Different

“What’s that, Mommy?”
Little Charlie pointed out the car window to the imposing gray stone edifice looming ahead as they drove down Ridgeline Avenue.
“Hm? … Oh, it’s a church,” his mother replied.
“Like our church?”
“No, honey … it’s a Catholic church.”
By now they had passed and the building was behind them. Charlie thought for a moment. “What’s it like?”
“What do you mean?”
“The church. On the inside. What’s it like?”

Charlie and his parents attended the Hosanna Evangelical Lutheran Church on 16th Street. It was the only church 4-year-old Charlie had ever been in. He was familiar with its clean white walls and comfortable seats. He liked to go there on Sundays and listen to the singing of the grown-up choir and he was even learning many of the hymns by heart. He liked to hear Pastor Willis talk about Jesus, but sometimes Charlie fell asleep when he no longer understood what he was saying.

After a moment’s pause, his mother said, “Mm … I’m not sure. I’ve never been in a Catholic church. But I’ve heard it’s dark and spooky.”
Charlie was surprised at this answer. How could a church be dark and spooky? Don’t they have any lights? A church—at least his church—is bright and cheerful. Then he remembered his mother’s words, that it wasn’t like his church.
“Like a dungeon?”
“Mm … I suppose … (Now let’s see … post office … grocery store … roast for dinner …)”
And that was all they said.

Years went by.
Whenever Charlie rode in the family car or by himself on the bus past that big gray church he heard those words in the back of his mind: “…dark & spooky … like a dungeon …” Sometimes when he walked along Ridgeline with his friends and had to pass in front of it, he found himself unconsciously quickening his footsteps to match the faster beating of his heart. When he walked there by himself, he would often cross to the other side of the street so he didn’t get too close.

One Summer afternoon when he was 15, Charlie was walking home with his pal Rick after playing baseball at the playfield. As they turned onto Ridgeline and the big gray church came into view, Charlie felt a sudden curiosity.

“What religion are you, Rick?”
“Huh? … Oh, I’m Catholic. Why?”
“Oh, I don’t know … Where do you go to church?”
“Saint Agatha’s … that big gray-stone church over there.”
“How … could you go in there?” Charlie asked in spite of himself. “It looks so … gloomy.”
“No it isn’t. Hey, ya wanna go in?” Rick’s face suddenly beamed with an excitement that took his companion by surprise.

Charlie stopped in his tracks. “What!? Are you kidding? I’m not going in there!”
“Why not? It’s OK,” Rick reassured him.
“No! I … I mean … I’m a Lutheran!”
“So what? It’ll be all right …”
“I … I can’t … I just remembered. I gotta get home. My mom said we have to go somewhere so we’re eating dinner early.”
“… Okay …” Rick sensed Charlie’s apprehension and decided to let it drop. They walked on together in silence punctuated by brief and unrelated comments on various subjects until they got to Charlie’s house, where he said, “See ya,” and ran inside.

By the following Saturday Charlie found he was unable to control his curiosity any longer. About three in the afternoon, he told his mom he was going to walk to the playfield. As he approached St. Agatha’s his pulse quickened and his breathing became oddly irregular. Would he be able to see inside the church? He had to try, somehow.

He gazed intently at the structure for a long time as he got nearer, as if trying to discover some strange secret. He found paved pathways that he’d never noticed before along the sides and all around the building. He looked high up on the stone walls at where he thought there should have been windows, but the long, narrow window “holes” seemed to be filled—blocked—not by glass, but by strange black and gray things that at first glance didn’t look much different than the rest of the wall. There were similar structures lower down at about eye level, and now that he was walking along the side wall, he noticed odd flashes of color—red, green, blue and yellow—coming from those black-and-gray “windows.” What kind of place was this? He carefully stepped between the flowers that were planted beside the wall and reached out to touch the window, and realized then that it wasn’t made of smaller stones as he thought, but of dark chunks of broken glass cemented in place!

He wanted to peek inside, and he saw the doors, of course, but knew they’d be all locked since nobody was around. As he reached the door on the side along which he was creeping, he gave it an experimental tug and—it opened. His hand jerked away from the handle as if he’d been shocked. He stared at it for several seconds and swallowed hard before deciding to go ahead and open it again. Slowly he pulled the door open and peered inside, noticing that although it was quite dim, he could still easily see the structure and furnishings around the huge interior. There were no lights on inside, but as his eyes became acclimated to the reduced light streaming in through the high windows … the windows!! My God! Look at them …

Pictures! Suddenly he saw faces and people depicted in them, and … There was Jesus! And there He was again in a different window! There’s the Christmas scene—angels and the manger and Mary! And there’s another scene of Jesus stretching out His hand over what look like big dinner rolls—the story of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, of course! This was no dungeon—it was a … a storybook! Why hadn’t he seen these images before? They all looked so … black … from the outside, but from the inside—everything was different. Everything was so beautiful—the colors, the pictures—this was great!

Just then, the door—the same door he had entered through a few minutes before—opened and a man dressed in black clothes stepped in, touched something on the wall beside the door, and made a sign or gesture of some kind around his head and shoulders. He then went down on one knee while facing the center-front of the church. Surprised, Charlie took a step backward and sucked in his breath. The man stood up and seemed to notice Charlie for the first time. Charlie thought of running, expecting the man to chase him, but the man in black only smiled and nodded at Charlie and, without a word, he turned away and stepped through another door near the front of the church.

Charlie was standing right in the middle of the huge church so he could see all the windows when the minister(?)—no, the priest—had surprised him by his sudden entrance, and equally sudden disappearance. He thought for a few seconds and decided he’d seen enough for one day and started again for the same side door to leave when it opened again and a lady stepped in, quickly touching the wall as the priest had done and making the same gesture around her head—oh! It’s that … thing Catholics do … what do they call it? He thought it had a name, but didn’t know what it was. The lady gave no indication that she noticed Charlie, but turned in the opposite direction the priest had gone and walked calmly along the side aisle and stopped by another door—in fact it was three doors all together in a group. That was really odd. The lady stopped by the first door she came to, but instead of opening it, turned to face the middle of the church and put her back against the wall, looked up and noticed Charlie for the first time. They made eye contact, but the lady’s expression didn’t change, as if she wasn’t the least bit surprised to see him there. She looked at him for about 3 seconds and then looked down at the floor, as if she was lost in thought. Then another man came in the same way, making the same gesture and walked back by where the woman was, but then stepped into a pew, seemed to do something with his foot and … what? … knelt down? He didn’t notice Charlie at all. What were these people doing? Waiting for something? But what?

Charlie headed for the exit again and almost reached it when a few (but only a few) of the interior lights snapped on. A second later the priest reappeared from the door he’d gone into several minutes before, but he was now wearing a white robe and what looked like a long purple scarf over both his shoulders and hanging down in front. He smiled again at Charlie and walked right past him in the direction of the two other people, but no words were exchanged among any of them. Charlie put his hand on the door and took one last look at the people—hey, where did the priest go? Then he recognized the kneeling man as Rick’s father, who still didn’t seem to notice Charlie at all. He just knelt there, staring up at the front of the church. Charlie glanced over his other shoulder in an effort to see what held his attention. He saw a big table … a shiny golden box … a single candle in a red glass beside the box … a HUGE cross … with a life-sized Jesus on it! He pushed against the door and ran outside, all the way home.

What a strange—no, what a wonderful place! … It looks so different from the inside than it does from the outside. Who ever would have thought that?

Summoning the Ascended Masters

“OOOoooooOOOhhh … coooooome toooo meee, ooohh Androgyni, god/dess of sexual confusion … Cooome and caaassst ooouut my eeenemeeeey, Bumuuurrga, the goddess of menstrual cramps (the fat old witch), so that I, Bishtar, eternal Son of a bish that I Am, can bid loooong farewell to Owhooooya, angry god of couch-sleepers, and can create My Own Reality of Pleeeaaasure with beautiful Guuuishtar [Bumuuurrga’s other manifestation], divine daughter of Swishtar, athletic goddess of tennis shoes, That our geologically brief Embrace may laaaast Eteeerrnally, or at least until that other one, you know … What’s-her-name? … (oh yeah)—Aaaaphrodiaper, goddess of eternal youth and beauty, should join us and mud-wrestle with Guuuishtar & rip off her skimpy linen things, thereby giving meee even mooooore Pleeeaasure … (how did I miss those?) … … Ooooohhh cooooome ooooohhh … um … (oh yeah)—Aaandrooooogyneee, and through your Inspiraaaaation I will create my ooooown Reality, and all Pleeeeaaasure will be Miiiiiiine (and maybe I’ll let you have a little on the side) … And maaaayybeee togeeether we can get Fishtar, ancient god of sea chanteys to take a Baaath … restoring heavenly fresh air to the Astral Spheres and the Great Celeeeeestial Reeeaaalms for aaaall the Ascended Masters of the Universe …

