The Green Flash

Beyond “business ethics”

2011-01-13T22:40:00.000-08:00

Seeing and treating employees as persons, not just as means to profitability

Persons have intrinsic worth. They have value just by the fact of their existence as persons, for their own sake. They have value because of who they are, not just for the things they can do or make for someone else’s benefit or use. (This is the reason murder is murder, regardless of whether the victim was a wealthy celebrity or a tramp on the street. Although the former may garner more time on the evening news than the latter, the accused perpetrator faces the same prospects in the application of justice—if it is true justice.) To treat human beings simply as economic commodity units, as means to a company’s profitability, is a serious violation of justice. It is to reduce their true value to mere economic utility, their availability to be used (in the sense of consumed) by “the company” (i.e. the owners and/or management).

Don’t get me wrong. Productivity is a very good thing, and no company will survive without it. The problem arises when productivity (an employee’s material contribution to a company’s product or service line) is placed on the highest level and viewed as the highest possible good in terms of the company’s existence. This in practice denies that employees, as human persons, have any purpose or value beyond the material level. It denies that they have any spiritual value or purpose. In essence it denies the existence (or at least the relevance) of spiritual realities in regard to persons.

This is not to say that employees should necessarily bring their spiritual beliefs or views to the fore in their work activities (e.g. preaching to their co-workers or “wearing their religion on their sleeves”), but only that a company (employer or boss) must at the very least recognize the validity of a higher spiritual dimension and value of all employees (not expecting them to park their spiritual sensibilities at the door when they come to work) and not abuse them solely for their perceived economic usefulness.

In the minds of many executives and managers in corporate America (and around the world in this “global economy”), the term “ethics” is frequently interpreted so narrowly as to refer almost exclusively to the employees’ responsibility to the company and its interests, and not having anything to do with the company’s responsibilities towards its own employees. “Ethics” has become in many places in the business world a one-way street.

Of course, virtually all companies both big and small have written or unwritten rules about “treating others with respect” and “valuing diversity,” but the concepts usually remain vague, and in practice such phrases frequently become mere lip-service, while in the daily grind of the business operations the utilitarian imperative to “stay focused and engaged” on the immediate tasks of the job tend to obscure or replace our awareness of the higher value of the persons around us in the workplace. People who are so “focused” on their jobs soon forget that they have duties and concerns that go beyond the immediate economic concerns of the company.

“Ethics” has come to mean things like protecting company secrets, avoiding giving embarrassment (to the company, its officers or management), no “insider trading” of company stock in violation of statutes or regulations, and never, ever implicating the company (or management) in anything illegal (even if it’s true). It generally boils down to this: “It costs the company enough money just to employ you. Don’t cost us any more money than you have to.” “Ethics,” in other words, is all about the company’s (or management’s) money and prestige, not people’s true human dignity. If some activity or behavior does not somehow redound to these narrow materialist categories, it is not considered to fall under “corporate ethics”. Since you can’t put a dollar figure on human dignity, it is safe to ignore. The only dignity that concerns management is their own, when they are concerned about possible fines, criminal prosecution, civil liability, or their public image.

Everything is considered in crass economic terms. For example, if a production worker is paid a wage of, say, $21.60 per hour (which works out to 36 cents a minute, 6/10 of a cent per second) a supervisor may see fit to reprimand him (or her) or dock his pay pro rata by the stopwatch if he feels he is not “focused and applying his efforts directly to the production tasks of the job” at every moment he is “on the clock” or “on my [the manager’s] nickel”. (And is it really his nickel to begin with, or the company’s?) Some managers have even been known to intimidate their workers and act as though their wages are a gift from the company, and not something that is due them in justice. “We pay you enough,” they seem to think, “we should be able to treat you any way we like. While you are ‘on the clock’, we own you!”

Having worked in a large company for many years myself, I have known managers who seem to think that the only legitimate matters of justice on company premises during “company time” involve the increase in profitability of the company. All other (“personal”) concerns or considerations must be laid aside until company-authorized break periods (lunch or coffee breaks). “This is not a matter of justice for the individual employees,” they might claim. “The only consideration of justice is what they owe the company—their diligence and hard work.”

Should a production or support service worker who is paid “by the hour” be treated differently than a supervisor or office worker who is paid on a monthly or annual salary? Why should that make any difference? Is an hourly worker somehow less deserving of leeway or consideration than a salaried employee or manager? Is he somehow less human? Is there any justice in that? Wouldn’t it be unethical (in the true sense of the word) for a manager (or even the business owner) to “squeeze” labor out of an employee like so much water from a dishrag, expecting him to be “hard at it” at every minute of the day? Human beings are not made to function, either on the mental or physical level, like galley slaves. They are not to be turned on and off like machines at the whim of management. (This is also why forced or “mandatory” overtime without any consideration of the employees’ “outside” duties and responsibilities to family and community (with very few exceptions, such as for manifest public order and safety) is immoral and unjust. If overtime ever becomes the rule rather than the exception, it is a sure signal of the need to hire more employees!)

In truth, the business owes a living wage or salary to each of its employees sufficient to provide a reasonably dignified standard of living, enough to support the worker and his spouse and his children (this is also called the “family wage”). No manager, executive, director or business owner should receive compensation beyond a reasonable figure—not the astronomical salaries and “compensation packages” that are so common in large corporations today). Perhaps the highest level of compensation (pay & other incentives) in a company (e.g. for the company president or CEO) could be of a fixed and limited percentage above the level of the lowest paid employee (e.g. the entry-level janitor), with a reasonable grade scale in between. This way, if the business is very successful, everyone who played a part in its success would reap a proportional and equitable share in the benefits. The business should use the superabundance of its profits to expand the business and hire more employees. This would ensure that “a rising tide” would indeed “lift all boats,” to use a slogan popular in “free market” capitalism. Workers are also consumers, and more people in society with sufficient money to spend on goods and services (beyond the bare minimum to sustain life) will stimulate the general economy all without government intervention!

The first responsibility of any company is, contrary to popular conception, not to its stockholders or customers, as important as they are, but to its employees. A company is in business to provide a product or service to customers, and a company that sells shares of stock should strive to give a good return on investment to its stockholders who share in the business risk. But its first responsibility is to offer meaningful employment (and a “family wage or salary”) to as many people as reasonably possible.

If a manager feels that a worker is not sufficiently “focused” on his work, or is “not applying himself enough”, just not working hard enough, what is the boss’ standard for saying so? Against what is the employee’s effort being measured? Or by what objective scale is one type of work (e.g. product manufacturing, construction or assembly—manual or physical labor) being compared to a different type of work (e.g. design engineering, logistics [movement of information, people or goods], clerical or supervisory)? To make the claim that a CEO or other executive somehow “deserves” annual compensation in the millions of dollars (because his job is somehow “more important” or of “greater value”) while his production or service workers are left to struggle from paycheck to paycheck, often losing ground month by month, is sheer insanity!

I submit that the concept of “comparable (or equal) worth” is not objective at all, but rather subjective to the point of being meaningless, like comparing the proverbial “apples and oranges”. The objective standard that should be employed here is the family wage, what an employee needs to live and support himself along with his spouse and children. In an age when even comparing one person’s intelligence (I.Q.) to another’s (when some people are obviously more intellectually gifted than others) is considered a social heresy, how is it that comparing the “value” of their work is even tolerated?

Why everyone in heaven is Catholic

2010-01-07T18:49:00.000-08:00

I admit that the title of this essay might seem a bit provocative, even presumptuous, but in fact it is not. I could as easily have phrased it: Why there are only Catholics in heaven; it amounts to the same thing.

But that is not to say that one has to be a formal member of the Roman Catholic Church on earth in order to get to heaven. Much less do I mean to imply that all Catholics go to heaven.

So what do I mean?

To answer that, it is necessary first of all to understand the nature or essence of what we Catholics mean by the term "heaven." Simply put, heaven is not actually a "place" (in the way we think of places as locations in space and time), but rather the condition or state of spending eternity in the presence of God, the one and only Creator and Source of all that is. All beauty, all truth and all goodness reside (or "subsist") in Him--indeed, that is His very nature: He is, in Himself, absolute and infinite Beauty, Truth and Goodness. Everything else that we might call beautiful, true or good only borrows some finite quality or share of those attributes from God.

To be in heaven means to "see God as He is" (1 John 3:2), which means to have full possession of (or participation in) all of what God is (to the extent that a finite creature can be said to "possess" the infinite). Heaven means full participation in Absolute Goodness, Beauty and Truth. The clouds of ignorance and uncertainty will have been dissipated; the tarnish and dross of misunderstanding and error will have been purged away. The soul's spiritual vision (or knowledge) will at long last be perfectly clear. This is the essence of pure, unadulterated happiness.

In contrast, the essence of hell (also not a "place") is the condition of eternal existence without God, an eternity rejecting God. This is why it is sometimes said that some people are experiencing "hell on earth"--they have already chosen in this life to reject God and to live their lives without Him, as if He didn't exist. If they persist in that rejection to the end and do not repent of it, when they die (since our choices for eternity are fixed at the moment of death), they will get their wish: eternity without God. That is what hell is, and nothing else. It is, in other words, the total absence of all truth, goodness and beauty (leaving in the void only error, evil and ugliness), which can only result in unimaginable misery.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God come to earth in the flesh, established His Church on earth (which by the end of the First Century came to be identified as the Catholic Church) to teach all peoples the truth of His revelation in its fullness for the salvation of their souls (cf. Matt 28:18-20). Jesus proved that He was God by His many miracles, by the perfection of His teaching, and by His absolutely singular act of raising Himself from the dead. And, being God, He has infinite power to accomplish anything and everything He said He would do. He said, on many occasions and in a wide variety of ways, that He would preserve the Church He founded intact until the end of the world. Every other religion or denomination traces its origin to some human person. Only the Catholic Church (in its many Rites) can trace its origin to a divine person: Jesus Christ. (This is not just my opinion; it is historical fact.)

So to be Catholic means to possess (in a dynamic, not static sense), as a member of Christ's Church, the fullness of divine revelation. (The word catholic, incidentally, comes from the Greek word meaning "of the whole" which is often translated "universal." So "Catholic" [one of the four identifying marks of Christ's Church] is an expression of this dynamic fullness of truth and grace.) Now, does anyone in the Church fully understand this revelation, everything about God and everything that Christ taught? No way! Because that teaching is essentially divine (by virtue of its source [God the Father] and its disclosure to us [God the Son and God the Holy Spirit]), it is quite impossible for a merely human mind to grasp it all--or even a part of it--fully. But members of the Church nevertheless possess its fullness in a very real way, even though they don't understand it all, by the virtue of faith. Catholics, therefore, have the fullness of divinely revealed truth and the fullness of the ordinary means of grace [the seven sacraments] necessary for the attainment of heaven, and have the universal mission to share these gifts with all mankind without exception.

But one can be sitting in a gold mine or in a bank vault and still die in poverty. One can own a farm and a warehouse full of food and still die of hunger, if he does not make proper use of what he possesses. Mere membership in the Catholic Church is not sufficient for a person to get to heaven; he must also respond to the grace and act on the truth he is given (i.e. "live the faith") and persevere in it until the moment of death, which can only be done through participation with the grace that God gives freely to all who ask for it. So not all Catholics will get to heaven--some wind up rejecting God in the end, refusing His offer of friendship and adoption.

At the same time, many people who are not Catholics (formally or in the fullest sense) arrive at the end of life madly in love with God and wanting to be eternally united with Him through their cooperation and participation in whatever graces they'd received in this life and by following "the law written on their hearts" (Romans 2:15). Their desire will be fulfilled by their participation in the love of God. They will go to heaven.

We Catholics say that non-Catholic Christians (Protestants, Orthodox and members of other schismatic or heretical groups), people of other religions who seek the truth in sincerity, indeed, all men of good will, have some degree of "imperfect communion" with the Catholic Church. But let's face it, no one's participation in grace is full or perfect in this life. Everyone sins, everyone fails to cooperate in some measure, great or small, with the graces God so lavishly showers upon us. Our communion with God (and therefor with His Church) in this earthly plane is always flawed, imperfect, incomplete. That perfect communion is what we hope to achieve only in heaven. We call the souls in heaven the "Church Triumphant," completely purified and no longer forced to struggle under the burden of temptation and sin.

Those who are in heaven, therefore, (and all those who will eventually get there) will have achieved that fullness of perfect communion with God, will have full and unsullied posession of the full truth about God in all its beauty, and experience and appreciate to the fullness of their individual capacities all the goodness and love that is God. Well, that is what God desires for the members of His Church, His ultimate reason for establishing the Church in the first place: their complete happiness in union with Him forever. Everyone in heaven, therefore, is and will be full and perfected members of His one Church--the Catholic Church--regardless of what they may have called themselves on earth. In heaven, everyone's knowledge and love of God will be perfected in purity, complete and in perfect harmony with the One Truth that is God.

That's why everyone will be Catholic in heaven.

The Dictatorship of Relativism: the end of truth and freedom

2009-07-30T15:06:00.000-07:00

It’s the height of hubris and the greatest philosophical non-sequitur: the mindless claim that “truth is relative”. We’ve all heard it before (and some of you out there may even have said it). “That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” Such a statement can only be valid if the topic is one of subjective experience, like “my favorite color is blue,” or “I like fresh strawberries,” or even “I find tattoos distasteful.” In such cases, what is true for one person may indeed not be true of another.

But if the idea in question is something like “abortion is the willful murder of an innocent human being, and therefore is always wrong” or “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered because they violate the meaning and purpose of the sexual dimension of human persons,” then it is something objective, something outside of ourselves. It’s not just a matter of personal judgment, preference or esthetic taste. Either an innocent human life is extinguished or it isn’t. Either the principle of human sexuality is violated or it isn’t. It’s not a matter of taste or opinion. (Of course, it is possible to debate those statements to determine whether or not they are in fact true, but what you can’t say is “it may your truth, but it isn’t my truth.”)

