Next Monday, actually.
Reminder, we're Byzantine Catholic; our Lent doesn't start on Ash Wednesday. Nor do we "celebrate" Ash Wednesday.
I was looking for a short blurb on the fasting rules that we observe, and I found this article from Catholic Online. It's called "For Byzantine Catholics, Lent is stricter."
Is it, really? Or is it just different? Someone like myself might find it harder, as I didn't grow up observing Lent in this way. But would cradle Byz Caths find it harder? No, not if they've never known anything different.
Why would it be seen as harder?
"Oh no, you guys start on MONDAY!!! That's two more days!!!!"
Um, so? I think it makes a little more sense to start something big on a Monday, at the beginning of the week, but my very organized mind might be to blame.
"You can't eat any animal products except on the first day OR on Good Friday!"
Ehh, you deal. Besides, when the fasting rules were made, no one gave much thought to all of the junk food that would be invented. Hello chips and salsa. Hummus and crackers. You get my point. Besides, shrimp scampi made with only olive oil instead of oil and butter is still delicious.
"You don't eat meat on Wednesdays and Fridays!!!"
Well, if you're Roman Catholic you aren't supposed to be eating meat on Fridays during Lent either. So what, we have one more day? The majority of people in the world don't eat meat every day. There's a trend going around called Meatless Monday. Is it more because it's forbidden on a certain day and you have to plan around it? Yeah, I can see how that would be a pain. It's annoying when you make something with meat in it on Saturday and you have to make sure the leftovers are either all gone by Sunday night or are the type that can last until Tuesday, because you don't want to waste food.
Side note: when Chris was younger, he and his brother would stay up really late on Fridays. Around 11:45 they would drive to a local Subway and order meaty sandwiches and drive home, just around the time the clock struck 12. It was officially Saturday at that point.
The other big difference is that there is no celebration of the Eucharist during the week. It is only on Sunday. For most people, this wouldn't matter since they only go to church on Sunday.
"What are YOU giving up???"
There isn't so much focus on what you're giving up and honestly, it shouldn't be a focus really no matter what denomination you are; it's more about what sacrifices you'll make for yourself and for others to be a better Christian. As St. Basil the Great said of Lent, "Turning away from all wickedness means keeping our tongue in check, restraining our anger, suppressing evil desires and avoiding all gossip, lying and swearing. To abstain from these things – herein lies the true value of the fast." I think we could ALL work on those wicked things, year round. ;-)
This Lent, I am going to focus on getting myself even healthier than I have been. This will involve the usual: eating right, exercising, getting plenty of rest, but it will also involve me looking into alternatives for my medical issues. There's no guarantee that I'll be able to find something, but it's worth investigating. There is a spirit of...conversion (if you will) that's been coming on me over the past few months and very recently, I've been getting even stronger messages in the right direction.
How will you participate in Lent?
Showing posts with label Thursday Thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thursday Thoughts. Show all posts
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
We weren't always Byzantine Catholic, part 4
Missed the earlier pieces of this story? Check out Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
While we were planning our wedding, C had said that he'd deal with changing his rite later. It was very important to him to make that part of what he thought was his identity, officially his. He understood where Fr. G was coming from, asking him to wait until after we were married.
In the meantime, however, Fr. G left the priesthood and soon after, married one of his parishioners. The parish was without a pastor, and was subject to pinch-hitters from other states and even other rites. I have to say, the Ukrainian guy we had was pretty good! Eventually one priest (Fr. H) was selected to be the temporary full-time priest, just to keep the parish (as a business) running. After a few weeks of him working at St. J's, C decided to discuss the matter with him. It did NOT go well.
Fr. H didn't understand what C was trying to say. He didn't want to listen to C and dismissed him pretty quickly. This happened even after C brought up Canon Law. We found out much later that he thought C was some new guy who was entranced with the "smells and bells" of the rite and wanted to just switch rites like changing shoes. He didn't realize that C had been attending St. J's his entire life, that his family had been there for 3 generations, and that there was an error made long ago that needed correcting. His bad.
At this time, C was in the midst of his first lay off and had a lot of time on his hands. He did some research and ended up calling the office of the bishop of our Eparchy (diocese). Now, if he'd called the Roman archbishop, he'd NEVER have gotten through. It's probably similar to trying to call the Pope. But he did, because Byzantine Eparchies are small. He explained his situation to the woman who answered the phone, and she said someone would call him back.
He later heard from Bishop H (not the MAIN bishop, Bishop S) who is an expert in Canon Law. In fact, he might be a lawyer, I can't remember. C was shocked to hear from A bishop. Anyway, he understood C's situation, since he had heard stories like this before, and told C what to do. C needed to write a letter to Bishop S, petitioning to change his rite. Bishop H also said that he would have a little chat with Fr. H, since he needed to assist C in this endeavor as his parish priest and write his own letter.
After liturgy the next weekend, Fr. H caught us and wanted to speak with C. He said he had heard from Bishop H, who apparently gave him a talking to about the law, and wanted to apologize for his dismissal of C's needs. He said that he would write a letter to Bishop S on C's behalf, to support his petition. We ended up having to meet with Fr. H, I think just as a formality and also so he could fully understand the situation for the purpose of writing his letter. When C had written his letter, they would put them together and mail them off to Bishop S in New Jersey.
