always think things through.
how would we assess ian's resonsibility here?
because of his anger, ian is not really thinking this through ..
anger can be something good, but it can also make us impetuous -- implusive, careless.. what ian didn't do is think this thing thorough -- he acted quickly, rashly ..
at least we have to say that he was negligent -- he didn't kill his brother but he was negligent to the kids and in when he decided to tell his brother .. and how he did it
when we're impulsive and careless, we really don't consider the foreseable consequences and the alternatives.
we're not really in as much control as we think you are.
we nee to develop the virtue of prudence --
two parts relavent here:
caution
foresight
caution -- take your time, go slowly .. don't rush into thinks
foresight -- look ahead -- if i act this way what might happen .. what might be the cost of my action.
so in that sense you could say ian is not prudent -- but most 17 year old s aren't ..
if we lack caution and foresight -- our actions can do harm
chapter 2 -
lucy's background . lucy is 25 when danny takes his life
1965 - 25 years old .
past: really no family - she's been pretty much on her own.
had a previous marriage .. lived in a trailer
husband left her right after thomas was born
and she moves to baltimore .. Mr belling - starts going with lucy and buying her presents -- she moves to baltimore to be near him .. the kids don't like him .. they see earlier than lucy that he's a phoney -- they discover that he's married.
then she meets Danny and everything seems to be ok and then Danny takes his life.
doesn't have much of an education - comes from a poor background, no family, first marriage ended .
.. few resources and connections.
how we evaluate a person's life is going to depend on their story -- lucy hasn't had a lot of good luck , or fortion ..
some people are clearly more fortionate than others and that has to be taken into account
aristotle - "its a lot easier to be good if you're lucy"
the good life can be fragile because there are so many things that are not in our control.
tries to get her life together by becoming a secritary but she doesn't know how to type.
her state of mind in chapter 2.
extremely depressed - spends as much time as she can sleeping ... takes sleeping pills to ensure that she sleeps.
... she spends a lot of time crying.
.. these are classic signs of someone who's depressed -- like quicksand, she can't get out of it. .. instead of climbing out , sinking more deeply into it.
in a sense, Lucy's life is shutting down. .. that's the power of depression . if it really becomes deep it is like quicksand .. hard to crawl out .. you lose energy for life.
at its extreme, it turns into despair
so there's more than one loss in chapter 2 ... loss of danny but also loss of mother Lucy -- becuase shes in this depression.
Agatha becomes the mother of the household. .. age 7.
becuase she's put in that position , she notices things that the typical 7 year old doesn't. page 55. all of a sudden...
ordinarliy 7 year olds don't notice messes, they make them -- a kind of role reversal -- agatha becomes the mother .. lucy in a sense becomes the child.
in a way, lucy becomes an invalid -- ordinarily its the child that takes the hand of the adult -- here its the opposite.
in this situation, lucy cbecomes completely incapacitated -- agatha is in control.
she's changing in terms of who are the people she has to relate to.
....
new person .
seems happy with him
kids like that
the kids want a sense of security .. stability -- kids love routines. .. those are the very things that they're not so sure of in the 2nd chapter
big fear about their mother -- that she might leave them.
on their minds .. a sense of loss.
these kids become good at "reading the signs" .. able to pick up on the slightest change of mood in their mother.
76 . middle .. she layed down in bed , and pulled the .
"every sound meant something"
she knows what's going to happen next .. pills.
children develop a radar sensitivity to their mother's moods.
thomas wants a bed time story -- hansel and gretal ..
parents come and rescue them.
agatha stuck at the part where the kids are lost ..
that's how she feels -- those kids are on their own in a freigtening world.
she tells the story from the pov of the kids.
questions for chapter 3.
1) how would you describe ian's psychological/emotional state at the start of chapter 3? what doesn't he have in his life? what's missing?
2) how does ian try to deal with his guilt -- he tries different stregies -- what were some of the different strategies he uses?
3) how would you describe the difference between leaves memorial church and the church of the second chance? if you had to choose between the two, which one would you go to and why?.
4) what do you think of reverand emmet's response to ian?
5) should a church ask us to abandon our way of life?
chapter 3 .. and then 6.
-------
Wed 04/25/07
ians state of mind in chapter 3 -- tormented by guilt., instability lostness, searching for something
- certain amount of denial. he can only go so far -- can't assess his responsibility
- no closure - wwill there be closure -- will the novel end with lack of closure?
- going through the motions
guilt shame remorse.
what does that rob him of? -
in one sense, he's in the possesion of guilt .