In no field of science, mathematics, engineering, etc. will any sane person claim to decide for himself his own truth. Truth is something that is discovered, not invented. It is outside us, beyond us, and we are meant to search it out by using our senses and intellect in order to find it, not create it with our feelings. Either colors exist or they don’t (regardless of whether or not a blind man believes them to exist). Either sodium and chlorine atoms react together to form salt or they don’t (whether or not we understand the process). Either 2 + 2 = 4, always and forever, or it doesn’t. Either the house, bridge and airplane are designed and built properly to withstand the forces and stresses of use or they aren’t. Science and engineering stand upon the bedrock of objective and discernable truth, and when they ignore it disaster ensues. We learn from what is real — we don’t just make it up as we go along as it suits our fancy, creating “our own reality” (something that is out-of-sync with what everyone else recognizes as reality).

So why is it only on the subject of morality (how people ought to treat each other and how they expect to be treated) is it common to hear that “truth is relative — there are no absolutes”? Is it just because it can’t be arrived at and demonstrated mathematically? But when you think about it, even here everyone but the most depraved will agree that some behaviors (wanton theft, murder and rape to name a few) are always wrong and must be strongly condemned and proscribed by society, that some things are indeed absolute. Some people would probably want to add “homophobia” to that list.

But if moral truth is indeed relative, who is to say that anything is always wrong? (“My morality tells me it’s OK to shoot you because I find you annoying and inconvenient. You’re in my way, you’re a problem to me, and I’ll just make you go away.” This is how hardened criminals think. Our prisons are full of moral relativists, and that’s the reason they are there!) No, if you give it any serious thought at all, it quickly becomes clear that even moral truth is objective, not “relative” (or subjective). The only real question is, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to conform your behavior to the objective reality of moral truth, or are you going to try to “redefine truth” to permit your immoral behavior and salve your troubled conscience. The latter choice can only lead to insanity, personal or societal.

If there is no such thing as objective moral truth, if “morality” is not something that is independent of subjective feelings and experiences, but only something that is created by human desires and imposed on others by the force of will, then real and honest debate (the art of persuasion by reasoned argument in pursuit of truth) becomes a meaningless concept, defined out of existence. It is no longer a matter of searching for and recognizing what is objectively true and good, but only deciding what is expedient or profitable for those with the strength to impose it on others who lack the power to defend themselves. It is a case of "might makes right".

So why is the idea of moral relativism, if it makes no logical sense, so prevalent in society and public discourse? The reason, of course, is that most people enjoy sinning and don’t want to be reminded that they are sinning so they can continue to sin without having to think about or worry about the consequences. So they fall into the evil habit of denial regarding one or more of their favorite sins because they refuse to repent of them.

And if such people become powerful or influential enough (either as individuals or, more commonly, in concert with large groups of like-minded people) they can persuade (or intimidate, or compel — depending on how powerful they are) others to accept (or at least not to resist) the idea that their sin is somehow okay, that it isn’t really a sin after all, and that it might even be a desirable form of civic virtue. It seems that the only “absolute” that the moral relativist will admit is “I’ve got this gun (or this law) at my disposal, and I can force you to do what I want!” This is the point at which moral relativism crosses over the line from mere “tolerance” to become a dictator and a tyrant, trampling upon all natural human rights, even as it contrives and imposes artificial “rights”.

Frequently there is a great deal of money behind this gradual shift from universally proscribed (defined as immoral or criminal), to tolerated, to accepted, to mandated. (“The love of money is the root of all evils” 1 Tim 6:10.) In politics, this is called corruption. “If you tolerate my indulging in my favorite sin, I won’t complain if and when you want to indulge in your favorite sin. And I’ll pay you to keep your mouth shut. I might even pay you more if you can convince others that I’m not so bad after all.” That’s how it usually starts — or perhaps with some form of blackmail instead of the promise of payment.

Here is an example. Prior to 1930 artificial contraception was universally condemned. All civilizations up ’til then considered the practice immoral and had laws prohibiting its use. Then, at its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Communion of churches decided to permit it under limited circumstances inside the bonds of marriage. (The history of how it came to that decision is immaterial to this present discussion.)

That opened the floodgates. One by one, other (and eventually, all) Protestant churches dropped their objections to the use of contraception (only the Catholic Church remains steadfast to oppose it). Approximately 30 years after that fateful decision, “the Pill” was introduced and artificial contraception became easy and commonplace, and resistance to it was considered a joke. In 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all States’ laws prohibiting or restricting the manufacture and distribution of contraceptive chemicals and devices. Abortion is nothing but the logical “backup” to failed contraception (it always fails eventually). In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court took the next logical step and struck down all State’s laws prohibiting or restricting the practice of abortion.

The big legislative battle today is “Healthcare Reform,” the stalking horse for unlimited and mandatory “access” to contraception and abortion. Considered by its proponents to be “a fundamental right and an element of basic healthcare,” contraception and abortion are (according to Obama’s Plan) to be required by law, and anyone with strong moral or principled ethical objections to it (based either on religious conviction or scientific data), and who thereby refuse to participate in it, will certainly be subject to criminal prosecution (and all that that entails). This gives the lie, of course, to the whole “pro-Choice” B.S. (“Oh, I’m not ‘pro-abortion’,” they always say, “I’m pro-Choice.”) Under the present Obama-Care proposal, however, you will NOT have the “choice” to refuse. You will comply in providing contraception and abortion (or anything else Congress or the courts may deem “basic healthcare”) … or else!
(And by the way, what makes lawyers better qualified to run our lives than we are? Nothing, of course. They just think they “know what’s best” for everyone else and have the “guns” (police and courts) behind them to force their will on us.)

So there you have just one example of how the cover of moral “relativism” and “tolerance” turns into absolute tyranny.

The “gay rights” and “animal rights” agenda are following the same trajectory, pointing relentlessly to the ultimate destruction of the entire civilized social order (I am not exaggerating). Normal people are first asked to “tolerate” deviant opinions and behaviors at the fringes of society. Then, eventually, normal behavior and attitudes are “outlawed” by the deviants and their fellow travelers who have succeeded in “taking over the asylum,” and what was once universally understood as necessary for the proper functioning of human society becomes “a most intolerable crime to be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law!”

The “free exercise of religion” in America (supposedly “guaranteed” by the U.S. Bill of Rights) is being steadily driven underground by those who wish God and religion didn’t exist, just as was done in Soviet Russia and Red China (and elsewhere) in the last century. (Religion cannot be totally “exterminated”, of course, no matter how many believers are imprisoned or killed for their faith, but it can be temporarily driven from public view.) Soon, if the trend is not resisted and reversed by thinking and principled men and women, the only “religious expression” that will be permitted in public will be that which is “authorized” by the State. God help us all.

coming soon ...

2009-06-17T22:00:00.000-07:00

I hope to post a new essay on the topic of the Dictatorship of Relativism, especially as it relates to legislation and public policy, acceptable modes of public discourse ("tolerance"/P.C.), and the freedom of religious expression and practice.

Please be patient, and I'll try to get it up as soon as I can.

It's been a long time, I know

2009-05-16T16:32:00.000-07:00

It has been a very long time since I've posted here. I still occasionally check to see if anyone has left a new comment, but I just haven't found the inspiration to write anything major. I have a few ideas for topics, but they just seem to drift about in the back of my mind like vague cloud formations.

My mind hasn't been able to focus on a solid topic for some time. I think it's because there is SO MUCH going on so FAST that I haven't so much as started mulling over Topic A before I am distracted by Topics B, C and D and start thinking about what to write about them. And so it goes. There is so much to write about that nothing gets written.

Time/opportunity to write is also a big issue, as well as dealing with mental and physical fatigue after my long daily commute (approximately 50 miles between home and work).

My mind is fairly active most of the time, and there are plenty of things that bug me or I think need to be clarified or brought up for discussion, but I can't seem to focus on any one thing long enough to "put it to paper." There are a lot of things at work that bug me about how things are done, how people treat each other, or how "management" is structured or practiced. But I also write a column in my organization's quasi-monthly newsletter where I try to lay out issues in a logical fashion (sort of a "reality check"), or at least describe them from my perspective. (There's been nothing but positive feedback for the 4 articles I've written so far.) I should be starting on another one, but the thing that bugs me the most at work is extremely sensitive (touching on certain legal and regulatory issues), so I'm wondering if I can speak the truth (reality check again) without getting into serious "hot water."

So my mind is working on that problem (which has nothing to do with this blog, except that it consumes my time and mental energy). And I hear about the things going on in the political realm that are very serious and disturbing. And things and events that touch on public morality that demand discussion and clarification. And various issues within my own family that require my time and attention (but not necessarily things I would write about).

I envy those bloggers out there who find the time to write regularly (sometimes several times a day). For some, they can work it into their jobs, but for most people that isn't an option, so I appreciate and applaud their efforts and the passion that keeps them at it. (A lot of blogs are junk, of course, but many are quite good, and run the whole gamut of interesting fields and topics.) I also envy people who can just sit down and pound out an interesting blog on the spur of the moment. It takes me a couple of days, at least, to craft an essay once inpiration comes.

Blah, Blah, Blah ....

So what I'm trying to say, I guess, is that I'm still here but struggling to settle on a good topic to write about. (I'm always open to suggestions from you; but as I said above, I know that there's no shortage of things to write about. All I have to do is sit down and "just do it.")

Jimmy Akin on same-sex “marriage”

2008-12-05T21:42:00.000-08:00

(The following is a closely-approximate transcription of his answer given to a caller on "Catholic Answers Live" on Thursday November 20, 2008 (3:00 PM hour), show ID # CA-3992 [time reference 40:45 / 55:01]. If you click on that link and queue up the time-slider thingy at the bottom of the Real Audio player that appears, you can listen and read along at the same time. Neato!)

Caller (Vic): My question is with respect to homosexual or same-sex “marriages”. I was debating with a friend regarding his idea that, well, marriage is simply an institution for those who love each other, which seems kind of whimsical because … then anyone should be able to enter into it with … [Jimmy chuckles and interjects: “Oh yeah, parents could marry their children then, if it’s just about loving people.”] Yeah. So someone informed me about an article by a Robert P. George or somebody, with respect to how marriage was never intended to be an issue of the rights of the adults — like well, let’s grant rights just to a male and a female — but it was about the needs of the child, and the benefit of the community in which this child would be beared [sic] and reared with them. So my question is about the Catholic view on that, because he is kind of attacking my faith quite vigorously with that.

Jimmy: OK, this can be approached in a couple of different ways. Marriage does involve the good of the spouses. If you look in the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church it’ll say that “the ends of marriage are the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring” … umm … so those are both … goals, and the Church has had a clearer awareness in recent times of the importance of the good of the spouses, that’s something that really has developed in the last couple of decades. But what you can’t do is say, “Oh, well, it would be good for me and my ‘boy-pal’ to get married …um… and fulfill that end of marriage” … and leave the other undone, you know … just as with contraception, you can’t separate the unitive and the procreative aspects [of the marital act], you also can’t separate the good of the spouses from an openness to children. And you are doing that if you are entering a union that by its nature is intrinsically incapable of producing children. (That’s different than a union that for some external reason, some extrinsic reason, can’t produce them, like when the couple is advanced in age or something like that, or they have a medical condition so that they can’t conceive.) If you’ve got two men or two women together … there’s just a difference in their union.

There’s also a problem in that it’s really not good for them. It doesn’t foster the good of the parties if the two people are of the same sex. They may enjoy it on some level; they may say they are deriving benefit from it — but on a fundamental level, they’re not. They’re really harming each other. So neither of the purposes of marriage is going to be fulfilled through a homosexual union.

You can also look at the question another way, and say, well okay, fundamentally, marriage is — I mean, the way the term has historically been used — it refers to a union of a man and a woman oriented towards the procreation and education of offspring. Fine. Suppose you change the meaning of the word. Are you changing the fact that a union between a man and a woman oriented to the procreation and education of offspring is different than any other union? No you’re not. That reality remains the same. The reality of marriage is the fact that there is a union between a man and a woman that is oriented to children, both their production and education. If you stretch the term “marriage” like Silly Putty to refer to other things, you’re not changing the fact that that man-woman union is unique. All you’re doing is obfuscating the fact that it’s unique, but you’re not changing the underlying reality. The underlying reality is a man and a woman can get together in a particular kind of union and do something that two men, or two women, or … a person and a tractor … cannot do together. So all you’re doing is confusing the issue by pretending that something is like the union of a man and a woman, which it’s not. And that just detaches us from reality, it gums up public policy, it devalues the actual uniqueness of the man-woman union, and it will mislead people into thinking that they are married when they’re not, and it will confirm them in a destructive lifestyle that will ultimately harm them in this life and in the next. And that is not loving.

[And that's why he's the PROFESSIONAL apologist, and I'm just a rank AMATEUR! --G/F]

Life is like ... Faith is like ...

2008-09-10T19:45:00.000-07:00

Life is like a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle

Suppose you'd never seen a jigsaw puzzle before, nor even heard of one. When you first dump it out of the box it looks like mass confusion. But with a little imagination and effort you begin to see that what at first seemed like a big pile of random shapes actually might fit together.

There are two ways to put it together. One way is to put it together backwards (i.e. what we would call upside-down). This is possible, of course, but extremely difficult, since it appears all gray and meaningless. But it gives you something to do, and might even prove how "intelligent" and clever you are because you are able to fit together meaningless pieces.

The other way is to turn the pieces over at the beginning to reveal the "picture" side. This makes putting the pieces together much easier, more interesting and delightful, it tends to draw other people in to enjoy and share in the project of assembling the pieces. You discover as time goes on, bit by bit, an interesting and meaningful picture begins to emerge that pleases the whole person, body and spirit, because the effort of doing the puzzle pays off in the accomplishment of the meaningful task, and the final result is a picture that everyone around you can enjoy both in its details and its overall beauty.