This is the body of the letter that C wrote:
Your Excellency:
I am petitioning to transfer canonical enrollment from the Latin Church sui iuris to the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, USA (Constantinopolitan Ruthenian Rite) and become a subject of the Eparchy of Passaic.
Although baptized and chrismated according to the rites and ceremonies of the Constantinopolitan Ruthenian Rite, my father was then and remains today a canonical member of the Latin Church sui iuris (although he does not attend a Roman Catholic church, in fact, he attends a Byzantine Catholic church). My mother has since passed on, but remained a devout Byzantine Catholic until her death. Regardless of the place of baptism, I was canonically enrolled in the Rite of my father according to the law in force at the time. My correct canonical enrollment was brought to my attention prior to the celebration of my wedding.
It came as a shock to me, my father, and even my grandmother, that around the time of my wedding, I was found to be officially Roman Catholic according to canon law. My grandmother still can’t understand it, and I’ve given up trying to explain.
The only contact I had with the Roman Catholic church was in school, from grades 1-4. My mother then transferred me to the public school system and enrolled me in catechism at St. J Byzantine Catholic Church (where I was baptized and chrismated, and where my mother attended for many years since emigrating from Czechoslovakia). I have been a ‘regular’ in the pews of that church for approximately thirty years. I was told by my priest to go ahead with a Roman Catholic wedding (my wife is Roman Catholic) and to later petition for a change of Rite. In my case, this petition is about preserving my current spiritual and liturgical life by lawfully letting me become a part of the Byzantine Catholic Church that has become a part of me, and I, a part of it.
Furthermore, I have the support of my wife. After I was discovered to be Roman Catholic, we discussed this possibility and agreed that my change in Rite would be in both our best interests. In the case of children coming along, we would also like to avoid any confusion as to what Rite they would be since I attend a Byzantine Catholic church and do not see this changing. My wife also agrees that if we should be blessed with children, they should be exposed to the Eastern Church, and this transfer would foster that exposure.
I respectfully present this petition for your consideration and the opinion of the Latin Rite bishop of the place of my residence. My church information is St. J Byzantine Catholic Church, 100 Church Street, Town, ST 00000, (999) 555-0000. The current pastor’s name is H U. A letter from Father U accompanies my petition, attesting to my sincerity and the merit of my request.
We submitted the information in October 2008, then waited. The church is no different from any other agency, it was just like getting a passport. We had to wait for C's information to be validated, for the Bishops in each rite to discuss his "case." Also around this time, Fr. F, a priest fresh out of seminary, had been assigned to C's parish to be the permanent pastor. Fr. H was going to return to his home parish. The official word had not yet come, and C was a little nervous that something would happen because of the shift in leadership. Poor Fr. F! It was his first Liturgy at St. J, and afterward, there was C, pulling both men aside so that they could discuss his situation. I thought maybe he should have let the guy catch his breath, and not be one of "those people," but it was a good thing that he spoke up. A few weeks later, the transferal was granted to C, and needed to be signed by C, two witnesses, and the parish priest. The Eparchy had typed in Fr. H's name below where he would sign; with Fr. F knowing this, he just signed his own name and wrote it next to Fr. H's. I was one witness and C's dad was the other. The document was copied, one for us and one for the parish records, and the original was mailed back to New Jersey. That was it. No big ceremony, no "smells and bells" as Fr. H called them.
As Fr. G had said, it was really all about numbers and who was where. While technically I am still Roman rite, the tradition is that women go with their husbands to their rites, but upon C's death, I am free to go "back to Rome" which is quite silly, in my opinion. Someone telling me where I can and cannot worship! It has to do with protection of the minority rite from the "big bad" Romans (sarcasm). On the other hand, I see why they tend to be defensive: so many people move away from the Eastern rites (geographically) and have to go Roman. Or they marry someone in Roman rite and attend those services. It's not easy to be a Byzantine Catholic, I've learned in my eight years of knowing C. Stay tuned, I plan on writing more about that in the future.
While we were planning our wedding, C had said that he'd deal with changing his rite later. It was very important to him to make that part of what he thought was his identity, officially his. He understood where Fr. G was coming from, asking him to wait until after we were married.
In the meantime, however, Fr. G left the priesthood and soon after, married one of his parishioners. The parish was without a pastor, and was subject to pinch-hitters from other states and even other rites. I have to say, the Ukrainian guy we had was pretty good! Eventually one priest (Fr. H) was selected to be the temporary full-time priest, just to keep the parish (as a business) running. After a few weeks of him working at St. J's, C decided to discuss the matter with him. It did NOT go well.
Fr. H didn't understand what C was trying to say. He didn't want to listen to C and dismissed him pretty quickly. This happened even after C brought up Canon Law. We found out much later that he thought C was some new guy who was entranced with the "smells and bells" of the rite and wanted to just switch rites like changing shoes. He didn't realize that C had been attending St. J's his entire life, that his family had been there for 3 generations, and that there was an error made long ago that needed correcting. His bad.
At this time, C was in the midst of his first lay off and had a lot of time on his hands. He did some research and ended up calling the office of the bishop of our Eparchy (diocese). Now, if he'd called the Roman archbishop, he'd NEVER have gotten through. It's probably similar to trying to call the Pope. But he did, because Byzantine Eparchies are small. He explained his situation to the woman who answered the phone, and she said someone would call him back.
