As my formal confirmation as a Catholic looms, I can't help but think about the traditions and practices of the Catholic Church which irk me. Though many of these, I've learned, are not essential to the Catholic faith, they still seem widely prevalent; a part of the culture of Catholicism, at least in my experience.
Prayer to the Saints - One of the biggest things that I feel uncomfortable with in Catholicism are instances where people make supplication to canonized saints. There are a couple of reasons why this bothers me. First and foremost, it is my opinion that, too often, such prayer results in a kind of idolatry or superstition. People begin to think that by praying to a certain patron saint they will be more likely to get the kind of help they are seeking, often times not even really knowing the history of that saint. People forget that it is not the saint who answers prayers, but God. Secondly, I'm not really sold on the idea that the dead can pray for us. I do think that the living can (and should) pray for the dead, but not vice versa. Though "the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective" (James 5:16) I'm not sure that holds true even after they are dead.
Views on Mary - Most Christians know that Catholics are big on Mary. You won't find many churches other than Catholic ones where the "Hail Mary" is even occasionally recited. Catholicism teaches that she is the "Mater Dei" or "Mother of God." They hold that she was perpetually a virgin and that she ascended into Heaven much in the same way that Jesus did. Veneration of Mary in the Catholic church borders on all-out worship at times, almost as if she were a fourth member of the Trinity. Now I can certainly understand why Mary would be held in high regard. Being chosen by God to bear his one and only incarnate Son is nothing to thumb one's nose at. That in itself makes Mary one of the best female role models in the entire Bible. Still, to treat her as much more than simply another person wholly obedient to God's will for their lives seems like idolatry to me.
"As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd cried out, 'Blessed is the mother who gave birth to you and nursed you.' He replied, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.'" -- Luke 11:27-28 (NIV)
I read this and think that the Gospel seems to discourage the veneration of Mary. If anything, I'd say that the New Testament infers that Jesus had biological siblings, so to portray Mary as having remained a virgin even after giving birth seems pretty hard to swallow. As Chris Rock's character puts it in the movie "Dogma":
"Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility. "
Papal Authority - I talked briefly about how doctrines from which papal authority is derived. I'm not sure entirely how I feel about those teachings. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the Pope has the same kind of authority over the present church as Peter had over the early Church. I have little doubt that the current pope or any pope in the near future will abuse their position like many other popes have done in the past, but I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of one top leader of the church as an institution who is given any recognition as being infallible to any degree.
Lack of Religious Education - This isn't so much a doctrine or tradition as a de facto non-priority in what I've seen of the Church. So many other Catholics I meet seem to be very ignorant when it comes to scripture. They may know the many stories of the Old Testament and they know the story of Christ's Passion, but I can count on one hand the number of Catholics I've met who can cite scriptural passages off the top of their head. Though I've come to be very critcal of Christian fundamentalist groups who treat the Bible as the end-all-be-all of Christendom, I think that the Catholic church would be much better off it it encouraged more Bible study among lay people. Instead, religious education in the Catholic Church is often simplified down to "This is what the church believes and that's why you should too"
This certainly isn't anything new for Catholicism. In Medieval times, it strengthened the authority of the church (that is, clergymen) to keep the average parishioner ignorant of scripture and theological study. It wasn't hard because throughout much of western history the vast majority of people were illiterate. In fact, the sudden increase in literacy in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries was a main cause of the Reformation. Still, even today the effort put forth by the church to encourage its members in studying the Bible is half-hearted at best.
Still more to come on my gripes with Catholicism, but I'll force myself to save them for a later date.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
More Interesting Facts about Catholicism
Literally the word "catholic" means "universal"
It's important to make a distinction then between "catholic" with a lowercase 'c' and "Catholic" with a capital 'c' for this reason. To believe in the "catholic church" would be akin to what many theologioans refer to as the "invisible church," that is, the true body of believers on earth who live according to Christ's teaching with the faith of salvation to eternal life through his death and resurrection. When capitalized, though, "Catholic" is meant to refer only to the institution known more formally as the Roman Catholic Church. Even in it's name, the Catholic Church states boldly that it is the one true church - the present embodiment of Christ's Church as established by Christ.
To the average American Protestant, the claim that the Roman Catholic Church makes of being the "one true church" seems, well, a bit hard to swallow to say the least. Still, it's based on the premise that Christ intended for his disciples to be united as one body - something even most protestants agree with rather strongly.