Faith is like the way Adrian Monk solves a case

Have you ever seen the show "Monk" on TV (USA Network [cable], Fridays 9-10 pm, and repeat episodes at other times and On Demand)? It's listed as a "comedy drama", and is suitable for children.

At the beginning of many an episode, someone dies, and you don't always know who, if anyone, is at fault. After the theme music and opening credits, the San Francisco Police are shown going over the scene. Mr. Monk and his lovely assistant show up and, if he has something else on his mind (which is often the case), Mr. Monk says, "There's no mystery here; it was all just an accident."

But then he starts to notice things here and there, an object that seems out of place or a casual remark someone makes, that suggest that it might be something more than an accident. Then, as he pokes around, it becomes clear that someone knows more than he's telling.

In time, his investigation leads him to point someone out and say, "He's the guy! I know he did it. I just don't know how he did it ..."

Everyone around him remains skeptical, coming up with one reasonable excuse or another why he's wrong, until in the end the final clue is revealed and all the pieces fall into place. The final explanation is given and all the former skeptics say, "Of course! It was right there all along. Why couldn't we see it before?"

What started as "no mystery" then becomes a mystery of vital importance, and ends with a clear and satisfying explanation that makes everyone happy.

Everyone, that is, except the murderer. Roll the credits...

On Political Correctness

2008-08-16T17:02:00.000-07:00

Part of the trouble with Political Correctness (there is much more) is that it has to be enforced politically (artificially) since it apparently does not stand up even to ordinary reason. If it did correspond to reason, that would make it true, not just “correct”. (E.g., “You’re not allowed to say that … In fact, it just might be a hate crime!”)

So the way I see it, the implication is that the kind of people who invent and insist on P.C. usage know that it is false (contrary to right reason), so they have to change the terms of the discussion and back it up with artificial peer pressure (demanding recognition of a non-existent duty not to offend and the non-existent “right” not to be offended) and, on occasion, the force of “law”.

The Comment Box is not a Chatter Box

2008-07-31T16:44:00.000-07:00

JohnnyK (calling himself "The Truth" or "Not The Truth" at present) posted to my last blog entry about 70 comment entries over a period from July 3rd to 30th in what amounted to a VERY LONG and uniteresting monologue of New Age (or something like it) nonsense.
[When copied-and-pasted to Word document format and compressed to 8-point Ariel font and minimal .5 inch margins, the thing still ran to over 30 pages! Incredible.]

He seems to rely on my sense of "fair play" in not deleting him outright. But since he does not respect the norms of courtesy for me or my little corner of cyberspace, I feel no obligation to treat him with even the barest civility. My policy for him is to ban & delete without warning. Soon (I hope) he will get the message and stop trying. (I am reminded of the knife fight scene from "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" where "no rules" means NO rules.)

The contorted "logic" of his views and endless non sequitur "word-play" takes tedium to bold new extremes. It is absolutely opaque. I have stated many times before now that he is free to post his verbal dysentery elsewhere, but not here. If he does find some other cyber-spot to unload on, he has the option of e-mailing me privately and (in 100 words or less) asking me nicely to post a LINK here to his drivel. I might consider it. Then anyone who cares to can follow the link and read it.

On the other hand, if God knocks him off his horse and he has a conversion back to something resembling coherent thought, he can e-mail me privately about that too (in 100 words or less) and I might consider readmitting him to this forum.

Mike Jones' new book

2008-06-01T13:41:00.000-07:00

I thought I made a promise some time ago that I would announce particulars in this space when E. Michael Jones (editor of Culture Wars magazine) finally published his book on the "Revolutionary Jew". I can't find exactly where I made that promise (it might have been in a private e-mail), but here are the particulars nonetheless.

The title of the book is The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History. It is hot off the press and available only in hardcover at present. 1,200 pages; $48.00 plus $8 for S&H; order from Fidelity Press, 206 Marquette Ave., South Bend, IN 46617; ISBN 0-929891-07-4. It was reviewed by Robert Sungenis, Ph.D., in the current (May 2008) issue of Culture Wars Magazine (available for $4.00 single issue or by subscription (in U.S.) for $30 per year from the same address given above).

The Christian basis for human social progress – Part 3 (conclusion)

2008-02-20T15:16:00.000-08:00

After an unexpected hiatus, the Blue Blazer returns to complete his 3-part series on the seeming contradiction of the Progressive attacks on Christian values.

Why do “Progressives” seek to undermine the cultural heritage of Western culture, particularly those that relate to Christianity? Why would they do this when those cultural elements also form the foundation of democracy and human rights—values that “progressives” hold so dear? I see three possible explanations. And I believe that each of these factors is at play on some people, but usually not at the same time for any individual.

The Culturally Gullible: Many people believe strongly in the progressive ideals while rejecting their Christian origins and principles (covered in Part 2). They do this not because of any inner conviction or personal experience, but rather because they have accepted, uncritically, a whole range of ideas that seem “acceptable” in popular media or the so-called “conventional wisdom.” Many of them take this gullibility a step further and thoughtlessly repeat criticism of the ideas that they hear criticized in popular media. Thus their beliefs about what is good or bad are not based upon personal conviction about good and evil, but upon what sounds good on the surface. Therefore, they frequently end up adopting an idea without any concept of its historic philosophic foundations. In other words, they “follow like sheep” or “jump on the bandwagon” to accept just about anything that seems popular (including unsupported cultural mythologies). They never question the post-Modern views of religion (and especially Christianity) promoted by various influential shapers of popular culture; ideas of religion as, at best, an annoying collection of “superstitions,” and at worst, an insidious source social evils, past and present.

Of course, while these people may accept foolish ideas out of ignorance, gullibility or laziness, they are not responsible for creating the distorted views in the first place. That requires active deception. And active deception comes in two types: subconscious and deliberate. The subconscious deceivers seek to avoid facing anything in life that is difficult or inconvenient. This means avoiding the challenging components of Christianity while openly embracing the warm and comforting components. This self-deceptive view of Christianity also requires an added deception—an act of hiding from their own motive which, like the gullible, is usually laziness. While I will touch on this second group briefly, I will focus most of my attention on the deliberate deceivers, those who consciously and carefully craft distortions and lies about history that will serve their vested interest in discrediting Christianity.

Subconscious Deceivers: In his bestselling book, The Road Less Traveled, psychologist M. Scott Peck describes the modern epidemic of self-deception: “Some of us will go to quite extraordinary lengths to avoid our problems [things that cause us discomfort or pain] and the suffering they cause, proceeding far afield from all that is clearly good and sensible in order to try to find an easy way out, building the most elaborate fantasies in which to live, sometimes to the total exclusion of reality.” Peck’s book, subtitled “A new psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth” provides striking evidence that everyone, to some extent, seeks to avoid responsibility for problems or challenges they face. Rather than taking responsibility to deal directly with problems and difficulties, it is tempting to avoid responsibility in various ways. Traditional religious values are an historic reminder of the challenges of being human with individual responsibility and accountability to follow a “good” or righteous path, even when it is difficult or inconvenient. Modern pop culture has embraced a god-less and self-centered ethos articulated by (but not invented by) Rousseau and Nietzsche. It is a self-perpetuating elevation of personal comfort and autonomy that became possible only with the development of modern technology that enabled leisure, learning, communication and social mobility and freedom—all of which, ironically, were the direct result of Christian influence on Western society (see Part 2). While the Church and the society under the influence of her ideals worked to promote learning, justice and freedom, she removed historic constraints of fear and ignorance that, while keeping people in poverty and oppression by the powerful, also applied constraints on the opportunities for self-absorption that is destructive to society.

With the primitive constraints on individual autonomy gone, it has become a “lifestyle choice” to either accept personal responsibility for promoting good in the society or to avoid responsibility when it is hard and opt for an easy out. Given the choice, it seems a growing number avoid the harder road of personal responsibility in favor of the easy course of taking as much as possible while giving as little as possible. Freedom thus becomes a popular concept (at long as it refers only to the freedom from duties, constraints or norms). “Justice” is the rallying cry to be used to claim something that somebody else has (but conveniently, justice is never mentioned when it would threaten my grip on what I have that others might claim). As more individuals have succumbed to these distortions of the Christian values of freedom and justice, the more the distorted versions are viewed as “mainstream” in popular culture, further reinforcing the ideas in a self-perpetuating spiral. And it is not surprising that the basic Christian values of freedom and justice (and likewise peace and love), when redefined from their theistic root meaning, can be elevated by someone who simultaneously attacks Christianity and its basic world view.

Deliberate Deceivers: Not all deception is subconscious, however (though most self-deception appears to be subconscious). In fact, the growth of the anti-religious and uber-autonomistic culture would not be possible without a conscious and deliberate program of deception by people in positions of influence and authority. The evidence for that is that there are those who willfully discard or reconstruct institutions that have proven successful in conserving and advancing society; while replacing them with unproven and clearly anti-intuitive substitutes. Education and science are two examples of institutions that have been transformed from institutions for preserving and advancing social goals of individual freedom and progress, into institutions for influencing social change and control of resources and political and social power—a direct contradiction to their espoused purposes. The aim of these deceivers is not a society in which all members of society share equally in freedoms protected by an equal share in the responsibilities of a social contract. Instead, it is a society run by the “enlightened” who use political power and control of social institutions to meet their own needs at the expense of a cultural underclass, dependent upon them. Today’s so-called “progressive” rhetoric must always be tested to see if it is consistent with the society’s espoused values, or not. The test will frequently reveal a carefully crafted deception to promote a different society altogether—an oligarchy of the powerful who control an underclass through monopoly power over economic resources and social institutions. It should be clear that that oligarchic model is an all-too-familiar fixture in human experience. It has been checked only where Judeo/Christian ideas of human equality under the law have flourished (basically only in Europe and the West since gaining hold in the Middle Ages and Renaissance). Because Christian ideals and education have been the only force to ever overthrow the “law of the jungle,” those who would rule for their own aggrandizement must discredit or destroy Christianity.

There is a group among so-called progressives, who are intent upon more than claiming autonomy and sovereignty over themselves. They wish to claim sovereignty over others too. To claim this sovereignty, they must be thoroughly committed to undermine Christianity. But because imposed sovereignty is inconsistent with the very values of Western Culture inculcated by Christians, there is danger in pushing this agenda openly. Instead they have learned from earlier failures of fascist and communist regimes that direct confrontation will not succeed. Instead, they patiently chip away at the West’s Christian foundation while claiming to embrace its progressive values. This seeming contradiction is not hard to explain. They conveniently embrace the parts of the Christian message that support their agenda, but they cannot embrace the totality of the Christian world view (such as equal dignity for all). But Christianity is a holistic world view that acknowledges a reality that cannot be dismembered. It includes hope and optimism, but it also recognizes weakness and demands responsibility. For those who want freedom to do what they want, without any personal responsibility, it is not pleasant to accept the whole of human experience that Christianity imparts. It must be picked apart. And those who know or suspect the power of Christianity realize that, if they are to pick it apart, they must first destroy it.

I do not consider the culturally gullible to be cause of the progressive threat to freedom and human rights. If anything they are the most pitiable victims. They are manipulated into the destruction of the culture that allows them the luxury of blissful ignorance. They have become the pawns of the few deliberate deceivers who seek to derail the journey of Western Culture and return to a culture of deceptive domination in which “Some are more equal than others.” It is a culture that cannot coexist where a divine creator is acknowledged, especially the God who bestows dignity to all as He reveals Himself through the values of the Torah, the prophets and the Gospel.

The Christian basis for human social progress – Part 2

2007-11-22T13:44:00.000-08:00

How did Judaism and Christianity lead to the philosophic framework that enables Western democracy and social and economic freedom?

This is part two of a series in which I describe how Christian philosophy led Western society to the basic fundamentals of modern liberal thinking on human dignity and rights; including the idea that government or the "ruling classes" have a duty serve the people, rather than the other way around. I will also show that the idea of social, economic and technological progress is also based upon Christian ideals. It is important for so-called progressive thinkers to recognize where these values came from, for if they hope to sustain these cultural values they would do well not to attack the free practice or discussion of the Christian ideals upon which they rest.

To support this assertion of the role of Christian ideas, I must show is that there is something unique about Judaic and Christian beliefs or experience that set them apart from other human cultures; and that those unique elements are directly related to the values and ideas that have won the allegiance of self-proclaimed enlightened liberal humanists.

I listed in Part 1 four values that seem to underpin modern, progressive philosophy:

Individual human dignity and equality under the law based upon that dignity
Basic rights of the individual to self-determination in their life and property
The belief that social, economic and technological improvement (progress) is possible and good
That humans have a moral value — or even an imperative — to work for progress, not just in our own life, but in the lives of others

Individual human dignity and equality under the law
Today, in modern Western civilization it is largely agreed (although not always practiced) that each human being is worthy of some basic standard set of rights. Implicit in this is the acknowledgement that all people share a certain dignity. In fact, recent history has been a journey to expand the depth and scope of those human rights, and to codify them into law. These laws represent the power of the state, mobilized to protect the rights of individuals. This is fundamentally different from the concept in other ancient and modern civilizations which have held that individuals are to be mobilized to protect the power of the state (acknowledging that in most cases “the state” means the ruling class).

Throughout ancient history, and continuing in non-Western societies today, “The State” is usually represented by a small group who wields power, frequently in support of a monarch or dictator. Everyone else is relegated to a subclass that is at the disposal of the ruling class. Even in ancient Greece, a society that we think of as the birthplace of democracy, the most important duties were those owed by the individual citizen to the polis (city-state). Plato clearly espouses this view in The Republic. And the civil law was designed to protect the government and society as a whole. The idea of the state taking steps to protect individual freedom and civil rights had not occurred to anyone we know of in any society — except among the ancient Hebrews and their cultural successors.