-- takes away hope, peace, freedom .
death in life -- he's physically alive, but he's dead inside -- like the people in scriptures posessed by an unclean spirit -- unclean: guilt can be that , remorse can be that esp if you don't know how to break trhough it.
the question of the novel -- in light of certain things tthat can happen to ourselves how does life go on?
if you can't remove the barrior, then you can't go on -- lack of hope
life can't go on for ian until he learns how to deal with the deamons -- guilt denial emptiness.
how does he deal with this?
- sex with cicely
- conflicted -- he wants to make a confession but there's a reluctance to do that. .. and when he told cicely, she didn't really receive it ..
nobody really wants to hear this story
seeking distractions -- staying busy.
develops several strategies to deal with this -- pretty typical .
- tries to return to life as normal - cicly, friends .. picking up the pieces and trying to go about life as if nothing has changed.
but there's a way in which this guilt reaaly masters him -- demands your attention .
page 82 . "he would see it looming in his path"
wont be there to help me with fastball -- remembering his brother and seeing what it means -- what it ammounts to .
so he tries to return to his normal life but it doesn't work.
2 - second strategy - self-deception -- rationalization .. you see it when he's runnning through all these things in his head and starts to think -- is he so unique -- doesn't everybody have a hidden dark secret -- don't we carry something around in our hearts that we dont want anyone else to know? .. that can be true.
saying is he really all that unique .. no! there's truth to this assesment -- we all have our secrets but just as the first one, it doesn't work.
page 83. - "sometimes he tried to believe that"
itssnot going to bring him deliverance -- that's not going to work
self deception is essentially a stragetggy to keep the truth out -- something that we don't want to see -- the trouble for ian is that the truth keeps breaking in.
truths he discovers --
lucy is actually a shoplifter
so ians assumption was false.
also discovers taht the reason lucy was late was because dot's car broke down .. he assumes she's late because she's meeting a lover
also discovers that lucy really loves his brother.
3) goes off to college - wants a fresh start ..
he's going to be a stranger -- he has no history there ; no story .. mother afraid that he'll be lonely -- but that's what he wants.
likes his roommate because he doesn't ask personal questions.
sometimes this works -- you pick up the pieces and start elseware -- you try to get a distance from the places that have painful memories .. augustine uses this strategy .
sometimes we think if we can get geographical distance from a place we can get psychological and emotional distance.
lucy dead from ODing on sleeping pills.
chain of consequences he sees. that he traces back to that night -- now lucy is also dead and the children are on their own
ian wants to find freedom in relation to something that he cannot undo.
.. the act remains an unerasable part of ian's story -- ian is trying to run from tsomething that's always going to be pprt of him .. can't do tht -- can't eraase that out.
if you can't change it, how to you live with it?
if you can't change certain parts of your story, does that mean you're never going to be free? - how do we find freedom in relationship to things we cannot change.
how do we find freedom so taht we can go forward in hope - otherwise, he'll just be carrying this burden around -- you can't do that
4) so he turns to religion ..
first he tries leeds memorial church .. losers bus.
the church -- very formal .. choir -- very professional sounding choir, the rest of the congregation doesn't sing .
building: looks more like a church -- very stately bullding
building looks much more like a church ..
people there are successful , fairly wealthy
message of the minister at leeds -- be good to yourself.. no mention of sin, god ..
this is sham worship from "people of faith"
"Be kind to yourself, be good to yourself is not going to give ian what he needs"
tomorrow rest of 3, then 6. .. even thru 8.
-------
Thu 04/26/07
Leeds memorial church.
the church of the second chance. -- the heart of christianity -- its about second chances as many times as you need them.
there's nothing we can do in our life that is beyond repair .. that cannot be redeemed.
but if we can always be offered second changes -- we're not perfect - kind of consoling to know that that's ok.
we can mess up drastically and know that we're not beyond hope . mt.9. - its mercy i want and not sacrifice.
we stumble -- we have things we wish we could do over; change ..
to have second chance as long as we need it.. theology of grace.
different about it
- storefront church. inside: metal folding chairs, cracked linoleum floor, flickering florescent lights. altar is a counter.
clear sense of community at "second chance"
call each other brother or sister -- that's family language.
(3) prayers - prayers reveal -- .. where they've fallen short
focus of their prayers is different -- they pray for others.. but also, their prayers are real - like the psalms .. great prayers because they're not phoney.
real because they deal with the details of their lives. these are not phoney prayers
what do these prayers say about them -- why are they praying -
they need help delaing with their problems, these are peole who can't hide their needs -- they absolutely depend on God.
dependence on God -- they're nnt araid to say that they canlt make it without God.
no prayer is too big or too small
saying that nothing in their life is irrelevant to God -- pray as if everything is important to God -- and if god is love, that should be true.
music - no choir director, piano, or organ .. much more participation here .. everybody sings.
difference between rv emmit and leeds minister.
rev. emmit is .. kind of a gaucky looking guy
he has no professional training -- it started in his family's garage -- simply because he felt he had a call to do this.