It's also based largely on two very fascinating doctrines. First, there is what is known as the Petrine Doctrine, an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 where Jesus says to Simon Peter, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." The Petrine Doctrine states that Peter was commissioned as the head of the Church. Then there is the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Sucession is a bit more complicated, but I would describe it as a "passing of the torch" from old apostles to new ones. In short, the Pope is given authority as the head of the church because he is said to be the apostolic descendant of Peter.
Despite the Catholic Church's claim to be the "one true church" many people may be surprised to hear that it does not teach people to believe that you have to be Catholic to be saved. There's a lot more to it than what I state here, but generally, Catholicism recognizes most protestants as being recipients of God's grace. Also, Catholicism does not necessarily consider non-Christians to be condemned.
By the way, the word "protestant" simply refers to the protest against the Catholic Church. In it's strictest sense, many "Catholics" would be considered protestant because they do not necessarily ascribe to every doctrine of Catholicism. Personally, I think that people who consider themselves to be protestant should try to figure out exactly what they're protesting against. Often times it happens that protestants begin to protest mostly against the teachings of their own church, which is why there are so many different denominations today.
What about you? Do you believe in the idea of a catholic church, that is, a universal church? How does your church as an institution link itself with the church of the first century? What does your church teach about the people who don't belong to it or ascribe to it's teachings? If you are Protestant, what doctrines or traditions of the Catholic Church do you disagree with?
These are all questions that I've had to answer, and I think that anyone else who considers themselves a Christian should try and answer them too.
It's important to make a distinction then between "catholic" with a lowercase 'c' and "Catholic" with a capital 'c' for this reason. To believe in the "catholic church" would be akin to what many theologioans refer to as the "invisible church," that is, the true body of believers on earth who live according to Christ's teaching with the faith of salvation to eternal life through his death and resurrection. When capitalized, though, "Catholic" is meant to refer only to the institution known more formally as the Roman Catholic Church. Even in it's name, the Catholic Church states boldly that it is the one true church - the present embodiment of Christ's Church as established by Christ.
To the average American Protestant, the claim that the Roman Catholic Church makes of being the "one true church" seems, well, a bit hard to swallow to say the least. Still, it's based on the premise that Christ intended for his disciples to be united as one body - something even most protestants agree with rather strongly.
It's also based largely on two very fascinating doctrines. First, there is what is known as the Petrine Doctrine, an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 where Jesus says to Simon Peter, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." The Petrine Doctrine states that Peter was commissioned as the head of the Church. Then there is the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Sucession is a bit more complicated, but I would describe it as a "passing of the torch" from old apostles to new ones. In short, the Pope is given authority as the head of the church because he is said to be the apostolic descendant of Peter.
Despite the Catholic Church's claim to be the "one true church" many people may be surprised to hear that it does not teach people to believe that you have to be Catholic to be saved. There's a lot more to it than what I state here, but generally, Catholicism recognizes most protestants as being recipients of God's grace. Also, Catholicism does not necessarily consider non-Christians to be condemned.
By the way, the word "protestant" simply refers to the protest against the Catholic Church. In it's strictest sense, many "Catholics" would be considered protestant because they do not necessarily ascribe to every doctrine of Catholicism. Personally, I think that people who consider themselves to be protestant should try to figure out exactly what they're protesting against. Often times it happens that protestants begin to protest mostly against the teachings of their own church, which is why there are so many different denominations today.
What about you? Do you believe in the idea of a catholic church, that is, a universal church? How does your church as an institution link itself with the church of the first century? What does your church teach about the people who don't belong to it or ascribe to it's teachings? If you are Protestant, what doctrines or traditions of the Catholic Church do you disagree with?
These are all questions that I've had to answer, and I think that anyone else who considers themselves a Christian should try and answer them too.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
To Tell the Truth
This evening I reluctantly tuned in to a new television series - a game show called "The Moment of Truth."
For those of you not yet familiar with this show, it works fairly similarly to other game shows such as "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" where there is a single contestant who is asked to answer a series of questions correctly in order to move up a ladder of cash prizes. One incorrect answer causes the contestant to lose and leave with no prize money.
The catch is that in this show, the questions are based on ones that the contestant answered during a polygraph test - many of them regarding sensitive issues in that person's life. The answer is only considered correct if the contestant answers it truthfully (in accordance with the polygraph results) in front of family members and, of course, a national audience.
These questions generally force the contestant to admit to any "wrongdoing," in thought or deed. For example, the questions on tonight's episode ranged from "Have you ever stolen anything from work?" to "Would you cheat on your wife if you knew you wouldn't get caught?" Basically, the idea is that people win bigger prizes the more they are willing to admit to things of which they are ashamed.