The Hebrews received a law that applied to all equally. It did not afford special rights to the ruling class that trumped the rights of the least in the society. Quite the contrary. Unique in the history of civilization, the Hebrew law placed a duty upon the society for the welfare of the weakest of the individual members (e.g. widows and orphans) and even extended that duty to welcome and respect non-members (the stranger or sojourners). Rulers were seen as stewards responsible to God for the care of His people. This can be seen in the Biblical history of the rulers of Israel, frequently confronted by prophets speaking in God’s name, being taken to task for ignoring their responsibility as stewards.

This was remarkable at a time when rulers exercised absolute power over both civic and religious life, and the institutions of both were used by the elite ruling class at the expense of everyone else. It was in the new and unique cultural system described in the Old Testament that we see everyone afforded equal standing under the law. Incidentally the same principles established a “Separation of Church and State” for the first time. Just as the rulers in Israel were given authority by God to serve all the people, those same rulers served only a civic role. Their role was separate from — and did not overlap — the role of the religious class of priests and Levites. This separation of duties between the civic leaders and the religious leaders, all of whom served the people, was ingrained in the Hebrew culture and was seen as strange by outsiders. Evidence of this separation is seen in the rabbinic traditions surrounding the Ten Commandments and the two tablets upon which they were written. The commandments were said to be divided into two groups — the duties to God (religious duties) were expressed in the first 3, written on one tablet. The duties to all other people (civic) were written on the second tablet.

There is certainly no historical or biological reason for such ideas to emerge. Especially to an “enlightened” Darwinian, it makes no sense to espouse equal rights to all people based upon some philosophical notion of equal dignity. To them, “rights” only follow strength, power and success. "Might makes right" and power is the only source of dignity. But it was the notion of an equal dignity of everyone “born of woman” (created by God) that stands as the lynchpin of this whole system of societal protection of individual human rights. To paraphrase the book of Job, everyone comes into this world equally naked and all will depart without a stitch; so everything that anyone has is a gift of God. With this view, it is impossible to accept a system of stratified rights based upon power.

So why do the modern progressives denigrate — and even attack — the philosophic pillars holding up this view of human dignity? We’ll answer that later on in Part 3.

Potential for Human Progress
What is perhaps the primary philosophical hallmark of what we call “Western Civilization” and modern liberal thinking is the belief in human progress. Many of today’s liberal thinkers characterize themselves as “progressives,” holding up the idea of progress as a keystone of their outlook on life. It would probably surprise many of them to find that the optimistic view of human potential is a direct legacy of Christianity. Judaism broke from the ancient concept of humanity trapped in endless cycles driven by capricious fates, demons and deities. The Hebrews were the first people to view themselves as a people on a journey. Instead of repeating endless cycles, they were making progress on a linear pilgrimage through history (see Thomas Cahill’s book Gifts of the Jews). But the journey was still largely a journey of the people as a whole. It was Jesus, the Christ or Messiah (anointed one), that built upon the Jewish concept of individual dignity (discussed above) to emphasize the individual’s responsibility to follow a path of righteousness to advance the coming of the kingdom on earth as a prelude to the kingdom of heaven.

St. Paul and the early Christian Fathers further developed this theology of human progress. Unlike Judaism (and later Islam) which dwelt upon their scriptures and history in terms of legal frameworks of the past to be consulted to navigate the present, Christianity was distinctly forward-looking, shaped primarily by a view of the present as a prelude to a future filled with hope, enlightened by faith. (see St. Paul, I Cor. 13:9; St. Augustine, City of God, Book 22, ch. 24)

The Christian view of a world enlightened by the spreading Gospel, with believers serving as stewards of God’s gifts, enabled them to escape the doldrums of a life as a pawn of fate in an endless cycle of destiny. Instead they embraced a hope-filled future of change and innovation. Just as Christianity assumed a distinctly developmental view of theology, it also encouraged a developmental spirit in daily life. In his book The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark traces the blossoming of innovations in farming, animal husbandry, transportation, commerce, trade and technology in Europe to the adoption of Christian ideals into the popular culture of the Western Roman Empire. Although Stark points out that Christian ideals and idealism were necessary for this to happen, alone they were not sufficient. He cites two other factors present in Europe that made the blossoming of Western civilization possible. Without the other two — small political units and diverse, well-matched interest groups — other Christian areas remained stuck in ancient cultural patterns of tyranny and class struggle.

From its beginning, Christian theology developed continuously. In the Middle Ages, led by Thomas Aquinas, theological exploration naturally led to similar exploration of the natural world. The founding of universities came from this growing culture of education and inquiry. It was the same culture of inquiry that would lead to the so-called “scientific revolution” of the 16th Century. It is well known that the great scientists of that age, from Copernicus and Galileo, to Newton, were men of faith driven to understand the world as a way to better appreciate its Creator. Even the modern secular observer Alfred North Whitehead acknowledged in his 1925 Lowell Lecture at Harvard that “science rose in Europe because of widespread faith in the possibility of science … derived from medieval theology.” He recognized that modern science could not emerge from the cultures of Greece, China or Islam.

We see that the modern list of progressive values and virtues only make sense within a context of the Judeo-Christian ethic of the individual’s dignity as a child of God. And the idea that social progress is possible and worth pursuing is not found as a universal human value. It has only emerged in a culture that accepts the uniquely Christian-based premises that what an individual does matters beyond the immediate results. But the moral assumptions of Christianity have been so deeply imbued into Western Culture during its centuries of development that they can easily be ignored by those who wish to ignore them. And yet, any intellectually honest assessment must recognize that the liberal values that Western Culture brings to the rest of the world are ultimately rooted in a set of moral imperatives that cannot be separated from their Judeo-Christian religious context — to work for progress, not just in our own life, but in the lives of others.

The greatest danger to human progress today is that modern thinkers have started to view “liberal values” as self sustaining and have jettisoned the foundation of religious heritage that supports them. The modern attacks on the beliefs and institutions that nurtured the progressive advance of human development over the past 1500 years, serve to weaken the hold of those values on the culture. And without them the culture is free to fall, once again, into the ethic of other civilizations in which “Might is Right,” and law is used to enslave a lower class in service to the “State” (i.e. the ruling class).

This scenario would be considered horrible to the average Westerner. Why would anyone who embraces the liberal ideas of equality, human rights and human progress take actions that would hasten such an outcome? This is the question we will attempt to answer in Part 3.

News Item

2007-11-06T18:13:00.000-08:00

I came across this AP article by Larry McShane in the local newspaper the other day. It got me thinking: Why are the big crime families of the Cosa Nostra (a.k.a. "the Mafia" and "the Mob") gradually going out of business?

My guess is that, when it comes to Organized Crime, it is becoming more and more difficult to compete with the Government.

Welcome, Blue Blazer!

2007-09-09T19:30:00.000-07:00

The new post below is presented by a guest contributor.

The Christian basis for human social progress – Part 1

2007-09-09T18:51:00.000-07:00

Progressive zealots bite the hand that feeds them

Many who claim to be devoted to the ideals of human progress are unknowingly chipping away at the very foundation upon which those ideals rely. As anti-religious zealots attack all public acknowledgement of any principle or symbol that is tied to religion, they are undermining the philosophic underpinnings that allow them the freedoms they take so much for granted.

A couple years ago (2003) a young man filed a lawsuit against the city where I live, Everett, Wash., to force the removal of a stone monument that depicted the Ten Commandments. The monument is a 6-foot, engraved granite slab that stands near the entrance to a city office building. It was paid for and placed there in 1959 by a local fraternal organization. See news story.

The young man, Jesse Card, seemed to be arguing that, because the Ten Commandments represent the religious traditions of Jews and Christians, the monument serves to promote those religions and, by being on public property, violates the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion. The arguments in this and other such cases focus on the basic principals of individual autonomy established in the U.S. Constitution (1788) and Bill of Rights (1791).

Of course the idea that individual freedom could not be trumped by monarchs or states was not invented in America. The Magna Carta limited the power of the English king, basing those limits on the notion that the law applies to all, due to the equal dignity of the individual under God. Again, this concept of kings being subject to higher laws was not new in the Christian West. From Constantine to Charlemagne, monarchs had humbled themselves before the God of David and Moses.

It is, in fact, the Law of Moses that began the revolution that gives the young man in Everett the right to free speech, to sue the government, to observe his own religion or no religion at all. The Hebrew innovation that would help shape Western law and politics is the idea that even Moses was not above the Law that bears his name. Even King David was culpable under Hebrew law for his transgressions. This was a radical departure from all ancient civilizations for whom the ruler was the law and “might made right.” It is still a radical idea in non-Westernized nations. Why? Because without the cultural influence of Christian thought, it does not occur to the human mind.

The irony of the lawsuit in Everett was that the limited view of the monument as a religious symbol seemed to blind this zealot for individual rights to its much larger significance as a symbol of human rights that transcends the whims of individuals to control the freedoms of others. For unless there is an acknowledgement that ALL individuals are equal under a higher law, then the way is open for an elite class of individuals to claim sovereignty over everyone else. Our system of law and justice can only respect all equally because it requires all individuals to extend equal respect to everyone else. And those concepts come from where? The law of Moses, symbolized by the Ten Commandments.

I might point out as an aside that the concept of division of church and state can be seen in the ancient Jewish and Christian tradition of showing the commandments related to our duty to God on one tablet and those related to our duty to other people on the second tablet. Those tablets are very rich symbols that the basic concepts of liberalism are not modern innovations, but are rooted in a unique ancient innovation.

Mr. Card stirred up a great deal of vitriol by those who interpreted his lawsuit as an attack on their religion and values. Their response was to condemn his action as anti-Christian bigotry. I thought that was an unfortunate reaction. I do not know what Mr. Card’s real motives were, but I will take him at his word that it was to protect individual liberty as demanded by our Constitution. I felt that the best argument against his action was that it was internally inconsistent to defend one liberty, guaranteed in one document, by dismissing the philosophic pillar holding up that liberty by seeking to drive all symbols of its origin from the public square.

This episode is just one example of the so-called progressives battling against all appearances of religious symbols and concepts in public in the name of basic human rights principles, without realizing that by doing so, they are undermining the very foundation of those principles.

Before going any further, it is important to articulate some of the key progressive ideals we are talking about:

Individual human dignity and equality under the law based upon that dignity
Basic rights of the individual to self-determination in their life and property
The belief that social, economic and technological improvement (progress) is possible and good

A moral value – or even an imperative – to work for progress, not just in our own life, but in the lives of others

I will not attempt to argue that these are key “progressive” ideals. I will take that as a given (until I hear from someone who disagrees). I would point out only that the first two are philosophical imperatives of modern democracy. What bears examination, however is the origins of these concepts in Judaism and their blossoming in Christianity, because I think that THIS idea may not have occurred to many progressives.

In fact, many progressive thinkers resist or even harbor hostility to Christianity and Christian institutions. Apparently in ignorance of the fact that these ideals were sown and nurtured only in the unique World View that emerged from the Judeo-Christian religious experience and its resulting philosophic mind-set, a mindset commonly referred to as “Western Civilization.” Recently, there have been a number of popular books following this theme. Examples include: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

More disconcerting than their apparent ignorance, is the prospect that anti-Christian progressives will continue to drive anything openly religious (at least openly Christian or Jewish) out of the public square and thus out of the culture. Their “success” in this endeavor would have the predictable consequence of burying any hope that those espoused values could survive in the public square and the new “reformed” culture. Essentially, their hostility to Christian values, virtues and culture, is a rejection of Western Civilization itself. And I will argue that the attack on Western culture – if it ever succeeds – could only result in a replacement culture that will have little or no use for the basic “progressive values” mentioned above.

The first phase of this discussion will begin in part two of this series where I will explain how Christian philosophy led Western society to the basic fundamentals of modern liberal thinking on human dignity and rights and on the roles of social institutions to serve people, rather than the other way around. I will also show how these values cannot be sustained in a culture that rejects the basic philosophical assumptions upon which they rest. For, indeed, the hope of social, economic and technological progress is based upon Christian ideals.

Finally, in part three of this series, I will attempt to understand why so-called “progressives” seek to undermine the very foundation of their espoused values. I will explore a couple of possible motives. I think that some (probably most) truly believe in the ideals but are foolishly ignorant of the historic and philosophic origins of those same ideals. They are easily misled by notions that religion (particularly Christianity) is anti-progress and even barbaric. But I believe there are others who hold a “progressive agenda” that has nothing to do with embracing liberal values of human dignity and progress. It is an agenda that requires a deliberate effort to eliminate Christianity for the very fact that it opposes human dignity and progress. I will discuss what this agenda is and why they must hide the origin of the progressive ideals to create a “progressive” smoke-screen to lend moral legitimacy to what is really a frightening – and quite un-progressive – future society.

(Coming installments)
Part 2:
How did Judaism and Christianity lead to the philosophic framework that enables Western democracy and social and economic freedom?

Part 3:
Why do “Progressives” seek to undermine the values of Western culture (thus undermining Christianity, democracy and human rights?)

Morality Salad

2007-08-31T00:48:00.000-07:00

Yompin’ Yimminy! It’s been a long time since my last post, I know.

I’ve been thinking about a lot of little topics, nothing huge or terribly pressing, but always buzzing there in the background of my consciousness. Summertime has also imposed certain burdens on my time which have hampered my ability or opportunity to write anything new. Summer also tends to be a busy time at work (where many, even most, of my ideas usually have time to germinate and sprout), so I’ve had to spend more energy focusing on the mundane tasks of the job rather than doing the more mentally satisfying work of theology, philosophy and social analysis.