6) in terms of the makeup of the congregation --
this is not a community of the successful -- a group of failures. .. not the polished and successfull but group of misfits -- people for whom all hasnt gone well in their life.
call him right away -- brother ian .. so they're hospitable -- they have hospitality -- .. ian goes as a stranger, but right away they welcome him; they accept him.
this is a community , in one way, of outsiders --
a community that welcomes everybody -- theological argument here -- churches ought to be characterized by hospitality and acceptance simply because god accepts us. - and that belief gets them through life.
page 118 - ian laughing at how woman's son died.
how grace sometimes works in our lives -- this is where ian's change begins -- at this very moment, it begins with him laughin. we always think of major conversions as something very dramatic -- but here it begins with an inoportune laugh.
it works .. it prompts him to make a confession. this is a sacremental moment -- God can work through everything to begin changes in our life -- even an inopportune laugh. 119.
emmitt asks why he needs to be forgiven ..
emmitt doesn't waste any time .. this is not a community where they're going to leave each other alone
he gets right to the point -- why did you need to be forgiven.
ian is taken aback by this . isn't it kind of personal?
ian tells what happened. he's waiting for emmitt to say "this isn't your fault".
he wants a challenge -- he wants a change -- he stays because he realizes that something might happen here .
so he goes through this whole thing .. and thinks emmitt is going to say that he's forgiven -- and on 122 .. not forgiven.
gotta pay reparation.
emmitt doesn't deny that ian can be forgiven, but ther's more to forgiveness than you thnk
connects wwihh reparation --what if you cant repair it .. well that's where grace is going to come in.
shocking kind of response --
church of the second chance.
depth politics -- with all their eccentricity -- its true of the 2nd change .
people here with a destinct identity.
depth politics forms additudes and values -- it really shapes their lives.
changes behavior --- completely changes ians life .. dont know if its always in a good way.
also, diagritical community -- it presents these people with an alternative -- a different understanding of life -- a different way of seeing things.
is an example of dangerous worship -- at the other service its very safe because god isn't even brought into it... here, its a different story.
page 127.
for ians parents -- christianity has to fit into an already established life.
that's one understanding of christianity -- you have your life and you fit christianity around it.
with ian and his 2nd chance .. there's the sense that becoming a member of the church is NOT going to fit his life as it is.
should a church ask you to change your life?
would you be happy living radical goodness -- would yo be happy being a saint
christianity at its best should off a way of life that connects with radical goodness.
there is something of the church of the 2nd chance that we can see in the gospel in the call stories -- when jesus calls his disciples, something takes place that is similar to the rev. emmitt conversation -- the disciples immediately, fallow him .. mark uses the greek word for immediately all the time - leads to a complete change of life. mt 19. rich man .. sell everything and give to the poor -- he cant do it.
seems harsh .
but a life of discipleship is not gliding on the surface but getting to the roots
see it also in the early christian understanding of baptism -- to be a complete break with a past way of life -- image of dying and rising
tyler is saying that the church of the 2nd coming is going to be a path to a new life for ian -- but a very different life than the one he invisioned for himself --
even though eventually its going to renew him .. theeres an undenyable cost.
deliberate contrast between the two churches to make a point about understanding chirstianity.
ian drops out of college and watches the children -- goes to work for cabinet maker -- he's an apprentince.
the cabinet maker is a master craftsman -- ian is an apprentice.
theological word - disciple .. so at the end of this chapter he's beginning his new life -- apprentice for the carpenter .. the christian life is like learning a craft -- we begin as disciples .. its lie learning a craft .. so there's certain skills that shuld characterize a good christian.
so parallel initiations - cabinet making and christianity.
goal in one is to become a master craftsman .. for the other -- to be a saint maybe.
********break
chapter 6. Sample Rains.
nature of love -- through his care for the kids.
. selfless -- , sacrifice.
patience
.. not a romantiized understanding of love
191 - meanwhile, the children weree a fulltime occupation.
loving well over time is hard; loving well is hard work. ian undenyably loves these children, but its not easy.. love consumes a great deal of energy .. also speaks of it as a fulltime occupation .. there's no days off for love.
love can be described as "paying attention to another person over time -- that's hard ..
to do thht consistantly is difficult.
ian's love for his kids rearranges his life -- love does that.
falling in love is easy, real love is hard.
marcel -- the essence of love is availability
to love somebody is to be avail to them.
question of presence.
loving these kids faithfully over time demands that ian reaaly rearranges his life.
fidelity is an idispensible virtue for living life --
difficult to do availability -- things that weaken and distract us.