This whole concept raises some questions for me. Like many other people, I value honesty greatly. I take very seriously the commandment not to bear false witness. However, is it possible to be too truthful?
Take the act of detraction, for example. Just like calumny, it's a form of slander. When one commits detraction, they are defaming someone by voluntarily telling a harmful truth about them that should not be told. Though they are telling the truth, they are doing so in a way that is meant to harm the reputation; perhaps bringing up past mistakes for which someone has already made reparations and penance.
I remember a sermon by the pastor in my former church. He said something along the lines of how he does not openly share his past mistakes with people because he does not want to boast about his life before Christ came into it. In other words, he doesn't think that it's right to glorify his sinful past in any way. Explaining it in terms of God's mercy is different, but if it's done in a way that glorifies the sin or makes the sin seem okay, then it only acts as a stumbling block.
It's one thing to confess something to get forgiveness. It's a totally different thing to confess for money. What this show is doing is asking people to prostitute their sins. The contestants solicit it by volunteering for the show and the viewers patronize it by watching. What good does it do for people to share their deepest, darkest, most shameful secrets on television?
On the other hand, I couldn't help but notice that, at least during this one episode, there appeared to be a healthy response to the contestant's brutal honesty. He found himself asked to admit resentment towards his mother for things done in the past. Though the truth might have been hard to hear (and hard to divulge), it was followed by acceptance, forgiveness and reconciliation. You couldn't help but think that, in this case at least, this family was better off for having participated in this. Still, why does it need to be displayed on television?
I think that I will refrain from watching this show in the future for the same reason why I usually shun "Dr. Phil" and shows like the "Judge Judy" and "The People's Court." There's simply no reason why I need to hear about the shortfalls of complete strangers. In my opinion, all it does is breed either self-righteousness or a false understanding of sin.
In the early Church, confession took place communally. People in the church were expected to confess their sins with a contrite heart in front of the whole community of believers and do some penance for them in order to avoid excommunication. Ironically, I used to think that this was the practice that the Church should strive for as opposed to confessing sins only to a priest or, in the cases of many protestant churches, God alone. These days, however, I feel that there are few congregations who could listen to a scandalous confession with love and mercy instead of judgement and self-righteousness. How many "Christians" would be strong enough not to allow the story of another believer's sin to be a stumbling block to them? Would you feel able to stand up in front of the people in your church and ask for their forgiveness for a public lie? Lustful thoughts? A more 'egregious' sin? Do you think that they would respond to you with Christ-like love and forgiveness?
"Finally, brothers, whaever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." - Phillipians 4:8 (NIV)
For those of you not yet familiar with this show, it works fairly similarly to other game shows such as "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" where there is a single contestant who is asked to answer a series of questions correctly in order to move up a ladder of cash prizes. One incorrect answer causes the contestant to lose and leave with no prize money.
The catch is that in this show, the questions are based on ones that the contestant answered during a polygraph test - many of them regarding sensitive issues in that person's life. The answer is only considered correct if the contestant answers it truthfully (in accordance with the polygraph results) in front of family members and, of course, a national audience.
These questions generally force the contestant to admit to any "wrongdoing," in thought or deed. For example, the questions on tonight's episode ranged from "Have you ever stolen anything from work?" to "Would you cheat on your wife if you knew you wouldn't get caught?" Basically, the idea is that people win bigger prizes the more they are willing to admit to things of which they are ashamed.
This whole concept raises some questions for me. Like many other people, I value honesty greatly. I take very seriously the commandment not to bear false witness. However, is it possible to be too truthful?
Take the act of detraction, for example. Just like calumny, it's a form of slander. When one commits detraction, they are defaming someone by voluntarily telling a harmful truth about them that should not be told. Though they are telling the truth, they are doing so in a way that is meant to harm the reputation; perhaps bringing up past mistakes for which someone has already made reparations and penance.
I remember a sermon by the pastor in my former church. He said something along the lines of how he does not openly share his past mistakes with people because he does not want to boast about his life before Christ came into it. In other words, he doesn't think that it's right to glorify his sinful past in any way. Explaining it in terms of God's mercy is different, but if it's done in a way that glorifies the sin or makes the sin seem okay, then it only acts as a stumbling block.
It's one thing to confess something to get forgiveness. It's a totally different thing to confess for money. What this show is doing is asking people to prostitute their sins. The contestants solicit it by volunteering for the show and the viewers patronize it by watching. What good does it do for people to share their deepest, darkest, most shameful secrets on television?