He later heard from Bishop H (not the MAIN bishop, Bishop S) who is an expert in Canon Law. In fact, he might be a lawyer, I can't remember. C was shocked to hear from A bishop. Anyway, he understood C's situation, since he had heard stories like this before, and told C what to do. C needed to write a letter to Bishop S, petitioning to change his rite. Bishop H also said that he would have a little chat with Fr. H, since he needed to assist C in this endeavor as his parish priest and write his own letter.
After liturgy the next weekend, Fr. H caught us and wanted to speak with C. He said he had heard from Bishop H, who apparently gave him a talking to about the law, and wanted to apologize for his dismissal of C's needs. He said that he would write a letter to Bishop S on C's behalf, to support his petition. We ended up having to meet with Fr. H, I think just as a formality and also so he could fully understand the situation for the purpose of writing his letter. When C had written his letter, they would put them together and mail them off to Bishop S in New Jersey.
This is the body of the letter that C wrote:
Your Excellency:
I am petitioning to transfer canonical enrollment from the Latin Church sui iuris to the Byzantine Metropolitan Church sui iuris of Pittsburgh, USA (Constantinopolitan Ruthenian Rite) and become a subject of the Eparchy of Passaic.
Although baptized and chrismated according to the rites and ceremonies of the Constantinopolitan Ruthenian Rite, my father was then and remains today a canonical member of the Latin Church sui iuris (although he does not attend a Roman Catholic church, in fact, he attends a Byzantine Catholic church). My mother has since passed on, but remained a devout Byzantine Catholic until her death. Regardless of the place of baptism, I was canonically enrolled in the Rite of my father according to the law in force at the time. My correct canonical enrollment was brought to my attention prior to the celebration of my wedding.
It came as a shock to me, my father, and even my grandmother, that around the time of my wedding, I was found to be officially Roman Catholic according to canon law. My grandmother still can’t understand it, and I’ve given up trying to explain.
The only contact I had with the Roman Catholic church was in school, from grades 1-4. My mother then transferred me to the public school system and enrolled me in catechism at St. J Byzantine Catholic Church (where I was baptized and chrismated, and where my mother attended for many years since emigrating from Czechoslovakia). I have been a ‘regular’ in the pews of that church for approximately thirty years. I was told by my priest to go ahead with a Roman Catholic wedding (my wife is Roman Catholic) and to later petition for a change of Rite. In my case, this petition is about preserving my current spiritual and liturgical life by lawfully letting me become a part of the Byzantine Catholic Church that has become a part of me, and I, a part of it.
Furthermore, I have the support of my wife. After I was discovered to be Roman Catholic, we discussed this possibility and agreed that my change in Rite would be in both our best interests. In the case of children coming along, we would also like to avoid any confusion as to what Rite they would be since I attend a Byzantine Catholic church and do not see this changing. My wife also agrees that if we should be blessed with children, they should be exposed to the Eastern Church, and this transfer would foster that exposure.
I respectfully present this petition for your consideration and the opinion of the Latin Rite bishop of the place of my residence. My church information is St. J Byzantine Catholic Church, 100 Church Street, Town, ST 00000, (999) 555-0000. The current pastor’s name is H U. A letter from Father U accompanies my petition, attesting to my sincerity and the merit of my request.
We submitted the information in October 2008, then waited. The church is no different from any other agency, it was just like getting a passport. We had to wait for C's information to be validated, for the Bishops in each rite to discuss his "case." Also around this time, Fr. F, a priest fresh out of seminary, had been assigned to C's parish to be the permanent pastor. Fr. H was going to return to his home parish. The official word had not yet come, and C was a little nervous that something would happen because of the shift in leadership. Poor Fr. F! It was his first Liturgy at St. J, and afterward, there was C, pulling both men aside so that they could discuss his situation. I thought maybe he should have let the guy catch his breath, and not be one of "those people," but it was a good thing that he spoke up. A few weeks later, the transferal was granted to C, and needed to be signed by C, two witnesses, and the parish priest. The Eparchy had typed in Fr. H's name below where he would sign; with Fr. F knowing this, he just signed his own name and wrote it next to Fr. H's. I was one witness and C's dad was the other. The document was copied, one for us and one for the parish records, and the original was mailed back to New Jersey. That was it. No big ceremony, no "smells and bells" as Fr. H called them.
As Fr. G had said, it was really all about numbers and who was where. While technically I am still Roman rite, the tradition is that women go with their husbands to their rites, but upon C's death, I am free to go "back to Rome" which is quite silly, in my opinion. Someone telling me where I can and cannot worship! It has to do with protection of the minority rite from the "big bad" Romans (sarcasm). On the other hand, I see why they tend to be defensive: so many people move away from the Eastern rites (geographically) and have to go Roman. Or they marry someone in Roman rite and attend those services. It's not easy to be a Byzantine Catholic, I've learned in my eight years of knowing C. Stay tuned, I plan on writing more about that in the future.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
We weren't always Byzantine Catholic, part 3
Back on track with part 3 of the story. If you missed the earlier parts, here you go: Part 1. Part 2.