The things I’ve been mulling over constitute a varied jumble, a salad if you will, of topics concerning morality as it relates to business culture, economics and other social and political concerns. The “global economy”, war, the legal vs. moral status of the family in society, contemporary American culture and the “religion” of secular materialism are among the topics in the mix. (I suspect that there is more than just greens and vegetables in there, so maybe it’s more like a “taco salad” with a little spicy beef mixed in as well.)

(By the way, if any of you have any suggestions for a topic for this blog, any topic, feel free to leave a comment and tell me about it. If I find your idea interesting, I’ll give it some thought and write something …)

In any event, I hope to develop something soon that is worth posting, so check back every so often. Also, I’m still waiting for word from my “guest contributor” who it seems has even less time for writing than I do.

In the meantime, feel free to peruse my older posts and browse through the archives (linked on the gray sidebar) for the ones that have dropped off this main page. Don’t be shy—leave new comments there too, if you wish, but if you do, be sure to leave a “flag” message in the most recent post’s comment box directing my attention to the right place.

The saddest thing I ever heard

2007-05-20T16:47:00.000-07:00

Like everyone else, I hear a lot of sad things all the time. Things such as news about a toddler who was accidentally run over and killed by her aunt who had come to visit (it truly was an accident), psychotic killers on the rampage, or victims of natural or man-made disasters. Every day, it seems, we hear about a lot of seemingly senseless death and suffering, disease, situations created by the consequences of a long series of bad choices, a bad philosophy about life or someone just being “in the wrong place at the wrong time”.

But of all the tragedies I hear reported, or hear from the mouths of friends and acquaintances, by far the SADDEST thing I ever hear is, “I used to be Catholic”.

“WHAT!??” you may ask, “Are you saying that someone’s choice of RELIGION is more important than someone dying of cancer, whole cities being wiped out by tsunamis and hurricanes, the bombs of war and terrorism, and innocent children being killed??”

Yes, I am saying that.

I have said many times that religion (the way we understand and approach God and how we treat other people) is the most important thing in the world. Everyone has to die sometime, and it can be either quick or slow, self-induced or at the hand of someone else (either by intent or accident), by disease or by some other unexpected and unavoidable process or event (the details aren’t that important). And of course, “he who dies with the most toys” is still dead and leaves all his toys behind.

Suffering is an unavoidable part of life. The difference between happiness and misery isn’t whether or not you suffer (or what the particular things are that cause you to suffer), rather it is how you suffer (i.e. how you choose to deal with the suffering that comes your way, and where you find the strength to help you endure it). Sometimes people truly suffer needlessly, such as when they suffer loneliness or alienation because they are so self-absorbed that they refuse to love anyone else, but usually suffering has a way of finding us all by itself.

So everyone suffers and everyone dies. (I’m not trying to be callous, just putting things into perspective, showing you the “Big Picture”.) When a person dies, he faces a personal Judgment before God that determines where he spends eternity. (Next to eternity, our time and suffering on earth are nothing.) The main focus of this Judgment is whether or not you loved and served God in this life (or at least did the best you could with the natural reason God gave you (cf. Rom 2:13-16)). Those who truly loved God in life (not just pretending to) will be eternally happy (beyond imagination). Those who truly loved themselves more than God will be eternally miserable (beyond imagination). There is no third choice.

Part of serving God is how you treat the people around you during your life on earth. Part of how you love God is shaped by what you know about Him. This is the stuff of religion. It is what sets the balance that determines where every individual soul will spend eternity. I’d say that’s pretty darn important!

I’ve done my level best to explain why the Catholic religion, taught and practiced by the Catholic Church, is true and tells us the truth about God and man and how we are to relate to both. No one has ever given me any reason to believe that it is not true or that some other religion (or no religion) is better or truer than Catholicism. And it is objectively true, which means that it is true for everyone without exception. (If you think I am wrong on this point, please set me straight, either by leaving a comment (below) or by e-mail (see sidebar).)

The Catholic Church teaches us that the Church itself is “necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism, as through a door, men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved” (Vatican II: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), 14; emphasis mine).

Therefore the only way any ex-Catholic can be saved at all is by his bona fide ignorance of the fact that Christ made the Catholic Church necessary for salvation. And since I’m telling you now, that “escape clause” is now closed to any former Catholic who is reading this. (Or at the very least, it is incumbent upon him to “do his homework” and confirm the truth of the matter and stop kidding himself that “everything is OK” regarding the state of his soul before God. He can no longer say at his particular Judgment, “Gee, Lord, I didn’t know. Nobody ever told me.”)

That is why the phrase “I used to be a Catholic” is the saddest thing I ever hear. No one ever leaves the Church (stops attending Mass on Sundays and practicing the faith) except through ignorance (not adequately understanding the truths of the faith) or malice (loving one’s sin more than God—and the sin might simply be the deadly sin of pride). If a person truly understood what the Church teaches, and truly loved God, he could never leave the Church He established, His Bride, His Mystical Body.

A case in point

I have a good friend whom I have known since childhood (I’ll call him “Dave”) who was born and raised in the Catholic faith. While he was away at college, he met and fell in love with a girl (I’ll call her “Patty”) who was also born and raised a Catholic. Many years before, Patty had had a number of “bad experiences” concerning the Church, for example the bad example of a particular priest (alcoholism, I think) and her parents’ divorce. Apparently she used these events collectively as an excuse for leaving the Church “never to return!” (she is very strong-willed). I believe she was attending some Protestant church when Dave met her.

Dave started attending church with Patty in their college town and everything seemed OK (I don’t know at what point he stopped going to Mass). It seems Dave was poorly catechized in school (a common situation in the ’60s and ’70s) and he either didn’t know or didn’t care about the essential differences between Catholicism and Protestantism or what was expected of him as a Catholic.

Well a few years later, in any event (to make a long story short), they got married in a Protestant church, had a number of kids and are now living their lives like good Evangelical Protestants. It’s not that Dave has any problem with Catholicism, but rather that Patty does and, if he values his marriage, he’d better not set foot in a Catholic church ever again(!). And so, caught on the horns this dilemma, Dave seems to have convinced himself that “it’s no big deal, as long as you are [some kind of] Christian”. (These are not actual quotes. I am putting words in their mouths based on what I know of their attitudes and personalities.)

Here’s where it gets dicey. Unless they had both formally defected from the Catholic Church before the time of their marriage (which basically involves each of them writing a letter to the bishop informing him of their intention to leave the Catholic Church), or had applied for and received a document from the bishop dispensing them from the normal requirement of observing the Catholic form of marriage (i.e. in a Catholic church before a Catholic priest)—and I have no reason to believe they did either one—they were bound under a moral obligation to observe the Catholic form for marriage. Since (I assume) they didn’t (thus failing to meet that requirement for Catholics to be validly married), in the eyes of the Church, they aren’t actually married (whether they realize it or not). Since the Church was given the authority by God (Jesus) to regulate this sort of thing among her members, they aren’t married in God’s eyes either. So in God’s eyes, they are “living in sin” (fornication—sexual relations between unmarried persons). [This has nothing to do with the “legitimacy” of their children. Legitimacy is a matter of civil law, and as far as the State is concerned they were legally married.] In Canon (Church) Law, this would be a “slam dunk” annulment (meaning it is obvious without further investigation (if I have the facts straight) that no marriage ever existed in this case).

If Dave and Patty have not formally defected from the Church, they are NOT PROTESTANTS (regardless of how they describe themselves); they are in fact lapsed Catholics who happen to attend Protestant services and no doubt hold a number of Protestant doctrines. This may seem to be a mere technicality to non-Catholics, but it makes all the difference in the world in Canon Law.

To rectify their situation, Dave and Patty could each go to sacramental confession (for all the years they were away from the Church) and return to the practice of the Faith of their youth, and finally have their (civil) marriage convalidated (or “blessed”) by a Catholic priest (not a likely scenario under the circumstances). Or (if Patty refuses to be reconciled to the Church) Dave could still go to confession on his own and receive absolution for his own years away from the Church (and his illicit sexual relations with Patty), and then continue to live chastely (sleeping in separate rooms like brother and sister) with Patty (also unlikely). I suppose a third possibility would be for them both to formally defect from the Church now and then get “re-married” in their Protestant church or before a JP (then at least in the eyes of God and the Church they would in fact be married for the first time).

But that still leaves the question of the state their souls when they die. Fornication is a mortal sin (if done with full knowledge and consent of the will). So is leaving the Church. One unrepented mortal sin lands you in hell. A sin is mortal if three conditions are met: (1) it is “grave matter” (the act itself is serious enough), (2) one understands at the time that it is grave matter, and (3) one gives full consent of the will (in other words, “I know it’s a serious sin, but I freely choose to do it anyway”). If there was a way they could have found this out but still went ahead, they are still (at least partially) guilty of the sin. If they didn’t know at the time but were informed about it later, but refused to do anything to correct the situation, they are as culpable as if they knew all along.

Presumably both Dave and Patty want to go to heaven, but the way things are now I don’t see how they can get there. Ignorance is a wonderful thing, I suppose, but it has its limits. You see why I feel the situation is so sad. I constantly look for an opportunity to clue Dave in to the precarious spiritual position they are in, but circumstances make such an opportunity exceedingly remote and I’m certain he “don’t want to hear it”, and talking to Patty about it is out of the question. It looks hopeless.

Good thing it isn’t up to me. God gives every person every opportunity to repent before death and be saved. If someone chooses to defy God and His law, that is his own choice. I can still pray for them, certainly. But it is still a very, very sad situation.

Prayer, worship and the communion of saints

2007-04-24T19:54:00.000-07:00

This topic is a major stumbling block for many (perhaps most) non-Catholics. The problem arises because for most non-Catholics (with the exception of Eastern Orthodox and other schismatic churches and groups which retain valid priestly orders), the highest form of worship is prayer.

At a typical Evangelical Protestant worship service, for example, there are periods of singing, communal prayer (led by the pastor or some other minister), perhaps a time for some silent personal prayer, and the sermon (into which is usually incorporated some scriptural passages). During the service, the prayers are directed to the Heavenly Father, to Jesus, and perhaps on a rare occasion to the Holy Spirit—but always to God. Most Protestants would never dream of praying to anyone but God, because prayer is worship.

And a Catholic would agree—prayer directed to God is a form of worship. But for the Catholic, prayer is not the highest form of worship. The highest form of worship, as ordained by God Himself, is sacrifice. This was true of the Old Covenant with the Jews (which is why God (through Moses) went to such lengths to train the Jews in how to do it), and it is true of the New Covenant with the Church (in the holy sacrifice of the Mass, or the Eucharist). The Eucharistic sacrifice, we believe, is the same one, pure, eternal Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, offered “once, for all” (Rom 6:10; Heb 10:10; 1 Pet 3:18), and re-presented for us by the priest in an un-bloody manner, thus fulfilling the command of Christ, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Lk 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25). (If there are any questions or comments on this, I can go deeper into the theology of the Eucharist, but this is enough for the moment.)

Protestants, on the other hand, have no sacrifice, since the Reformation did away (for the most part) with the ministerial priesthood. (The main function of a priest is to offer sacrifice.) So when it comes to worship, all they have is prayer.

But sometimes Catholics “pray to” Mary or another saint (or angel), and it is understandable that someone who doesn’t have the Catholic understanding of prayer might confuse this act with the act of worship. And of course worship (latria) of anyone or anything other than God constitutes the grave sin of idolatry.

We communicate with other human beings on earth by means of speech or some kind of writing or signals. We communicate with spirits by means of prayer (which can be either verbal [audible] or mental). God is spirit, but so too are the angels and the saints in heaven.

When we “pray” to a saint or one of the good angels, we are simply asking him (or her) either to pray to God on our behalf (i.e. to intercede for us), or to pray along with us to God. The New Testament enjoins us (or gives us an example) to pray for one another, and to ask others to pray for us (1 Thes 5:25; 2 Thes 3:1; Heb 13:18; James 5:16; etc.) Nowhere does the Bible say that those who have died in Christ (i.e., who are commonly called saints) are prevented from praying for us, or that we shouldn’t ask for their prayers. In fact, Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4 depict the prayers of the saints being offered like incense by angels and the holy ones in heaven before the throne of God. These are the prayers of those on earth offered to God through the mediation of the angels and saints already in heaven. This mediation in no way detracts from the One Mediatorship of Christ (1 Tim 2:5), but rather participates in it, for we are members of His Body, the Church (1 Cor 12:25, 27). Each member of the body (whether on earth or in heaven) works together with the other members for the benefit of the whole body. The Church is also the family of God, and like the members of any family, we all communicate freely with one another and help each other any way we can.

I can’t imagine any Christian who, if asked, would simply refuse to pray for another Christian (or anyone else, for that matter). We here on earth are still hindered by the effects of our sinfulness. Those in heaven, however, are not. There is no sin in heaven and no sinful thing can enter it (cf. Rev 21:27). Those who have died in the grace of God are freed (or are in the process of being freed) from all sin and all its effects and see God face to face in unadulterated love. This love extends also to all He created, including the souls still struggling on earth with sin and its effects. We know, too, that the prayers of the just (or righteous) are very powerful (James 5:16). Those in heaven are more righteous than anyone still on earth. The pure prayers of the saints before the throne of God are of tremendous help to us here below. Why would they, now perfected in charity, not ardently desire to continue praying for us? Why should we not avail ourselves of their powerful intercession and assistance?

Catholic Devotion to Mary

2007-04-01T19:23:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago (Feb. 16th) I received from Ebenezer Scrooge (who sometimes posts comments here) a suggestion for a new post. Here’s what he wrote:

Mary, the wife of Joseph and the mother of Jesus, should be the most esteemed of all women in the hearts and minds of all who follow God’s Son.

Figuratively speaking, as Eve is the Mother of all who physically live and then die, so Mary, because of her trust in and obedience to God, is the Mother of all who trust and obey God after hearing the Good News, receiving eternal life, now and forever.