On the other hand, I couldn't help but notice that, at least during this one episode, there appeared to be a healthy response to the contestant's brutal honesty. He found himself asked to admit resentment towards his mother for things done in the past. Though the truth might have been hard to hear (and hard to divulge), it was followed by acceptance, forgiveness and reconciliation. You couldn't help but think that, in this case at least, this family was better off for having participated in this. Still, why does it need to be displayed on television?
I think that I will refrain from watching this show in the future for the same reason why I usually shun "Dr. Phil" and shows like the "Judge Judy" and "The People's Court." There's simply no reason why I need to hear about the shortfalls of complete strangers. In my opinion, all it does is breed either self-righteousness or a false understanding of sin.
In the early Church, confession took place communally. People in the church were expected to confess their sins with a contrite heart in front of the whole community of believers and do some penance for them in order to avoid excommunication. Ironically, I used to think that this was the practice that the Church should strive for as opposed to confessing sins only to a priest or, in the cases of many protestant churches, God alone. These days, however, I feel that there are few congregations who could listen to a scandalous confession with love and mercy instead of judgement and self-righteousness. How many "Christians" would be strong enough not to allow the story of another believer's sin to be a stumbling block to them? Would you feel able to stand up in front of the people in your church and ask for their forgiveness for a public lie? Lustful thoughts? A more 'egregious' sin? Do you think that they would respond to you with Christ-like love and forgiveness?
"Finally, brothers, whaever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." - Phillipians 4:8 (NIV)
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Finding What it Means to be a Catholic
I'm Catholic - sort of.
My father's background was/is Roman Catholic. My mother's was/is not. At birth I was baptized as a Catholic. However, due to various circumstances, I never went through the process of first communion and confirmation to become a full-blown member of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, my family and I began attending other churches; particularly one that might be described by many as "Evangelical". As I grew older and more familiar with the Bible, I saw what I considered to be spiritual ugliness and ignorance among Catholics I knew. I began to view Catholicism as misguided - a church that had largely lost sight of Christ and his teachings and was thus inclined to allow it's members to live lives of ignorance, idolatry, and legalism.
Much of that began to change however when, while in college, I met the young woman who would eventually become my wife. She was a devout Catholic, but one unlike any I'd ever met before. She actually had a strong grasp of her church's teachings and of the Bible. She didn't hold so many silly superstitions like so many other Catholics I'd met and she actually lived her life in a way so as not to take God's grace for granted. Most of all, in contrast to so many other Catholics I'd met, she strove to develop her beliefs by examining them critically - even learning about the beliefs of other religions and denominations - something that she continues to do even today.
Long story short, I have become what many people would call "Catholic by Marriage." We attend church as a family at the nearest Parish. We brought our daughter to be baptized and pledged to raise her as a Catholic. I have even been meeting with our priest recently in RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) classes as I try to decide whether or not to "fullfill my baptismal promises."
At this point, I'm still on the fence about the whole thing. On one hand, I have come to see a lot of great things about Catholicism which I hadn't appreciated before that I've seen lacking in other churches. I've come to realize that the ugliness I recognized in the Catholic church, though still prevalent in this area where I grew up, is not extended to every Parish in America. In fact, I find that the beliefs I have come to develop over the years often line up with the Catholic Catechism better than they do with the beliefs of other denominations. Listening to my preist, I get a vision of a Catholic church that is trying to move on from a troubled past - a past that includes everything from the Crusades to the Spanish Inquisition, to misguided, uncompassionate, dualistic religious teaching which continues even in some parishes today.
In theory (or rather theology), I think many protestants would be surprised at how closely the Catholic Church's teachings relate to theirs, especially in terms of morals and ethics. True Catholics, after all, view both abortion and homosexuality as wrong. Contrary to popular opinion, the Catholic Church really does teach people to believe in salvation by faith and acceptance of God's grace through Christ's redeeming sacrifice - not through works and deeds.
Still, I'm reluctant to become a full-blown Catholic. After all, the idea is that, once you commit, to denounce the church is considered apostacy. Despite having learned so much more about Catholicism, I still have this looming feeling that there is some aspect of it I'm ignoring which lies contrary to my own beliefs. Do I have to believe in the authority of the papacy, for instance? What if I disagree with the Churches teachings on some point or another? The impression I get from my priest is that complete agreement with all the intricacies and traditions of the church are not all that important.
