More about Ad orientem

I have looked further into the Ad orientem issue and understood that it has been quite controversial for quite some time. Apparently the Ad orientem format is traditionally preferred because it forces the congregation to focus on the actual celebration of the mass and not on the priest who is saying the mass. It is supposed to be more reverential. I had never thought about this before and in truth I've never particularly focused on the priest who says mass except when he steps into the pulpit to deliver his sermon. 

I'm including some links in this post so that you can read more about it if you are so inclined. 

Facing the People, or Facing the Altar? | Catholic Answers Magazine

Ad Orientem – Immaculate Conception Catholic Church

Why is Ad Orientem worship so controversial?

I retain my opinion--that I prefer the Versus Populum format of the liturgy, where the priest faces the congregation while saying mass. I understand that Ad orientem is the historical and long-practiced way of saying mass. It doesn't change my viewpoint. 

If we are first going to choose tradition and take up this priestly orientation again in order to promote reverence and avoid distractions, then my suggestion is to go further and ban the use of guitars and all other musical instruments except the use of the organ in church. I would also ban the singing of modern songs/hymns and focus only on the time-honored traditional hymns that we grew up with (and that many people got tired of--not me). I would ban musical groups from performing in church at Easter and Christmastime. I would ban singing altogether with the exception of church choirs that sing only traditional church music. We did not have musical groups performing prior to Vatican II, so they are not necessary to the celebration of mass. Nor did we have liturgical dances on the altar (as was the case at times when I was a teenager). They are distractions. We have one Latin mass (the high mass) each week on Sundays here in Oslo at my church. If we are going backward in time, then all the masses should be celebrated in Latin as that is the language of the early church. Why focus on changing only one aspect of the mass? 

It has become quite silly in my opinion to focus on changing only one thing--how the priest faces during the celebration. I have never focused on the priest except when he faces us to give his sermon, which we could also do without since most of the priests simply regurgitate the gospel that can speak for itself for the most part. We can return to my childhood days when my mother would attend weekday masses that were quiet, short, and without sermons, just the celebration of the mass. And while we're at it, remove most statues and the accompanying small chapels that honor the saints. These can also be distractions.   

I realize that I sound quite harsh (some of what I write is of course a bit satirical). But if you are going to choose tradition, then go all the way and return the church to pre-Vatican II times. Streamline every aspect of the mass and boil it down to one predictable format. If that's what the Vatican thinks is going to draw in more of the faithful, then let them try. I'm not sure that the lack of attendance at mass has to do with these things. But I don't know. Perhaps there is a backlash against all things modern. For those of you who think that I am planning to leave the church, I am not. But I am voicing my right to have an opinion. 

Time in a Bottle--Jim Croce

This song was running through my mind today, as I thought about holding on to time. How quickly it flies by. "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives"--the opening line to the soap opera Days of Our Lives, a soap opera that my mother used to watch a long time ago. The days of our lives are fleeting. They are like sand that we pick up in our hand, only to have the sand flow through our fingers. It's hard (for me) not to be melancholy at times about the passage of time. There's no stopping it or changing its format, so there's no point really in feeling sad about it, but nonetheless, I do sometimes. 

Ad Orientem and Versus Populem

The mass I normally attend on Sunday mornings, the 9:30 am Norwegian mass in the St. Joseph chapel, has changed its format. By that I mean that the priest, who used to face the congregation when he celebrated mass (versus populem or toward the people), now faced away from the congregation (ad orientem or toward the east). I stayed in my pew for all of ten minutes and then left the church, hoping that the 9:30 am English mass at St. Olav's church across the street would have the usual format with the priest facing us. Luckily that was the case. But this is going to become a dilemma for me if the ad orientem format completely replaces versus populem. The St. Joseph chapel has now physically moved its altar against the back wall so that the priest has to face away from us. This was done deliberately and I have no idea why. I only know that I hate the change. I find it rude, stiff, and unwelcoming. The priests have celebrated masses versus populem for over sixty years, since the Vatican II Council, and I see no reason to change the format now. This means that all masses in the chapel will now have the priest facing away from us, and God only knows how long it will be before the masses in the larger church will remain versus populem. And this is not just Oslo, Norway. It's also the case in many churches in the USA, New York City and Tarrytown among them. I have to ask why. The decision to change the format is up to the local bishops and pastors. This means that the pastor of St. Olav's church decided to change the format without even consulting his congregation, asking us what we think of such a change. The ad orientem format is supposed to align the congregation with the priest so that we all face the same way in the celebration of the liturgy. It is supposed to be more solemn and respectful and less narcissistic. The focus is supposed to be more on solemn worship and less on emotion and feelings. Again, it makes no sense to me. 

You may think that I am making a mountain out of a molehill. You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that this is another example of 'change for the sake of change'. The actual change has neither been discussed nor explained to the congregation. It's just another example of a religious patriarchy forcing unnecessary changes on the faithful. 

So I wrote to the church pastor and told him how I felt. I mentioned that I will no longer consider increasing my financial support of the church, as I had actually thought about doing. That's life, and I owe no explanations to anyone. I mentioned that Christ sat around a table at the Last Supper and broke bread with his disciples. He didn't have his back turned to them. He wasn't rude or unwelcoming. I said that I found it rude that the priest now faced away from us. We could hardly hear what he said as he mumbled to himself. I did not feel more in touch with the celebration of mass; I felt annoyed and disappointed. Irritated at a religious patriarchy that again decides what is best for everyone. They will not drag in more churchgoers this way. I need only think of the Church of St. Vincent de Paul in Albany NY that has its altar at the center of the church and chairs for the congregation clustered in a circle around it. Those masses are packed with people. Those masses are welcoming, inclusive, warm, not stiff. I've written about this church before: A New Yorker in Oslo: The Church of St. Vincent de Paul I wish there were more like them, and I hope that they do not change their format. 