The adoration should go no further than this. She was the same as the rest of humanity: a human being, conceived and born in sin, thus having a sinful nature. She desperately needed God’s redemption and received it in the manner as the rest of Adam’s offspring can and do.

Eb explained further that he wrote that as a “discussion starter” and was really just asking about the basis of Catholic Marian devotion in general, how the whole doctrine developed, especially what are its sources in Scripture and the writings of the early Church Fathers and the like.

He makes some very good points. It must be understood, however, that the Church never taught that our love and devotion to Mary should ever involve “adoration,” but this is a common misconception among many Protestants and non-Christians alike, so let’s deal with that first.

The Church makes a distinction between three levels or kinds of honor in Catholic piety. The first and highest is called latria and is that worship or adoration that is due to God alone. The lowest of the three forms is called dulia and can refer to the honor and reverence of a disciple for his master, a child for his parents or a subject for his sovereign lord. In Catholic devotion it specifically refers to the veneration we show to the angels and other saints as friends of God. Between these two Catholic theology places hyperdulia, an elevated form of dulia reserved for the Blessed Virgin Mary on account of her unique place in God’s plan of salvation for all mankind. It is closely associated with but subordinate to that of her divine Son.

It is possible to find references in some old Catholic sources to the “worship of Mary,” but remember that languages change over time, that such citations are generally old, and that worship in such cases should therefore be understood in a broader, more archaic sense of that English word (i.e., a high degree of honor, respect, reverence, esteem or homage) rather than our narrower modern sense (adoration reserved exclusively for God in His divine majesty). It might help to think of how the British call certain magistrates “Your Worship” but we Americans would address such officials as “Your Honor.” Words more commonly used today in reference to the proper attitude toward Mary are veneration and devotion. We venerate sacred persons and things, as Protestants do the saints in heaven, the Holy Bible and representations of the cross, and we show devotion to those people we hold especially dear (such as one’s parents, spouse or children). (Sometimes, too, we have to consider the possibility that the intended usage might have been more poetic than literal. Did Frank Sinatra truly "worship and adore" the women in some of his love songs? Not any more than Tony Bennett actually wanted to visit that celestial body when he sang "fly me to the moon.")

Similarly, one sometimes comes across the phrase “the cult of Mary [or some other saint],” but this too is simply an adoption of the Latin word cultus, meaning a system of ceremonial or religious honor or devotion. This is entirely different than the way the word is commonly used today in reference to a tightly controlled religious sect holding exotic or unorthodox beliefs (frequently bound closely around a single charismatic leader or small leadership group).

The document Lumen Gentium (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) was produced at the Second Vatican Council and was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964. The final chapter of that document (Chapter VIII—paragraphs 52 through 69) is titled “The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and the Church.” (The Council debated whether it ought to make a separate document on Mary, but in the end decided it more appropriate to incorporate this examination of the Church’s teaching on Mary in the context of the Church’s overall understanding of its own nature, mission and purpose, so integral is her role in the entire life of the Church.)

Everything the Church believes and teaches about the Blessed Virgin must be understood as deriving from her relationship to her divine Son, Jesus Christ, and her unique role in the history of salvation. As this fact becomes more and more clearly seen, it begins to dawn on the believer that, while she was indeed redeemed by the one sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, she was NOT “just like everyone else.” Permit me to quote par. 53 from the Introduction to that chapter in its entirety to put it all into perspective.

The Virgin Mary, who at the message of the angel received the Word of God in her heart and in her body and gave Life to the world, is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and Mother of the Redeemer. Redeemed by reason of the merits of her Son and united to Him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of being the Mother of the Son of God, by which account she is also the beloved daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth. At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved. She is “the mother of the members of Christ … having cooperated by charity that faithful might be born in the Church, who are members of that Head” (St. Augustine). Wherefore she is hailed as a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church, and as its type and excellent exemplar in faith and charity. The Catholic Church, taught by the Holy Spirit, honors her with filial affection and piety as a most beloved mother.

“… Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God’s salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers [of the early Church] see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, she ‘being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.’…” (from par. 56)

“… [Mary] faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan (cf. Jn 19:25), grieving exceedingly with her only begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth …” (from par. 58).

Mary was indeed correct when she spoke of “God my Savior” (Lk 1:47). In the classic explanation, if there is a pit in the middle of a pathway, one can be saved from it in one of two ways: one can be pulled out after having fallen into it, or one can be prevented from falling into it in the first place. Both are possible ways of being saved from the pit. Mankind was stuck in the pit of sin. But man was not originally created in sin. Adam and Eve were created sinless, but fell into sin. Mary was likewise created sinless, saved by a singular (miraculous) act of God, in virtue of her intended divine motherhood, so that she would be a fitting (immaculate) tabernacle for His Son at the appointed time in human history. When the time came for her to give her consent to being the human mother of God’s Son, thus giving Him His human nature, she needed the moral capacity to do so in complete and perfect freedom. This includes freedom from sin, which would otherwise limit or taint the free exercise of her will in making such a momentous decision that would affect not only herself but all mankind.

The angel Gabriel bore witness to this sinless state when he addressed her as “full of grace” (Lk 1:28). If the box is full of salt, as Archbishop Sheen used to say, there is no room for pepper. We are given to understand that the Greek word used here by Luke implies an absolute fullness (“to the brim” and overflowing with God’s grace), not just a relative fullness (participating more in grace than sin, or even possessing more grace than anyone else).

Some will object, “How could Mary have been saved by Jesus’ sacrifice before it happened?” Well, Abraham and Moses were also saved by the one same sacrifice of Jesus. They also lived before it happened. The conceptual difficulty arises because our perception is conditioned by our experience of time. We are stuck in time (hampered in that we have no other experience). God is not. Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary was an eternal act, and therefore not limited by time, and is made accessible to all men (in one way or another by God’s design) through His grace. God dispenses His grace to each man, woman and child in history, in His infinite mercy and wisdom, as He deems best. Who are we to quibble about His chosen methods?

Next: Prayer, worship and the communion of saints

Hey, what’s happenin’, man …

2007-03-08T07:02:00.000-08:00

I have been working on a number of things, actually, although it may appear to visitors here that I have fallen asleep at the wheel.
Sometime-commenter Ebenezer Scrooge sent me a message suggesting a discussion related to Marian devotion, and I have also started to study the “social encyclicals” beginning with Rerum Novarum.
There may also be a “guest contributor” posting here sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Hey, look--it's the green flash!!

2007-01-07T18:10:00.000-08:00

(Those of you who have served in the Army will already know that the shield-shaped patch on the beret is called a "flash.")

Coming soon!

2006-12-19T22:25:00.000-08:00

For those curious about what I look like, I will soon be posting my photograph.

Stay tuned ....

Where do I get my ideas for this Blog (and why so long between posts)?

2006-12-18T22:02:00.000-08:00

Where I’m coming from
I am (as I’m sure you’ve all noticed by now) NOT a trained theologian or Catholic philosopher. I did attend the University of Washington between 1977 and ’79, studying mostly inorganic chemistry, physics and math, along with the usual “liberal arts” courses expected of every college student, but I lost my ambition to continue in my chosen program and dropped out before completing any degree. I started working full-time then and, except for a 2-year stint in tech school studying electronics and computer hardware in the mid ’80s, I have been steadily employed ever since. I have been relatively fortunate in this regard and I thank God regularly for it.

At present I earn a living for myself, my wife and our three children (aged 11 to 15) in a humble “blue collar” job at a location about 50 miles from home. So each day I have two long commutes during which I am able to think and listen to Catholic radio (we are very blessed to have an EWTN-affiliated radio station in the Seattle area that broadcasts 24-7, KBLE AM-1050). During the course of my work day there is generally quite a lot of time to think as well, since I sit or stand at a workbench most of the time and my assigned tasks do not ordinarily require a great deal of concentration. (Sadly, though, I am not able to receive KBLE’s signal very well inside my building.)

No, I am no theologian by any means. In fact, I’ve never had any formal religious training of any kind since graduating from Catholic high school in ’77 (beyond the odd parish seminar or retreat here & there and “auditing” my then-future wife’s RCIA classes). My “adult” religious education has been entirely on my own, searching out good books and devouring them as time permitted, building quite a formidable personal library in the process. I have also subscribed to several good (meaning faithful to the Magisterium) Catholic periodicals over the years. Many of them I let lapse because I didn’t have enough time to read them, but the three I still keep—and wouldn’t be without—are The Wanderer (weekly newspaper out of St. Paul, MN), This Rock magazine (published by Catholic Answers out of San Diego, CA), and Culture Wars magazine (my personal favorite, out of South Bend, IN). Other Catholic periodicals I could recommend are the Homiletic and Pastoral Review and the National Catholic Register—I’m sure there are many other good ones besides these, but I’ll stop there. Naturally, I have the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1st and 2nd editions) besides numerous other excellent catechisms, as well as a Latin-English edition of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. I also have a 1,914-page Complete Concordance to the Bible (Douay Version) published in 1945 [given to me many years ago by a Protestant friend who found it at a garage sale] which comes in VERY handy!

My ideas
So I have a long history of solid (though informal) Catholic reading under my belt ranging through theology, philosophy, biography & hagiography, spirituality, morality and social doctrine (including very many encyclicals and other official documents), besides my daily doses of orthodox Catholic radio and a lot of time most days to mull over it all. My “default” mental setting is that, since everyone dies sooner or later, and the ultimate goal of every sane person is to get to heaven, religion is the most important topic in the world. (I may have skipped a few steps in that sentence, all you strict logicians out there, but I hope I plotted enough dots for you to at least follow along.) I take my faith very seriously and am always on the lookout for any opportunity to share it, though I try (sometimes with limited success) to conceal my impatience or disappointment with others who do not seem to share my enthusiasm.

Often many days—or even weeks—go by at a stretch, I must confess, when I can’t think of anything worth writing about. Then, sometimes gradually appearing over the horizon of my consciousness like the sun rising on a clear morning, sometimes coming like a thunderclap, I will get an idea and begin to work it over in my mind over the course of several days or perhaps a week or more, jotting down notes on scraps of paper as opportunity affords. It might start as a phrase from a homily or some talk or discussion on the radio, a line or passage from something I’d been reading, or some problem from my daily life or family history that is bothering me somehow. Occasionally it is an event in the news or an article in the secular press that starts me thinking, trying to put it into some kind of meaningful perspective.

I have a rather thick skin, and I don’t have a great deal of patience for those hyper-sensitive personalities who are always afraid of offending anyone. While I recognize the need for a certain diplomacy and tact, a reasonable delicacy or sensitivity to the normal human feelings of others, I also admire brutal honesty and forthright candor. While I always try to acknowledge, understand, learn from and sympathize with other people’s attitudes, beliefs and perspectives on life and various issues, eventually there comes a time when one has to call a spade a spade and “cut to the chase.” Sometimes I go too fast or misjudge the situation and end up turning someone off to whatever it is I’m trying to convey or even blacking someone’s eye (metaphorically speaking of course) by my not-too-gentle way of approaching most things. Sometimes I’m really out of line or off-base in what I say, and I am not afraid to say I was wrong when that becomes evident. But at the same time, I’m not one to apologize or back down from a good argument just because someone out in cyberspace takes umbrage at my legitimate opinion or belief.

I will frequently state Catholic doctrine as established fact, since from my perspective as a convicted Catholic, it is. (If anyone disagrees with or doesn’t understand what I say, I hope he/she would be kind enough to drop a comment or e-mail me to either correct me or allow me to clarify.) I will try to explain and defend such teaching to the best of my ability and show how it is at least reasonable for someone to accept and believe it, but I won’t waste a lot of time beating around the bush trying to convince or win over those who either genuinely “just don’t get it” (after all, faith is a gift from God and we can neither get it nor give it on our own), or who obstinately refuse to shift their own cherished opinions or consider another perspective (there is a qualitative difference between steadfast faith and obstinacy). Contrary to what some people have said of me, I am capable and willing to change or even reject my views and beliefs—if someone is able to find or demonstrate a real (not just an imagined or imputed) weakness or defect in my position or how it is somehow irrational or dishonest to maintain such a belief. I have, at many times in the past, held erroneous beliefs, and once shown their inconsistencies or otherwise unreasonable elements, I changed my view. My faith is not blind or obstinate. I strive at all times to be open to the truth.

The only problem (if you could call it that) is that, so far as established Catholic teaching and Apostolic Tradition are concerned (once they are properly understood), there are no inconsistencies or defects of any kind (since it was revealed and continues to be safeguarded by God Himself). History bears witness to this fact. (On the other hand, the sinful behavior and attitudes of individual Catholics, acting either alone or in groups, is another matter entirely. They sin precisely because they are in violation of Catholic teaching, since it is that teaching that informs us of God’s will, the violation of which is the essence of sin.) For 2000 years, many of the cleverest minds known to civilized man (and not just the moral degenerates) have struggled against the historical, doctrinal, moral and social claims of the Catholic Faith, and have often persecuted, tortured and killed its adherents wherever they could be found. (Quite a few of these persecutors, antagonists and adversaries of the Church eventually converted to the Faith, often led by their own arguments into the fullness of truth, or inspired by the personal faith and courage of the martyrs in the face of torture and certain death.) Many people have sworn to crush, obliterate and bury once and for all the Catholic Church and all memory of her. In the end, all these men have themselves been buried, and today the Church is as strong and vigorous as ever, winning new converts every day from among men and women of all races and backgrounds, the rich and the poor, the wise, erudite and refined, as well as the simple, uneducated and uncouth. The Catholic Church is, in this respect, truly universal.

So the things I write here could be called the ordinary musings, ideas and expressions of one ordinary Catholic layman—a view of the world seen through the eyes of “Joe Pewsitter.”

