Background:  A friend of mine came to me with a question regarding a statement made in one of the Laura Ingalls Wilder books when Almanzo was debating about whether to risk ten miles each way in forty-below to bring Laura back to her parents’ for the weekend. He’s looking at the thermometer and hedging. Cap Garland walks by, sees him, says “God hates a coward,” and walks on to where he’s going. Almanzo later says, “I just figured he was right.”

The question was whether the statement is in line with [orthodox Catholic] Church teaching.  I would like to know what your take is on whether or not this is in line with Church teaching, and also to explore what might be meant by the statement, and its implications for how we need to live out our lives in adherence to the Truth as revealed by God.

My first response was to say that God doesn’t ever hate. Then, I made a reference to Revelation 3:16, “So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” I was viewing the cowardice as a form of “sitting on the fence.” I also indicated that it would be important, perhaps, to define what is meant by “coward.”

The response from my friend was:

Well, the validity of the statement WOULD have to hinge on what is meant by “hate” and what is meant by “coward”. But in Genesis God says “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” – presumably He doesn’t literally mean that He hates Esau. What does He mean by it, then?

So putting aside whether it would actually have been cowardly for [the character in the book] to have not gone – which is very debatable – let’s assume that an action IS actually cowardly. Does God hate that action? And if so, running on the assumption that God still loves the coward himself but hates his cowardly actions, if those cowardly actions are frequent and consistent, couldn’t we say “God hates a coward”?

I mean, God still doesn’t hate the PERSON. It might be more precise to say “God hates cowardice.” But could it be accurate to say “God hates a coward”, if one understands that it is not a direct literal statement of God’s feelings toward the person being called a coward?

In a quick, sketchy way, I replied:

Coward: lacking courage; very fearful or timid.
Courage: to act in accordance with one’s beliefs

I think this speaks to the core of what God calls us to: integrity.

It is one thing to say, I am afraid of going out into the snow because there are very real dangers in so doing.
It’s another thing to waffle.

You have to have faith in God.
You aren’t supposed to worry.

On these definitions, to be a coward is to not act in accordance with your beliefs.
And God certainly hates this.
Better to be ignorant and thus inadvertantly sin, than to know the truth and deliberately sin. One of the 3 main conditions for mortal sin, right? Knowing that it was wrong.

I think what the character in the book was getting at was that A needed to decide whether he was going to go or not. He either a) thought it was too dangerous or b) thought it was feasible. But his fear and indecision left his sitting on the fence and this was what he should not be doing. He should either decide that it was more prudent to stay at home and tell Laura no, or he should make preparations to go (taking into account preparations for inclement weather and adversity) and trust that God will get them there safely.

At this point, our YA Fiction theological question was sent to our chosen whipping boy AKA Fr. Ignatius, whom I always assume is delighted to have the privilege of answering all of my random questions. While waiting for a response from Fr. Ignatius, I sent another e-mail to him, further detailing some of my thoughts on the issue:

“Does God hate a coward?”
Seems kind of a narrow question, really. You could also ask, “Does God hate a procrastinator, or a nail-biter or someone who talks/e-mails too much (GASP!)” Each is maybe an aspect of a person, or even an aspect of a person at a specific moment, but does not constitute the whole of the person or even really speak to his or her relationship with God. In and of themselves, the actions could be bad or neutral. I think it speaks more to the fact that we have imperfections than our status with God.

My official answer: no. :)

Up next, our treatise on why marshmallow fluff is not in heaven. LOL! j/k

So, here we are left still with the initial statement. Please respond with your thoughts. :)

Question:
Matthew 8:28-34
Could the demoniacs be a type or foreshadowing of Judas, in that when their badness is confronted by Christ, they choose to leave His presence and effect their own self-destruction?

Book Review:
“Church Fathers” by Pope Benedict XVI — I loved this! I just got it a couple of days ago, and despite my perpetual busyness, I have already finished! As always, the Pope write clearly, and in a very engaging manner. The book consists of a series of Wednesday audiences (not unlike Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body talks), each dedicated to a particular church father. He really is able to make them come alive for me and gives me a desire to read their works and dive deeper into the faith, which is revealed as the true faith which has always been held. I came away from the book with a greater sense and realization of the truth and catholicity of our faith and a hunger for further knowledge. Obviously, I highly recommend it — particularly to those who want an overview of the church fathers before making a decision as to who to read first! :) After reading this book, you won’t think of them (as I kind of did) as anonymous, old men who died a long time ago and don’t have anything to say to me, now. Ha! As the Pope mentions for almost every Father, their advice is always “timely,” especially in the culture of our day, today.

Prayer:
Lord, I am not worthy of you, but only say the word and I shall be healed in heart, mind and body. Please give me understanding, strength and desire to conform my will to yours. Amen.

Quote:
“Call me a crazy lady…one more time….” from Hancock, seen with Terry this weekend.

