Following my Star

When I was attending St. Joseph High School in 1955, I became fascinated by the “radio lab” where, every weekday and weekend, one could find high school boys busy (a) with learning the Morse Code, (b) with building a one-tube (6L6) 25-watt transmitter on a discarded TV chassis, (c) with taking government exams that authorized the use of a transmitter to contact amateur radio operators in and outside the USA.

 

Mike Stimac, a visionary teacher, was the spirit and the organizer of this dynamic Radio Club. Everyone had something to learn; everyone had something to teach.  I spent thirty to forty hours in the lab each week.  I was being fed on the notion that I could learn electronic circuitry (no matter how complex) and that I could modify and use surplus radio receivers and transmitters taken from the B29s decommissioned after WWII.

Today, Mike is living in a retirement home in the outskirts of Columbus, OH.  I am living half-way around the world with my wife [see pic] in the outskirts of Shanghai, China.  Mike is losing his short-term memory.  He doesn’t remember even half of what we discussed on FaceTime just a week ago.  Surprisingly, however, his long-term memory is entirely intact (as will be shortly demonstrated).

So I offer you, dear reader, a transcript of ten minutes taken from our FaceTime chat that we had five days before Christmas.  With good reason, I am calling it “Following my Star.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~transcript begins here~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A [=Aaron]: What are the changes that you would want to make in your autobiography?  [Note: Mike has repeatedly told me that he is dissatisfied with his autobiography that he is holding in the pic above.]

M [=Mike Stimac]: Well, I don’t like the entire first chapter that is filled with “baby stories.”

A: Oh, O.K.  From what it’s worth, I very much enjoyed your story of how you received a mild electric shock when listening to your crystal set during a thunder storm.  What I heard in this story is how you first encounter radio waves.

M: Yeah, it all started with Jimmy and Johnny coming to live with us on our farm just outside of Cleveland.  The boys were nephews of mine who were escaping the outbreak of smallpox in Chicago.

A: How old were you then?

M: I was between 10 and 12.  Jimmy was a few years older than me.  Johnny was a few years younger.  Both of them, however, were “city boys” and had experience with using a selenium crystal to construct a primitive radio receiver.

A: Did they now?  Tell me about that.

M: My Dad was a part-time engineer with the railroad.  In our attic, he had collected lots of boxes filled with odds and ends of parts used to repair train engines.  The three of us would go through his collection by way of amusing ourselves.  One day, Jimmy recognized a selenium crystal (set in a lead base, it was the size of a dime).  He immediately recognized what it was and what it could be used for.  I helped him find a spool of bare copper wire and a pair of ear phones.  That’s all that was needed.  Jimmy mounted the crystal on a small board and attached it to thirty-foot antenna.  Then he made a “tickler” that allowed him to turn the crystal into a diode that would separate out the audio from the AM radio waves coming off the antenna.  The audio signal was then passed through the head phones allowing the audio signal to be heard in my ears.  Once everything was set up, we heard WTAM transmitting loud and clear from Cleveland, maybe twenty miles due West from our farm.

A: Wow!  That was quite a discovery.  Jimmy showed you how simple it was to design, to build, and to use a crystal receiver.

M: He sure did. I was amazed!

A: I bet you were.

M: After four months, Jimmy and Johnny returned to their family in Chicago.  After that, I had the crystal receiver all to myself.  At night, tucked into bed, I would wind down by listening to WTAM.  On one such night, a thunder storm was brewing.  Now, for the first time, I got some mild electrical shocks from my head phones.  I noticed that I would get a shock every time there was a lightning flash.

A: Hey, what a discovery that was.  [In 1887, the German physicist Heinrich] Hertz was the first man to create a radio transmitter.  It was no more than a spark gap connected to a tank circuit.  I just bet that Hertz, in his youth, had an experience like your own.  He noticed that each time that there was a lightning flash in the clouds, his radio receiver received a strong signal that was experienced as a mild electrical shock in his earphones.