The pastor of my church did write back to me, thanking me for my concerns. He hoped that we could one day sit down and discuss our viewpoints. I wrote back and reiterated my concerns and my disappointment, and mentioned that perhaps the church as a whole should consider addressing the pedophile scandals that have plagued the Catholic church for many years. Those are the issues that need addressing and resolving, not worrying about changing the orientation of how the priest says mass. I have not received a reply and I know that I won't. Ad orientem or versus populem is a distraction from the more important issues facing the church. For the first time ever in my life, I wished that I was at a service in a Protestant church, where women can be ministers and where the tone is welcoming and inclusive, the way that Christ would have wanted it, in my opinion. I wonder sometimes if any of the religious clergy actually consider what Christ would have wanted or preferred. They think they know with certainty what Christ wants, because they are ordained as priests. But I don't think they do, in my humble opinion. They're only human, and humans are not infallible. 

(For an interesting discussion and debate of these issues, I refer you to this article: Ad Orientem: Thoughts on debating the non-essential | Catholic Culture The author presents the pros and cons in depth. But still, I want the priest to face us when he says mass. It's what I've know for my entire life, and I don't see the point of this change now, especially when there are no good reasons for and explanations of it). 

When is enough, enough?

Taylor Sheridan is a good writer who has written and produced some very good series. So therefore I have to ask--what's with the sexual sadism and gratuitous nudity in the series 1923? What's the point of it? And why do we need to see this? There are enough viewers so that it's not necessary to justify showing this to audiences in order to drag them in and keep them hooked. Or is that the motivation? I really don't know.

We're done watching 1923, and while I think it's a good series overall, I have major problems with Sheridan's treatment of women. They get battered and pushed around an awful lot, a little too often. There is sadism, rape and sexual abuse; there is the threat of rape and sexual abuse, as well as sexual perversions that are graphically portrayed. Do we need this in a world that is already overly-violent to women? No. In 1923, we've been witness to lesbian rape scenes, sadism toward prostitutes, and unnecessary nudity. It's cringeworthy and gratuitous. These types of scenes make me wonder about the motivation of the writer. What is he trying to impart? What is the point of these scenes? To titillate? To show cruelty in all its grotesqueness? Isn't that what horror films are for? Perhaps Sheridan would defend this by saying that the wild west was a brutal place, and that men ruled it. Sure it was, and sure they did (and still do rule the world, despite the advances that women have made during the past fifty years). We all know that. It was survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, every man for himself. Women had to be tough in order to survive. Women had to know how to shoot to kill. But still, they were abused at the hands of physically stronger, evil, cruel, sadistic men, and in some cases, sadistic women. Many didn't survive. Many men didn't survive either. You carried a gun at all times. Out in the wilderness, on the plains, you were subject to the elements--weather, droughts, locust plagues, animal attacks, and attacks by cruel human beings. And many women died in childbirth. But still, you don't need to show it all. If you do, then why stop at the savagery of men? Why not show wolves, bears and mountain lions ripping men and women apart and eating them? Why is that off limits? Why not show rotting corpses, beheadings and close-ups of scalping? Because there are limits and Sheridan knows that. But when it comes to sexual scenes, he can push the limits. Why push them? 

I sometimes wonder how average ordinary men would feel if the majority of television programming showed men being raped or sexually abused in graphic detail. I doubt that most men would find it entertaining. Yet the depiction of women being raped or sexually abused passes for entertainment. Why? Because men run the show in nearly every arena, and defend this by saying that this is the way it was at those times in history. If the women in Sheridan's series aren't being battered and abused, then they are often portrayed as temptresses or harridans, with some exceptions. I think Dutton Ranch is the show I like the best, mostly because the main female character, Beth, played by Kelly Reilly, is one tough lady with a strong sense of justice who can hold her own. Helen Mirren and Michele Pfeiffer also play strong women in 1923 and The Madison, respectively. I don't want to see men and women being raped, being scalped, being tortured, being eaten by wild animals. You can very well insinuate that those things will happen, but you do not need to show them in gory detail. If viewers want that, they can go to see any number of horror films that will show them exactly that. 

Reflections on the tunnels in which we find ourselves

I've been thinking lately about the tunnels that we let ourselves enter and then get lost in. It struck me that we should be more careful about the tunnels we choose to enter, because it may be quite difficult to extricate ourselves or to find the way out once we're halfway in. I've never liked tunnels because I'm claustrophobic, so I literally avoid real tunnels if I can. But avoiding the figurative ones is not as easy, because sometimes you don't realize you've tunneled yourself until you're lost or can't find your way out. 

We live in a society that is constantly striving to seduce us, to engage us, to capture our attention, to keep us on our phones and scrolling through our feeds on social media. A society that wants to suck us into one or another tunnel. Excessive use of social media is one type of tunnel that sucks us in and from which it's hard to extricate ourselves. Other tunnels are certain schools of thought, political philosophies, religious beliefs, and so on. Any type of extremist beliefs, whether they be political and/or religious, are dangerous tunnels to enter because they only lead us deeper into them. The tunnels get darker and deeper and narrower, like caves, and it becomes harder to see the exits or how to turn around. Much like a forest that we can wander into and in which we lose our bearings. The light disappears and the forest begins to impede our movements. That's what eventually happens; we trap ourselves into a mental immobility. We lose flexibility, freedom of thought, freedom to change our minds. 

I remember Christ saying in one of the gospels that we have to be vigilant, be constantly aware, because we can never know when he will return. Keeping the lamps lit was what I remember from that reading. Always at the ready--spiritual readiness. If we have wandered too deeply into our tunnels, the lamps will go out and we won't find out way out. We won't be ready. It's a dark thought, one that can scare me if I focus on it. Loss of hope, despair, negativity--these are other tunnels from which it's difficult to extricate ourselves. Staying vigilant--that is our hope and our salvation. Guarding against a sheep mentality--thinking and doing what most others are doing--is our salvation. We were given intelligence for a reason; we should use it often and responsibly. 

The value of keeping your mouth shut

This post is inspired by one person who never shuts up. He thinks that everything he has to say is worth listening to. He thinks that every utterance that comes out of his mouth is pure gold. It isn't, not by a long shot. He is insulting, aggressive, snotty, mean, angry, vengeful and old. Grumpy old man. Up all night, can't sleep, taking out his vitriol on others. There are a lot of grumpy old men, but most of them are not in leadership positions, thankfully. 