We left Fr G's office at the rectory on a mission to find the answers about C's rite. We started with his dad. We were not sure how much he'd know or remember, since moms are usually the keepers of that sort of information. Since C's mom passed away right before we met, we had to go on what my father in law knew. And it wasn't much.
All he knew was that he never did anything to change his rite, and that there was nothing mentioned when C was a baby and my in laws took him to be baptized. That was the other thing. Fr. G wasn't sure if Chris was just baptized or if he had received other sacraments at the same time; he wasn't the parish priest when C was a baby, and the church records were not clear. C remembers receiving first communion when he was in second grade, while attending a Catholic school (Roman) but he wasn't sure if he was just doing it to follow the class or if he really never got it the first time around.
[In the Byzantine Rite, babies receive all three sacraments of initiation at once: baptism, first communion, and confirmation. However, in 1976, when C was born, some priests were not giving infants first communion, and were having ceremonies for it later, around seven, as is typical in the Roman Rite. This practice lasted for a long time, but since has reverted back to all three at once.]
The church records appeared as if C was baptized and chrismated (confirmed), but nothing about first communion. We needed proof of all three to show my parish priest, so we could have a wedding Mass. C called the parish that was connected to the school he attended and inquired about his records. They did have record of him making his first communion; he was able to get a copy to show the priest who would be marrying us.
In the meantime, his grandmother found out about this...discovery, and was extremely upset. Her English is fairly limited when it comes to speaking, but she understands a lot, even though she was not well-educated. While she came to this country when she was 20, her schooling stopped in elementary school. She learned English as she went, from people at her work and in the community; she never took formal classes. To this day, she needs a cheat sheet with numbers spelled out to help her pay her bills. She's a very smart lady, though, and very tough.
"What you mean, you not Greek Catholic????" she yelled over the phone, in her thick accent, loud enough that I could hear through the receiver. "I was there!!!!!! I see you baptized!!!! You mother Greek Catholic!!!! She good woman!!!" (If you read that and thought Borat, it's OK, because when I try to talk like her, I sound like him too. Great success. Not.)
[Greek Catholic is another way to say Byzantine Catholic, but since people get confused and think Greek Orthodox, it's not used as much anymore. It's more...old school.]
C shook his head. "GRANDMA," he shouted. "Please, just stop. I'll explain."
He explained. And explained some more, but she didn't get it. I don't think she still does, but I've since convinced C to stop arguing with her and just let it go. She's a stubborn old bird; I see where C gets it from. :-)
So, now we had tentative proof that C wasn't really Byzantine Catholic. We would get married at my parish and deal with it later, just to make things less confusing. We were married in September of 2007 in a Roman Rite ceremony that was not that great. Someday I'll write more about how I felt really underwhelmed by my marriage ceremony. To this day, I feel as if it was a joke; something not very important. C says it's because we got married in the Roman church; he's a funny one.
To be continued...
We left Fr G's office at the rectory on a mission to find the answers about C's rite. We started with his dad. We were not sure how much he'd know or remember, since moms are usually the keepers of that sort of information. Since C's mom passed away right before we met, we had to go on what my father in law knew. And it wasn't much.
All he knew was that he never did anything to change his rite, and that there was nothing mentioned when C was a baby and my in laws took him to be baptized. That was the other thing. Fr. G wasn't sure if Chris was just baptized or if he had received other sacraments at the same time; he wasn't the parish priest when C was a baby, and the church records were not clear. C remembers receiving first communion when he was in second grade, while attending a Catholic school (Roman) but he wasn't sure if he was just doing it to follow the class or if he really never got it the first time around.
[In the Byzantine Rite, babies receive all three sacraments of initiation at once: baptism, first communion, and confirmation. However, in 1976, when C was born, some priests were not giving infants first communion, and were having ceremonies for it later, around seven, as is typical in the Roman Rite. This practice lasted for a long time, but since has reverted back to all three at once.]
The church records appeared as if C was baptized and chrismated (confirmed), but nothing about first communion. We needed proof of all three to show my parish priest, so we could have a wedding Mass. C called the parish that was connected to the school he attended and inquired about his records. They did have record of him making his first communion; he was able to get a copy to show the priest who would be marrying us.
In the meantime, his grandmother found out about this...discovery, and was extremely upset. Her English is fairly limited when it comes to speaking, but she understands a lot, even though she was not well-educated. While she came to this country when she was 20, her schooling stopped in elementary school. She learned English as she went, from people at her work and in the community; she never took formal classes. To this day, she needs a cheat sheet with numbers spelled out to help her pay her bills. She's a very smart lady, though, and very tough.
"What you mean, you not Greek Catholic????" she yelled over the phone, in her thick accent, loud enough that I could hear through the receiver. "I was there!!!!!! I see you baptized!!!! You mother Greek Catholic!!!! She good woman!!!" (If you read that and thought Borat, it's OK, because when I try to talk like her, I sound like him too. Great success. Not.)
[Greek Catholic is another way to say Byzantine Catholic, but since people get confused and think Greek Orthodox, it's not used as much anymore. It's more...old school.]
C shook his head. "GRANDMA," he shouted. "Please, just stop. I'll explain."
