The Second Third, Week 32: Growing Up Dad

“Our similarities are different.”
– Dale Berra, son of Yogi

In my most recent Second Third post, I insisted I was becoming (rather effortlessly) more and more like my father. The interesting part, to me at least, is that the more I become like him, the starker our differences seem. Eventually we’ll be identical, and nothing alike at all!

It makes sense in a strange way. Part of Dad’s charm – and, I believe, a big part of why he looms so large in the lives of so many – is that he is thoroughly an individual. He looks how he looks, believes what he believes, and lives how he lives – and is completely unapologetic about it. You can take him or leave him, and he might prefer the latter.

I am not so thoroughly individualized. I still work in a collaborative and political environment in which one must be flexible and take alternative views (many, and often somewhat obscure, alternative views) into account. Dad is oak, not willow: straight, tall, deeply rooted, and hard; inspiring, hot-burning, and impervious to shifting winds.

We also have different aptitudes. Dad didn’t enjoy school, and wasn’t a voracious reader until later in life. He’s always been gifted with mechanical ability, spatial intelligence, and will power. In these ways I am his opposite—but (thankfully), I did inherit both his and my Mom’s persistence. Given time, I’ll make it work, make it happen, make it come out alright.

Nevertheless, I am growing into him. He is not a man of faith, but of deep conviction; my Catholic faith has led me to a similar place, in which the grays of young manhood are reconstituting into their constituent blacks and whites. His full beard and Amish-meets-mountain-man appearance have emerged in me as an unruly mop of hair and pincushion goatee, and jeans and western boots at work. His politics and inclination to be left alone are manifest in my politics and inclination to be left alone, and his willingness to be firm with his children and die for them in a heartbeat shape me more every day.

My sense of humor and involuntary tendency to play word games are his, too. One standard eye-roller for our kids: when someone says, “I’m too tired,” I ask, “Like a bicycle?” I also make up random lyrics to old songs, and spontaneously invert the first letters or sounds of word pairs…and then rhyme them to make new pairs. For example, Dad will call my mother “peety swie” and their dog, Maggie, “duppy pog” or a family favorite, “mirthless what.” (Don’t concentrate on the words; flip the first letters and sound it out…) An example from our house: I took to calling Emma Rose “Rosebud,” then “Boserud” – then ultimately “Nosecrud” if I want to get her goat. Should you find that cruel, consider that I was referred to as Dogbreath for much of my formative years. We played these games all the time when we were younger. Dad loved “runny babbit” well before I’d ever heard of the Shel Silverstein book.

I’ve been told I look more like him, sound more like him, move more like him. In my Second Third, I hope we will become just the same. Only different.

The Second Third, Week 30: Male Bonding

I’ve written a number of Second Third posts about the reasons I need to scale back my work hours and volunteer commitments, but this week drove it home, and gave me a new reason to seek better balance. The past few weeks have been intense at work — a number of major and important projects to bring to a close, a handful of goodbyes to colleagues leaving for new jobs in this time of transition, plus those of us accompanying my boss on his next adventure were supposed to be packing our offices for the move.

Add to that the start of soccer for two of our children, and of daily weightlifting for a third. Then layer on Albertville Friendly City Days this weekend — our KC council sponsors the softball tourney, the beer tent and the pedal-power tractor pull, and appears in the parade. (I have direct involvement with two of these events and at least some vested interest in the success of all of them.) Plus we are trying to organize the annual parish-wide weekend at Camp Lebanon and need to meet with our co-chairs. It’s no wonder I’ve come down with shingles (seriously).

I need to scale back for my family, for the new baby, for my bride, and for my future as a writer. And now I need to do it for my health. But last night, I realized I have yet another reason. I swung by a friend’s place to discuss the fact that I probably didn’t have time to hit the shooting range with him this weekend (and to ask if his family wanted to hand out candy in the parade). He was enjoying the Twins game in his garage, sipping a Summit India Pale Ale. He offered me one, but I was too tired already and had to be up early. We talked about shooting (no), retrieving a deer stand at his brother-in-law’s this weekend (maybe), and other things we ought to get on top of this summer. I told him something I’ve said many times over the past year: “We’re overcommitted. We’ve said ‘yes’ too much.”

“I know,” he said. “You do a lot. It’s good…and it’s bad.”

“It’s bad,” I said.

“You’re needed,” he said.

I don’t know for sure what he meant: needed by the people and organizations we work with and for, or needed by our friends we don’t see. But I know how I took it.