There is one thing he is good for, and that is inspiring young people to think before they speak, if they open their mouths at all. My mother used to say 'if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all'. She was right. We were also taught not to comment on other people's appearances. Her generation was right about so many things. They had lived through the Great Depression and WWII and knew what true hardship was. They were careful with their words because they were taught to be careful. Children were taught to 'not speak until they were spoken to'. We as children could not just mouth off constantly; our parents would not have tolerated it. The value of monitored speech can be debated, but it made for a quieter world. And perhaps a nicer one. 

Sometimes I just want to scream out 'shut the f--k up'. Please, all you politicians who think your words are so impactful. I listened to JD Vance recently talking about how he thought Joe Biden ate an ice cream cone in a weird way, and thought--please just shut up. You're making a fool of yourself and embarrassing yourself in front of your children. I don't care if you are Ivy-league-educated. I don't care if you have written a best-selling book. I don't care. Just shut up. 

And that goes for all the grumpy old men who feel entitled to comment on women's attractiveness whenever they feel outclassed or challenged by women. They feel entitled to say that women are ugly, or that they look like men, or that they have lost their looks. The list of insults is long. I wonder if any of these men have taken a long look at themselves in the mirror lately. Do they see what the rest of us see and are mostly too polite to comment on? Perhaps more of us should speak the truth about how they look. Really, their narcissism and ignorance boggle the mind. Again, just shut up. No one wants to hear you.

Because here's the value in a collective societal shut-up. We others get a chance to think for ourselves, to enjoy the peace of reflection. We get a chance to focus on things that matter to us, rather than be continually distracted by your nonsense. This collective shut-up goes not only for politicians, but for media pundits and news-people who need to find something interesting to say 24/7. How to find peace? Turn off the tv and tune out social media. It's hard to do. We are addicted to scrolling on our devices. That's how we get our news updates nowadays. But it's a two-edged sword. It's good to stay abreast of what's happening in society, but we have to learn when and where to draw the line. We need quiet time in order to function normally. We cannot be 'on' all the time, listening to the babble that many politicians spout. I am not anti-government, I am anti-babbling. I am anti-nonsense. I don't want to listen to rambling stupid speeches, I don't want to listen to angry old men tell me how to think and feel. And this goes for any other angry old men who are in our faces 24/7, poisoning our society with their vitriol. 

Just shut up. 

Happy 250th Birthday, America!

I am hopeful again, after several years where I had begun to wonder if the USA would survive the onslaught of grifting and negativity in which so many of its leading politicians participate. I have written so many times about how money rules in politics. It still does. But there are rising voices against this tide, voices that proclaim that the USA remains a country committed to the highest principles--freedom, justice, opportunities for all. Voices that say that how much money you have cannot define your worth as a human being. Voices that are less capitalist and more, dare I say it, socialist, but in the best way. Call it Christian socialism--concern for others, easing the financial burdens of ordinary people, making housing accessible for more people. The list is long. I see that some universities and educational institutions are making tuition free or at least reducing the annual fees. We are a diverse country populated by blue- and white-collar workers, and the rich. We cannot make life simplest for the rich and ignore the others. It cannot work that way. We cannot continue to be a divided nation, undergoing a cold civil war. That way of thinking is simply is not sustainable in the long run. Average ordinary people do not want polarization, division, war, aggression, bitterness, negativity. If you do, there has to be something wrong with you if that's what floats your boat. A country has to appeal to the best ideals in its citizenry. It has to inspire them with hope and the possibility for change. Otherwise it is a nation in decline. 

So Happy 250th Birthday, America! My country by birth. Happy July 4th! I root for you and I know that you will survive this dark period in your history. There are new leaders on the horizon who will lead the country in a new direction, and it's about time. The useless dinosaurs will soon become extinct. 

Summer in the city

I enjoy living in a city for the most part. I like having people around me, knowing that I am in the midst of a sea of people. When I worked in Manhattan, there was something about the hustle and bustle of people on their way to and from work--the commuters. I liked being a part of the movement, the buoyancy, the spirit, the goal oriented-ness, and the anonymity. As I get older, I appreciate having what I need around me, and not having to get into a car and drive to get what I need as I would have to do if I lived more rurally. I can leave my home and walk (takes all of five minutes) to the local shopping center to the supermarket, pharmacy, liquor store, bookstore, home goods store, and bakery. The latter is great to have on chilly days, when we stop in for a pastry and a cup of coffee. The hospitals and medical centers are also close by, and that aspect is not to be dismissed as one gets older. I know people who live an hour or more away from the nearest hospital, and that can mean the difference between life and death in an emergency. 

The public transportation system in Oslo functions well and covers most of the city. I have an app that lets me buy different kinds of tickets for the trams and buses, and also lets me connect to the trains that take you to the towns and cities surrounding Oslo. That's a plus. I use my electric bike during the summer months, and there are plenty of bike lanes to get me where I want to go. Also a plus. Oslo is a livable city and I enjoy living here, as do many people. That may be a problem for the future, because it is getting more crowded for each year that passes and there simply isn't enough housing to accommodate all those who wish to live here. 

I do look forward to the exodus of Oslo folk when July comes, vacation time rolls around and people go to their summer cottages or travel to other countries. The city gets quieter and more relaxed, which coincides perfectly with a truly peaceful summer feeling. I remember that feeling from many years ago, when I would travel into Manhattan on Sundays during the summer months. Manhattan was then quiet, peaceful, and mostly devoid of crowds. A joy to be there. That was mostly because the commuters who normally traveled into and out of the city for work, were absent on the weekends, and that was true for any time of the year. But during the summer months, true (and wealthy) Manhattanites went to their summer homes on Long Island for the weekend or for a few weeks. 

I don't want to live rurally, I never have, in the middle of a forest for example. I could very well live in the suburbs (like where I grew up--a small river town) as long as they're close to stores and hospitals. I don't want to have to deal with bears and coyotes and other wild animals that have slowly made a return to upstate New York, for example. Even where I grew up, in Tarrytown, there are now coyotes and bears that can be found in the forested parks along the river where we used to hang out as teenagers. I don't want to meet them, at least not by myself. I'm glad for their return, and I don't want them eliminated, but I would not walk by myself in some of those parks anymore, as I used to do just ten years ago. You may meet a fox in Oslo, as sightings have become more frequent, but they tend to run in the opposite direction when they see you. I would rather meet a fox than an angry badger; the latter will also run from you, but if you surprise it, it may hiss and growl and act menacingly. 