But then there are more practical matters. There have been times where I have considered training for formal ministry. In the Catholic church, at least currently, being married and being a clergyman doesn't quite mix, though I suppose there is the possibility of becoming a deacon.
Another issue is the concern I have with the weaknesses I see in the Catholic church around me. The parishes around here are not so effective at evangelism nor religious education of youth. Too many parishioners I encounter seem to have very little familiarity with the Bible in terms of our call to discipleship, ministry, and evangelism. Part of the reason is that these things are not preached nearly as much in the sermons and homilies. People attend church largely because of their background and heritage, but most of them are just "going through the motions." There is very little outreach in the community by members of the Parish. Do I really want to become part of a church that puts so little emphasis on ministry and evangelism? I know that not all Catholic parishes are like this, but ones that equip parishioners for evangelism seem to be in the minority.
After reading books like Gregory Boyd's "The Myth of a Christian Nation" and learning about theologians like John H. Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas, I am beginning to think that my beliefs are more closely reflected in Anabaptism and the Emerging Church movement. Can a Catholic still be part of the Emerging Church?
Perhaps some of these questions will be answered for me in the coming weeks.
My father's background was/is Roman Catholic. My mother's was/is not. At birth I was baptized as a Catholic. However, due to various circumstances, I never went through the process of first communion and confirmation to become a full-blown member of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, my family and I began attending other churches; particularly one that might be described by many as "Evangelical". As I grew older and more familiar with the Bible, I saw what I considered to be spiritual ugliness and ignorance among Catholics I knew. I began to view Catholicism as misguided - a church that had largely lost sight of Christ and his teachings and was thus inclined to allow it's members to live lives of ignorance, idolatry, and legalism.
Much of that began to change however when, while in college, I met the young woman who would eventually become my wife. She was a devout Catholic, but one unlike any I'd ever met before. She actually had a strong grasp of her church's teachings and of the Bible. She didn't hold so many silly superstitions like so many other Catholics I'd met and she actually lived her life in a way so as not to take God's grace for granted. Most of all, in contrast to so many other Catholics I'd met, she strove to develop her beliefs by examining them critically - even learning about the beliefs of other religions and denominations - something that she continues to do even today.
Long story short, I have become what many people would call "Catholic by Marriage." We attend church as a family at the nearest Parish. We brought our daughter to be baptized and pledged to raise her as a Catholic. I have even been meeting with our priest recently in RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults) classes as I try to decide whether or not to "fullfill my baptismal promises."
At this point, I'm still on the fence about the whole thing. On one hand, I have come to see a lot of great things about Catholicism which I hadn't appreciated before that I've seen lacking in other churches. I've come to realize that the ugliness I recognized in the Catholic church, though still prevalent in this area where I grew up, is not extended to every Parish in America. In fact, I find that the beliefs I have come to develop over the years often line up with the Catholic Catechism better than they do with the beliefs of other denominations. Listening to my preist, I get a vision of a Catholic church that is trying to move on from a troubled past - a past that includes everything from the Crusades to the Spanish Inquisition, to misguided, uncompassionate, dualistic religious teaching which continues even in some parishes today.
In theory (or rather theology), I think many protestants would be surprised at how closely the Catholic Church's teachings relate to theirs, especially in terms of morals and ethics. True Catholics, after all, view both abortion and homosexuality as wrong. Contrary to popular opinion, the Catholic Church really does teach people to believe in salvation by faith and acceptance of God's grace through Christ's redeeming sacrifice - not through works and deeds.
Still, I'm reluctant to become a full-blown Catholic. After all, the idea is that, once you commit, to denounce the church is considered apostacy. Despite having learned so much more about Catholicism, I still have this looming feeling that there is some aspect of it I'm ignoring which lies contrary to my own beliefs. Do I have to believe in the authority of the papacy, for instance? What if I disagree with the Churches teachings on some point or another? The impression I get from my priest is that complete agreement with all the intricacies and traditions of the church are not all that important.
But then there are more practical matters. There have been times where I have considered training for formal ministry. In the Catholic church, at least currently, being married and being a clergyman doesn't quite mix, though I suppose there is the possibility of becoming a deacon.
Another issue is the concern I have with the weaknesses I see in the Catholic church around me. The parishes around here are not so effective at evangelism nor religious education of youth. Too many parishioners I encounter seem to have very little familiarity with the Bible in terms of our call to discipleship, ministry, and evangelism. Part of the reason is that these things are not preached nearly as much in the sermons and homilies. People attend church largely because of their background and heritage, but most of them are just "going through the motions." There is very little outreach in the community by members of the Parish. Do I really want to become part of a church that puts so little emphasis on ministry and evangelism? I know that not all Catholic parishes are like this, but ones that equip parishioners for evangelism seem to be in the minority.