2nd example of "it"??
page 191.
but even non-serious trouble.
love changes the way we see things ..
IF you think of love as a kind of seeing.. "what do you see in them"
love sees the gift of the other person; the uniqueness of the other person
to love somebody is to see them kindly.
vision to love .. looks for the goodness.
191 as for daphne ..
love is a kind of compassionate seeing.
if you would see her the way i did, you would see her differently.
vision narrows -- squint -- see the things that annoy us .. fidelity - working to recover an orignal vision.
our vision can become myopic.
how do we restore that vision.
3) walking to church of 2nd chance - agatha doesn't want to go anymore. .. finally doesn't force her to go. .. disappointed that she doesn't want to go .. but lets her freely decide what she wants to do --
love also has to risk the freedom of the other .. otherwise, its not love, its manipulation -- control .
sometimes we use the language of love to say .. i love you as long as you serve my purposes
page 197 .
everything we do can be haunted by a sense of regret -- of what might have been.
what might have been if i had gone a different path.
all love closes off options .
to love something is to become attached to it .. but in order to become attached to something requires multiple detachments.
sample rains - as much as ian loves these kids, there's a sense here that love centers us on certain possibilities.
love is an investment.
some sense that by its very nature, love is going to be limiting and restrictive.
.. we have to put down roots in one place and not another.
what if we had loved another person -- gone a different path
love is going to focus you on certain futures instead of others.
.. vow --
a promise to know yourself and your future in a certain way.
.. i have to root myself in a life defining choice
the positive - at times its the only way to alow us to enjoy certain gifts.
at some point, there's also going to be a certain loss attached to every good we pursue.
part of moral realism .. all our choices are going to be costly.
a vow is going to shape our life in a certain way.
ian doesn't want to leave these kids, but there's also a cost to that.
what does real love involve?
tuesday: chapter 9, 10.
finish the book. or at least through 9.
-------
Tue 05/01/07
p. 210 .
jeannie - implies that he is thinking about others so much that he's not considering himself.
.. theme of repentance -- feels like he has to still be punnishing himself for his role in his brother's death.
language of sin -- language that he'll pay attention to .. she connects it to the idea that your life is a gift and you're wasting it. ... its a sin to waste your life. .. is he really wasting it.
page 213-4 reverend emmitts response.
regrets -
ian wants rev. emmitt to say "you're forgiven, you're done"
mistaken notion of forgiveness
No life has ideal possibilities - each of us has a different set of possibilities to work with
in every life we're providentially situated.
providence means to do good .. provide for another.
but also, go provides for the world through us.
he's providentially situated to do good .
lean into it .. this is the life you've been given -- almmost the idea taat there's certain themes to our lives -- in light of them, what story do we tell?
freedom -- jeanie is kind of telling ian he's not free because the kids are tying him down ..
how do we understad freedom -- american idea is having a lot of possibilities in front of us - in that view, a committment is a burden to freedom
but another way of looking at it is that freedom comes through the committments we make in our lives -- so not a loss of freedom but a discovery of what freedom means to me.
freedom sometimes is the question of how to we respond to necesssity
how do we find freedom in relation to thnkgs we would not choose.
narrative - what stories help us find freedom.
freedom is nothing we naturally have -- a question of what are the narratives tht inform our lives -- a good story is one that helps us find freeedom particualrly in realation to adversity -- otherwise, we can be nothing but victims -- instead of free.
so this notion of leaning into its -- there's a certain wisdom to that but also a danger.
.. can lead to a kind of unhealthy resignation - he tells ian to view his burdon as a gift -- some burdens we shouldn't j8ust accept - we should rail against them and try to change them .. so in that respect, there can be a danger in what emmit is saying
and there's a wisdom in what jeannie is saying -- healthy love of self
has ian neglected himself .. can't he sometimes have time off from these kids .. in that sense any kind of love is going to be restrictive but shouldnt limit a person in ways that can be unhealthy.
we have to be careful about loves that aim too high -- learn the limits of love -- we can pour ourselves out so much in love .. if you empty yourself completely, you have nothing to give.
there should be a kind of order to love -- so forinstance if you want to taalk about loves that aim high -- take jesus's love your enemy .. doesn't mean you gotta live with them .. and you shouldn't love