Diabolus and Fidelius – Act III
- Wed 27th May 2009, 11:36 pm
Diabolus: Knock Knock!
Fidelius: Oh no, not you again!
Diabolus: Ah but it is, it is.
Fidelius: Why do you keep coming around when you know as well as I do that we can’t talk?
Diabolus: And why is that?
Fidelius: BECAUSE OF WHO YOU ARE!!!! THE TEMPTOR! THE DEVIL! SATAN HIMSELF!
Diabolus: Temper temper….. you know that isn’t good for your blood pressure.
Fidelius: That’s bollocks and you know it. I feel fine.
Diabolus: If you feel fine, then why am I here?
Fidelius: You tell me.
Diabolus: It wouldn’t have anything to do with the State Supreme Court Decision yesterday, would it?
Fidelius: Absolutely not! It was a fine decision. The rule of law prevailed.
Diabolus: More like mob rule prevailed and with great cost to a specific minority – often where God is found.
Fidelius: Says who?!?!?!?!?
Diabolus: Our Lord and Savior himself: “Whatever you do to the least of my….”
Fidelius: These people are NOT Jesus’s family. Hell if they are living together and having sex they are specifically excommunicated and therefore condemned to the depths of Hell – anathema sint!(let them be cursed!)
Diabolus: Have you sunk so low that you have to cut me off before I finish quoting the man you claim as your Lord and Master?
Fidelius: There are no views nor teachings except for those of holy mother church and as we all know, extra ecclesiam nulla salus! (outside the church, no salvation)
Diabolus: Ahh, so is that the reason why you voted with your bishop instead of your conscience?
Fidelius: I had no choice! Further, I’m happy about the decision. What gay people do is wrong and should not have the sanction of society at all.
Diabolus: Then why is it still bothering you now that you voted to ban gay marriage? Is it that you got caught up in the mob mentality stirred up by your bishop and others?
Fidelius: Hardly! My salvation was riding on that vote!
Diabolus: True, it was…yet the way you voted is bothering you. Maybe you voted away your salvation and didn’t even know it?
Fidelius: I am quite confident that you will see me coming at the right side of the Father on judgment day.
Diabolus: All because you obeyed your bishop blindly – even though it meant sanctioning discrimination. Would you be feeling the same if you and Cynthia suddenly found yourself no longer married because the Supreme Court upheld the will of the mob?
Fidelius: I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: what Cynthia and I have is natural! It is the God given order of things. Nobody can undo that.
Diabolus: Well according to the Supreme Court, the mob can undo that. Aren’t you happy now that you participated in that?
Fidelius: I did no such thing!
Diabolus: Yet some would consider what you and Cynthia do in bed to be an abomination, which if I remember my Hebrew correctly is applied not only to gay male sex, but also to lobster, shrimp and other shellfish.
Fidelius: So?
Diabolus: Don’t you two use them as aphrodisiacs?
Fidelius: Stay out of our bedroom!
Diabolus: Funny, you had no problem going into David Farnsworth’s bedroom and roundly condemning what he and Gary were doing there.
Fidelius: It’s not the same thing. They were committing abominations which lead to his death of AIDS – divine punishment for the gay community.
Diabolus: Now now, you don’t really believe that.
Fidelius: How do you know that?
Diabolus: Remember who you are talking to here.
Fidelius: You make me sick!
Diabolus: On the contrary, I’m making you think about all of your choices and about following your bishop so blindly, yet your own personal life doesn’t square up.
Fidelius: My personal life is not the issue. Besides, when it comes to those who practice gay sex, per the church it is an abomination and anathema sint! (let them be cursed!)
Diabolus: Wow, so Catholic you even speak Latin – very nice. Although didn’t you drink your way through that class too?
Fidelius: That’s not the point!
Diabolus: Oh but it is – remember, I know what you and Cynthia do behind closed doors. You do realize your bishop would have a problem with it – she’s had a hysterectomy.
Fidelius: It was to save her life! There was no way she could have another child without it killing her.
Diabolus: True, yet with that one act, what you do is no more open to procreation than what David and Gary were doing.
Fidelius: That’s not the point! Kids will get the wrong idea that it’s right and it’s not!
Diabolus: You never know. I’d wager that David and Gary, if they were given the chance to be publicly exclusive would have been great parents to any children they adopted.
Fidelius: That’s just wrong. It takes a Man AND a Woman to raise a child.
Diabolus: That’s the ideal, but you know as well as I do that life is hardly ideal.
Fidelius: The roles of the partners do not compliment each other in a same sex household! It will hurt the kids
Diabolus: That’s not definitively known and you know it. We’ve never really given them an opportunity to be exclusive, so why can’t you believe in the goodness of humanity for once?
Fidelius: As the psalmist says: Judge me oh God, and distinguish my cause from an unholy people, from unworthy and deceitful men!
Diabolus: *Sigh* Whatever man. Look, I gotta scram. More souls to disturb.
Fidelius: What about me?