He explained. And explained some more, but she didn't get it. I don't think she still does, but I've since convinced C to stop arguing with her and just let it go. She's a stubborn old bird; I see where C gets it from. :-)
So, now we had tentative proof that C wasn't really Byzantine Catholic. We would get married at my parish and deal with it later, just to make things less confusing. We were married in September of 2007 in a Roman Rite ceremony that was not that great. Someday I'll write more about how I felt really underwhelmed by my marriage ceremony. To this day, I feel as if it was a joke; something not very important. C says it's because we got married in the Roman church; he's a funny one.
To be continued...
Thursday, January 26, 2012
A different kind of thought for this Thursday
I'm taking a break from my story, "We weren't always Byzantine Catholic," because I want to talk about something that came up in the news the other day. It's also relevant because "March for Life" rallies/demonstrations? have been going on recently. Before I begin, please note: I'm not a political scholar. I took two courses in college, because I thought I wanted to be a political science major. Also, this is not an endorsement of any political candidate.
Rick Santorum spoke with Piers Morgan last week about his pro-life stance, including when a woman is pregnant because of rape or incest. Santorum's comments are getting a lot of flack, especially his reply to Morgan asking what he would say to his own daughters, had they been raped and found themselves pregnant. I understand why: while they might see children as a wonderful thing and even be parents themselves, it is difficult for most people to accept that something good can come out of a horrible situation, and that the hand of God was involved in this most heinous of acts. I have trouble comprehending this at times myself. How can a loving, benevolent God let things like this happen?
Growing up, I pretty much always thought I was pro-choice. While I might not personally choose to have an abortion, what right did I have telling someone else what they should do? Later, I changed my views, I was then pro-life except in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life was threatened.
I later dropped the "if the mother's life was threatened," since most of the time, the interventions that would be made to save the mother would not involve actual abortion of the child. Sadly, while the treatments might result in the child's death, that was not the goal; these treatments would cause death indirectly and not intentionally. (I might be mistaken on this, I am also not a doctor!)
So then we have rape and incest. Both are horrible, disgusting events that I have not personally experienced. I cannot begin to imagine what it is like have either happen, beyond your control and then find out you are pregnant as a result.
Then something happened to me, I was personally touched by rape. One Christmas Eve, C's grandmother told us a story that I will never forget. It might have not come up had I not asked a specific question, but the truth came out. She told us that when she was 16, Russian soldiers invaded her town in Slovakia (then Czechoslovakia, this was shortly after World War II) and she was raped by one of them.
She later found out she was pregnant.
With C's mother.
All of this came out from me asking when she came to this country and how old she was. She told me that she was 20 and needed to get here before she was 21, to claim her US citizenship. (Since her father had received his and she was born after that, she had legal rights to be a US citizen as well.) Having known that C's mother was a little girl when she came to the US, I asked, "How old were you when you had Maggie?" While I'd always known that his grandmother was a young mother and that C's mom had the same last name as her maternal grandparents, I never thought it was rape. I had thought maybe she was a teenager who got carried away and the guy wouldn't marry her or that he died in the war or by the hands of the Russians. How "romantic" were my ideas. In the back of my mind, knowing what I know about Eastern European history (I took more courses on that in college than polisci!) and what C had told me about the Russians being worse than the Nazis, I always thought that there might be a worse truth.
And there was.
There were no abortions, she told us, as we sat at her kitchen table after the Vigil Divine Liturgy in shock. Months later, in late September, she gave birth to a baby girl, Magdelene.
I don't know much else--I was too embarrassed, too sad, too shocked to ask her anything else. I don't know if she wanted to kill herself. I don't know if she hated her baby when her little girl was born or if it was hard to grow to love someone who was conceived out of a need to control a weak minority population. What I do know is that she did her best to raise Maggie. I believe she had a supportive family--while her mother had died when she was nine, she had a stepmother to whom she was very close, and a few sisters. Her father had moved back and forth between the US and Slovakia, but was in frequent contact. When the time was right, she and little Maggie, all by themselves, boarded a plane to the US to join her father and stepmother and to have a better life. She worked hard to provide for her daughter, working at a "buckle shop" (factory), while leaving her with her stepmother, who helped raise her. Later, she met her first husband, who raised Maggie as his own.
While I never met C's mom, I have grown quite close to his grandmother. She's more of a grandmother to me than mine had ever been. I know she loved her daughter, regardless of how she was conceived. I bet that looking back over her "career" as a mother, she would be so pleased that she chose to have her baby. And so am I.
If Maggie wasn't born, I wouldn't have a husband.
Needless to say, how can I now be supportive of a woman who was raped and wants to have an abortion? Would I be a hypocrite to say, "yes, I respect your choice" even though that baby could be someone important some day? Or even "just" someone's mom? I'm sure it was much easier in rural 1940s Slovakia to "get on with it" than it would be for a woman in a city in 2012. Would it be easy for me to go through? No. Even leaving out the rape part, I cannot imagine having to tell my coworkers "yes, I'm pregnant and I might be giving up the baby for adoption." People would wonder...
I didn't write this to sway you one way or the other, or to start a debate about abortion, or to make you feel badly for my husband and his family. I only wrote this to show that the political truly is the personal and how a story can change your life and your views.