I’ve never had a lot of close male friends, because I’m not a sports nut or a partier; I don’t tell dirty jokes or golf; I don’t build much or have a motorcycle or anything. I love being married, dig my kids, and enjoy reading, writing, music, and faith.

Only now, living in “The Bubble,” I have men around be to whom I can relate, who are walking the same road with the same end in mind. And they like to hunt and fish and enjoy a good beer (and maybe even brew one). They love their wives and balance doting and discipline with their kids. I like these guys. And they deserve more than me swinging by their garage to say I can’t go shooting this weekend.

A while back, another friend was asked by a third if he had seen me around lately. “Nah, I haven’t seen him,” he said. “He’s probably at the church. They volunteer for everything.” That’s gotta change.

Life In The Bubble

On two separate occasions this weekend — on Friday evening and again on Sunday morning — I found myself in deep discussions with fellow parishioners about life inside “The Bubble.” I had heard people talk about “the bubble” (lowercase) before to reference our neck of the woods: the small(ish) communities of St. Michael and Albertville, home to lots of good all-around folk. But I hadn’t realized “the bubble” was actually “The Bubble” — and has come to mean, more specifically, the thriving Catholic communities in which people still have big families and pray the rosary and make it to Mass on Sunday (and any other time they can).

On Friday, I spoke with two other men about venturing outside The Bubble to work each day, the stuff going on “out there” we can’t stomach or abide, and the challenges this poses to our faith and sanity (not to mention our employment). On Sunday, the topic was the insidious encroachment of the outside world into The Bubble — the impossibility of shutting out the world entirely, and how best to manage the slivers of darkness that pierce the iridescent dome and seek to pop! it.

Sounds almost Amish, doesn’t it?

Then on Sunday night I had a dream, in which I was floating on a rubber raft of some sort in the twilight, while gathered around me were various coworkers from jobs past and present, none of whom I ever got along with particularly well. It was a meeting of sorts, except we were adrift, and I was the target of insufficient direction, unwarranted criticism, and a couple of disturbing come-ons. By the time I reached shore I was livid…and (this being a dream) got on my black and gold Huffy Challenger 3000 bicycle and headed straight home.

Home, in this case, was my childhood home on Littlefield Lake, which was a blissful place to be a boy. I rode back to old neighborhood, but, since I was still quite angry, circled the block atop the hill that sloped down to our house and the lake, blowing off steam, knowing my family didn’t deserve the brunt of that bizarre meeting. It was a damp spring day, and the roads were muddy — it must’ve snowed recently, because although it was warm and the grass was greening, along the shoulder of the roads were piles of wet snow a snow plow had kicked up.

Finally I headed down the hill, thinking I would have to push my bike through the heap of wet snow at the end of the driveway. But when I turned the corner, a number of friends from “The Bubble” were shoveling our the end of the drive. My CRHP brother* John M. was there, laughing and throwing snow at the other workers; our dear family friends Butch and Laura were there, joyfully lending a hand; Jim V. from the KCs was there; and more.** They shouted greetings and waved me through. In the garage, Butch and Laura’s oldest son and Bren were conspiring to avoid shoveling and go fishing instead.

It is a comfort to come home each evening to a community of faith and stability — with like-minded people who know where you stand and what you aspire to be. Last night at Adoration, while praying the Third Joyful Mystery, the Incarnation, it struck me: The Word Made Flesh isn’t just the Christ child born two millenia ago; it’s the Body of Christ working in concert here in this world, today, to bring about the Kingdom of God. I’m glad to be a part of it.

—–

* Christ Renews His Parish retreat
** These names are important because they represent the spectrum: a number of fellow Catholics I know in very different ways…

Angels Addendum

In my earlier “book report” on Angels and Their Mission According to the Church Fathers, I indicated I could not find a specific passage that stated that angels are not properly understood as supernatural. The reason I couldn’t find that passage is because it’s in another book. Completely coincidentally, I had begun at the same time a section on angels in My Way of Life, which is the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, simplified for mere mortal readers. The passage (which is complemented by The Angels and Their Mission) reads as follows:

Because the angels are bodiless creatures, pure spirits, it is too often concluded that they are supernatural beings; they are not, God is the only supernatural being. The angels are natural beings, they belong in, and, indeed, dominate our world. They are creatures as natural as oaks, or sunsets, or birds, or men. To call them supernatural because they are not like ourselves is a part of that provincial pride by which a man puts human nature at the peak of the universe, primarily because he himself is a man.”