After reading books like Gregory Boyd's "The Myth of a Christian Nation" and learning about theologians like John H. Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas, I am beginning to think that my beliefs are more closely reflected in Anabaptism and the Emerging Church movement. Can a Catholic still be part of the Emerging Church?
Perhaps some of these questions will be answered for me in the coming weeks.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Diary of a Stay-at-Home Dad
About five months ago I became unemployed on somewhat short notice. Though I made a dedicated effort to find work elsewhere, my wife was the first to be offered a full-time position. Thus, we traded roles of breadwinner and homemaker and I became a full-time stay-at-home father.
The job has its perks. I don't have to commute. I don't even have to dress up. I can sleep in fairly late. I spend most of the day entertaining our year-and-a-half-old daughter who is brimming with cuteness. I can eat when I want, watch a lot of TV (even if it is Barney and Sesame Street) and I even get an hour break in the afternoon during nap-time.
The work doesn't involve much deep thinking or heavy physical labor. Planning a bi-weekly menu and grocery list is about the extent of mental tasks. Lifting and carrying a 25-pound toddler at several points throughout the day is the most physical strain I undergo. I've grown accustomed to the task of washing dishes, and I actually enjoy cooking most days.
The stay-at-home part can be a double-edged sword, though. I'm literally stranded at home all morning and afternoon with only my daughter to socialize with. I've found it difficult to get much cooking or cleaning done with the little one running about, so I often find myself with chores to do well into the evening. There's not much opportunity for me to separate myself from my work. Home is no longer the oasis of relaxation that it had previously been. The work is tedious, with a routine that makes each day seem just like the last one, adding to the illusion that the work is never really done. It's difficult for me to see the fruits of my labor as I struggle just to maintain the status quo. The only people who even take note of my work are my wife and daughter, and although I am thankful that they show their appreciation to me, I often wish I were in a position where there were others to impress.
My social life is hurting big-time. A large part of that can be attributed to the fact that I live in a sparsely populated region with few other people in my age group. There simply aren't very many people around to whom I can relate. Even if this were not the case, I'm still in a minority among people in their early twenties being both married and a parent. For many reasons, single people tend not to relate as well to married people their own age - even less so if they have a child. Very often I find myself praying that I could just find a group of people (especially other men) my own age who I could socialize with.
Not being employed in the type of job that earns a paycheck has begun to wear at my self-esteem, as well. There are often times I wonder how I will ever return to the workforce. Having had rather poor work experiences after college, I often question my chosen career path. Though I'm comfortable doing the work I do and proud of how well I do it, I wouldn't call it fulfilling. It's becoming harder and harder to believe that I have skills which would be valuable to a paying employer. After all, the training and education that I have gone through has not been put to much use as of late. There are times when it is very discouraging.
All I can do is keep trying to look on the positive side of things. I remind myself that, by staying at home, I'm saving us lots of money on day-care services and allowing us to live out our goal of having at least one of us around at all times to take an active role in our children's development. I try to focus on career possibilities instead of the obstacles. I look for opportunities for social activities that catch my interest.
Though I'm not entirely anxious to be employed full- or even part-time quite yet, I must admit that I'm looking forward to a situation where I can feel like my professional skills are being put to use and I am appreciated and valued by the people working with me and around me. At least, that's what I hope I can experience someday.
The job has its perks. I don't have to commute. I don't even have to dress up. I can sleep in fairly late. I spend most of the day entertaining our year-and-a-half-old daughter who is brimming with cuteness. I can eat when I want, watch a lot of TV (even if it is Barney and Sesame Street) and I even get an hour break in the afternoon during nap-time.
The work doesn't involve much deep thinking or heavy physical labor. Planning a bi-weekly menu and grocery list is about the extent of mental tasks. Lifting and carrying a 25-pound toddler at several points throughout the day is the most physical strain I undergo. I've grown accustomed to the task of washing dishes, and I actually enjoy cooking most days.