M: Maybe so.

A: Another thing that may be true.  Of all the things that made a deep impression on you, my hunch is that the electrical shocks helped to make certain that you would remember that crystal receiver.  As a boy of ten, you had hundreds, thousands really, of other experiences that have been long-forgotten.  But not “those shocks” that came from your crystal receiver.

M: Yeah!  Now that you mention it.  The shocks that came through the head set were in tandem with the lightning flashes.  This gave me a renewed fascination with the mysteries of Nature.

A: And, let’s face it.  I notice that you remembered “WTAM,” the “selenium crystal,” and “the propagation of radio waves” as well.  All of these associated memories were registered deeply in your long-term memory due to the electric shocks.  Thus, while you might have trouble remembering what you had for supper last night, all of the events surrounding the electrical shocks are fixed in your memory after ninety years.  It’s wonderfully strange how our memory works.

M: I have to agree with you.

A: Let’s go back to your embarrassment at telling “baby stories” in the first chapter of your book.

M: Say more.

A: Well, to begin with, I am in awe that you were able to remember so many stories and to put them into their proper order in your autobiography.  To be sure, you were selecting and deselecting what stories to tell at every point in your writing. Many were left out due to your editing.  I remember that.

As it so happens, Matthew in his Gospel was doing exactly the same thing.  Scholars today believe that Matthew had two reliable sources for his writing: the Gospel of Mark and collections of random sayings of Jesus.  Mark’s Gospel does not have any “baby stories” as you call them.  Matthew, however, had one “baby story” that he wanted to tell.  That’s the story of how three wise men from the East had studied the stars and noticed that a new, bright star had arisen that indicated to them that “a great king has been born.”  This made such a strong impression upon them that they packed their bags and loaded them on camels and set out to follow that new, bright star.“Following a star” is just a fiction invented by Matthew for those [like himself] who do not quite understand astrology or astronomy.  Matthew has the wise men say, “we observed his star at its rising” (Matt 2:2).  Hence, when they started out each evening, the new star was right in front of them.  But, in any given night, this same star would be overhead in five hours and behind them after ten hours (when it was setting).  So, if they literally “followed the star,” they would be reversing their direction during the course of any given night.

Matthew also says the the star “stopped” when they got to Bethlehem: “It [the star] stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child” (Matt 2:9-11).  Here is another fiction.  No star ever stops (save the North Star).  All the other stars are constantly on the move—including the star that induced them to find Jesus.  Thus, only someone ignorant of astronomy could talk about a star “stopping” and allowing them to “enter the house” where the infant-king was to be found.

Yet, you and I know that the bible does not teach us astronomy or astrology.  We overlook these fallacies because the bible is telling us a wonderful story.

M: Yes, I agree.  This was a striking baby story in Matthew’ Gospel.  Who cares that the star movements were all fictionalized.

A: But the story doesn’t end there, as you know.  In Matthew’s story, the three wise men are told by an angel that Herod was not to be trusted.  So they avoided Herod on their way home.  Herod, needless to say, was expecting the wise men to give him the information he needed.  Finally, in a fit of anger, he sent his armed troops into the small village of Bethlehem with orders to kill every male child under two years old.

Many scholars today think that this reported killing of infants never took place.  A Jewish king could be ruthless but not so ruthless as to have a hundred innocent babies killed.  History books that tell about Herod have nothing to say about such a horrendous crime.  Surely the ancient biographers would not easily overlook this ruthless crime?  As I see it, “the killing of the innocents” was put into the story by way of giving “a mild shock” to those who heard the story so that they would never forget it.  So the story in Matthew has the same dynamics that floods your story about the crystal receiver.

M: OK, I get it.  Mark did not tell any baby-Jesus stories.  Matthew and Luke did.  So what now?