“By the Power of My Own God Within, this is my Commaaaand to yooouu, O Andooogyneei, … do you HEAR me? … I Commaaaand you to do myyyy bidding … as I create my ooowwn reality of Pleeeaasure with all those goddess Babes … because there’s no jealousy among all us gods, right? And it’s OK if I Am the center of aaaall pleeeaaasure!!! (Suffering is for all those foolish, sick-o, superstitious Christians, right?) If only they would puuuurifyyy themselves and become gods like uuusss, then aaaall suffering would just goooo awaaaayyy & I wouldn’t be sleeping here on the couch with Owhooooya, god of angry couch-sleepers, after being kicked out by Bumuuurrga, angry goddess of menstrual cramps … Ooohh coooome Aaandrooogyneei … Giiiive meeee a siiiiign … (?)” …

… *Thump* … *Thump* …*Thump* …

“Oh Androgyni … is that You? …”

… *Thump-thump-thump-thump* …

“… Oh, it’s you, Fido, dog—I mean god of eternal tail-waggers. Get outta here, I wasn’t calling you … (stupid mutt!) …

“Aww, come on, Androgyni … I’ve got my sacred crystal—just play along, will ya? …

“… Well how about your eternal half-brother, Mephistopheles?—is he around? …”

(… Oooooooo … mmmm … Hey, now that’s more like it! I’m starting to feel the effects already …

(I don’t need that fat old witch anyway … I’m outta here!)
“Hey Fido! Let’s go have a pizza! I’m buying … after all, it’s MY reality! (Maybe we can pick up a few Temple Prostitutes while we’re at it…)”

Fido: “Mrowrr” *pant-pant-pant*

Body, Soul and Spirit

(and a little bit about heaven and hell)

[This is an excerpt (p. 128-133) from Heaven: The Heart’s Deepest Longing by Peter Kreeft (available from: Ignatius Press, San Francisco).] (Note: the parts set off below with square brackets appear as footnotes in the book.)


The life of the body and soul together is the “life” the New Testament calls bios, natural life. The life of the spirit is more than natural life, or zoë. If we choose it, it is our spirit’s participation in God’s own life as Father, the source of life. Our spirit’s consciousness is then a participation in the Word of God, the divine consciousness, the “light that enlightens every man who comes into the world” [John 1:9], the cosmic Christ. And our spirit’s joy is a participation in God’s own eternal inner joy of love between the Father and the Son: the Holy Spirit.

The body is our relation to what is less than ourselves (the material world); the soul is our relation to ourselves, or self-consciousness; and the spirit is our relation to what is more than ourselves (God). That is why we usually discover the real, living God and the reality of our own spirit at the same time and why we can’t find our own deepest identity until we find God.

It is our spirit that thirsts for God, whether or not our conscious souls do. We have six thirsts. On the bodily level, we thirst for pleasure and sense experience (curiosity); on the soul level, for happiness and knowledge; on the spirit level, for joy and wisdom. Pleasure and sense experience come from the world; happiness and knowledge come from ourselves (though many try in vain to find them in the world); joy and wisdom come from God (though many try in vain to find them in themselves or in the world).

Pleasures and sensations are like ripples on our surface; happiness and knowledge are like undercurrents in our inner waters; joy and wisdom are sunken treasures at the very bottom.

Each step deepens the one before it. Knowledge is a kind of depth perception or X-ray of sense perception; it sees forms and structures and essences behind external appearances. In turn wisdom discovers the deepest significance or ultimate meaning and value of what knowledge turns up. Similarly, happiness is a deepening of pleasure; we can see this when we are happy even when in pain. (Yes, it happens; ask any mother in childbirth!) And joy is deeper than happiness, for our joy can remain even when our feelings are upset. There are deeper feelings than the feelings, just as there are deeper reasons than the reason: “The heart has its reasons which the reason cannot know.”

Joy can be in the spirit without happiness being in the soul, but joy usually flows out into the soul and even into the body. A joyful spirit inspires joyful feelings and even a more psychosomatically healthy body. (For example, we need less sleep when we have joy and have more resistance to all kinds of diseases from colds to cancers.) But the home of joy is the spirit. We feel joy in the conscious soul only because the spirit is the life of the soul, as the soul is the life of the body. Joyful feelings are not joy, but joy’s overflow, not the wave but the wave’s imprint in the sand.

Not everyone knows what the spirit is and how it is distinct from the soul. Does it really make a difference? Only the difference between life and death. The soul makes the difference between life and death to the body, and the spirit makes the difference between life and death to the soul. A body without a soul is not a living body but a corpse. The difference between a living body and a dead body is not a bodily difference. Immediately after death the body has the same weight, shape and size; but its life has departed. Life is not a thing, like the body, but the life of that thing. Similarly, a soul without a spirit is a dead soul, and the difference between a dead soul and a living soul is not a soul difference. Dead souls think (dead thoughts) and feel (dead feelings) just as living souls do, but they have no life. If you want to see dead souls, or at least dying souls, just walk through certain city streets.

Greek philosophy (or at least Socratic-Platonic philosophy) teaches the immortality of the soul. The Bible does not: The only immortal one is God. [1 Tim. 6:15-16: “the King of kings and Lord of lords who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light.”] We attain immortality not by the unfree passivity of being born but by the act of free choice to be “born again.” [John 3:3: “Unless one is born anew he cannot see the Kingdom of God.”] Without the divine miracle of raising the dead, there is no hope for immortality. [1 Cor. 15:17-19: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.”] That immortality is bodily as well as soul and spirit immortality. [1 Cor. 15:35, 38: “But some one will ask, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come? … God gives it a body as He has chosen.”] Finally, souls are not said to be immortal but mortal, that is, able to die. [Matt. 10:28: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both body and soul in hell.”] Hell is precisely that: the death of the soul.

Spirit is unchanged by bodily death, which only clarifies its “fundamental option” for or against God. Souls are purged and perfected by bodily death (if their spirits live). Bodies are killed.

Spirit has only two choices: for or against God, for spirit confronts God, the absolute, the one and only. Here is the only area of absolute either/or: yes or no to God. (That is why conscience, which is the voice of spirit, is so absolutistic: it is the voice of God.) C. S. Lewis is thinking of the spirit when he says, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God: ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says in the end: ‘Thy will be done.’” [C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (New York: Macmillan, 1946), p. 72.]

Soul has many choices, not just one, for our thoughts and feelings are multicolored, not black or white. And body is the most dispersable of all, for it is part of the world of matter, which is maximally dispersable.

Spirit is where we decide who we are—our identity, our I. It is where we are selves, where we are ones. Our Dionysian and Apollonian halves are not selves, not wholes. Where are they one? Or are we only tow halves glued together? No, we are wholes, and we find this wholeness only at the bottom of the bowl where the two sides converge. Just as “everything that rises must converge” in God [The Flannery O’Connor title is from Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man (New York: Harper & Row, 1964)], everything that descends must also converge at the heart of the self, which is the image of God. The human I reflects the divine I Am. This is the spirit or “heart” (as Scripture calls it). It is both center and bottom.

Here at the bottom of the canyon the waters of life flow together and mingle; joy and wisdom are one. Deepest joy is deepest wisdom; beatitude is “the beatific vision.” Happiness is not of itself knowledge, but joy is wisdom and wisdom is joy. The reason for this unity is that the object of joy and wisdom, unlike that of knowledge and happiness, is not an abstract, partial ingredient in the whole; and it is not known with an abstract aspect or part of ourselves, the intellect. Rather, in joy and wisdom the living God lets himself be touched by the human heart, center to center, heart to heart, spirit to spirit, I to Thou, “deep calling unto deep.” [Ps. 42:7.]

Scripture invites us to “know the Lord” with the heart, not (first of all) the head. The biblical sense of “know” is “to love.” The word is even used of physical love: “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived.” [Gen. 4:1.] She did not conceive a concept but a conception, a child. On the spiritual level, there is an incredible and wondrous parallel: God wants to be our spirit’s husband. [Isa. 54:5.] Our spirit’s love and intercourse with God conceive ourselves, our new identity, our destiny. We are our own mothers (in the sense that by choosing God, we receive his grace, and we give life to our own spirit—G/F). What we are now is only our womb, our raw material, our potential self. But we cannot be our own fathers, our own gods; that is the Oedipus complex, the dream of getting rid of our father and marrying our mother, and being our own father, that is, our own god. It is our primal sin, “original sin,” the refusal of the divine marriage proposal. Its result is death, spiritual barrenness—ultimately, hell, “the outer darkness,” the only ultimate alternative to joy. [Matt. 8:12.]

More on Sin & Suffering

I’d like to formally introduce you to my other antagonist, a gentleman who goes by the moniker God of Biscuits.

He hasn’t left any comments around here for quite some time, but I still encounter his peculiar “wit” with fair regularity at Bloghogger and at hoody’s site. But he did see fit to deposit a few choice words on my last post (which was on the topic of global warming). His remarks focused on one sentence in my closing paragraph about the general link between sin & suffering.

I posted previously and at some length on this link way back on May 8 of this year in a post called “Offer it up…” and more recently (September 6) in the post What “caused” Hurricane Katrina? I don’t recall whether he read those or not. Any comments he may have left have been archived by HaloScan and I’m not able to access them. [You can read those posts yourself (scroll down) if you wish.]