A couple observations:

  • My Way of Life is a lovely pocket-size volume, and the section on Angels and the introduction (which was referenced near the end of last year’s holiday letter) alone make it worth the read.
  • However, as you can see from the sentences above, the simplified Summa is not a without complexity. It has, for the moment, made me content to leave the full-blown Summa on the shelf.

Someday, perhaps. By the way, my own copy of The Angels and Their Mission arrived yesterday, which means it is available for lending.

Book Break: The Angels and Their Mission

A group of friends and I had just finished watching The Exorcism of Emily Rose with our priests, Fr. Richards and Fr. Meyers, and Fr. Richards assigned me a book report. We were in the middle of a fascinating discussion about what the Catholic Church actually believes about the Devil, possession, and exorcism, and I asked the following question(s): If the Book of Revelation reveals to us that the Devil doesn’t win, why does he bother trying? Can he hope to change the outcome? Can the Devil hope at all?

The short answer was a supposition: that the Devil, being consumed with his own pride and envy, is likely so inwardly focused that it doesn’t matter what God does or what scripture reveals. The longer response concerned ancient teachings about the heirarchy of angels in heaven and an inverted but parallel heirarchy of fallen angels in hell — Father Meyers spoke to this topic, and I must’ve responded positively, because Fr. Richards then said, “I don’t know as much about this topic, but I have a book that was given to me to read — since you’re interested, why don’t you borrow it…then you can summarize it for me.” He went to his office and retrieved the book. “So that about that report…should I expect it in a few weeks?”

The book was The Angels and Their Mission According to the Church Fathers by the theologian Jean Danielou, first published in Belgium in 1953. Father’s edition is a thin hardcover English version from the 1950s. At 114 pages, it is a quick read, though not always easy; it assumes a familiarity with who (and when) the Church fathers were, and the ability to untangle English translations of ancient writings. I’m sure much of it went over my head.

That said, it is organized very simply, which is helpful with a largely unfamiliar topic. Each chapter addresses the Church’s age-old beliefs about angels with regard to a specific topic: The Angels and the Law, The Angels and the World Religion, The Angels of the Nativity…all the way to The Angels and Death and The Angels and the Second Coming (bringing us full circle, back to our discussion). Each chapter explains the role of angels with regard to that topic, citing scriptural references and ancient writings dating to the Middle Ages, the Early Church, and even ancient Jewish traditions. And while some of the passages and references may have been beyond me at this point, the structure made it easy to pick up the main points of each chapter.

The introduction is worth a read: it begins by sagely acknowledging that angels may be regarded as an odd topic for an entire book, however brief, and admitting that we live in a world in which many people “deny the personal character of celestial spirits.” It then goes on to touch upon a few of the mistakes people make when trying to make sense of angels. Don’t skip it, even if it doesn’t all sink in.

Three primary points stuck with me from the body of the book:

  • Angels ought not be regarded as supernatural, but as spiritual. This point may not have been explicit in the book (that’s my way of saying I can’t find the passage again), but it was certainly underscored by it — just because we can’t see angels doesn’t make them supernatural; it just means they are spiritual, and not corporal. Angels are created beings, created for a purpose, just like us. Their existence is natural because it comes from God and is sustained by God. This is reassuring, somehow, for someone who finds the supernatural nerve-wracking.
  • Angels are extraordinarily active in our world. The Church fathers believed that angels don’t only show up on the scene to deliver extraordinary news (St. Gabriel), to do battle with evil (St. Michael), or to assist in deliverance (St. Raphael) — they oversee the laws and order of the universe and nature; they minister to each nation and to each individual, working to draw them nearer to God and the Truth (with widely varying results; we do, after all, have free will); and they are constantly working with the Trinity to bring God’s plan for the world to fruition.
  • Angels long for that fruition of God’s plan, just like we do. Based in part on the first bullet, although angels are often closer to God than we are, they are not one with God and do not know His mind. They are amazed to see it unfold (God becomes man!?), and, based in part on the second bullet, they are working hard, like us, and long for the joy and peace and rest promised in the end.

As I read back over this post, my skeptical streak asks, “Do you really buy all this?” While I struggle answering that question with an unqualified yes, I can truthfully say, “More and more every day.”

One more thing: I found an inexpensive copy of this book on eBay — should be here today or early next week, if you want to borrow it. (Or perhaps, after he reads this, Fr. Richards will loan you his.)