Honestly, I am still torn about incest, especially because of genetic problems. I know that these are children of God. I know it's wrong to take an innocent life. There is a small part of me that's very...creeped out by the act itself. And I know that it's hypocritical because rape is just as horrible as incest. So, if you choose to comment, please don't hate on me. There is too much of that in the world.
Rick Santorum spoke with Piers Morgan last week about his pro-life stance, including when a woman is pregnant because of rape or incest. Santorum's comments are getting a lot of flack, especially his reply to Morgan asking what he would say to his own daughters, had they been raped and found themselves pregnant. I understand why: while they might see children as a wonderful thing and even be parents themselves, it is difficult for most people to accept that something good can come out of a horrible situation, and that the hand of God was involved in this most heinous of acts. I have trouble comprehending this at times myself. How can a loving, benevolent God let things like this happen?
Growing up, I pretty much always thought I was pro-choice. While I might not personally choose to have an abortion, what right did I have telling someone else what they should do? Later, I changed my views, I was then pro-life except in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life was threatened.
I later dropped the "if the mother's life was threatened," since most of the time, the interventions that would be made to save the mother would not involve actual abortion of the child. Sadly, while the treatments might result in the child's death, that was not the goal; these treatments would cause death indirectly and not intentionally. (I might be mistaken on this, I am also not a doctor!)
So then we have rape and incest. Both are horrible, disgusting events that I have not personally experienced. I cannot begin to imagine what it is like have either happen, beyond your control and then find out you are pregnant as a result.
Then something happened to me, I was personally touched by rape. One Christmas Eve, C's grandmother told us a story that I will never forget. It might have not come up had I not asked a specific question, but the truth came out. She told us that when she was 16, Russian soldiers invaded her town in Slovakia (then Czechoslovakia, this was shortly after World War II) and she was raped by one of them.
She later found out she was pregnant.
With C's mother.
All of this came out from me asking when she came to this country and how old she was. She told me that she was 20 and needed to get here before she was 21, to claim her US citizenship. (Since her father had received his and she was born after that, she had legal rights to be a US citizen as well.) Having known that C's mother was a little girl when she came to the US, I asked, "How old were you when you had Maggie?" While I'd always known that his grandmother was a young mother and that C's mom had the same last name as her maternal grandparents, I never thought it was rape. I had thought maybe she was a teenager who got carried away and the guy wouldn't marry her or that he died in the war or by the hands of the Russians. How "romantic" were my ideas. In the back of my mind, knowing what I know about Eastern European history (I took more courses on that in college than polisci!) and what C had told me about the Russians being worse than the Nazis, I always thought that there might be a worse truth.
And there was.
There were no abortions, she told us, as we sat at her kitchen table after the Vigil Divine Liturgy in shock. Months later, in late September, she gave birth to a baby girl, Magdelene.
I don't know much else--I was too embarrassed, too sad, too shocked to ask her anything else. I don't know if she wanted to kill herself. I don't know if she hated her baby when her little girl was born or if it was hard to grow to love someone who was conceived out of a need to control a weak minority population. What I do know is that she did her best to raise Maggie. I believe she had a supportive family--while her mother had died when she was nine, she had a stepmother to whom she was very close, and a few sisters. Her father had moved back and forth between the US and Slovakia, but was in frequent contact. When the time was right, she and little Maggie, all by themselves, boarded a plane to the US to join her father and stepmother and to have a better life. She worked hard to provide for her daughter, working at a "buckle shop" (factory), while leaving her with her stepmother, who helped raise her. Later, she met her first husband, who raised Maggie as his own.
While I never met C's mom, I have grown quite close to his grandmother. She's more of a grandmother to me than mine had ever been. I know she loved her daughter, regardless of how she was conceived. I bet that looking back over her "career" as a mother, she would be so pleased that she chose to have her baby. And so am I.
If Maggie wasn't born, I wouldn't have a husband.
Needless to say, how can I now be supportive of a woman who was raped and wants to have an abortion? Would I be a hypocrite to say, "yes, I respect your choice" even though that baby could be someone important some day? Or even "just" someone's mom? I'm sure it was much easier in rural 1940s Slovakia to "get on with it" than it would be for a woman in a city in 2012. Would it be easy for me to go through? No. Even leaving out the rape part, I cannot imagine having to tell my coworkers "yes, I'm pregnant and I might be giving up the baby for adoption." People would wonder...
I didn't write this to sway you one way or the other, or to start a debate about abortion, or to make you feel badly for my husband and his family. I only wrote this to show that the political truly is the personal and how a story can change your life and your views.
Honestly, I am still torn about incest, especially because of genetic problems. I know that these are children of God. I know it's wrong to take an innocent life. There is a small part of me that's very...creeped out by the act itself. And I know that it's hypocritical because rape is just as horrible as incest. So, if you choose to comment, please don't hate on me. There is too much of that in the world.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
We weren't always Byzantine Catholic, part 2
Last week, I started my Thursday series (which will NOW be called "Thursday Thoughts") and began the story about how C and I weren't always Byzantine Catholic. You can read part one, here. Today, I share with you part two of our story, albeit on Saturday. Priest's Wife, if I've made any errors in explaining church law, please, jump in!!! :-D
We met Fr. G, C's parish priest, at the rectory, one sweltering evening in July or August (we'd gotten engaged in June), and the only reason I remember this so well was that there was very little air conditioning, if any at all. We sat in Fr. G's stuffy office; he knew why we were there, but C reminded him of the topic. Fr. G looked at C and smiled.