I’ll duplicate his present comments (and my replies to them) here [this seems to really tick him off for some reason] and then I’ll offer some further elucidation afterward.

------------------------
(Quoting me) Sin is the cause of all suffering

Well, march your ass on down to any children's hospital or any oncology hospital and please tell all those people they're just sinful.

You're a christian gem.

--God of Biscuits 10.25.05 - 12:18 am
------------------------

Suffering is the result of sin. Any given individual's suffering may be the result of either his own sin or someone else's, or a combination of both.

Not everyone is the cause of his own suffering. Each person's sins affect not only his own life and person, but everyone with whom he comes in contact, and in fact (at least to some degree) the whole world. Stones tossed into a pond don't merely sink to the bottom, they send ripples across the whole body of water, and if the ripples are large or frequent enough, the banks can be eroded and things that live along the shore can potentially be destroyed. A man who is aware he has a communicable disease and yet remains unconcerned about those around him whom he may infect is responsible for their loss of good health. The directors of a company that uses hazardous or deadly chemicals can be responsible for degrading health and environmental conditions within the community and beyond if they are careless in their use or disposal of said chemicals or agents. Etc., etc. Stop acting like an imbecile.

--the Green Flash 10.25.05 - 9:07 am & 10:26pm --[2 comments edited together]
------------------------

Before you were saying that A -> B.

Now you're changing it to say that B -> A.

You said, and I QUOTE: "Sin is the cause of all suffering" (your emphasis).

So. Cancer.

If those poor bastards had just stuck to the 10 commandments and whatever parts of Leviticus you buy into, they'd be A-OK healthy.

that's exactly what you're saying.

You stated it unequivocally.

And then you change your mind. How cavalier.

--God of Biscuits 10.26.05 - 12:04 am
------------------------

I changed nothing. You are refusing to understand (or are pretending not to). Your logic is defective: you are drawing a false inference. Your analytical method is too rigid (perhaps your brain is becoming ossified).

All suffering (including cancer) is caused by sin—somewhere. Every sin causes (or in some way contributes to) suffering—somewhere. Attempting to determine or judge exactly whose sin is at the root of what suffering is (in general) a vain and futile exercise. I nowhere said that a given person’s suffering is always the result of his own sins, as you seem to think.

What’s important is (a) to avoid sinning yourself and (b) to give aid to anyone else who is suffering (to the extent you are able), not try to figure out which sin (or who committed it) that contributed to which guy’s suffering.

--the Green Flash 10.27.05 - 12:18 am
------------------------
------------------------

OK, that’s it. Now please understand that we (myself, hoody and others) have been around the block on this sort of thing time and time again with Mr. Biscuits and the result is always the same. He doesn’t seem to hear what we are saying, but rather baits us with taunts and accusations without any apparent interest in what we are really trying to communicate. His typical behavior is that of a playground bully--attempting to intimidate and not concerned about anything but his own opinions, attitudes and desires which, to him, trump all else. He’s very predictable, too. (I can’t always predict when he’ll show up, of course; but when he does show, the point and thrust of his remarks are, well, unremarkable.)

I’m not here to convert him or anyone else who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge God or His revelation. I’m not attempting to prove anything. My purpose is merely to state what has been revealed by God (through the prophets before Christ & through the Church He established) and then to make a few observations & draw some inferences on my own from it (for whatever it’s worth). Faith in God & His revelation is my first premise. It is not a conclusion to an argument; it is a “given.” I cannot prove it (beyond pointing to how it all fits and hangs together), nor do I try to. (If it could be proven it wouldn’t be faith, but empirical knowledge.) And yet, Mr. Biscuits keeps showing up with his demand to “prove it [in scientific or mathematical terms].” Sorry.

Personal faith in God (and by extension, trust in the revelation He gave) falls into 4 basic categories: (a) you receive it & accept it as true; (b) you receive it and accept it provisionally (while you “check it out,” searching for the truth); (c) you are entirely ignorant of it (you never received it, through no fault of your own); or (d) you did receive it at one time, but subsequently chose to reject or ignore it (for whatever reason). People sometimes move between these categories (& there may be others, but these serve to illustrate my point) at various times in their lives. At present, I am in category (a), while Mr. Biscuits is (as near as anyone can tell) in category (d). (I know he doesn’t like categories; I guess they cramp his style. But that’s how I see it. Don’t ask me to prove it.)

Regarding the specific taunting reference he made to hospitals, I will not try to trace the pathology of a particular cancer (or any other disease or natural calamity as an immediate or proximate cause of suffering) step-by-step back to sin X, Y or Z committed by person A, B or C. It doesn’t work that way. Sorry if I gave the impression that I could, but I don’t think I did. I think (judging from Mr. Biscuits’ manifest M.O.) that he was just looking for some excuse to attack me and try to make me look foolish, and this time, this is the excuse he found. But I don’t mind. We’re called to be “fools” for Christ’s sake anyway (1 Cor 1:18-31; 3:18-19; 4:10). I hope I didn’t disappoint anyone.

It’s easy for nearly everyone to see how some sins cause some suffering. (Our criminal justice system routinely pursues this connection with rigor.) A single murder can send huge shock waves through an entire community (or even a whole nation). (And there’s no telling how many smaller sins by many individuals may have led eventually to the one murder.)

This requires a bit more effort, but most people can at least intuitively grasp a connection between the greed (avarice) and/or laziness (sloth) of a relative few and the suffering caused by (for example) the environmental effects produced by careless disposal of certain materials and irresponsible exploitation of some natural resources (e.g. by some directors, executives or managers, and even line workers in manufacturing & energy industries).

We don’t always see the short- or long-term effects of the sins we commit. The murderer may not see (or even think about) the manifold suffering of his victim’s children or grandchildren. But that does not obliterate the connection between his sin and the suffering it caused. A reasonable person can understand this with ease. Such a person may also recognize that some adverse environmental factors (resulting from the greed or laziness of some irresponsible businessmen) may have eventually facilitated the onset of some cancers in some people. (I am speaking here in general terms to illustrate a general principle. I am not trying to prove anything, but only pointing out that there is a real connection between evil choices/actions and suffering in general, even if we don’t happen to see it and can’t trace it directly—or even acknowledge that the choices/actions in question are evil.)

Now the propositions that all suffering is caused by sin and that all sin causes suffering isn’t readily apparent. They are derived from divine revelation. I recognize & accept divine revelation as true. Mr. Biscuits does not. I cannot force him to accept the gift of faith in divine revelation any more than he can “prove” to me that such faith is altogether unreasonable. We are at an impasse.

I came to this realization some time ago, so while I may occasionally respond to his accusations, allegations, attacks and distorted fits of logic (as in the present instance), I don’t attempt to engage him (i.e. instigate any discussions—pick fights—with him). The manifest differences & barriers between our respective worldviews make rational discourse logically impossible. They are mutually exclusive and utterly irreconcilable.

Well, as the old song goes, “Somethin’s gotta give.” I am unlikely to change my perspective regarding the Catholic faith (and by God’s grace, I never will). Biscuits should have realized this by now. So unless there is some potential for change on his side, I am mystified by his occasional but persistent forays to this and other [Catholic] sites on the Web. I don’t drop in on his blog & leave snide comments (at least not any more). I don’t pester him. He doesn’t have to come here if my material offends his sensibilities.

Is it that he feels some compulsion to attack me as a stand-in for the Church he hates—am I simply a symbolic focal point for his rage? Or is it possible—am I so obtuse—that I misunderstand him? Is his act of spiritual suicide actually a cry for help? Or does he just find it hilarious that he can so easily goad me into a complete waste of my time? I can’t tell. (Please note: I am not condemning him. I’m just trying to figure him out.)

Now don’t get me wrong: I don’t mind answering his questions, such as they are. In fact, I find it kind of fun (in a weird sort of way). There’s always an answer for them, although I confess I sometimes have to dig to find it. (There’s always an answer, but not always one he’ll accept.) I just wonder why he keeps trying.

“Somethin’s gotta give.”

I’m not going to change.

Will he?

"Tastes kinda like chicken ..."

… But it’s still no fun eating crow!

I used to think—and repeatedly claimed publicly—that “global warming” was a hoax. But that’s now changed—I have changed. I read a number of articles on the subject in the Seattle Times (Sunday Oct. 9, 2005) that gave convincing testimony that global warming is For Real, and not just part of the natural cycles of the earth as I had erroneously assumed. Real scientific data seems conclusive that it is caused not by any changes in solar activity, not by increased geothermal activity, but by man’s industrialization & continued reliance on hydrocarbon fuels (principle source of escalating levels of atmospheric carbon-dioxide, the biggest part of the problem). Its effects will be increasingly noticeable & dramatic (potentially catastrophic), very long term (centuries) and are now unavoidable and, at least as far as we (and the next few generations) are concerned, irreversible.