We tend not to plan two-week or longer vacations anymore during July and August for the most part. That's because the weather is usually very nice during the summers here, which is also good for my garden. Plus it means some enjoyable boat trips together with immediate family. As far as my garden goes, I cannot just leave it for several weeks without a backup plan, which is usually that my nearest garden neighbor in the allotment garden waters it for me when I'm away, and vice versa. That's a plus, to have garden neighbors who will look after your garden for you if you go away or are sick. Again, the advantages of being together with a group of (like-minded) people. They too enjoy summer in the city like I do. 

Anxiety and a crisis at every turn

My teenage years seem so long ago, but I can remember so much about them--the insecurities, anxieties, and confusion about where I fit and didn't fit in many aspects of life. That was pre-internet. I was a good student who preferred books to most other things and that got me through the tough times. Plus I had good parents who let me be me, who didn't push me to succeed at any cost. I enjoyed studying and the pursuit of knowledge, but not the stress of exams or competition. Competition was a huge part of our growing up, and while I think it's necessary to inspire the ambition to succeed, too much of it is not a good thing. There is too much of it now among teenagers, but not in the traditional ways--studies and sports. Nowadays it has more to do with online activities--listening to influencers, watching and following TikTok videos, and constantly trying to live up to beauty and social standards that are impossible to live up to. 

We did not have internet when we were teenagers, and the more I read, the more glad I am that we didn't. It must be exhausting and stressful for teenagers now to be coupled to internet and social media 24/7, worrying about where they fit not only on a personal level but on a societal and global level as well. Young people now are bombarded with the issues of the world and their societies at every turn--wars, violence, crime, climate change, politics, dating, planning a future, getting a job, buying a house, and so many other things that were easier to keep at bay when we were teenagers. We could deal with these issues one or two at a time. Not anymore. No wonder so many of today's teenagers suffer from anxiety issues. We had tv news, radio news and newspapers, but we could limit our access to them. Or a better way of putting it--they limited themselves. News was not 24/7 like it is now, ditto for newspapers that were published as morning and/or afternoon editions. Reading a newspaper was something you did at the beginning of the day; the weekend editions were larger and you could spend a day or two perusing them. But there was no stress attached to reading them, even though the news they reported wasn't good for the most part. There were wars, violence, crime and all the rest of society's ills at that time too. But for some reason reading about them wasn't overwhelming like it is now. Perhaps there is something to that--reading about an event that has taken place rather than having it blasted at you 24/7 on tv and social media. Everything seems to have a sense of urgency now. A crisis at every turn. If it's exhausting for adults, I can only imagine that it is overwhelming for teenagers who haven't lived long enough to learn how to filter out what is psychologically harmful for them. Parents have to emphasize that to their children--to uncouple from their devices, to slow down, to relax, to read a book, to show them how to enjoy family life. But that means that parents too have to do the same--uncouple from their devices and be present for their spouses and families. I understand that it's not always easy to do this, but it's necessary. 

Using wealth for good purposes

I keep thinking about how the gap between the rich and the poor gets wider and wider for each year that passes. The injustice of it. It has nothing to do with envy. I don't want huge amounts of wealth and never have. My dream as a child was never to become wealthy, but rather to have a rewarding career that paid decent wages, enough to live on with the possibility to save toward a house or car or some nice vacations. I've achieved that. I can't imagine what I would do with huge amounts of wealth--as in billions of dollars. I'd probably give it away like the philanthropists Melinda French Gates and MacKenzie Scott. Seriously, what does one need or even do with all that money? 

There's only so much one can accumulate in this life. You can't take it with you, as the old saying goes. The ultra-wealthy have multiple homes--huge homes, private jets, luxury yachts, the best of everything. But what is the best of everything? How would you define the best food ever? Or the most beautiful home? It's all subjective, dependent upon what we like or dislike. I think we are designed to be perpetually unsatisfied, always in search of the new 'best' thing on which we can spend money. But do we need all the things we buy, whether we're ultra-rich or simply well-off? 

When you have to find excuses for what to do with your money, then you have too much of it and can give a lot of it away. Give more to charities than you would normally do. Do it quietly so that no one knows what you've done. Give more to your churches. Finance sorely-needed school renovations or road renovations. Donate money to local gardens and parks. Pick a cause. Me, I'd go for beautification of cities and towns--public gardens, botanical gardens, many more allotment gardens, public parks--the list is long. It would be a wonderful idea to get more people interested in gardening and growing their own food. A good idea to get young people off their phones--you can't weed a garden and scroll endlessly on social media. Organizations that help the needy and the poor need your help. Build more houses for low-income families. There are plenty of projects to support that need your help. And how you help will determine the future of many of them. Rather than buying a private jet with your millions, why not buy up thousands of acres of land to give to the state(s) with the sole purpose of preserving the land for posterity. The Rockefeller family did that The Rockefeller Legacy: Philanthropy and Conservation. We need more wealthy people like them and less of those whose flashy lifestyles and unbounded consumerism find their way into the news on a daily basis. 

Making sense of what cannot be explained or proved

Interesting sermon today at mass given by one of the more enlightened priests in our parish. He has won over a lot of parishioners with his short, concise and relevant sermons, and with his ability to lead a straightforward mass without a lot of 'extras' (singing half the mass in Latin, a long drawn-out liturgy, boring sermons that merely repeat the gospel message). This is the way you get people on board with attending mass. It tells me that it is not necessary to subject people to boring sermons and an exaggerated liturgy. There is room for hymns and music, yes, but there should be room for a mass or two each week that is short and to the point. 