A: As I see it, Mike, your story of how you got your first radio receiver and how you discovered that a lightning flash emits powerful radio waves prepares the reader for discovering how, from these very humble beginnings, you would eventually start-up a Radio Club at St. Joseph High School. No one told you to do this.  You were teaching “electricity” to boys in the tech track.  To those who were college-bound, you decided to teach them “electronics.” As a result, over a hundred young men would gain official government licenses that allowed them to build simple one-tube radio transmitters and to send out radio waves that invited other “amateurs” to chat with them using Morse Code. At 06:00, I would fire up my rig because I knew that the atmospheric bounce was just right for chatting with amateurs in CA.

Radio Club tracking the beeps of Sputnik IBut this was only the beginning. There were field trips to examine the cyclotron at Ohio State, parents’ nights, road shows for Catholic grade schools, tracking Sputnik, retreats with Thomas Merton, etc.  So, your little “baby story” of discovering radio waves served to enable nearly two hundred young men to do the same—and I am mightily pleased to count myself among them.

M: In a nutshell, you liked my crystal set story.  It got you ready to hear a much larger story.

A: Exactly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~transcript ends here~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS: After our chat, I did some fact checking.  I looked up WTAM.  They are still broadcasting the news from East Cleveland.  Mike got it right!  He was not inventing this part of the story.

PPS: Here’s a little secret of mine.

Now and then I have the chance to do some electronic repairs here at the house.  I recently took apart my back-up power supply for my home computer and replaced the large battery.  As I did the work, I played “Victory at Sea” using my computer’s loud speakers.  This music transports me physically and spiritually right back into the radio lab at St. Joes on a Saturday morning.

I can still feel “you guys” [Radio Club members] working on all sorts of projects right alongside me.  It gives me a wonderful feeling of being ALIVE!

 

When denial of Communion is blasphemy

By David M. Knight | United States
Published in La Croix International, 14 Aug 2020

Cardinal Burke and his allies have made many attempts to box Pope Francis into a corner by asking him whether the “doctrine” on denying Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics is still part of the unchanging Catholic teaching.  Pope Francis refuses to boxed in by Burke.  This article by Fr. Knight will demonstrate why Pope Francis will never back down on this position.

Jesus said, “If you love me, feed my sheep.” But every time I hear confessions I realize many of the sheep are not being fed with what is most necessary for them—the Body and Blood of Christ—because they were taught false doctrines growing up, and are afraid to receive Communion. And one of those errors is what they were taught about mortal sin. It is blasphemy.

When Is Sin Mortal?

The bishops at Vatican II admitted we were taught error (Church in the Modern World 19):

 

Believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion.

 

This statement has personally poignancy for me, because my 93-year-old brother has been, not an atheist, but an avowed agnostic all his life because of the false teachings we received as children.

 

We were told God would send a small child to hell for all eternity for things like missing Mass on a single Sunday. My brother drew the obvious conclusion: God is unbelievably cruel — and therefore unbelievable. He has been an agnostic ever since.

 

A few years ago he wrote me:

 

Religious belief – which I do not have – provides us with an explanation for our existence. And I do often wonder – Why am I here? Is there any purpose to human existence? The inability to come up with answers makes me uncomfortable.

 

The Catholic Church provided me with a raison d’être– but, as you know, it was not palatable. Each of us was put on earth to go through an ordeal, to be tested, to run a gauntlet. And if we scrupulously obeyed each and every edict of the Church, we would probably get through life without alienating God and having him consign us to damnation. That never appealed to me.

 

For my brother, God was like a pitcher standing on the mound, just waiting for him to take one step off first base so he could throw him out and cast him into hell forever. We taught him – yes, the Catholic Church taught him – that God was a monster.

 

That teaching was blasphemy. It “concealed rather than revealed the authentic face of God.” And every teaching that makes sins “mortal” when they are not is unintentional blasphemy against the true nature of God.

 

A pastor in my diocese asked an altar server at Sunday Mass where his ten-year-old brother was.