I don’t want to be alarmist, though. I believe God is “in charge” of His creation as He always was and always will be. He created the earth, and He created it for man. But all the same, He ordinarily permits the consequences of man’s actions (individually and collectively), however evil, to run their natural course, and I don’t expect any miracles on a global scale to set things back to how they were in the 18th Century before the Industrial Revolution started the ball rolling. Man adapted & survived the last great ice age, and I’m confident he has the God-given means to do the same as the earth gets warmer. I’m concerned (it’s not a good situation), but I’m not worried. Life on earth will certainly change in coming generations, but it will go on.

As I hinted above, the global warming trend apparently started in the 19th Century with the Industrial Revolution and is getting progressively worse year by year & decade by decade. The professional naysayers (who I used to listen to) were being financed, it turns out (surprise, surprise), by “Big Business” (oil, mining, transportation and manufacturing industries), those who stand to gain financially by the status quo that fuels the whole problem [pun intended]. One could say that the global warming trend started by accident (we didn’t know then what we know now), but it accelerates today as a result of deliberate decisions involving the grave sin of greed (avarice). (Granted, they don’t necessarily want global warming, they just don’t care about it nearly as much as they care about their personal fortunes.)

There is viable technology available today (has been for years) to drastically cut (or even eliminate) the use of hydrocarbon fuels: the fuel cell. If I understand the mechanism correctly, cars and other vehicles could fill up with what amounts to a non-toxic soap solution and, by means of a solid catalyst material in the fuel cell, convert it into electricity and the by-product of pure water (this is how the astronauts get their electrical power and drinking water on the International Space Station). There are ZERO harmful emissions (unlike the “reduced” emissions that come out of the hybrid cars being produced currently).

If the “leaders” in corporate-industrial America were serious about “The Environment,” they’d stop (for example) putting internal combustion engines in cars and trucks and start producing them with fuel cells and electric motors instead. Larger fuel cells could also be used to generate electricity locally (in individual homes and businesses), eliminating the need for huge coal-, gas- & oil-burning power plants—not to mention all those cross-country high-tension power lines, substations and all the rest!

So why isn’t this change being implemented today? My personal answer is: there is still a great deal of MONEY to be made (by certain people—who don’t actually need any more than they already have) by the continued use of hydrocarbon fuels. “Leaders” in industries and governments could make the decisions right now—today—to begin the change-over to this efficient (and cheap!) system of (electrical) power, but that would mean much less (economic and political) power for them! So those decisions are left un-made. They keep their heads in the sand (as mine was until a few days ago—mea culpa) and everyone will increasingly suffer as a result.

But, as I’ve said many times before, suffering and sin of all kinds—including greed—are part of life. Sin is the cause of all suffering, and every sin causes some suffering somewhere (even if we don’t readily see it). We can stand up to others and exhort them to greater acts of justice, charity, compassion, stewardship and all the other virtues, but when it comes to actually rooting out sin, the only place we can do that is in our own individual hearts, through personal repentance.

[ Please read the follow-up to this essay, I once thought I was wrong ... of June 17, 2006. ]

The ongoing phenomenon of JohnnyK

Those who visit this blog & view the comments attached to each post are surely familiar with the, um… “extraordinary” views of a fellow who goes by the name JohnnyK. I tell myself from time to time that his remarks are in the main so outlandish that they’re really not worth responding to. My wife gets upset too, because she’s convinced I’m wasting my time even giving his comments a passing thought, much less bothering to craft reasoned responses to them. So why do I keep doing it?

Well, for several reasons:

1. Occasionally he says something that is coherent enough that it might possibly lead a reasonable person to misunderstand either the point I was making or some other aspect of reality that JK is criticizing. So I try to straighten out the kinks and twists employed in JK’s reasoning for the benefit of the unwary reader. (In such explanations, I usually refer to him in the 3rd person rather than addressing him in the 2nd.)


2. It’s good practice in honing my rhetorical skills.


3. Perhaps most importantly, I respond because he used to be my friend.

My wife and I met him years ago in a class we all attended. (Years later we were even the Best Man and Matron of Honor at his wedding.) But then, rather suddenly (within a matter of months), a series of personal traumas in his life were apparently the occasion of a profound shift in his way of thinking about the world (both material and spiritual).

I wish now that I’d been aware of what he was going through at the time so I could have helped him sort it all out. (I was of course aware of the external circumstances of his situation, but I didn’t realize the nature or depth of his inner turmoil & transformation until it was “too late.”)

At present, he & I are what you might call “perfect strangers.” I respect his chosen on-line “anonymity” (I hope I haven’t violated it by explaining things as I have), and he respects mine. And I appreciate and thank him for that. However I think I have some information and insights (concerning certain personal matters both past and present) that I believe would be of interest to him, but he has thus far declined my invitation to “private conversation” via e-mail. (I choose not to initiate the exchange so he knows I’m not “spamming” him.)

Because he was once my friend, I now read his remarks with deep feelings of sadness & personal regret. I hope (apparently against hope) that something I say might spark some idea in his mind & cause him to rethink some aspect of his current world view so that we might return to some kind of “common ground.” (I also hope I don’t inadvertently end up pushing him further away than he already is.) I saw what he went through (well, parts of it) and I understand the profound depth of emotional and psychic pain he suffered, and, in a limited way, I can relate to it & sympathize with him! (His way of dealing with that pain, on the other hand, was in my judgment a bit, well, extreme.)

So I still respond to him occasionally. My teenager reads our exchanges and says, “Gee Dad, you ought to put that on your main blog & not just leave it in the comment box. You’d have a lot more room, more people would see it, … (etc.)” Up until now I’ve resisted that option for a number of reasons, but I have a lot to say about several comments he recently made on my last post (the one about Hurricane Katrina) and I decided to avail myself of it at this time. So, as they say, here goes nothing…

[You can read his remarks in full if you wish (although I had to edit out some indiscreet passages) by clicking on the link and wading through the “comments” at the bottom of that post.]
-------------------
“Fundamentally, then, it is about worshipping every cell, atom and molecule in one's body… you feel transformed into a God or Goddess… Temple style Lomi Lomi is about worshipping the body…”

Because it is intrinsic to human nature, everyone must worship someone or something. It’s only a question of who or what you choose to worship. JohnnyK admits here—unless I misunderstand him—that he worships his own body (and perhaps other people’s bodies as well) and, because of the pleasure he experiences through his senses (and the New Age sci-fi psychobabble he’s been ingesting over the last couple of years), he now suffers under the delusion that he must be (or at least might be) a god himself.
-------------------
“There is nothing to forgive, hence, no one is guilty of anything. The solution is to teach people how to create more pleasure for themselves…”

I’d like to hear him say this right after some joker decides to create more pleasure for himself by stealing his car, emptying his bank account or “massaging” his nose with his fist.
-------------------
“People who are punishing themselves with pain seek to punish others with just as much pain. To love is to be happy with. This is why I say that there aren't very many happy criminals.”

Um, excuse me, but…aren’t criminals precisely those people who place themselves and their own desires above and before those of others & their property? Isn’t it their blind pursuit of their own shallow view of “happiness” (and not pain) that sets them on the path of crime in the first place? Isn’t that pretty much the definition of crime?

The real reason criminals are almost universally unhappy is precisely for this reason. Blinded by their own narrow and self-serving notion of what constitutes “good” and focused exclusively on themselves, they reject the natural rights of others & are surprised when they are caught, frequently becoming bitter when their spree is over and they are brought to justice (although some do (sooner or later) repent of their crimes). Their misery is the inevitable & understandable (albeit unintended) natural consequence of their own disordered & distorted self-love.
-------------------
“Now, what is it about taking 100% responsibility that you object to?”

What I object to is his implied definition of “100% responsibility.” Here’s what I mean:

“In order to be 100% responsible, you must see that we are a much more powerful beings than you have ever realized.”

Thinking you are a “much more powerful being” than you actually are is called hubris, a failure of the virtue of humility or modesty. The trick is to recognize and accept your true place in the universe and not pretend you are something that you’re not.
-------------------
“...why can't we be forgiven after we die? This is also out of harmony with your opening statement that we are free to have our own opinions...but then you imply that we are not free to have our own opinions...if we want to avoid TORTURE after death.”

Actually, this is perfectly harmonious and consistent with everything I’ve said all along. Think about it: there are right choices, and wrong choices. You are always free to choose between the two (sometimes there are more than two choices, or morally neutral choices, but I’m not talking about those here).

The consequences of your free choices, however, are intrinsic to the things (behaviors or acts) you choose to do, and are independent of the free operation of your will in choosing to act in any given way.

For example, I am utterly free to either drop an egg or hold on to it. But since the law of gravity operates independently of my will, the egg will fall to the floor if I choose to drop it, whether I actually wish it to or not. The consequence (egg smashing on the floor) is in the nature of physical reality and we cannot change it. If I don’t want the egg to break on the floor, I’d better hold onto it (or take some other suitable precaution to prevent its falling to the floor). Dropping the egg (in this case) would be the “wrong” choice, but I’m still perfectly free to do it. I just have to live with the natural consequences of that choice, that’s all.