The sermon today had to do with faith--belief in some of the things that the church teaches, for example, the Trinity. Or that communion is the intake of the body and blood of Christ. He stressed that the latter is not just a symbolic idea. I've always wondered about this, because it is one of the things that makes Catholicism different from Protestantism. I've accepted certain Catholic theological ideas on faith alone, because there is no proving what we say we believe in. And that was the priest's point. We live in a world that wants proof, wants to measure and define everything, a world that wants explanations for all things related to religious faith. But in other areas of our lives, we 'accept' things that are impossible to explain, define or prove. So why should our religious beliefs be any different than what we accept on faith when we talk about love, trust, fidelity, and hope. We believe in love, in the existence of love, and while doing so, we accept that love exists with zero proof that it actually exists. We cannot really define it or explain it. We feel it, we know it to be true with our rational minds, but we cannot prove its existence. And yet we fall in love, marry, are faithful to our partners, and trust that our partners are faithful to us. We build lives based on hope, another intangible entity. The lives we live, based on love, fidelity, trust and hope reflect the existence of these things, but they are not scientific proof of them. 

This made so much sense to me. It was a perfect example of someone saying something so wise and so relevant that it will stick with you forever. It makes it easier to accept some ideas on faith alone without needing proof of them. I can accept this as a scientist, because I learned that even in science, there were thousands of things that we could not explain. But we like to believe we can explain most everything. We cannot. Some things, like religious ideas, love, fidelity, trust and hope, we must accept on faith alone without being able to define them.  

The daily dose

The daily dose of negativity, anger, rage, hubris, narcissism and curse-filled criticism spewed out on social media platforms and on news platforms of all kinds. The continual harassment that never stops and never leads anywhere. Daily haranguing of normal ordinary people who just want to go about their business and not have to deal with a rage-filled vengeful old man's problems. Because let's face it; he's old. He's more than a grumpy old man at this point; there are enough of them in the world. He is a breed apart. Every time he shows up on tv or in my social media feeds, every time there is 'something important, some crisis', yet again, that he just has to share with us, I turn the channel, close social media, turn the page. I block him out. I don't want to hear his voice or see his face. I don't want to see the faces of his family either. I don't want to have anything to do with him or them. I don't want those close to me to even talk about him, but of course that's not possible to expect.

A destructive force. A destroyer of peace of mind, calmness, clarity and rational thinking. He is chaos defined, with no focus and no real aims except to destroy others. He is a cause of anxiety in normal ordinary loving people. I ask the question that I've asked of several of his supporters--how would you like it if your husband, wife, or children behaved toward you like he does toward others? How would you like it if you got shut down every time you opened your mouth, told you were ugly or stupid, told you were useless? I never get an answer. Because there isn't one. His behavior qualifies as emotional and psychological abuse, nothing more and nothing less. I know, because I've experienced this type of abuse, many years ago. But for some reason, his supporters tolerate it. Why?

The USA is 250 years old this year. I was hoping for some positive celebrations of its history, some presentations of the historical experiment that is the country. I don't see much emphasis on a presentation of our history. I guess Americans have to settle for professional wrestling and car racing. I have nothing against either. I just thought that this birthday would be a great opportunity to teach young people the importance of preserving democracy, free speech, and non-partisan political behavior  and of putting one's country first--looking out for the common good. I'm not sure if young people even know what that means anymore--the common good. Who can blame them if they don't know--they've grown up in a society that worships money, greed and consumerism. That's why it would be important to show another side of the country--the side inhabited by decent citizens who work hard, raise their families, all without needing to attract attention to themselves 24/7. The salt-of-the-earth types who are what make the USA great. They can be of either political persuasion in my book, as long as they keep a civil tongue in their heads. We need to make America civil and respectful again. That's a tall order but not an impossible one. Miracles do happen (the new pope is one of them). 

All about robins (the European ones)

I follow several Facebook pages having to do with European robins. These robins are the smaller versions of their North-American counterparts, and in my opinion, much cuter. They are also quite friendly to humans. I think they understand that kind humans are a good food source, especially during the winter. But they are more than smart. They are curious creatures, as I've experienced when I'm working in my garden. The one that visited my garden last year (up to late December) hung around, watching what I did. He hopped up to me, standing in front of me as if to say 'I'm here', wandered around the greenhouse, and let me feed him and take photos of him. He never landed on my finger, but we were very close to that point. I fell in love with him. There is another robin that visits now; I can tell because the new one has several black markings on his chest, unlike the previous one. 

I don't know what happened to my little friend from last year. I'd like to think he's doing well and visiting other gardens, but my gut instinct tells me that he has passed. Whether it was a natural death (the mortality statistics for the first year of an European robin's life are poor) or death by cat, crow or magpie, I will never know. Perhaps the new one who visits now is his son or daughter. I'd like to think so. They tend to remain in one place, and our allotment garden is filled with many interesting gardens to visit. There is an abundance of worms and insects--a smorgasbord for birds of all kinds. 

I'm reposting the post I wrote in December 2025 about my little robin friend. I will always treasure the time I had with him. He appeared in my life right before I had a major operation, and as they say online 'robins appear when loved ones are near'. I'd like to think that he was channeling all those whom I loved who have passed and were rooting for a successful operation. In any case, he appeared at a time in my life when I needed him. 

A New Yorker in Oslo: My little garden friend

These are my people

Gardeners. Who knew? Gardeners are my people, the ones with whom I feel most at home. They can have small or large gardens, balcony gardens, you name it. We click and bond over shared gardening experiences (sometimes failed experiments), types of seeds, what garden store is having a sale, and what we can share with each other. The latter is the most important to me. Gardeners are generous. I have not met one gardener in our allotment garden who hasn't been willing to share plants, seeds, or advice. Yesterday we had our annual Volunteer Day in the garden; we all pitch in to do weeding, raking, clipping, etc. for a few hours, and then afterward we gather together over cake and coffee. It was a lovely day, weatherwise and socially. Such events are important for strengthening the bonds between us and also for getting to know the new gardeners, those who have recently gotten their allotment gardens.