The stay-at-home part can be a double-edged sword, though. I'm literally stranded at home all morning and afternoon with only my daughter to socialize with. I've found it difficult to get much cooking or cleaning done with the little one running about, so I often find myself with chores to do well into the evening. There's not much opportunity for me to separate myself from my work. Home is no longer the oasis of relaxation that it had previously been. The work is tedious, with a routine that makes each day seem just like the last one, adding to the illusion that the work is never really done. It's difficult for me to see the fruits of my labor as I struggle just to maintain the status quo. The only people who even take note of my work are my wife and daughter, and although I am thankful that they show their appreciation to me, I often wish I were in a position where there were others to impress.
My social life is hurting big-time. A large part of that can be attributed to the fact that I live in a sparsely populated region with few other people in my age group. There simply aren't very many people around to whom I can relate. Even if this were not the case, I'm still in a minority among people in their early twenties being both married and a parent. For many reasons, single people tend not to relate as well to married people their own age - even less so if they have a child. Very often I find myself praying that I could just find a group of people (especially other men) my own age who I could socialize with.
Not being employed in the type of job that earns a paycheck has begun to wear at my self-esteem, as well. There are often times I wonder how I will ever return to the workforce. Having had rather poor work experiences after college, I often question my chosen career path. Though I'm comfortable doing the work I do and proud of how well I do it, I wouldn't call it fulfilling. It's becoming harder and harder to believe that I have skills which would be valuable to a paying employer. After all, the training and education that I have gone through has not been put to much use as of late. There are times when it is very discouraging.
All I can do is keep trying to look on the positive side of things. I remind myself that, by staying at home, I'm saving us lots of money on day-care services and allowing us to live out our goal of having at least one of us around at all times to take an active role in our children's development. I try to focus on career possibilities instead of the obstacles. I look for opportunities for social activities that catch my interest.
Though I'm not entirely anxious to be employed full- or even part-time quite yet, I must admit that I'm looking forward to a situation where I can feel like my professional skills are being put to use and I am appreciated and valued by the people working with me and around me. At least, that's what I hope I can experience someday.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
In Character
Several weeks back my wife pointed out an ad in the paper to me. It was a local community theater holding auditions for a musical; "The Pirates of Penzance"
I'd done an adaptation of Pirates my senior year of high school and played the lead role - Frederick - a young, self-proclaimed "slave of duty" who represents the male love interest throughout the play. Frederick is pure, innocent to the point of naivete, and valiant to a fault; not a hard character for me to portray despite my limited talent as an actor. The part of Frederick is written for a tenor in a show that is about 90% music and I do consider myself to be a very strong singer. In short, I knew I'd have pretty good chances of landing the lead again.
Having learned about the auditions on such short notice, I went the next day to pick up an audition packet and had the night to look over it before the last day of auditions. After looking over the materials, I could tell that the director anticipated a cast largely composed of students from the high school. There was, for instance, a line of questions centered around school sports and other activities that might conflict with rehearsals. I considered the possibility that this production was to be, in effect, a school play with a few adults added. I figured that my audition would either impress them so much that they would virtually give me the part on the spot, or they would have had some young high-school guy in mind already and would persuade me to take on another role.
It turns out that the former was true. After my audition, the director pulled me aside and praised me for a great audition. She asked if I would feel uncomfortable playing Frederick opposite a much younger girl as Mabel. It turns out the director's 15-year-old daughter was the one favored for the part of Mabel - the female love interest. I had considered the possibility beforehand, and so I told her rather cautiously that I would be able to handle doing that. She assured me that this girl, though young, was very mature for her age, and that she planned to tone down the romantic scenes.
To some it may not seem like such a big deal, but I have legitimate concerns in a situation like this. For one thing, my background is in Education, and although I'm not currently teaching, there's a strong possibility that I may get back into teaching again in this area. If anyone of importance was even convinced that I might be acting inappropriately towards a girl this age, it could severely hurt my chances of teaching again, at least anywhere nearby. I don't see how anyone could convince themselves of that, but sometimes it can really surprise one to see how people can get the wrong idea - unable to separate the stage from real life.
Those kind of concerns aren't so much of an issue for me in this case. I trust that people involved with the show would not allow for such rumors to be spread about me. They may be amateurs, but they know how to be professional in that sense.
Still, after a few weeks of rehearsal, it's not hard to see that there is definitely some awkwardness when it comes to the scenes with Frederick and Mabel. This girl and I have barely shared a bit of conversation, but we both have our reasons. It would be a social debacle for either of us to act more than minimally amiable to one another while not in character. After all, in "real life" we would probably ignore each other as much as possible anyway, if only because of the difference in our age. Neither one of us wants to consider the thought that there could be attraction between us on either end. Neither one of us wants other people suggesting that either, even if it's in a "joking" way. Another factor may be that she and many of her friends at school have my mother as a teacher - so even being friends with me becomes that much more weird. Add in the fact that we're both rather quiet, introverted people by nature and you can see why there is a lot of ice to break between us.