 

“He didn’t want to come to Mass this morning, Father,” the boy replied.

 

“Well, when you go home, you tell your little brother he has committed a mortal sin, and if he doesn’t come to Confession, he is going to hell.”

 

Who committed the greater sin: the boy who missed Mass, or the pastor who blasphemed by perverting the truth about God’s love for that little child?

 

The most common and destructive single error in the Church may be our centuries-long teaching about mortal sin.

 

We were given the impression we could easily distinguish mortal sin from venial sin. Mortal sin required three things: serious matter, sufficient knowledge, and full consent of the will.

 

That sounds clear enough. But in reality, it is almost impossible to identify anything as a mortal sin by using these three criteria.

 

When is knowledge “sufficient,” and when is consent “full”? More basically, what “matter” is serious enough to make God withdraw “grace,” the gift of divine life? In practice we were taught it was a mortal sin to miss Mass on one Sunday, or to eat a hamburger on Friday. Every sexual sin was “serious matter”—impure thoughts and touches, passionate kissing, masturbation, and contraception.

 

Married people were denied Communion for years because of “birth control.” According to the common teaching—and admittedly in the metaphorical language of the time—anyone who did any of these things and died without repenting, would be cast by God into the fires of hell to burn for all eternity.

 

To “conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God” like this makes our loving Father a monster. Is that not blasphemy?

 

The truth is, to be “mortal,” a sin has to be, not just bad, not just real bad, but evil; so evil that a normal father or mother whose son or daughter did that act would have to say it would be right and just to burn their child at the stake.

 

That would be much less than the punishment we say God inflicts in hell.

 

The truth is, the Church has never defined, with all her dogmatic authority, any particular act as the “serious matter” required for mortal sin. But from the pulpit, in the classroom, and in sacramental preparation, all sorts of offenses are blithely defined as mortal sin. This has to stop.

 

A good, practical rule of thumb for recognizing mortal sin would be to ask, “If my daughter did this, would I drive her from the house, refuse to let her eat at the family table—and yes, to be consistent with the doctrine we were taught—agree that she deserves to be burned in hell for all eternity?” If you answer “No” to any of these questions you do not really believe the girl is guilty of “mortal sin” as the Catholic Church defines it.

A Current Pastoral Failure

Up until 2016, when Pope Francis wrote his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), approving the findings of the Synod on Family Life, it was almost universally taken for granted that those married “out of the Church”—that is, invalidly, because in a way contrary to the rules—were living in mortal sin, and were not allowed to receive Communion.

 

But in The Joy of Love the pope declared officially in paragraph 301:

“It can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.”

 

And in paragraph 243:

“It is important that the divorced who have entered a new union [without an annulment] should be made to feel part of the Church. They are not excommunicated, and they should not be treated as such, since they remain part of the ecclesial community. These situations require careful discernment and respectful accompaniment.”

 

There used to be a decree that declared them excommunicated, but it was abolished in 1977. And a 1984 article in US Catholic magazine quoted Father James Provost of the Canon Law Society of America:

 

Divorced Catholics enjoy the same good status of any other Catholic in regard to the Mass, Eucharist, and any liturgical function. Catholics who remarry without annulment have an irregular status, but “they are not excommunicated, are under no special penalties, and are not excluded from receiving the Eucharist if they believe they should receive it.” Father Edgar Holden, director of the tribunal of the Seattle archdiocese, agrees.”Nothing in Church law forbids a person with irregular status from receiving the Eucharist. This is a personal decision of conscience. We suggest that if people feel unable to reach a decision on their own, they ask their pastor or spiritual director for assistance” (emphasis added).

 

In other words, the only thing new about the teaching of The Joy of Love is its authoritative promulgation by the Pope and Synod.

 

No general rule exists or should be made either forbidding or allowing those in irregular marriages to receive Communion. This must be decided on a case-by-case basis. And the most important factor in every case is the conscience of the individual.