"Well, first we have to figure out if you truly are Byzantine rite."
C's face dropped. "What, what do you mean???" he sputtered.
Fr. G went on to explain that he had his suspicions about C and his family because C's last name is a very common Irish one, and knowing his parents and other family members, there was little doubt that his father was born and baptized Roman Catholic. He said, "Most people with Irish last names in our churches join via marriage. As you know, we're predominantly Slovak here at St. J's."
C nodded, taking in what Fr. G was saying.
Fr. G continued, "The reason I'm bringing all of this up is because of Canon Law, a child follows the rite of the father, regardless of where they were baptized." He paused for a second. "So technically, you are canonically Roman Catholic. Even though you were baptized in this parish, and raised here. Do you know if your dad was raised Roman or Byzantine, and if he ever switched his rite officially? I can't find anything in our records."
"No, I don't think so," C answered, still amazed. "I'll have to ask. I mean, I know he said he liked Mom's church better than the Roman rite, so I am assuming he was raised Roman, plus, he was born in Louisiana [ed. note: mostly Roman Catholic, especially back when C's dad was born]. He never had a problem going with her when they were dating and then after they got married..." He trailed off, looking rather sad.
"It's actually quite common. It happened to me," Fr. G announced.
Both C and I looked surprised. Fr. G went on to explain how both of his parents were Byzantine, or so they thought, but only his mother really was as his paternal grandfather was Roman Catholic. It was only when he was getting ready to enter the seminary did he discover this little issue. To rectify it, he had to petition the Roman Catholic diocese for a rite transfer, as well as the Byzantine eparchy. It was a matter of paperwork and keeping track of numbers; he compared it to moving to a new town and re-registering to vote.
"Of course, it's a bit more serious," he explained, "especially because it's Canon Law and you'd be dealing with the bishops in both rites. But it's not impossible. Here's what you should do: first, go home and talk with your father about this. Then you'll know one way or the other. If he didn't change rites, you're going to have to get married in the Roman rite, which solves the problem of where to get married. " He smiled. "If he did change rites, then you'll be getting married here, since the rite of the groom determines where the ceremony is to be held."
I groaned, inwardly. We left, in search of answers. C felt completely blown away.
To be continued...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the Canon Law that the priest was referring to regarding children, baptism, and which rite to which they belong:
The 1990 CODE OF CANONS OF ORIENTAL CHURCHES states:
Canon 29 -
§1. By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.
§2. If the child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year is:
1° born of an unwed mother, he is enrolled in the Church sui iuris to which the mother belongs;
2° born of unknown parents, he is to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of those in whose care he has been legitimately committed are enrolled; if it is a case of an adoptive father and mother, 1 should be applied;
3° born of non-baptized parents, the child is to be a member of the Church sui iuris of the one who is responsible for his education in the Catholic faith.
We met Fr. G, C's parish priest, at the rectory, one sweltering evening in July or August (we'd gotten engaged in June), and the only reason I remember this so well was that there was very little air conditioning, if any at all. We sat in Fr. G's stuffy office; he knew why we were there, but C reminded him of the topic. Fr. G looked at C and smiled.
"Well, first we have to figure out if you truly are Byzantine rite."
C's face dropped. "What, what do you mean???" he sputtered.
Fr. G went on to explain that he had his suspicions about C and his family because C's last name is a very common Irish one, and knowing his parents and other family members, there was little doubt that his father was born and baptized Roman Catholic. He said, "Most people with Irish last names in our churches join via marriage. As you know, we're predominantly Slovak here at St. J's."
C nodded, taking in what Fr. G was saying.
Fr. G continued, "The reason I'm bringing all of this up is because of Canon Law, a child follows the rite of the father, regardless of where they were baptized." He paused for a second. "So technically, you are canonically Roman Catholic. Even though you were baptized in this parish, and raised here. Do you know if your dad was raised Roman or Byzantine, and if he ever switched his rite officially? I can't find anything in our records."
"No, I don't think so," C answered, still amazed. "I'll have to ask. I mean, I know he said he liked Mom's church better than the Roman rite, so I am assuming he was raised Roman, plus, he was born in Louisiana [ed. note: mostly Roman Catholic, especially back when C's dad was born]. He never had a problem going with her when they were dating and then after they got married..." He trailed off, looking rather sad.
"It's actually quite common. It happened to me," Fr. G announced.
Both C and I looked surprised. Fr. G went on to explain how both of his parents were Byzantine, or so they thought, but only his mother really was as his paternal grandfather was Roman Catholic. It was only when he was getting ready to enter the seminary did he discover this little issue. To rectify it, he had to petition the Roman Catholic diocese for a rite transfer, as well as the Byzantine eparchy. It was a matter of paperwork and keeping track of numbers; he compared it to moving to a new town and re-registering to vote.
"Of course, it's a bit more serious," he explained, "especially because it's Canon Law and you'd be dealing with the bishops in both rites. But it's not impossible. Here's what you should do: first, go home and talk with your father about this. Then you'll know one way or the other. If he didn't change rites, you're going to have to get married in the Roman rite, which solves the problem of where to get married. " He smiled. "If he did change rites, then you'll be getting married here, since the rite of the groom determines where the ceremony is to be held."