So it is in our everyday lives. We are continually faced with the choice between doing right & doing wrong, and we are always free to choose between them. The wrong choice (if sufficiently grave) puts us on the path to hell (eternal “TORTURE”) [if it is not grave, it at least orients us toward the path to hell], whereas choosing to do the right sets us on the path toward heaven (eternal happiness/reward). But it is still our FREE choice. Our problem (the reason we frequently choose the wrong, i.e. to sin) is that we are not always mindful of the consequences of our actions (long-term or short-term, either for ourselves or for others) and choose instead to do what feels good at the moment.

People who believe that pleasure is the highest good in life are called hedonists. People who consistently fail to consider the possible consequences of their actions we call reckless. (Just in case you weren’t sure.) People such as these are generally considered morally weak by normal society. (Frequently society judges it necessary to lock such people up so they can’t harm themselves or others by their habitually disordered behavior.) Conversely, people who freely choose to accept the risk or certainty of personal pain, hardship and privation in order to help others are generally admired—and rightly so—for their personal sacrifice!

Which one (hedonism/recklessness, or sacrificial service) is a more reasonable indicator of personal responsibility? Hmm, let me think about it…

Seen in this light, JohnnyK’s egocentric analysis of human behavior seems rather superficial to say the least, and I’d say, well, backward. I hope he reconsiders his “core philosophy/principles” and chooses in the future to turn outward toward others and to love & serve them for their own sakes as persons rather than for the sake of just their bodies and the pleasure they can give him. I guarantee that, while it might not be as much “fun,” he will definitely be truly happy. (If he doesn’t know how to begin, he can give me a call.) Maybe then he will begin to understand the true meaning of responsibility.

What “caused” Hurricane Katrina?

[Before anyone goes and blows a gasket, this is only my opinion. It is the personal view of one Catholic, and it is (to the best of my knowledge) in full conformity with ordinary Catholic teaching; but you, dear readers, are of course free to hold to other opinions.]

As Christians, we believe that all suffering and hardship in this world is the result of the original sin of our first parents, and all the sin that followed in its wake. Everything that's "bad" is (ultimately) the result of sin. Even natural disasters like earthquakes and hurricanes. (Sin puts the whole earth--the whole universe, in fact--in a state of chaos, turmoil and upheaval (Gen. 3:16-19; Rom. 8:19-23). Frequently many good & innocent people suffer as a result, and many die.) God does not "create" or "decree" suffering on human beings (or even on animals), but He does permit suffering to fall on us as the natural consequence of our own acts and the acts of others (i.e., sin), and He always somehow draws greater good out of any evil that occurs. (I realize this is an extremely subtle and difficult distinction for some people, between causing suffering and permitting suffering, but it is essential to understanding Catholic teaching on this point). Fortunately for us, physical death is not the ultimate calamity, since death comes to everyone sooner or later (i.e., no one ever gets out of this world alive), and we believe it is only the “door” through which we enter into eternity. No, the ultimate calamity would be passing through that door and finding oneself in hell.

Hurricane Katrina is, by all reports, the absolute, hands-down WORST natural disaster to hit the United States, not just in memory, but in history. But, as they say, every cloud has a silver lining. Among the many possible good things that did happen (or bad things that didn’t happen) as a result of the storm and its aftermath:

1. Meteorologists tell us that hurricanes and other tropical cyclones are part of the earth’s natural “air conditioning” system, helping to cool certain areas that apparently need it badly (from a meteorological standpoint)
2. People (who might not have otherwise done so) were prodded into helping their neighbors (both near and far)
3. Many people (who might not have otherwise done so) started to turn to God in their need (and many souls may have been saved as a result, even if some of them might also have died in the turmoil)
4. The president of Red China, who was scheduled to visit the United States last week (to tour Boeing in the Seattle area, among other things I suppose), couldn’t because GWBush was all tied up dealing with the disaster and couldn’t be there to meet him (ah, the intricacies of diplomacy!)
5. There was a huge casino (as I understand it) that was supposed to open in Baton Rouge that was severely damaged and might turn out to be a total loss (I’m not at all happy about the financial loss per se of the owners, but only point out that—as businesses go—casinos are arguably (either directly or indirectly) responsible for more broken people, broken families and general misery than perhaps any other)
6. And last, but not least—the annual Labor Day weekend festival held in New Orleans known as Southern Decadence was cancelled. (No telling how many souls might have been steered from the path to perdition as a result.)

Now, I know there are many, especially among Evangelical Christians (and even some Catholics), who are tempted to say, “See? God is punishing the homosexuals for their perversion, just like Sodom & Gomorrah!” (Or at least that He was punishing Louisiana (& vicinity) for allowing the festival to go on for all these years.)

But the Church teaches that that’s not normally how God works. As I mentioned above, He’s not (at least since the time of Christ) in the habit of “throwing thunderbolts at the wayward" in order to punish them, but rather sits back (in sorrow) and permits them to create their own “punishment” (natural consequences again), hoping they will come to their senses and turn away from the sins that led to their own misery (& that of others) in the first place (cf. Lk. 15:11-32).

I'd heard that years ago, someone asked Pope John Paul II if AIDS was a punishment sent by God to punish the sin of homosexuality. He responded to the effect that God’s ways are absolutely inscrutable to us and that we can never know the answer to that question, but that regardless of whether it was or wasn’t, we still had the moral obligation to minister to everyone who had AIDS in every way possible.

Is AIDS a punishment sent by God? Was Katrina a punishment sent by God? No, neither one. But ALL suffering (from the Catholic perspective) is the result of sin, and since everyone is a sinner, EVERYONE has to help "pay" that price no matter what (at least by participating in death—Rom. 6:23). So everyone must suffer. And everyone must work to help their neighbors who are suffering, whoever they are and wherever they are found (cf. Lk. 10:29-37, James 2:14-18).

Did homosexuality cause Hurricane Katrina? Well, yes … and no. ALL sin, not just homosexuality, contributes to the sum total of human misery. If there were no sin, there would be no misery (not even from hurricanes). But in the real world in which we all live, sin abounds and we all share equally in the guilt for its effects. By itself, homosexuality did NOT create the storm and draw its fury to be spent over New Orleans. (Whew! That’s a relief!)

Homosexuality has gotten a lot of press coverage in the last 30 years or so (good or bad, depending on your perspective), but objectively speaking, it’s NOT the worst sin in the world! The absolute worst sin in the whole wide world is final impenitence because it is the one sin that cannot be forgiven.

I think I'll post about ... hmm ...

I know blogs are supposed to be updated every few days at least, but I've been rather busy and otherwise occupied lately.

I've thought about what I should write about here, and I have a number of candidates:

What is "love" and what's it really all about?
Insights about God gained from reading The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene (a physicist).
Prayer.
World views.
Heaven & our instinctive desire for it.

There may be other topics that I've considered but can't remember at the moment.
There's also the question of time. Computer time to compose an essay & computer+internet time to put it on the blog. This might not seem like much, but with my work and other responsibilities combined with competition within the family for use of the one internet-access computer we own and other related priorities, there just isn't much personal time available for blogging. I might have a little more time in the near future to deal with this situation, though, so I should be back soon with something interesting.

Want to see my picture?

Click here.

(Just kidding.)

Bear Kids

One of my frequent critics, JohnnyK by name, has a SERIOUS problem with God (although he probably wouldn't put it quite that way). He seems to think that God could not possibly love us, because the Bible recounts SO MANY occasions of God angrily inflicting pain and suffering upon innocent [sic] people, the people He (allegedly) created. "He must REALLY get his jollies hurting people," JohnnyK reasons, "so he must IN FACT be an EVIL TYRANT and NOT the loving God Christians make him out to be!" (If you've read any of the comments on my past posts, I'm sure you've seen his...um...musings...on the subject.) [You see, for some reason JohnnyK doesn't seem able or willing to consider or deal with the reality of personal sin, or that it might have undesirable & unavoidable personal consequences (which makes man responsible for his own suffering, rather than God), and thinks all suffering is God's fault and it's cruel and unfair for God to make such a big deal out of sin.]

The thing he KEEPS bringing up, time and again (apparently as his "ace in the hole" which PROVES that God is NOT the God of love but rather of CRUELTY) is an isolated tale involving Elisha the prophet. It is described in all of TWO VERSES of Scripture. It is found in 2 Kings 2:23-24 (JohnnyK never did give the actual reference--I had to track it down myself, & it wasn't easy).

Let's see if we can put this into some kind of context, shall we?

The two books of Kings tell--among other things--the story of several kings of Israel and how many of them married pagan wives and (in order to please their wives) re-introduced pagan worship and practices in their realms in violation of the Covanent between God and His Chosen People. Possibly the worst of these was King Ahab (not the A-rab) and his pagan wife Jezebel (yes, THE Jezebel)! At Chapter 17 of 1 Kings, we are introduced to the prophet Elijah the Tishbite. God sent Elijah to Ahab to chastise (discipline) him for his turning away from the worship of the true God to the worship of idols (false gods), for the sake of impressing a woman. 1 Kings 18:17-40 tells the comic/tragic story of Elijah's famous contest on Mount Carmel with the 450 prophets of Baal (a pagan idol).