 

But in spite of the fact that the words of Pope Francis are available on the Vatican’s internet site (http://w2.vatican.va), this may be one of the best-kept secrets in the Catholic Church. I have yet to meet a Catholic who has heard this teaching of the Synod on Family Life, or the words of Pope Francis about it, proclaimed and explained from the pulpit.

 

Undoubtedly, there are pastors who have done so, but they must be few and far between. The great majority of Catholics are left in ignorance—and many are deprived of Communion who have a right to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

 

This is a serious, serious pastoral failure. The “Great Commandment” of pastoral ministry is what Jesus said to the first pope—and through him to all subsequent popes, bishops, and pastors, “If you love me, feed my sheep.”

 

The teaching in The Joy of Love should be shouted from the housetops. Why is that not happening?

 

David M. Knight is a senior priest of the Catholic Diocese of Memphis (USA) and the leader of Immersed in Christ, a movement for spiritual growth based on the five mysteries of Baptism. A former Jesuit, he has a doctorate in theology, 50 years of ministerial experience in 19 countries, and 40 books in print. He speaks four languages.

Source: https://international.la-croix.com/news/religion/an-issue-unaddressed-when-is-denying-communion-blasphemy/12883

===================================================

Here is how things stood in 2014 when the bishops were discussing pastoral options prior to the Synod on the Family:

In February, Pope Francis tapped one of his favorite theologians, German Cardinal Walter Kasper, to address a meeting of all the cardinals.

Kasper argued that the church must show more mercy to people whose first marriages have failed and who want to remain within the church.

“With respect to the divorced and the remarried people, the church does not give them absolution, [does] not give them Holy Communion. And many people say this is not the God of Jesus, because Jesus was very merciful — he forgives us — and the church does not,” he said.

Kasper spoke to NPR after his address. He said it provoked sharp exchanges among some of the cardinals.

“Of course there was a heated debate, but there were not only cardinals who were against it, there were also cardinals who were in favor,” he said. “And so the voices are divided. The pope himself was very grateful for the discourse.”

Many Catholic conservatives rejected Kasper’s proposals. On the eve of the current gathering of bishops, known as a synod, five cardinals published a book of essays, “Remaining in the Truth of Christ.” In them, they described Kasper’s permissive attitude toward Communion as “fundamentally flawed.”

One of the authors is American Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the Vatican’s top court. In an interview with Catholic News Service, he dismissed the viability of Kasper’s proposal.

Catholic doctrine stipulates that a second marriage without the complex and often lengthy annulment of the first amounts to adultery, and that anyone married in a civil ceremony is living in sin and therefore ineligible to receive the sacraments.

But Kasper says there is no such single category as “the divorced and remarried.” For example, he says, a woman who is abandoned by her husband is different from the man who abandoned his wife.

“So we have to distinguish the cases,” he says.

 

Unwed Mothers Allowed to take Communion

Unwed mothers allowed to take Communion, Vatican insists
The Vatican’s doctrinal office reminds “rigorist” priests and other Catholics that unwed mothers are permitted to receive the sacraments and their children can be baptized
By Loup Besmond de Senneville | Vatican City
Published in La Croix International, 15 December  2023

The Vatican’s doctrinal office has issued a new statement to remind “rigorist” Catholics of Pope Francis’ insistence that women who have had children out of wedlock can and should be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

“Pastoral work should be done in the local Church to make people understand that being a single mother does not prevent that person from accessing the Eucharist,” says Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), in a letter to a bishop in the Dominican Republic that was made public on Thursday.

The bishop expressed concern over single mothers who “abstain from communion out of fear of the rigorism of the clergy and community leaders”, the cardinal re-states at the beginning of his letter.

“It is noted that in some countries, both priests and some lay people prevent mothers who have had a child outside of marriage from accessing…

Read more at: https://international.la-croix.com/news/religion/unwed-mothers-allowed-to-take-communion-vatican-insists/18868