Why do I feel comfortable with gardeners? They are not flashy or chic. There are no in-your-face displays of wealth, even though there are probably a number of gardeners who are well-off. There is no overt competition among us, at least in our allotment garden. I don't feel like I'm competing with my fellow gardeners to 'have the best garden'. Each gardener is an individual with unique ways of expressing their love of gardens, and that is reflected in their choice of bushes, trees and flowers, as well as vegetables. My garden neighbor has tried growing artichokes; this year I'm attempting to grow asparagus. The lack of overt competitiveness is refreshing in a world that values 'being the best', sometimes at all costs. I'm simply not interested; perhaps I was at one time, early in my career. But even at that time, I worked together with colleagues who were more supportive rather than competitive. I'm thankful every day to be away from a work world that values competition and being the best above all else. The falsity of that way of thinking lies in the reality that only one person can really and truly be the best. All the others are accordingly ranked less. And that's ok for me, but it wasn't for our workplace leaders who did not care at all for those whose careers didn't measure up to snuff. I do not miss that world at all.

I know that gardening can be quite competitive; there are contests for having the most beautiful flower garden or for growing the largest vegetables or the most fruit. But like art, literature, and music, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You can judge the beauty of a garden, but it is a subjective evaluation. There are no objective criteria for what characterizes a beautiful garden. I respond intuitively to gardens that have a 'soul', but that too is subjective and emotional. There is much in our past and in our subconscious that is wrapped up in our gardens and garden choices. For example, when I plant tulips, I remember my mother ordering tulip bulbs from Holland and planting them on the front lawn. The resulting tulips were beautiful. Lilies of the valley remind me of a neighbor from childhood who had them lining one side of her house. They were my favorite flowers for the longest time. Basil and salad plants remind me of a family friend who grew them both in her backyard; we children would pick them for dinner when we visited her. Tomato plants remind me of my friend Jean's father who grew them in their backyard. The tomatoes were delicious. She has carried on the tomato-growing tradition.

As I get older, I am drawn to visiting public and private gardens. New York State is full of lovely gardens--The New York Botanical Garden, Innisfree Garden, Kykuit/The Rockefeller Estate, and Untermyer Park and Gardens, to name just a few of the ones I've visited. There are more on the list and I look forward to experiencing them in the coming years.  

Sloth

Some reflections on sloth (not the animal but the behavior). Sloth is defined by the online Merriam Webster dictionary as a 'disinclination to action or labor, aka indolence, and spiritual apathy and inactivity'. Sloth is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholic teaching. Both aspects of the definition of sloth interest me, but it is the spiritual apathy and inactivity that interest me the most. Most people equate sloth with physical laziness--not wanting to pick up after yourself, being sloppy, not caring about your appearance, not wanting to help around the house. This laziness is irritating for the people who live with such a person, and it may be indicative of someone who simply does not care enough about the impact of such behavior on himself or herself and others. But this is not the only type of slothful behavior. One might think that sloth is the result of passivity, and that is true in one way. But in another way, it is an active choice in the sense that one 'knows' what one is doing when one is lazy, spiritually or otherwise. One chooses to be slothful, and that by itself is an active choice. Slothfulness is the choice to be passive or to remain passive when the opposite is called for. 

Spiritual apathy and inactivity are rampant in our current society and can be countered by going to church regularly and following a code of good behavior. These things will help one stay on the path toward goodness, so it's important to use the aids/opportunities available to keep ourselves strong in the face of bad influences. The impact of bad behavior on ordinary individuals is insidious. I think about the normalization of bad behavior that is happening more and more in society. We are called to 'call out' bad behavior when we witness it. We are called to action. And there is plenty of bad behavior to call out. Yet many of us simply can't or won't 'get involved'. The way our political leaders behave ought to be enough to rouse us from our stupor. The bad behavior I am referring to includes bullying, harassment, being argumentative for no reason, threatening for no reason, rudeness, aggressiveness (in your face) for no reason, meanness, cruelty, lack of self-insight, blaming others all the time, narcissism, greed. The list is long. 

I have written about narcissism and narcissists before in this blog. Be thankful if you've never met a true narcissist. I have. Narcissists are human tornadoes that sweep in and destroy all semblance of normal life. They are destroyers of peace, happiness, logic, reason and the expectation of a normal life. The destruction they leave behind can take years to clean up. The narcissists that exist among us are spiritually slothful--spiritually apathetic and spiritually inactive. I would go so far as to say that their slothfulness is a type of mental disorder, the result of their choices to not do the right thing when they know they should. It is the choice, based in our free will, to be selfish, greedy, non-empathetic, mean, and cruel. Narcissism develops gradually over time and is the result of slothful behavior, in my opinion. Slothful behavior leads to evil, and the fact that we as a society are normalizing slothfulness and evil behavior is the beginning of the end of civilized society in my book. We must continue to call out bad behavior when we see it. We must continue to be spiritually active. We must continue to try to be the best people we can be on a daily basis. This is what we are called to do as good people who care about the society we live in. 

Reflections on writing a blog and communicating with others

This blog has become more and more important to me as the best way for me to express my thoughts and feelings and to share them with others. I have become less interested in social media generally as time goes on. I use Facebook for quick updates and have found that it has become useful as a way of staying updated on what is going on in Oslo and in New York (city and state)--movies, concerts, gatherings, museums, etc. Useful since they are my two favorite places. I used to use Twitter--no more; it became too political and too divisive. I have a profile on Instagram that I have almost never used and I will not start now. I have a profile on LinkedIn that I rarely update, nor am I on LinkedIn often. None of them appeal to me the way writing a blog does. So I'll continue to write my posts. I think the appeal for me is that I can write freely and compose my thoughts without having to consider who may like them or not. There is freedom in that. I have turned off the comments section so that I don't have to deal with (the few) internet trolls who inserted their nonsense into my life. I don't need such nonsense nor will I permit it. There is enough nonsense published daily in social media and newspapers. 