In 1 Kings 19:19, Elijah meets Elisha, son of Shaphat (as God foretold in verse 16), who follows him as his disciple. 1 Kings ends (at ch. 22) and 2 Kings begins with the death of Ahab and the reign of his son Ahaziah (who is still enthralled with paganism). In 2 Kings 2:6-14, the firy chariot appeared and Elijah was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind, and Elisha (with a "double share of his spirit") picked up his mantle and succeeded him as prophet of the Lord. Verses 19-22 tell how he miraculously purified the spring at Jericho using a bowl of salt.

NOW we finally get to the nub of JohnnyK's gripe. Let's start at verse 23 and read through verse 25 (Revised Standard Version): "[23] He went up from there [Jericho] to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, 'Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!' [24] And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. [25] From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and thence he returned to Sameria."

That's it.

It isn't even clear which city the boys came from: Jericho or Bethel. No matter.

At first glance, you might be tempted to say (as JohnnyK repeatedly does), "What a cruel & blood-thirsty god he must be to do such a thing to innocent little kids!" But like most passages of Scripture, this one admits of several possible--and widely divergent--interpretations or explanations. Let's explore just a few:

1. This is just a fairy tale--the Bible is nothing BUT fairy tales--fit only to be ignored. "God" doesn't really exist. (The only problem is when some people read the Bible & actually take it seriously and get all fanatical and expect other people to behave "morally," etc., etc....) Therefore "God" had nothing to do with the incident.

2. If this event actually occurred at all, it was just an unfortunate coincidence that the 2 she-bears attacked just at the moment Elisha shouted his nonsense at the children who were chasing and mocking him. (He might just as well have shouted, "Sticks and stones may break my bones..." or "How about pizza for dinner?" for all the power "God" has to do ANYTHING. After all, "God" is only a figment of the fevered imaginations of the people who believe in him, he doesn't really exist, and consequently has no power whatsoever. Therefore "God" had nothing to do with the incident.

3. Since there is no "God," it was obviously Elisha's own mental powers that caused the she-bears to attack. Or maybe he accidentally conjured them up out of thin air (the text isn't too clear on this, so it MIGHT have happened, right?). So it wasn't "God's" fault. (There IS no God.) Elisha, and Elisha alone, was the murderer and he should have been tracked down and executed for his heinous crime!

4. She-bears generally only attack when their young are being threatened. Their cubs must have been nearby (unbeknownst to any of the humans) and the she-bears must have thought that the mob of noisy children was harassing their cubs. That's natural and reasonable, isn't it? Therefore "God" had nothing to do with the incident.

5. Well...maybe there is a god (one among many) that might have heard Elisha's curse and responded by sending out the she-bears to do his dirty work. Such a god, feeding vicariously on the blood of the innocent, hardly needs an excuse to attack and kill children at play who mean no harm. In fact, the truly amazing thing would be that anyone ever escapes a terrifying death at the hands of such a monster.

6. Suppose the text actually depicts a real event as it occurred. Suppose--just for the sake of argument--that there is One All-Powerful God, and Elisha was indeed His prophet (official spokesman). The text (at least this translation) doesn't actually say that the bears "killed" anyone, only that they "tore" (or mauled, seriously injured)* 42 of them (it also doesn't say how many boys there were in all, or how many might have escaped injury). (Lots of people have been mauled by bears and lived to tell the tale.) Now, you wouldn't have thought that TWO bears could have taken the time to kill even one or two if they actually mauled 42 kids. Had they actually doen so, the other 40 would have been able to get away virtually unscathed... (The lesson to be learned here: "Don't mess with the prophets of God!")

* (although I did note one translation that said "tore them to pieces.")

7. God is real, a material being (a Monster) who is also losing his hair and was vicariously offended at the children's taunting of Elisha & wanted to "even the score, plus more" ("That'll teach 'em to say 'Baldy'!"). (This would be an amazing interpretation, since it is so incongruous with all the rest of the Bible, which seems bent on depicting a good God, a pure spirit--not a material being at all--who wants to save men from the consequences of their own sins. Hmm...)

8. God is still real and still a Monster. It's the same God of Catholicism today who prohibits artificial contraception so His worshipers will have lots and lots of children that he can then kill with maurauding she-bears (the blood-thirsty swine!).

9. Jericho at that time was still rife with paganism, as was Bethel [that's an historical fact]. What the pagans worshiped as "gods" were actually what we today would call demons or fallen angels (Satan or Lucifer & the angels who followed him), who sometimes appeared to men in various forms (such as men, animals, giants or mythical beasts) [that's a theory]. Things are not always as they appear. The "children" in the story may have actually been demons harassing Elisha. The she-bears may have been (good) angels in disguise, sent by God to defend Elisha from the disguised demons. Elisha, not understanding this "true reality" himself, might have judged the appearances only and told what he saw to someone, who passed it on (etc.) to whomever eventually wrote it down in the book.

10. A footnote (unauthoritative, but plausible) in an edition of the New American Bible states: "This story, like the one about Elijah and the captains (2 Kings ch. 1), is preserved for us in Scripture to convey a popular understanding of the dignity of the prophet. Told in popular vein, it becomes a caricature, in which neither Elisha nor the bears behave in character. See note on 2 Kings 1:12..." [which note said:] "divine fire: literally 'fire of God' which in Hebrew sounds quite like man of God. The play on words is the basis for Elijah's alleged retort. This story was told among the people to enhance the dignity of the prophet and to reflect the power of God whom he served. The mercy which God extends even to the wicked is described in Wisdom 11:17-12:22, and the prophet Elijah was well aware of it (1 Kings 21:28f)."

11. Elisha, although a "holy man," was still a sinner like everyone else & was not immune from excesses of pride or anger. Also, the fact that this mob of pagan children was chasing and taunting a known prophet of God could suggest that they weren't so innocent after all, and he may indeed have been in danger of losing his life. And God's name is POWERFUL, so be very careful how you use it. Otherwise, someone might die.

CONCLUSION: So that's over ten possible ways to interpret these two verses, and I'm sure there are others. They can't ALL be true (for example, there either IS a God, or there ISN'T--you can't have it both ways). Which interpretation is the right one? Who died and made you the infallible interpreter of Scripture? How would you know if your favorite interpretation is the right one? (Or do you just MAKE it the right one by the sheer power of your MIND?)

What really puzzles me is why anyone would focus so much attention and energy on these two enigmatic verses out of all of Scripture, unless he were in fact looking for some excuse for his a priori hatred of the God he knows to exist.

Living a life of virtue (part 4)

The Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit

The moral life of Christians is sustained by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These are permanent dispositions which make man docile in following the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. They belong in their fullness to Christ, Son of David (cf. Isaiah 11:1-2). They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.
"Let your good spirit lead me on a level path" (Psalm 143:10).
"For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God ... If children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:14, 17).

The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The are identifiable effects of the Holy Spirit, supernatural works that show forth His presence and action in the lives of believers. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: "charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity" (Galatians 5:22-23) (Vulgate).

The gifts of the Holy Spirit can seem confusing at first glance. What's the difference between knowledge and understanding, for example, or between wisdom and counsel? Fr. John Hardon, SJ (1914-2000) explains them in his Modern Catholic Dictionary (1980).

Wisdom: The first and highest of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It makes the soul responsive to God in the contemplation of divine things. Where faith is a simple knowledge of the articles of Christian belief, wisdom goes on to a certain divine penetration of the truths themselves. Built into wisdom is the element of love, which inspires contemplative reflection on these divine mysteries, rejoices dwelling on them, and directs the mind to judge all things according to their principles.

Understanding: This gift is given to the mind for grasping revealed truths easily and profoundly. It differs from faith because it gives insight into the meaning of what a person believes, whereas faith, as such, merely assents to what God has revealed.

This gift produces three principal effects in those who possess it. They are enabled to pentrate [intuitively] to the very core of revealed truths, without fully understanding their meaning [in any technical sense]; they are confirmed in their belief by acquiring great certitude in the revealed word of God; and they are brought to the knowledge of a greater number of truths by drawing numerous conclusions from revealed principles.

[Fr. William Saunders of the Catholic Diocese of Arlington (Virginia) explains it this way: Understanding is a gift "to give a deeper insight and penetration of divine truths held by faith, not as a transitory enlightenment but as a permanent intuition." Illuminating the mind to truth, The Holy Spirit aids a person to grasp truths of faith easily and intimately, and to penetrate the depths of those truths. This gift not only assists in penetrating revealed truths, but also natural truths in so far as they are related to the supernatural end. The essential quality of this gift is a "penetrating intuition" — in a sense, the moving beyond the surface. This gift, penetrating the truths of faith, operates in several ways: disclosing the hidden meaning of Sacred Scripture; revealing the significance of symbols and figures (like St. Paul seeing Christ as fulfillment of the rock of the Exodus account that poured forth water to quench the thirst of the Israelites (1 Cor 10:4); showing the hand of God at work in a person’s life, even in the most mysterious or troublesome events (like suffering); and revealing the spiritual realities that underlie sensible appearances (like penetrating the mystery of the Lord’s sacrifice in the ritual of the Mass). This gift brings the virtue of faith to perfection. Accordingly, St. Thomas said, "In this very life, when the eye of the spirit is purified by the gift of understanding, one can in a certain way see God" (Summa theologiae II-II, q. 69, a. 2, ad. 3).]