Religion Confusion, Part 5

2006-11-26T12:36:00.000-08:00

Conclusion
-------------------------------------------
Truth is simply the expression of or correspondence to reality, and God is reality itself. Everything that exists at all, everything that is real, has its origin and sustenance in God.
If anyone is shown the truth and recognizes it as such, and still chooses to reject or defy it, choosing instead to “make his own truth,” he is in fact rejecting God who is the source and summit of all truth. If a person persists in such rejection at the moment of his death, he cannot be saved.
-------------------------------------------

Of the four major religious systems I’ve been discussing, three of them are based upon some book or books. Modern Jews base their religion on the Torah (a.k.a. the Pentateuch), other books of [what Christians call] the Old Testament, or the Talmud (or some combination of these). Muslims base their religion on the Qur’ân (Koran) and other writings about the life and teachings of Muhammad. Protestants base their religion on sola scriptura (the Bible Alone). But none of these “religions of the Book” have a generally recognized living authority that can provide a final interpretation of “the Book” for all its adherents in case disputes arise (which inevitably happens). No written text is capable of interpreting itself or applying its message to the situations and circumstances of everyday life.

Ultimately these all rely on what is essentially a private (or personal) interpretation of a written text, as in “well, the way I read [the text] is this …” or “I disagree with your view; I don’t think you understand [the text] properly …” The adherents of these religions have no living voice to which they can appeal that can say with finality, “I’m sorry, but that particular interpretation of the text [or of our tradition] is invalid, and here’s why …” or “Wait a minute—you have no right to do that, and here’s why …” Their opinions and arguments just go round and round without coming to a satisfactory conclusion. Consequently, every other faction in the group is forced to allow, tolerate or look the other way from every “wacko” interpretation that comes along (so long as it has at least a veneer of plausibility) even if it flatly contradicts other more plausible (and consequently more widely held) interpretations. No one has the authority to stand up and say, “No, you can’t hold that position and still be a faithful member of this group because we don’t believe that.” While such various positions may be fiercely debated, none are ever excluded, and confusion among the faithful (or eventual division) must inevitably result.

The Catholic religion, on the other hand, is NOT based on the Bible (or any other written text)—so that particular accusation made by many Protestants is absolutely true. Rather, the Catholic Church wrote the Bible (certainly the New Testament, but one could say the Old Testament as well if one includes the Patriarchs and Prophets as part of the Church established by God, which the Catholic Church does). The Church is not based on the Bible; rather, the Bible is based on the Church. (It was in fact synods and councils of the Catholic Church that established the canon of Scripture (the Bible’s “Table of Contents”) back in the late 4th and early 5th Centuries.)

Only the Catholic Church has a built-in mechanism for interpreting its own sacred writings. We call it the Magisterium and it is exercised in its fullness by the college of bishops in communion with the current pope at any moment in history. Every Catholic bishop in the world within his own diocese (and every square inch of the world—be it land, water or ice—falls within the jurisdiction of some bishop) shares in this magisterial office for the people entrusted to his care (his flock), and he exercises its fullness with and in communion with the pope. Thus the Church remains One in its profession of faith throughout the world. (Individual bishops have the fullness of this teaching office, but a limited jurisdiction, whereas the pope (a bishop himself) has by definition, in virtue of his unique office (called the Petrine office after St. Peter), universal jurisdiction, and therefore jurisdiction even over other bishops.)

This living teaching office, this Magisterium, is the final authority (the final “court of appeal”) for judging whatever ideas and activities are compatible with the faith or not, or for adjudicating the disputes which inevitably arise over time. Such a single, living authoritative voice is essential for any organization to survive. Every institution needs some kind of “pope,” whether it calls him the CEO, Chairman, Prime Minister, Supreme Potentate or Grand Poo-bah. History bears out this truth. Agreeing to “decide by committee” never works in the long run. Fallen human nature precludes this option. Factions inevitably form even within “the committee” and if their differences aren’t finally worked out the group eventually breaks apart as a result. Nor is “agreeing to disagree” any way to arrive at a knowledge of the truth, but is instead a mutual concession to petty human pride and a tacit admission that truth is relatively unimportant. Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life, understood this fact of human nature absolutely, and so said, “Thou art Peter (Kepha), and upon this rock (kepha) I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18).

-------------------------------------------
OK, now let’s try a different tack.

Whenever anyone sins (be he Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, pagan or agnostic), he is doing the work of the devil. Everyone is a sinner—even the pope—and so everyone does the devil’s work on occasion. The pivotal question, however, is does he recognize this fact and repent of his wrongdoing, or does he glory in it? Does he turn away from his sin or does he make a career of it?

What is the devil’s work? To sew seeds of confusion, division, conflict, dissention, disobedience, deception and strife among human beings. In other words, doing anything and everything to distract people (oneself and/or others) from pursuing their one true destiny, i.e. the love of God and eternal life with Him.

Truth is one, but error is legion. There is only one true answer to 2 + 2. But there are an infinite number of false answers, and if error is your game, any one will do the job.

There is only one Creator and He sent His Only-Begotten Son to redeem the world, and there is no other means by which one can be saved from one’s sins but through Him (cf. Acts 4:12). He established one Church with the mission to preach His salvation and as the chief means to dispense His grace to the whole world. (I say chief means (not the only means) because, being God, He is not bound or limited by whatever He creates—any more than Michelangelo was limited in any way by his sculptures or paintings—and He can provide any extraordinary means he wishes to deal with any particular circumstance. But He did create the Church as the ordinary means of salvation for the world, and He did so with the expectation that it do the work to fulfill the purpose for which He created it.)

If Jesus is the only way (road or path) to the Father (Jn 14:6), all the devil has to do is nudge you off that one true path. And he’s not particular whether you’re off on the right side of the path or on the left, or off by half a mile or a thousand miles, so long as you’re off the path. There are a million (and more) other paths, and any one of them will suit the devil’s purpose—to keep you away from (or to lure you off of) the one true path.

So here’s what happens. The devil tempts us to sin (although we’re frequently also tempted by the world [money, power, the opinions/approval of others, etc.] and the flesh [pleasures, creature comforts, etc.], and if they are enough to get the job done, the devil needn’t be involved at all, so he just sits back and watches with glee—he only intervenes if he feels he has to). Small (venial) sins are enough at first to turn our heads away from our goal, to cause us to stumble just a few feet off the path. “Yeah,” we tell ourselves, “there it is over there; I can still see the path; I can get back on it at any time.” We’re not too far off the path. We’re still going parallel, we’re still headed in the same direction, aren’t we? The danger is that if we stay off the path (remaining in unrepented sin or obstinate error) for very long, we little by little wander farther and farther away until we reach a point when we realize (or it is pointed out to us) we can no longer see the true path. Then suppose we stumble upon another path, one that’s a little wider and a little easier (cf. Matt 7:13), and we mistake it for the true one …

How am I doing so far? Are you getting the picture?

These myriad religious or philosophical pathways frequently cross one another (i.e. they coincide on certain points of doctrine, outlook or praxis) and some have even been known to cross the true path in places. This shouldn’t surprise anyone.

There is no “lazy man’s way” to salvation. Salvation requires being submissive to the truth, and that is hard work. It requires us to practice humility, patience, gratitude and forgiveness. If we lack any of these virtues, we’ll never make it. And these virtues, like all virtues, are gifts we receive only through the grace of God—we can’t do it, or even start it, by our own power. (The “work” I refer to is our cooperation with and reliance on God’s grace, along with the action of our free wills to do the things He asks us to do (it is only by grace that we have the power to do them—grace always comes first) that we might serve as His instruments of salvation for others.)

These pathways, like all roads, are marked with “signs” that identify them and where they claim to lead. It’s up to us to read those signs to see if they are truly pointing us in the right direction, and to judge whether they might not be inauthentic or “forged” signs (i.e. lying—or at least mistaken—about their claims). Everyone has a “gut sense” for truth (it’s called the Natural Law (cf. Rom 2:13-16) and it operates through a well-formed conscience), and if a person values the truth, God has given him enough tools to seek it out and find it, and recognize it when he does.

In the final analysis, the real reason for joining or remaining in any particular religion shouldn’t be “I feel comfortable here” (as I’ve heard Rabbi Daniel Lapin say, “The purpose of religion isn’t to comfort the afflicted. No! It’s to afflict the comfortable!”), or “I enjoy the preaching (or the singing, or the fellowship, or the social events they sponsor),” but rather, “I follow it because it’s true.” As Jesus stood before Pilate, He said, “For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice” (Jn 18:37).

I am not a Catholic because it is fun, easy, enjoyable, comfortable, it provides emotional security or the people are easy to get along with.
Let there be no confusion on this point. I am a Catholic because Catholicism is True.

Religion Confusion, Part 4

2006-10-29T20:36:00.000-08:00

Protestant Christianity

This is perhaps the biggest part of the problem (especially in the Western world) since it represents division within Christianity itself which, as we have seen, was intended by Christ to be the definitive witness to the truth throughout the whole world until His return at the end of time.

Indeed, in the generation following the Resurrection of Christ, as the Church was just beginning to set its theological “ducks in a row” (formulating ways to convey the truths of the faith in an ordered and systematic fashion), St. Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) made the astute observation that Christ’s Church had, in a mystical (not just metaphorical) sense, all the essential characteristics of a living human body (cf. 1 Cor 12:4-27). The Church, quite simply, is the Body of Christ on earth (and more besides). Christ’s body, once raised from the dead, cannot die again. And so the Church, established as it is by the eternal Son of God to be His presence and witness in the world and to speak with His full authority until the end of time, is indefectible: the Church cannot be destroyed, either from without or from within (many have tried to do so, all in vain), and will stand forever. This is accomplished not by the resourcefulness, ingenuity or efforts of any of her members, but solely by the power of God maintaining her in existence. (Indeed, it has been observed by many a saint that the Church continues to exist, not because of her human members, but in spite of them.)

Christ Himself prayed to the Father, in what is called his High Priestly Prayer (Gospel of John, Chapter 17), for the unity of the Church (Jn 17:9-23; see especially verse 21). He prayed not for Christians as individuals (so any particular Christian can, by his own choosing (free will), sin and fall away from faith in Christ), but rather for the Church as a body, as an organic whole. And if you read this passage carefully, moreover, you will notice that the kind of unity he intends is not merely a cordial agreement on a few points of doctrine, but the intimate unity of the Trinity Itself. Even as Jesus and the Father are One in the bond of love which is the Holy Spirit, so is the Church called to be One. Indivisible, by Christ’s own word!

Is it possible that Jesus Christ prayed in vain to His Father? Is He incapable of keeping His Church unified in the Truth? Did he not already know the shortcomings of man, their weakness, self-centeredness and pride? Didn’t He know what the future would hold? Is He not God? It is absurd to believe in the divinity of Christ, to believe the words of Sacred Scripture, and at the same time to think that the Church He established could ever be divided or destroyed.

So what are we to think of all the Protestant “churches” that abound today? Are modern day Protestants considered “heretics” by the Catholic Church? No, they are not. While some of their doctrines are objectively heretical [i.e. incompatible with Apostolic Teaching], Protestants themselves are not considered heretics since they never held the fullness of Catholic faith to begin with. Theirs is not a formal denial of something they once professed as true. People who were raised Catholic, on the other hand, and who chose to abandon Catholicism for a Protestant denomination are heretics in this formal sense, but most Protestants never knew the truths of the faith firsthand and so cannot be faulted for their separation and God does not hold them accountable for this kind of ignorance. (For this reason the Church prefers the term “separated brethren.”) Most Protestants learned about Jesus and the Bible as children from their parents and teachers and have grown through their lives in the love of God and have benefited spiritually through their fellowship with other Christians. All this is very good!

But there is a fly in the ointment. Through no fault of their own, they lack the fullness of the truth and the means of grace promised by Christ to the members of His Body the Church.

Can Protestants get to heaven? Absolutely! (But so can a pagan who tries to form his conscience and follow it in accordance with the Natural Law (cf. Rom 2:13-16) through his cooperation with the actual graces God sends to every human being which confirm him in the love of his neighbor and guide him to his final destiny of union with God.) Protestants have much more going for them spiritually than the “good pagan,” since they already know and love God and His Son Jesus Christ, revere His Word in the Bible, and have the sacramental graces that come to them through baptism. But by the same token, they have the greater responsibility to follow the graces they have received out of obedience to God’s will (to whom much is given, much more is expected), even if these lead somewhere they might not want to go.

Can Catholics go to hell? Absolutely! Just because someone lives amid the fullness of truth and grace present in the Church, he may not avail himself of these gifts and wind up neglecting the condition of his soul, choosing instead to pursue the fleeting pleasures offered by the three sources of temptation: the world, the flesh and the devil. If he does not repent before he dies, hell will be his final destination.

Be that as it may, objectively speaking there can be only ONE Church in any Biblical sense. Those entities referred to as individual “churches” in the New Testament (e.g. “the churches of Galatia” (Galatians 1:2)) are what today are called local dioceses under their respective bishops—which even Canon Law today calls “particular churches” (can. 368ff). These New Testament churches were founded in various cities by the Apostles and their collaborators in spreading the gospel, and they were all unified in faith, governance and worship; they were NOT some ancient analogue of today’s Protestant denominations, each believing its own set of doctrines and “doing its own thing.”

The One Church must also be the Original Church, the one that was there at the beginning when Peter spoke to the crowd from the upper room (Acts 2), not one that came into existence at a later time. It is a fact of history that every church that is acknowledged as Christian must eventually trace its origin back to the Catholic Church. At some point in time its founders broke away from communion with the Catholic Church (or from some other church that itself broke from the Catholic Church). (The original Church founded by Jesus was known as “catholic” at least by the beginning of the 2nd Century as indicated by the Letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, ca. AD 107.)