Movie Review:
Hancock — I thought at first that this was simply going to be another “comic book” movie. I was wrong. Either that or there’s more to comic book stories than I generally get from them. This particular movie I quite enjoyed. Outside of the profanity (which, really, just made me giggle), it was a story of the redemption of man. It took the main character from his sinful, slovenly, selfish ways and transformed him into a man who truly cared for his neighbor and sacrificed on behalf of others. It highlighted the importance of family ties, working for the good of the poor and needy, and of being a good example. It was also a great portrayal of the quote, “To whom much is given, much will be expected.” It was emotionally well-crafted, and you had real empathy for all the characters. The acting I respected. Of course, I’m always a fan of Will Smith, too, so that helped. :) The ending of the film was a little unexpected, but completely fit and was very well done. It would be a great movie to watch again, knowing the ending now to see what foreshadowing there is, because I know that there is a bunch. I could probably keep going on about this movie and the deep meaning that I got from it, but for now I will just encourage you to go out and see it, if you have not done so already. :)

Announcement:
I have (finally) posted ALL of my World Youth Day photos!!! Whoo-hoo! Be sure to check out all 2,665 images and videos here.

After praying for a bit, I decided to grab a Bible sitting in the pew.  One of the ways He speaks to us is through scripture, right?  So, I pick it up and open it, not knowing really what I expect to read, and then the thought comes into my head, “Hey, why not something from Sirach today?”  I agree with that, and flip to Sirach.  Then, this leaps off the page at me:

Sirach 30:14-17 
[14] Better off is a poor man who is well and strong in constitution
than a rich man who is severely afflicted in body.
[15] Health and soundness are better than all gold,
and a robust body than countless riches.
[16] There is no wealth better than health of body,
and there is no gladness above joy of heart.
[17] Death is better than a miserable life,
and eternal rest than chronic sickness.

Now, just what is He trying to tell me?!?!?!?!

 And that’s not all!  After this, I head for the grocery store, still internally squawking, and start my browsing for dinner-type items.  Then, I notice what’s playing on the radio/grocery sound system….

A song I’ve never heard before, which is mostly repeating the same line over and over….

“Baby, just let yourself go.”

And every once in a while, to mix it up is a, “I’ll be coming for you.”

Perhaps I’m just a little paranoid over my medical tests….  :)  But seriously, He couldn’t have given me a “Do not be afraid for I am with you” or even “It’s a beautiful day” ??

a.  How would that be logistically possible?

b.  Is that legit?

2.  Raging neophyte debate here:  when you are fasting, instructions from the Archdiocese’s website say, “The law of fasting allows one full meal per day, with two lighter meals. The quantity of food taken at the two lighter meals should not exceed the quantity taken at the full meal. The drinking of ordinary liquids does not break the fast.”  The question is, I was under the impression that you were only supposed to have the one meal, and that the two smaller meals (collations) were only to be consumed if [medically] necessary — for example if you were ill, elderly or diabetic.  So, which interpretation is correct?

1.  What size coffee would you like?

Huge/large/do you have a vat?/does it come in IV form?

2.  Do you want me to give you a newer, bigger monitor for your computer?

Yes, please!

3.  Would you like surgery?

NO!!  I’m currently trying to avoid surgery, thank you.  I hope the pain does not get worse.

1.  Regarding 2 Mc 7, the 7 brothers and their mom had unwavering faith in God and were able to withstand their tormentors due to their hope (as in certainty in the goodness and fidelity of God, as opposed to wishful thinking) in the Lord.  They knew that God would raise them, and had complete faith in this, and were so able to look beyond the horrible things which were done to them.  Where did they get this faith in the resurrection?  Paragraph 992 of the Catechism states that, “God revealed the resurrection of the dead to his people progressively.”  Okay, how was this progressively revealed to the people such that by the time of this event, the woman and her sons would have such great faith?  The reference in the Catechism begins with this text in Maccabees, and continues to talk of Jesus’s ministry.  So, how was this shown prior to Maccabees?  The only thing that I could think of, and I admit that it’s not a stunning argument, is when Elijah was taken up in the fiery chariot.  But this would only seem to point to a reality outside of that which we concretely know now here on Earth, not necessarily on the resurrection of the dead (since he didn’t “die”).  And, we haven’t gotten to the New Testament quite yet, but isn’t there a part where Jesus goes up to the mountain and sees Elijah and Moses?  *That* would point to a resurrection of the dead, since, I believe, Moses died.  However, if I’m remembering correctly about that story (and it is in the NT and not the OT), it still doesn’t explain the faith of this family during the time of the Maccabean Revolt.  Any ideas?

2.  On a tangent to our discussion (since we were reading one of the deuterocanon books, the conversation drifted to the canon of Scripture), we were noting that the Protestants and the Hebrews use a shorter canon that does not include 7 books of the Old Testament which were in the Greek Septuagint that the Catholic Church has used to define their canon.  Alright, I don’t (at the moment) have a question about the canon; however, if the Hebrew canon doesn’t have Maccabees, how do they preserve the tradition of Hanukkah, seeing as that story is told in Maccabees?  Or is it found elsewhere in Hebrew-accepted Scripture?

1.  Why would someone exclaim, “Jehoshaphat”?  I know he was one of the “good” kings of Judah during the Divided Kingdom, but how does that relate?

2.  When and why did the Israelites start self-identifying as Jews and Hebrews?  What is the etymology of those designations?