The society we lived in is hooked on smart phones--that is a given at present. I cannot go anywhere without seeing people glued to their phones. Nearly everything we do or need to do in our daily lives requires the use of a phone. It's become somewhat unnerving. I think to myself--what happens if the infrastructure that provides this service (cell phone connection) crumbles? What happens when we rely 100% on our phones? It can't be a good thing. Banks want little or nothing to do with customers anymore, likewise supermarkets that push us to scan all our items rather than go to a cashier who can check out the items for us. I object to the loss of personal contact between people. When I worked part-time as a cashier at an A&P in Tarrytown many years ago, I looked forward to my 'regulars'--the people who showed up in my line to check out numerous cans of cat food or other items and who looked forward to a short chat with me. When I served coffee at church bingo on Sunday evenings, I would talk to the bingo players who as it turned out actually shared a lot of their lives with me. It was a valuable experience. At the very least, I learned to talk to people, to share some of our lives together, and to come out of my (reserved) shell. I read articles now that describe young people as unable to really communicate with each other in person. It's become easier to text or message each other. I feel sorry for them, for missing out on a youth filled with different social and interactive experiences--some good, some bad. Living via a smart phone is not a way to live. It is a curated way to live, where you tailor your comments and communications to what you think others will want to hear. You don't want to be disliked, so you 'limit'  yourself more and more. I won't miss social media much when I decide to forego it one of these days. That day will come; I don't know when. But I will continue to write my blog, knowing that I am free to write about the things that interest me, and that may interest you, my readers. But I will never tailor my writing to please a certain segment of society. If it one day comes to that, that I am forced to do so, then I will stop writing. Until or if that happens, I enjoy the freedom that comes from writing. It is one of the few activities that is not regulated, modulated or controlled by others, thankfully. 

Gardening and my relationship with the earth

For most of my adult life, I have been searching for something to 'complete' me. I don't think I really reflected fully upon this while I was working. There were too many projects and deadlines and the like. In my free time, I wrote poetry, and when I look at some of what I wrote circa twenty years ago, I realize that I was searching for connection. Not with people, because that part of my life is fine, but with nature and the earth. That was sorely lacking. I was stuck indoors for most of the workday, five days a week. It's not as though I didn't get outdoors to walk or bike or just enjoy the sunny days that came our way; it's more that I had no personal connection with the earth. I was missing that in my life. It wasn't until I began to garden that I realized what I had been missing. 

There is nothing that makes me happier than working with the earth, in the literal sense (planting seeds and plants) and in the figurative sense (aligning myself with what the earth can and cannot give). People talk about mindfulness and how important that is in our age. It is. A garden offers many opportunities for mindfulness, from weeding for several hours to pruning bushes and trees, to watering what you've planted, and finally to harvesting what you've planted (if one has planted vegetables and fruit trees). There are many gardeners who dislike weeding. I am not one of them, although I wouldn't want to do it on a daily basis since it's backbreaking work. What weeding has taught me is patience and perseverance. Weeds persevere; they come back in every which way no matter how often you remove them. They're survivors and they adapt to the conditions around them. I understand that they need to be removed because they choke the life out of the plants they surround and intertwine roots with. I need only think of skvallerkål (ground elder in English, Aegopodium podagraria in Latin). It spreads like wildfire in the garden. But at the same time that I'm removing them, I'm marveling at their ability to survive and spread. I admire that ability in all plants that are designated as weeds. I would not remove them if they were not so invasive and threatening to other plants. 

I've written about gardening many times before, but that's because I am ever grateful for a pastime and passion that centers me. The world around me can be literally going to hell in a handbasket, but I am happily oblivious to that when I am in my garden. I am more concerned with what the garden needs to be happy. Most gardeners feel the same way. I know that my own lone voice will not change the world situation at present (many voices can do so, so I understand the need to participate and vote), but once I do my civic duty, I am free to pursue my relationship with my garden. I am free to put my hands in the earth, to see the earthworms moving about in the soil, likewise the little pill bugs that remind me of little armadillos. Little spiders have made their home in my greenhouse, and every now and then they peek out from behind a ceramic pot to see if the coast is clear (is she still here?). I love watching the sparrows chattering, singing and quarreling with each other, or taking common baths in the birdbath. Every now and then my robin friend comes for a visit; I wish he'd stay longer, but I guess he has other gardens to visit too. 

My relationship with the earth is multifold. It is with the earth, literally, with my garden, as well as with the life in the garden. I've learned to appreciate all life in the garden, no matter how small. Each living thing has its job to do. It's immensely comforting to know that. Their purpose is by design, and I tend toward believing that it is a divine design. When you look at the intricacies of garden life, how everything is interwoven with everything else, it's hard to believe otherwise. 

Lessons in humility

When I was first starting out in the work world, I had a number of part-time jobs, many of them involving office work. One of the more interesting ones was in Greenwich Village during the late 1970s. I was hired as a stocker and packer to work in the basement of a company that dealt in the buying and selling of magazines and books. I remember the basement job very well because whiffs of natural gas would breeze through at different times during the day. Whether it was a truly safe place to work I cannot say, but I doubt that there were annual inspections of the basement. Shipments would come in and we would pack them out for sorting and registration afterwards. It was a backbreaking job to say the least, but I enjoyed the experience of learning and experiencing what the company did. Private persons would contact the company with offers to sell complete collections of magazines, which then were sold further to libraries and schools and the like. There were many libraries at that time that wanted complete collections of National Geographic, to give one example, and they would contact the company for info about whether we had complete collection(s). We did for the most part. 

I don't remember how long I worked in the basement before I was 'promoted' to an upstairs job in the main office. My boss was a middle-aged woman by the name of Terry, and she told me that she wanted me to learn the other side of the business, namely the registration part of the process as well as how to process purchase requests and invoices. I found this side of the business very interesting and was good at it. She treated me very well for someone who was just a part-time employee. I got the feeling that she was hoping that I would stay on and become a full-time employee, but she understood that I had other plans. We often ate lunch at some of the nearby diners and cafes, and she and another woman, who also worked in the office, would tell me about their lives and career dreams. Terry was a pragmatic no-nonsense woman and I liked her immediately. She treated me very well, and also dished out career advice at different points. 

I will always remember and have always remembered (in bad times) what she told me one day at lunch. 'No one is indispensable'. What she meant was that no one in the work world was that important that he or she could not be replaced. It was a valuable piece of advice that served me well, especially in the less happy times of my academic career. I call it 'lessons in humility'. I understood that I should never think of myself or what I did for any company as irreplaceable. I learned that I was replaceable. Terry knew it about herself and she imparted that wisdom to me, and I thank her for that and for believing in me.  