I'm sure that having her mom as the director doesn't make it much easier for her either. I can say that it makes things easier for me, though, since I know I'm not going to be asked to do anything with her that would make her (or at least her mom) feel uncomfortable.
I wouldn't care so much, but it has, at least so far, made acting alongside her a bit difficult. I can tell that it's not coming very easily for her either. I'm just thankful that she doesn't act entirely disgusted by the idea of having to play Mabel to my Frederick.
So the question lingers: how can I help to overcome the awkwardness between us without much risk of icreasing it?
I guess I'll just have to wait and see.
I'd done an adaptation of Pirates my senior year of high school and played the lead role - Frederick - a young, self-proclaimed "slave of duty" who represents the male love interest throughout the play. Frederick is pure, innocent to the point of naivete, and valiant to a fault; not a hard character for me to portray despite my limited talent as an actor. The part of Frederick is written for a tenor in a show that is about 90% music and I do consider myself to be a very strong singer. In short, I knew I'd have pretty good chances of landing the lead again.
Having learned about the auditions on such short notice, I went the next day to pick up an audition packet and had the night to look over it before the last day of auditions. After looking over the materials, I could tell that the director anticipated a cast largely composed of students from the high school. There was, for instance, a line of questions centered around school sports and other activities that might conflict with rehearsals. I considered the possibility that this production was to be, in effect, a school play with a few adults added. I figured that my audition would either impress them so much that they would virtually give me the part on the spot, or they would have had some young high-school guy in mind already and would persuade me to take on another role.
It turns out that the former was true. After my audition, the director pulled me aside and praised me for a great audition. She asked if I would feel uncomfortable playing Frederick opposite a much younger girl as Mabel. It turns out the director's 15-year-old daughter was the one favored for the part of Mabel - the female love interest. I had considered the possibility beforehand, and so I told her rather cautiously that I would be able to handle doing that. She assured me that this girl, though young, was very mature for her age, and that she planned to tone down the romantic scenes.
To some it may not seem like such a big deal, but I have legitimate concerns in a situation like this. For one thing, my background is in Education, and although I'm not currently teaching, there's a strong possibility that I may get back into teaching again in this area. If anyone of importance was even convinced that I might be acting inappropriately towards a girl this age, it could severely hurt my chances of teaching again, at least anywhere nearby. I don't see how anyone could convince themselves of that, but sometimes it can really surprise one to see how people can get the wrong idea - unable to separate the stage from real life.
Those kind of concerns aren't so much of an issue for me in this case. I trust that people involved with the show would not allow for such rumors to be spread about me. They may be amateurs, but they know how to be professional in that sense.
Still, after a few weeks of rehearsal, it's not hard to see that there is definitely some awkwardness when it comes to the scenes with Frederick and Mabel. This girl and I have barely shared a bit of conversation, but we both have our reasons. It would be a social debacle for either of us to act more than minimally amiable to one another while not in character. After all, in "real life" we would probably ignore each other as much as possible anyway, if only because of the difference in our age. Neither one of us wants to consider the thought that there could be attraction between us on either end. Neither one of us wants other people suggesting that either, even if it's in a "joking" way. Another factor may be that she and many of her friends at school have my mother as a teacher - so even being friends with me becomes that much more weird. Add in the fact that we're both rather quiet, introverted people by nature and you can see why there is a lot of ice to break between us.
I'm sure that having her mom as the director doesn't make it much easier for her either. I can say that it makes things easier for me, though, since I know I'm not going to be asked to do anything with her that would make her (or at least her mom) feel uncomfortable.
I wouldn't care so much, but it has, at least so far, made acting alongside her a bit difficult. I can tell that it's not coming very easily for her either. I'm just thankful that she doesn't act entirely disgusted by the idea of having to play Mabel to my Frederick.
So the question lingers: how can I help to overcome the awkwardness between us without much risk of icreasing it?
I guess I'll just have to wait and see.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
My First Post
Ok, well...
This is my first blogger post. I must say that I'm somewhat excited about putting this forum to use. I really don't have anything worth posting on my mind right now, but I'm sure there'll be more to come soon.
This is my first blogger post. I must say that I'm somewhat excited about putting this forum to use. I really don't have anything worth posting on my mind right now, but I'm sure there'll be more to come soon.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)