Counsel: This gift perfects the virtue of prudence. Its function is to enable a person to judge promptly and rightly, as by a sort of supernatural intuition, what should should be done, especially in difficult situations. With the gift of counsel, the Holy Spirit speaks, as it were, to the heart and in an instant enlightens a person what to do. It corresponds to the promise made by Christ to His followers, "When they hand you over, do not worry about how to speak or what to say; what you are to say will be given to you when the time comes; because it is not you who will be speaking; the Spirit of your Father will be speaking in you" (Matthew 10:19).

Counsel refers primarily to prudent conduct in one's own case, and only secondarily in favor of others. Enlightened by the Spirit, a person learns what to do in a specific case and what advise to give when consulted or command to make if he is in authority.

Fortitude: This gives a person a special strength of will. This gift confers an extraordinary readiness to undergo trials for love of God or in fulfillment of the divine will; unusual courage to bear difficulties even for many years; firmness in carrying arduous tasks to their completion; perseverance in a lifetime of fidelity to one's vocation in spite of heavy trials or disappointments sent by God; and gladness in being privileged to suffer persecution or humiliation in union with Christ and for the sake of His name.

Knowledge: By the illuminating action of the Holy Spirit, this gift perfects the virtue of faith. It gives a person the ability to judge everything from a supernatural viewpoint. The object of this gift is the whole spectrum of created things insofar as they lead one to God. Through infused knowledge the faithful can see the providential purpose of whatever enters their lives, and they are able to put creatures to the right use according to God's will for themselves and for others. Sometimes called "the science of the saints," it enables those who have the gift to discern easily and effectively between the impulses of temptation and the inspirations of grace.

Piety: This gift perfects the virtue of religion, which is the practice of justice toward God. It produces an instinctive filial affection for God and a devotion toward those who are specially consecrated to God. As an infused gift of God, it is ready loyalty to God and the things of God, arising not so much from studied effort or acquired habit as from a supernatural communication conferred by the Holy Spirit.

This gift enables a person to see in God not only one's sovereign Master but a loving Father, according to the teaching of St. Paul: "Everyone moved by the Spirit is a son of God. The spirit you received is not the spirit of slaves bringing fear into your lives again; it is the spirit of sons, and it makes us cry out, 'Abba, Father!'" (Rom. 8:14-15). It engenders in the soul a filial respect for God, a generous love toward Him, and an affectionate obedience that wants to do what He commands because it loves the one who commands.

Fear of the Lord: This gift confirms (strengthens) the virtue of hope and inspires a person with profound respect for the majesty of God. Its corresponding effects are protection from sin through dread of offending the Lord, and a strong confidence in the power of His help.

The fear of the Lord is not servile but filial. It is based on the selfless love of God, whom it shrinks from offending. Whereas in servile fear the evil dreaded is punishment; in filial fear it is the fear of doing anything contrary to the will of God.

The gift of fear comprises three principal elements: a vivid sense of God's greatness, a lively sorrow for the least faults committed, and a vigilant care in avoiding occasions of sin. It is expressed in the prayer of the Psalmist, "My whole being trembles before you, your ruling fills me with fear" (Psalm 119:120). One of its salutary effects is to induce a spirit of deep humility in dealing with others, especially with inferiors, since it makes a person aware that he stands constantly before the judgement of God.

If we would define the exact difference between the virtues and gifts, it lies in the need for having a supernatural counterpart for the natural instincts of mind and will. Even the infused virtues are not enough. They do not, by themselves, so perfect man on the road to heaven that he has no further need of being moved by the yet higher promptings of the Holy Spirit. For whether we consider human reason and will in their natural powers alone, or as elevated by the theological virtues, they are still very fallible and require help: wisdom against folly, understanding against dullness, counsel against rashness, fortitude against fears, knowledge against ignorance, piety against hardness of heart, and fear of God against pride. The gifts of the Holy Spirit supply this help by giving us remedies against these defects and making us amenable to the promptings of His grace.

Living a life of virtue (part 3)

The Theological Virtues

The human virtues are rooted in the theological virtues, which adapt man's faculties for participation in the divine nature, for the theological virtues relate directly to God. They dispose Christians to live in a relationship withthe Holy Trinity. They have the One and Triune God for their origin, motive and object.
The theological virtues are the foundation of Christian moral activity; they animate it and give it its special character. They inform and give life to all the moral virtues. They are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as His children and of meriting eternal life. They are the pledge of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the faculties of the human being. The theological virtues are three in number: faith, hope, and charity.

Faith
Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that He has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because He is truth itself. By faith man freely commits his entire self to God. For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. "The righteous shall live by faith" (Romans 1:17). Living faith "work[s] through charity" (Galatians 5:6).
The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But "faith apart from works is dead" (James 2:26): when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of His Body.
The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on in it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: "All must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow Him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks" (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, art. 42). Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whosoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 10:32-33).

Hope
Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and rely not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. "Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful" (Hebrews 10:23). "The Holy Spirit ... He poured our upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:6-7). [Oftentimes Protestants (and sometimes Catholics) commingle the virtue of hope with that of faith, saying in effect that faith means--among other things--"trusting in Jesus." Although this is technically not correct in this context, the difference is mostly semantic and not essentially doctrinal, and ordinarily poses no problem to interfaith dialogue and understanding. In other words, it's generally "close enough."]
The virtue of hope responds to the aspiration of happiness which God has placed in the heart of every man; it takes up the hopes that inspire men's activities and purifies them so as to order them to the Kingdom of heaven; it keeps man from discouragement; it sustains him during times of abandonment; it opens up his heart in expectation of eternal beatitude. Bouyed up by hope, he is preserved from selfishness and led to the happiness that flows from charity.
Christian hope takes up and fulfills the hope of the chosen people which has its origin and model in the hope of Abraham, who was blessed abundantly by the promises of God fulfilled in Isaac, and who was purified by the test of sacrifice (cf. Genesis 17:4-8; 22:1-18). "Hoping against hope, he believed, and thus became the father of many nations" (Rom. 4:18).
Christian hope unfolds from the beginning of Jesus' preaching in the proclamation of the beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-12). The beatitudes raise our hope toward heaven as the new Promised Land; they trace the path that leads through the trials that await the disciples of Jesus. But through the merits of Jesus Christ and of His Passion, God keeps us in the "hope that does not disappoint" (Rom. 8:8). Hope is the "sure and steadfast anchor of the soul ... that enters ... where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf" (Heb. 6:19-20). [The iconographic symbol of the virtue of hope is a ship's anchor.] Hope is also a weapon that protects us in the struggle of salvation: "Let us ... put on the breastplate of faith and charity, and for a helmet the hope of salvation" (1 Thessalonians 5:8). It affords us joy even under trial: "Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation" (Rom. 12:12). Hope is expressed and nourished in prayer, especially in the Our Father, the summary of everything that hope leads us to desire.
We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love Him and do His will (cf. Rom. 8:28-30; Matt. 7:21). In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere to the end of one's life (cf. Matt. 10:22) and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4). She longs to be united with Christ, her Bridegroom, in the glory of heaven:
"Hope, O my soul, hope. You know neither the day nor the hour. Watch carefully, for everything passes quickly, even though your impatience makes doubtful what is certain, and turns a very short time into a long one. Dream that the more you struggle, the more you will rejoice one day with your Beloved, in a happiness and rapture that can never end." --St. Teresa of Avila

Charity
Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.
Jesus makes charity the new commandment. By loving His own "to the end" (John 13:1), He makes manifest the Father's love which He receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Wence Jesus says: "As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love." And again: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you" (Jn 15: 9, 12).
Fruit of the Spirit and fullness of the Law, charity keeps the commandments of God and His Christ: "Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love" (Jn. 15:9-10; cf. Matt. 22:40; Rom.13:8-10).
Christ died out of love for us, while we were still "enemies" (Rom. 5:10). The Lord asks us to love as He does, even our enemies, to make ourselves the neighbor of those farthest away, and to love children and the poor as Christ himself (cf. Matt. 5:44; Luke 10:27-37; Mark 9:37; Matt. 25:40, 45).
The Apostle Paul has given an incomparable depiction of charity: "charity is patient and kind, charity is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Charity does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Charity bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).
"If I ... have not charity," he says, "I am nothing." Whatever my privilege, service, or even virtue, "if I ... have not charity, I gain nothing" (1 Cor. 13:1-4). Charity is superior to all the virtues. It is the first of the theological virtues: "So faith, hope and charity abide, these three. But the greatest of these is charity" (1 Cor. 13:13).
The practice of all the virtues is animated and inspired by charity, which "binds everything together in perfect harmony" (Colossians 3:14); it is the form of the virtues; it articulates and orders them among themselves; it is the source anf the goal of their Christian practice. Charity upholds and purifies our human ability to love, it raises it to the supernatural perfection of divine love.
The practice of the moral life animated by charity gives to the Christian the spiritual freedom of the children of God. He no longer stands before God as a slave, in servile fear, or as a mercenary looking for wages, but as a son responding to the love of Him who "first loved us" (1 Jn 4:19):
"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, ... we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for Him who commands ... we are in the position of children." --St. Basil of Caesarea (The Great)
The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion:
"Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest." --St. Augustine of Hippo