Diabolus: Despite best efforts, you are still hopeless
Fidelius: HOPELESS???
Diabolus: Yep. You still fail to see the consequences of the church sanction lynching you participated it at the prompting of your bishop.
Fidelius: IT WAS FOR MY SALVATION!
Diabolus: Whatever Dude! Later!
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. -- Barack Obama at Notre Dame
- Sun 17th May 2009, 5:11 pm
Here is the text of the commencement address that Barack Obama delivered at Notre Dame today, courtesey of the Associated Press. I have also included a link to a video of the event.
Well, first of all, congratulations, Class of 2009. Congratulations to all the parents, the cousins — the aunts, the uncles — all the people who helped to bring you to the point that you are here today. Thank you so much to Father Jenkins for that extraordinary introduction, even though you said what I want to say much more elegantly. You are doing an extraordinary job as president of this extraordinary institution. Your continued and courageous — and contagious — commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.
Good afternoon. To Father Hesburgh, to Notre Dame trustees, to faculty, to family: I am honored to be here today. And I am grateful to all of you for allowing me to be a part of your graduation.
And I also want to thank you for the honorary degree that I received. I know it has not been without controversy. I dont know if youre aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I`m only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that`s better. So, Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers to boost my average.
I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame ...
(Speech is interrupted by anti-abortion protesters.)
We`re fine, everybody. We`re following Brennans adage that we dont do things easily. We`re not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes.
Now, since this is Notre Dame I think we should talk not only about your accomplishments in the classroom, but also in the competitive arena. No, dont worry, I`m not going to talk about that. We all know about this university`s proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world — Bookstore Basketball.
Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year`s tournament, a team by the name of "Hallelujah Holla Back." Congratulations. Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the "Barack OBallers" did not pull it out this year. So next year, if you need a 6-2 forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.
Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty-three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you sit today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare — periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.
You, however, are not getting off that easy. You have a different deal. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and for the world — a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It`s a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations — and a task that youre now called to fulfill.
This generation, your generation is the one that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before the most recent crisis hit — an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day`s work.
Your generation must decide how to save God`s creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. Your generation must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity — diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.
In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. And it`s this last challenge that Id like to talk about today, despite the fact that Father John stole all my best lines. For the major threats we face in the 21st century — whether it`s global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease — these things do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.
Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.
Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" — is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.
We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education that you`ve received here at Notre Dame is that you`ve had time to consider these wrongs in the world; perhaps recognized impulses in yourself that you want to leave behind. You`ve grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, bringing together men and women of principle and purpose — even accomplishing that can be difficult.
The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son`s or daughter`s hardships can be relieved.
The question, then — the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?
And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.
As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope." A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life — but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.
What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my Web site — an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman`s right to choose." The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.
After I read the doctor`s letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn`t change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my Web site. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that — when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that`s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That`s when we begin to say, "Maybe we won`t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions."
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let`s reduce unintended pregnancies. Let`s make adoption more available. Let`s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let`s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do.
Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It`s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where "differences of culture and religion and conviction can coexist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today`s ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about.
This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago — also with the help of the Catholic Church.
You see, I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. And a group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.
And it was quite an eclectic crew — Catholic and Protestant churches, Jewish and African American organizers, working-class black, white, and Hispanic residents — all of us with different experiences, all of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help — to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.
And something else happened during the time I spent in these neighborhoods — perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I was really broke and they fed me. Perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn not just to the work with the church; I was drawn to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.
And at the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him or known of him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads — unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty and AIDS and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together, always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can`t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you`ve touched hearts and minds."
My heart and mind were touched by him. They were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside in parishes across Chicago. And Id like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.
Now, you, Class of 2009, are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You`ll be called to help restore a free market that`s also fair to all who are willing to work. You`ll be called to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or simply someone who insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communication than ever existed before. You`ll hear talking heads scream on cable, and you`ll read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know what they`re talking about. Occasionally, you may have the great fortune of actually seeing important issues debated by people who do know what they`re talking about — by well-intentioned people with brilliant minds and mastery of the facts. In fact, I suspect that some of you will be among those brightest stars.
And in this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you`ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. In other words, stand as a lighthouse.
But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It`s the belief in things not seen. It`s beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.
And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.
For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It`s no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule — the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.
So many of you at Notre Dame — by the last count, upwards of 80 percent — have lived this law of love through the service you`ve performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. Brennan is just one example of what your class has accomplished. That`s incredibly impressive, a powerful testament to this institution.
Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn`t just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens — when people set aside their differences, even for a moment, to work in common effort toward a common goal; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another — then all things are possible.
After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Now, Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the "separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God`s children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the 12 resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There were six members of this commission. It included five whites and one African American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. So they worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. And finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame`s retreat in Land OLakes, Wisconsin — where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.
And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.
I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away — because life is not that simple. It never has been. But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen.
If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God`s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other`s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations, Class of 2009. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.