I groaned, inwardly. We left, in search of answers. C felt completely blown away.
To be continued...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the Canon Law that the priest was referring to regarding children, baptism, and which rite to which they belong:
The 1990 CODE OF CANONS OF ORIENTAL CHURCHES states:
Canon 29 -
§1. By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.
§2. If the child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year is:
1° born of an unwed mother, he is enrolled in the Church sui iuris to which the mother belongs;
2° born of unknown parents, he is to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of those in whose care he has been legitimately committed are enrolled; if it is a case of an adoptive father and mother, 1 should be applied;
3° born of non-baptized parents, the child is to be a member of the Church sui iuris of the one who is responsible for his education in the Catholic faith.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
We weren't always Byzantine Catholic, part 1
Today, I'm introducing my new Thursday series, which is not-yet named. I had thought about Theology Thursday, but I'm not a theological scholar and my posts will be more than that. On Thursdays, I'll be talking about faith, religion, my experiences with both, stories involving them, etc. Anything that can fall under this topic will be discussed. So here we go...
For a long time I've been hinting, both here and on other blogs (mainly Priest Wife's) that we weren't always Byzantine Catholic. I kept saying "I've gotta tell the story!" but haven't taken the time to write it all down. Some of you who have paid close attention might be thinking you've heard me mention things about C being raised Byz Cath or attending his church.
Aha. Just because one attends a church doesn't make them a member of that religion.
I'm going to tell the story as I lived it, instead of at the beginning, just because it makes more sense to me and I wasn't alive at what would be considered the beginning. Neither was C.
When I met C, I found out he was Byz Cath, and quickly got educated in what that was. I met his priest while C was in the hospital, and he looked just like any priest that I'd known growing up and in college. After C's recovery, we attended some divine liturgies at his family church. Very different. I didn't like it. It was "weird" and not what I had grown up with.
Then we got engaged. Where to have the wedding? I, of course, wanted it at my family church, where I'd received all of my sacraments up to that point. C wanted it at his church. I argued that it was always at the bride's church. C felt that we'd probably have to raise our kids Roman,* so why not at least get married at his church. While I really liked C's priest (he was young and friendly, and reminded me a lot of the priests I had gotten to know in college) and would have wanted him marry us,** I wasn't so sure about getting married in a "weird" church, not to mention most of the people attending would be Roman and familiar with my church. C thought what better way to teach more people about the Byzantine rite than a wedding, when people WANT to attend? On the other hand, my attendance at my family church had been sporadic (see, I'm FAR from perfect) and we had a new pastor, who I hadn't met. I had my aunt ask her good friend (a Roman priest) if C and I could get married in the Roman church, or if we'd need any paperwork. He said there would be no issue.
We decided to go talk to each priest and see what they had to say about the issue of where to get married. We started with Fr. G, C's priest...which is where we found out something very interesting about C and his family.
To be continued next Thursday!
*We weren't sure where we'd live or have a family, but we probably knew we wouldn't be near any Byz Cath churches, hence the assumption.
**I know, in all Catholic wedding ceremonies, the priests don't marry the couple. The couple marries each other.
For a long time I've been hinting, both here and on other blogs (mainly Priest Wife's) that we weren't always Byzantine Catholic. I kept saying "I've gotta tell the story!" but haven't taken the time to write it all down. Some of you who have paid close attention might be thinking you've heard me mention things about C being raised Byz Cath or attending his church.
Aha. Just because one attends a church doesn't make them a member of that religion.
I'm going to tell the story as I lived it, instead of at the beginning, just because it makes more sense to me and I wasn't alive at what would be considered the beginning. Neither was C.
When I met C, I found out he was Byz Cath, and quickly got educated in what that was. I met his priest while C was in the hospital, and he looked just like any priest that I'd known growing up and in college. After C's recovery, we attended some divine liturgies at his family church. Very different. I didn't like it. It was "weird" and not what I had grown up with.
Then we got engaged. Where to have the wedding? I, of course, wanted it at my family church, where I'd received all of my sacraments up to that point. C wanted it at his church. I argued that it was always at the bride's church. C felt that we'd probably have to raise our kids Roman,* so why not at least get married at his church. While I really liked C's priest (he was young and friendly, and reminded me a lot of the priests I had gotten to know in college) and would have wanted him marry us,** I wasn't so sure about getting married in a "weird" church, not to mention most of the people attending would be Roman and familiar with my church. C thought what better way to teach more people about the Byzantine rite than a wedding, when people WANT to attend? On the other hand, my attendance at my family church had been sporadic (see, I'm FAR from perfect) and we had a new pastor, who I hadn't met. I had my aunt ask her good friend (a Roman priest) if C and I could get married in the Roman church, or if we'd need any paperwork. He said there would be no issue.
We decided to go talk to each priest and see what they had to say about the issue of where to get married. We started with Fr. G, C's priest...which is where we found out something very interesting about C and his family.
To be continued next Thursday!
*We weren't sure where we'd live or have a family, but we probably knew we wouldn't be near any Byz Cath churches, hence the assumption.
**I know, in all Catholic wedding ceremonies, the priests don't marry the couple. The couple marries each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)