Next: The Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit

Living a life of virtue (part 2)

The Human Virtues: the cardinal virtues (continued)
Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the consistent and firm will to give one's due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the "virtue of religion." Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15). "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven" (Colossians 4:1).
Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures firmness in the difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good. It strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the moral life. The virtue of fortitude enables one to conquer fear, even fear of death, and to face trials and persecutions. It disposes one even to renounce and sacrifice his life in defense of a just cause. "The Lord is my strength and my song" (Psalm 118:14). "In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will's mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: "Do not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart" (Sirach 5:2 [you'll need a Catholic bible to read the book of Sirach]; cf. 37:27-31). Temperance is often praised in the Old Testament: "Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your appetites" (Sir 18:30). In the New Testament it is called "moderation" or "sobriety." We ought "to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world" (Titus 2:12).

In his treatise De moribus ecclesiae catholicae (On the Morality of the Catholic Church) (A.D. 388), St. Augustine of Hippo sums up these human virtues in this fashion: "To live well is nothing other than to love God with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's efforts; from this it comes about that love is kept whole and incorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb it (and this is fortitude). It obeys only [God] (and this is justice), and it is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit or trickery (and this is prudence)."

The virtues and grace
Human virtues acquired by education, by deliberate acts and by a perseverence ever-renewed in repeated efforts are purified and elevated by divine grace. With God's help, they they forge character and give facility in the practice of the good. The virtuous man is happy to practice them.
It is not easy for man, wounded by sin, to maintain moral balance. Christ's gift of salvation offers us the grace necessary to persevere in the pursuit of the virtues. Everyone should always ask for this grace of light and strength, frequent the sacraments, cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and follow His calls to love what is good and shun evil.


Next: the theological virtues

What obsolete skill are you?

This is what I am:


You are 'Latin'. Even among obsolete skills, the
tongue of the ancient Romans is a real
anachronism. With its profusion of different
cases and conjugations, Latin is more than a
language; it is a whole different way of
thinking about things.

You are very classy, meaning that you value the
classics. You value old things, good things
which have stood the test of time. You value
things which have been proven worthy and
valuable, even if no one else these days sees
them that way. Your life is touched by a
certain 'pietas', or piety; perhaps you are
even a Stoic. Nonetheless, you have a certain
fascination with the grotesque and the profane.
Also, the modern world rejects you like a bad
transplant. Your problem is that Latin has
been obsolete for a long time.


What obsolete skill are you?
brought to you by Quizilla


Thank you, hoody, for this interesting quiz.

Interlude... concerning "Gay Pride" Month

It seems that June has been designated "Gay Pride Month" in various places.

A friend of mine gave me a copy of an e-mail message (apparently non-confidential in nature, so I don't expect any problem sharing it with you) sent by Mr. J.A.B., president and acting-CEO of a well-known multinational corporation, to all of that company's employees (including my friend).

Here it is in its entirety (I will edit out identifying information):


"Subject: Gay Pride Month in context.

"June is Gay Pride Month, when we celebrate the contribution that this particular group of employees has made to [our company's] success. Since first publication of the Gay Pride Month link [on our internal employee website] earlier this month, I and members of the Executive Council have received a number of negative and derogatory messages against the company's support of Gay Pride Month.

"[Our company] observes various 'heritage months': Black History Month in February; Women's History Month in March; Asian Pacific Month in May; Gay Pride Month in June; Hispanic Heritage Month in September; Disability Awareness Month in October; American Indian Month in November; and Multicultural Celebration Day in December [I guess that means "Call-It-Anything-But-Christmas"?--G/F]. The point of all these is to drive inclusion, fight harassment and discrimination, and remind us to value people as individuals. Recognizing diversity--all elements of it--is a key component of our business strategy.

"The foundation of our success [here] is based on our ability to attract and retain the best people possible for the jobs we have. To do that, we must create and maintain an environment where, collectively, we can design, produce, and support products and services that make our customers and shareholders successful. A key part of creating that environment is aimed at helping all employees know that they are appreciated for the contributions they make toward helping [this company] meet its business objectives.

"We need to ensure that we treat all employees--including gay and lesbian employees--with dignity and respect. While we could point to the law as the rationale for our actions, I believe that it's our obligation to demonstrate on a regular basis not only our commitment--but also our resolve--to provide an opportunity for each employee to learn more about the diversity that underlies this company's strength.

"Thank you. --J..."


Well, that was rather instructive, I think. I don't quite understand his oblique reference to "the law" in the last paragraph, though. I'm not aware of any law that compels all companies to observe Gay Pride Month. (Maybe it has to do with possible government contracts the company has, I dunno...) All very politically correct and all.

I suggested to my friend that he respond to this message--as charitably as possible--through the company's approved channels, and he said he already intended to do so at the first opportunity.

If it were me, I'd respond like this:

Clarifying the context of Gay Pride Month

Dear Mr. B... ~
In your message titled "Gay Pride Month in context," you said rightly that "a key part of creating that environment (of success) is aimed at helping all employees know that they are appreciated for the contributions they make toward helping [this company] meet its business objectives."

Appreciated for their contributions to the business' success, certainly, but not for their "lifestyles" (or, more precisely, their personal socio-sexual inclinations, decisions or behaviors).

Being "gay" has nothing to do with who they are--despite their inevitable protestations to the contrary--as persons (as is the case with Blacks, women, Hispanics, American Indians, Italians, Chinese or Croatians), but rather what they do (their socio-sexual attitudes or behaviors and/or political/social activism).

If some employees choose to identify themselves primarily according to this psychological element of their personalities, that's fine & I have no problem understanding that. But there is no credible reason that a company such as yours should highlight this personal condition. (Please NOTE: Not all people who experience same-sex attractions identify themselves as "gay." That appellation was adopted/co-opted by a particular socio-political movement. It is improper (and to some degree, insulting) to refer to all homosexuals as "gays.")

However, if your company chooses to continue to observe "Gay Pride Month" in the future, why not (in all fairness) balance this by establishing "Christian Heritage Month" (how about in April?) to draw attention to the heritage of those employees (certainly much more numerous than those who identify themselves as gay) who identify themselves as Christians, to let them all know how much their contributions are valued and appreciated? After all, it would be a perfect "opportunity for each employee to learn more about the diversity that underlies this company's strength," don't you agree?

I have every confidence that this proposal would not offend non-Christian employees any more than non-gay or non-Hispanic employees are offended by the special recognition afforded those groups (which is to say not at all).

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully yours,
~ "the Green Flash"

Living a life of virtue (part 1)

"Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Philippians 4:8)

At paragraph 1803, the Catechism of the Catholic Church begins its article on the virtues with the above quote from Holy Scripture. A virtue is an habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself. The virtuous person tends toward the good with all his sensory and spiritual powers; he pursues the good and chooses it in concrete actions.

The article is divided into 3 parts: The Human Virtues (moral virtues, including the 4 cardinal virtues); The Theological Virtues; and The Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit, all of which I intend to discuss in the next few posts.

The Catechism organizes its exposition of Catholic doctrine into 4 parts: "The Profession of Faith" (the basic articles of faith in the creed); "The Celebration of the Christian Mysteries" (the theology and practice of the sacraments); "Life in Christ" (the moral life and the Ten Commandments); and "Christian Prayer" (obvious). The article on the virtues falls in Part 3 (Life in Christ), Section 1 (Man's Vocation: Life in the Spirit), Chapter 1 (The Dignity of the Human Person). The articles in this chapter are: (1) Man: the Image of God; (2) Our Vocation to Beatitude; (3) Man's Freedom; (4) The Morality of Human Acts; (5) The Morality of the Passions; (6) Moral Conscience; (7) The Virtues; and (8) Sin. (Chapter 2 of this section, The Human Community, then launches into man's relationship to and participation in human society.)

I. The Human Virtues

Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life. The virtuous man is he who practices the good.

The moral virtues are acquired by human effort. They are the fruit and seed of morally good acts; they dispose all the powers of the human being for communion with divine love.

The cardinal virtues
Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called cardinal [Latin: "hinge"]; all others are grouped around them. They are prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. These virtues are praised under other names in many passages of Scripture.

Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it. Prudence is "right reason in action," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It has been called auriga virtutem (the charioteer of the virtues) since it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to acheive and the evil to avoid.

Next: Justice, Fortitude & Temperance.