Sensus Fidelium…. Quid est?
- Sat 2nd May 2009, 9:46 pm
The whole confirmation fight and the question of communion for new Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius got me thinking about something that has at least in the United States been broadly ignored – the sensus fidelium. While it’s true that the bishops have a responsibility to govern, teach and preserve, they also have a responsibility to listen to the sensus fidelium, which is typically translated as “sense of the faithful”, because that’s a major area where the Holy Spirit speaks.
The problem is that the term sensus fidelium is much stronger than how we typically take it. In Latin, the term sensus is a participle, or verbal adjective, of the verb sentire. Sentire can mean not only to feel, but to have an opinion about something or someone and in the broader sense, public opinion. In this case the opinion to be had is about the governance of the church and what should happen or how a doctrine should be implemented. This has been sorely lacking in the American Church. For example, Secretary Sebelius as governor of Kansas and her bishop, Joseph Nauman each had the goal of reducing if not ending abortion, but they disagreed on methodology. The bishop wanted recriminalization of abortion whereas the governor preferred a more grass roots approach – one that would work better in the United States for cultural reasons.
In light of this kind of conflict, the question is what is the sensus fidelium and how is it determined? If it is indeed a form of public opinion, then how do we measure it? Bishops and the curia (from the Latin couira meaning gathering of men – usually old ones) probably are not going to be prone to paying attention to public opinion polls of the faithful and yet the way they do it by selecting their own people to form it is problematic as well. This is because it has led to the perception that the bishops and larger church are out of touch with what the spirit is saying in the modern world. Then again, when you’re trying to sense the public opinion of more than just the United States, it gets a lot more complicated. Sure we in the US may think its okay for Secretary Sebelius to receive communion, but others in other parts of the church may not – hence the tension. Even within the United States, measuring this is going to be an issue because of the different opinions out there all validly formed by faith informed by reason – the crux of Catholic moral theology. In spite of all of this, the question “sensus fidelium… quid est?” remains and is likely to remain for sometime, as pinning down the intentions of the Holy Spirit, expressed via this faithful public opinion is extremely hard to do.
The Beginning of Life: Nothing Dignified About It.
- Sat 25th April 2009, 12:34 pm
The events commemorated on Holy week took on a special meaning for me this year due to the birth of my son. The events of Holy Week are key to Christianity as they are the means that Christ gave us eternal life. That being said, they were horrifically undignified – which is what the Romans intended when they crucified somebody. Similarly, what a woman goes through to give birth to a baby is also undignified as well as painful. It’s not just the event of birth that is undignified, but the entire pregnancy leading up to birth also can be quite undignified.
We all know what Yeshuah Ben Yosef (Jesus) endured in his passion. The scourging, the crown of thorns, carrying a large heavy duty load bearing crossbeam or two for a few miles to the place of execution, being nailed to it, hung up and left to die of exposure naked. We believe that by these events and the fact that he was the son of the god of Israel – proven by his standing up and walking away from it after three days in the tomb, Jesus redeemed humanity in perpetuity and gave birth to eternal life for us all.
What a woman goes through to bring new life about in this world is in a lot of ways very similar. It starts about 9 months prior with conception and implantation. In my wife’s case, she noticed when it implanted and could very intimately feel it growing. She was in constant pain and constantly felt like she had been run over by a truck. As she started to show, simple tasks became much more awkward. She would have a hard time getting up if she sat down, she couldn’t bend at the waist anymore and she couldn’t get comfortable enough to sleep. On top of that, the anxiety we both had for the future affected her especially – further enhancing her suffering and indignity.
Even further, close to term, the baby didn’t want to come and they ended up inducing her labor after a non-stress test indicated that his heart rate was all over the place. We had only eaten one meal that day and she had to further endure the dignity of a very light clear liquid only meal before they induced her labor in case they had to do a C section on her – which they ended up doing because the doctor decided that she didn’t like what the baby was doing. Before they did that though, she labored for close to 8 hours with very little energy to cope with the intense and severe pain of labor. After surgery, they had her catheterized and she had to wear a kind of diaper on top of that which had to be changed periodically to remove the discharge and put a new absorbent material down to catch the new stuff. Additionally, she had this new baby that was totally dependant on her for nutrition, yet because of how many wires and tubes she had on her, she could not really care for him, making it a very unpleasant and undignified experience.
While it was in the end a very happy day for both of us, the birth of our son was anything but dignified. There was blood everywhere before the birth, when the doctor broke her water to the discharge afterwards as her uterus shed its lining and healed after having my son ripped out of it. While crucifixion and giving birth are two very different experiences to be certain, one being the end of a life and the other a beginning, Yeshuah Ben Yosef’s execution had more in common with a birth than a death, as he stood up afterward and 40 days later ascended to his father, making it in reality a birth more than a death. Life and life’s issues by definition are very touchy, complex and can become quite undignified very quickly. The paradox of a crucifixion being a life giving process is a vivid example of this.