Nowadays, given the insane behavior of the political leaders running the show (at least in the USA), I think that they should be force-fed this wisdom. For starters, they are replaceable, and they should remember that, but I doubt they even consider that aspect. Some of them are so old that natural death could be responsible for their exit. But more likely, the political system in place takes care of such things. Politicians are voted in and out after a number of years, and thank God for that, even though the same politician (in Congress at least) can occupy the same position for many years. We as a country need to change that. Change will come. But humility should come first. The idea of service to others and to country should come first. Right now it doesn't. But they should remember that 'pride comes before a fall'. Their fall from the lofty heights where they live won't be pleasant for any of them. But it will be necessary since they failed to understand that they are indeed replaceable. 

Power and control

Some of the lyrics from the song Människobarn (Human Child) by Dina Ögon keep running through my head, especially in these weird politically-charged times:

What, what, what is it that you care about?

What is it that you care about?

What is it that you care about

When love and freedom turn into power and control?

Why is it that so many people, mostly men, care only about power and control? When you look at world leaders generally, most of them are men. In fact, about 85% of the world's countries are run by men according to online sources. I've got to wonder why. In any case, these lyrics don't specifically mention men, but in my experience it's mostly men who want power and control. It could be in the personal sphere, where they wish to dominate the women and children with whom they live. It could be in the political arena, where power and control give them the freedom to do what they want when they want and how they want. If you take a look at our political leaders, so many of them do just that. They answer to no one, and when they answer to no one, that's when the trouble starts. Many politicians may start out with noble motives and intentions, but so many of them end up corrupted by power. It's not for nothing that the old adage 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' came about to explain how power impacts people. I am not against all aspects of power and control; after all, one needs some amount of power in order to effect change in society. But we are at an extreme at present, where leaders of presumed democracies are allying themselves with dictators and wanna-be dictators. They want to have the unlimited power and control that these dictators have. 

Back in 2016, when Jean and I visited FDR's library/museum in Hyde Park, NY, we ran into an elderly couple who were visiting at the same time as we were. We got to talking about how interesting the library was, and then our conversation turned to politics. At that point (summertime), it was clear that Donald Trump would be the Republican candidate for president. I remember very well what they said to us. 'We have lost our way' (the country has lost its way). They could not envision a country run by Trump, and they were quite nervous about it. That was ten years ago. No one in their right mind could have envisioned what has come to pass in the USA. No one. The president, his staff, his advisers and his followers are invested in the idea that they should have complete power and control. They may not say it outright, but it's what they stand for. Is the USA still a democracy? I hope so, but it doesn't behave like one anymore. This is the new (normalized) order in the political sphere. Europe be damned, other countries who don't like this new development, be damned. The USA will determine the world order, no one else is really invited to the table to discuss the future possibilities. The USA will determine how they think that peace should be achieved, and as far as I can see, it is via war, never a good basis for peace. 

In the personal sphere, women's rights are under attack. It's an insidious attack, backed by conservative religious people (again, mostly men who behave abhorrently) who call themselves Christians (I call them Pharisees) who would like nothing better than that women should 'know' their place and leave the important stuff to men. Women should stay home and have babies. Women should not compete with men in the workplace. Women should subjugate themselves to their husbands/partners, even though there is no good reason for them to do so. This is not the 1950s, where women returned to the home front after serving their nation by working in factories or as nurses and doctors during WWII. Any normal-functioning human being understands that women are not inferior in any way to men. They are their peers, intellectually and otherwise. They may not be as physically strong as men, but they are psychologically stronger in so many ways. But as usual, women's strengths are downplayed in the media and on social media. 

Men are/will be responsible for ruining the world, and if there is another atomic bomb occurrence, it will be the result of male decisions. Power and control. As I have said before, if Jesus Christ came back to this world in the flesh, such men would crucify him all over again. God forbid they should let a man who stands for peace, love and free will to dictate how the rest of us should live. And yet most normal people I know do not behave like the men who only want power and control. Most normal ordinary people want peace and love and free will in their lives. 

You know you are in the presence of men who want to dominate when the talk is only of money, status, prestige, competition, having control, women as 'trophies', and how others should live. Preferably how the women in their lives and women generally should live. How nervous they become when they don't have that control, when women don't abide by 'their' rules. When you look at the number of spouses who are abused or killed, it's mostly women who are abused/killed and the men who are the abusers/killers. Crime shows overwhelmingly depict men as serial killers, as killers generally, and abusers. This is sadly backed up by real statistics. According to the FBI and online sources, the vast majority of killers are male, globally and in the USA, accounting for circa 88% to 90% of all homicides. 

Many of the rights that women enjoy have been fought for during the past century. Let us not return to a time when women were men's property, when they had to 'ask permission' to do what men take for granted that they can do, when they have to turn over their paychecks to their husbands, or when they are not able to work at all. No society is served by denying one gender their basic rights as human beings. We can see the effects of that way of thinking on a global basis. I will never travel to countries where women are legally denied the rights that men enjoy. I will never spend my hard-earned money in such countries. They won't miss me, and I won't miss them. I avoid men who want to dominate others like the plague, and will continue to do so. The word that comes to mind to describe them is 'yuck'. I don't want yuck in my life. 

Of course, there are women who support dominating men, e.g. some women in the media. They are the enablers of the toxic patriarchy. They enable such men in the hope that some of the money and prestige will rub off on them. They are the trophy women in these men's lives. Or the trophy dollies who work the news shows circuit, who make good money as long as they follow the premises laid down by men. Such news shows have to rake in the male viewers and keep them happy with the women's coiffed perfect hair and perfectly made-up faces, tight skirts and heels. These women survive in a men's world as long as they say and do what the men who own the news stations want them to say and do. When there is no longer any use for them, they get fired. These types of women who work for the current administration also end up in the same place--fired. Because the ultimate goal is to rid politics of women, I'm convinced of that. Again, women should know their place, and never ever challenge the male powers that be. Women who buy into this bullshit already know the outcome. They know that they have no real power or control. Supporting a toxic patriarchy is not the way to go in 2026. Such is the stuff that stupidity is made of. 

I totally agree