But why would anyone who claims to believe in Christ, desires to follow and obey Him, and who believes in the inspired word of the Bible, want to break away from unity with the Church Christ established? (I am not speaking here of those who were brought up as Protestants, only those who originally broke away.) Jesus told his original disciples that they spoke with His own authority, and that those who refused to listen to the Church were to be considered as heathens (i.e. outside of the Church) (cf. Matt 18:17). St. Paul said that “the pillar and foundation of the truth” was, not Scripture, but “the Church” (1 Tim 3:15). The Bible, indeed, comes to us through the Church. So anyone who says, “I can’t trust the Church, I only trust the Bible,” doesn’t really know the Bible. What he is actually doing (probably without realizing it) is setting himself up as a judge of the Church, favoring his own personal interpretation of certain isolated passages of the Bible as alleged evidence of the defection of the Church from the truth given by Christ and the Apostles. But nowhere does the Bible—even remotely—make any provision for anyone to judge the Church. It’s always the visible Church who passes judgment on her members, not the other way around (e.g. Matt 18:17 and Acts 15, especially verses 19, 22 & 28).

Peter himself informs us, “No one can interpret any prophesy of Scripture by himself,” and that the Scriptures “contain some obscure passages which the ignorant and unstable misinterpret to their own ruin” (2 Pet 1:20; 3:16). It is for the Church as a body (under the authority of Peter and his successors, the popes) to interpret the Scriptures and formulate doctrine (cf. Jn 21:15-17). Individual Christians (even priests and bishops) lack this authority and presume upon it “to their own ruin” and that of anyone else who follows their erroneous teachings. To be sure, individual Christians are strongly encouraged to read and understand (interpret) the Bible, but only by the principles and within the bounds or limits set down by the Church’s ordinary teaching authority (magisterium). They are to read and interpret the Bible with the Church, not “by themselves” (formulating their own novel interpretations that are incompatible with what the Church has already laid out).

So what gives; what’s behind it all? Well, certainly the issue of ordinary human pride comes into play. After all, who really wants to submit to the authority of another person if he can avoid it? But that’s just the point, isn’t it? Jesus knew that no one would obey the Church over the long haul unless he knew he was under a divine command to do so. The temptation to say “I’ve got a better idea: I’ll just do it my way” is just too great for us fallen creatures.

Understanding human nature as He does, Jesus also knew that without a single, living, identifiable, “final authority” for settling the inevitable disputes, anarchy and error would soon erupt and destroy His Church. So He set up his Church with an identifiable and unmistakable visible hierarchy (human structure) with a single living head, and endowed the Church with the gift of infallibility (“the Spirit of truth” Jn 14:16-17) so it could not officially proclaim as truth what is actually false, so no one could say “Gee, I didn’t know.”

But sometimes people have been known to give in to the temptation to intellectual pride and the illusion of moral autonomy and say, “I don’t care. I still say I know better than the Church and I’m prepared to suffer the consequences.” And they do suffer eventually, which is fine for them, but what about the other people around them? Such doctrinal mavericks set a bad example for everyone else, saying by their actions that rebellion is OK after all. This is where the seed of confusion is first planted.

Without going over the whole 500 year history of Protestantism, I think it’s fair to say that it engenders a particular attitude and mindset that says, “I’m my own boss, and I don’t have to follow anyone I don’t want to. Heck, I can read the Bible can’t I? If I disagree with my pastor about what it says, I’ll just walk away and find another church I like better, or even start my own church, just like good ol’ Martin Luther did!” Setting aside the fact that that’s not quite how it went down in the 16th Century, I think this fairly describes what’s behind the “Protestant mentality” at the heart of our American experience. You know, that “rugged American individualism”? It’s partly rooted in the fundamental attitude of the Protestant founders and pioneers (etc.) of our country who figured that “just me and my Bible” was a satisfactory basis for discovering the truth.

But even Martin Luther realized by the end of his life that he’d made a catastrophic mistake when it became painfully obvious that “everyone is now his own pope!” But by then it was too late to close the barn door—the horses had escaped. Once the authority of the Church was jettisoned (in favor of “the Bible alone”), Luther discovered that there was no longer anyone to whom the ex-Catholics (fledgling “protestants”) could appeal to settle disputes of doctrine or practice (since not everybody was going to just settle for his personal interpretations any more than they’d settle for the old Catholic ones) and he saw that the inevitable result was the endless splintering off of denominations we see today. No unity, not even agreement as to what things are “essential” and what things are “OK to disagree on.” There’s nothing in the Bible that says anything like that indicating that such an approach is even acceptable (much less desirable), yet they still claim they only believe what’s in the Bible. Curious, no?

So today we have countless denominations and groups of various sizes—and even a few “lone rangers”—all professing faith in and wanting to follow Jesus, and all claiming the “Bible alone” as their final authority, yet each person surely realizing in the back of his mind that “the Spirit of truth” Christ promised to the Apostles could not be leading them all in such divergent directions, revealing to them all contradictory “truth.” It makes no sense!

And these are just the ones who call themselves Protestant. Adding to the confusion, there are also those thousands of “virtual Protestants” who disagree and demur (dissent) on any number of points of Catholic doctrine, and even dogma (i.e. infallibly defined doctrine that every Catholic is required to believe) yet still publicly claim to be Catholic. Today we call these folks “cafeteria Catholics” (because they pick and choose what they will put on their plate of personal belief, and pass on what they don’t like), but they are in fact “Protestant” in their overall attitude because they set themselves up as the final judge in matters of faith and morals, rejecting the divinely established and appointed public authority of the Church and its chief guardian, the pope.

Of course there are people who will say, “Once Catholic, always Catholic,” but that’s true only in the sense that the character of sacramental baptism is indelible. Since there is only “one baptism” (Eph 4:5), everyone who is baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church, whether he realizes it or not (sorry if that upsets anyone). But we don’t say that every baptized Protestant is Catholic, do we? No, because what they profess is not the fullness of the Catholic faith. True, they profess elements of it, but some truths are missing, some truths are categorically denied and some of the things they believe are entirely false. The religion they profess is a different thing, although they are still connected to the Church by virtue of that baptism and the elements of belief that they still hold in common with Catholic teaching. Their communion with Christ’s Church is, in a formal sense, imperfect. (I will discuss this further in Part 5.)

But what’s the big deal about that? So what? Who cares?

Hilaire Belloc explains why it’s such a “big deal” on page 91 of his book The Great Heresies: “Cultures spring from religions; ultimately the vital force which maintains any culture is its philosophy, its attitude toward the universe. The decay of a religion involves the decay of the culture corresponding to it—we see that most clearly in the breakdown of Christendom today [he wrote this sometime between 1936 and 1938]. The bad work begun at the [Protestant] Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancestral doctrines—the very structure of our society is dissolving” [emphasis added].

This is an apt description of the process we know as secularization, a ball that was set in motion by the Protestant Reformation. In my view, secularization is simply the internal logic of Protestantism playing itself out. What we commonly refer to as “the Reformation” was in fact nothing of the sort. It would more accurately be called the Protestant Rebellion. A true reformation (such as was accomplished in the Carmelite order by Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross in the late 1500s and in the Church at large by the Council of Trent over the course of many decades after it concluded in 1563) is a return to the foundational principles of the organization in question: a Re-Formation. What the Protestants of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries did (albeit inadvertently) was start a process of rending and fragmenting the Body of Christ. Although Luther never intended to break with the Catholic Church, by refusing to submit to its authority (and I admit that there were most probably serious abuses of that authority on the Catholic side), giving in to pride rather than cultivating humility, he wound up “creating a monster” he was unable to control.

He didn’t do it all on his own, of course. There WAS terrible corruption at work in the members and institutions of both the Church and secular society at the time, and the political situation was a powder keg just waiting for a spark to set it off. The chief civil authority (the emperor) was distracted with fighting the Muslims who were invading Europe through the Balkans and was unable to give the grievances of the German peasants the attention they deserved (etc., etc). Europe was a mess and everybody agreed that something had to be done, but open rebellion never solved a crisis.

Today you have secularists, pagans and all the other non-Christians pointing at (1) the sinful behavior of Christians (always a problem!) and (2) the irreconcilable differences of teaching and belief among the Protestants (both the explicit and virtual types) and saying, “See? If that’s what Christianity is all about, I don’t want any part of it!” Now, it is possible (even likely) that they’d want no part of Christianity even if these problems didn’t exist (and they’re just using it as an excuse not to join), but even so it’s a real good point they make.

Except for one thing: that’s not what Christianity is all about. But with all the conflicting chatter, who can tell, right? It’s a doctrinal “Tower of Babel.” But what should be obvious by now is that Protestantism is conflicting and divisive by its very nature and from its very inception. Catholicism, by contrast, has Unity as one of its four identifying Marks. A Catholic is one who is baptized and acknowledges the pope as the Vicar of Christ, successor of St. Peter, head of the college of bishops, and the visible head of Christ’s One True Church (Christ himself being the invisible head of the Church, His Body). Everyone who is baptized and professes (at least implicitly) the same faith as the pope is a member of the One Catholic Church. That’s not too hard is it?

But if a non-Christian looking at it from the outside is so confused that he can’t tell what real Christianity is, isn’t that just the opposite of what Christ wanted His Church to be? That’s not a “city on a hill that cannot be hidden,” not a “lamp on a lamp-stand that gives light to all in the house” (Matt 5:14-15), but rather an obstacle, a stumbling block, a source of confusion and an invitation for discord, a tacit admission that “if you’re looking for the real truth, you won’t find it here. We’re not even sure ourselves.”

In Europe at the time of Luther the lines between “church” and “state” were much less clearly demarcated than they are in America today. The rejection of the generally recognized authority of the Church led eventually to an erosion of people’s attitudes about authority in general. When legitimate authority is scorned and everyone seizes on an alleged “right” to be his own final judge in all things, the inevitable and unavoidable conclusion is anarchy, where the only “leaders” are the ones with the most guns and the biggest guns (either metaphorical or actual) and the will to use them on anyone and everyone. The only rule anyone understands at the end of this logical trajectory is the rule of force, not the rule of reason, and people get so tired of having the proverbial “gun pointed at their heads” all the time and become so calloused that, at the end of the day, hardly anyone values life or anything else.

Nowadays, road rage is all the rage and juveniles and young adults prowl city streets in gangs looking for someone to beat up, just to amuse themselves. No remorse, no acknowledgement or perhaps even awareness that they’re doing anything wrong; it’s just “fun.” Abortion is considered “normal” and euthanasia is making serious inroads into “mainstream” thinking and attitudes. Death becomes the pat answer to every problem, from financial difficulty and social embarrassment to boredom.

Not that Martin Luther could possibly have predicted this logical trajectory, mind you. It took centuries for it to work itself out, but it did work itself out, and it's not finished yet.

But the One Church established by Christ to be His witness to the truth is always there, still standing like a rock in the storm—the winds of error and the waves of chaos always crashing against it—still telling the same truth it always has, even when no one else is listening or even cares. “Truth? Who can say for sure what is true anymore?” Hmm… How about returning to the One authority established and appointed by God for the express purpose of bearing witness to the truth until the end of the world?

I know it sounds crazy, but it just might work!

Religion Confusion, Part 3½

2006-10-24T20:06:00.000-07:00

Some clarification would be nice, if you please …

It has been brought to my attention that I may have skipped a crucial step (or two) in my rhetorical process back in Part 1 where I started by talking about truth, and then launched into a discussion of religion, without adequately explaining the connection between the two. I made the unwarranted assumption that the connection was obvious. Sorry about that. Permit me to fill in that blank part of the picture by defining a few terms and connecting some of the dots.

“God” is that entity (whoever or whatever it may be) that we choose to revere and honor above all others. I refer to the Creator of the universe as “God” or “the God” (with a capital G) and anyone or anything else one may choose to so honor as “god” or “a god” (with a small g). Since the four religious systems I’m discussing in this series all recognize the Creator-of-the-universe-God, that’s where my focus is at the moment.

“Religion” is one’s belief system, the way one thinks about and worships God, either by oneself or within a group. I personally feel that, since it deals directly with God, religion is (or should be) of paramount importance in our lives.

“Worship,” as I stated in paragraph 2 of Part 1, is that which is due to God as a matter of simple justice. He created us (as well as everything else we could possibly want or need) out of nothing and sustains us in existence moment by moment. We should recognize that He didn’t have to create us at all, but did so out of pure love. Since it is better to exist than not to, we owe Him a specially elevated kind of respect, honor and gratitude: worship.

I also stated in that same paragraph that God is the essence and source of all truth (or reality). Since He created everything that is real (even our mental abilities to imagine things that aren’t real), and in fact had to pre-exist everything else in order to do so, all reality comes from Him and He has reality as one of His own attributes (since one cannot give what one doesn’t already possess). “Truth” is our recognition of or conformity to things as they actually exist.

“Confusion,” on the other hand, is a failure to recognize truth on some level, and I contend that this is not a desirable condition, and that it is worth a considerable effort to overcome one’s confusion and so approach closer to the ascertainable objective truth about God and the universe.

By “the true religion,” I mean those things God (presumably) revealed about Himself, about us and our relationship to Him, coupled with those practices He (presumably) wishes us to follow in learning about Him and in worshiping Him. I am presuming for the sake of discussion that God did in fact reveal such things to mankind, and therefore that a “true” religion does indeed exist.

Since truth comes from God, and our recognition of truth leads us back toward God, and religion is the way we think about God and worship Him, it is my view that the religion we should want to adopt ought to be rooted in truth. If I can identify aspects of a particular religious system that diverge from truth, then perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that such a system might not be the true religion.

I hope that clears things up a bit.

Religion Confusion, Part 3

2006-10-19T12:07:00.000-07:00

Islam

When the visible head of the Catholic Church gives an address at a Catholic university on the subject of the link between faith and reason in which he quotes a Medieval source in an attempt to illustrate the point that recourse to violence for the sake of religion is not rational, the response from the Islamic world is … fire-bombed churches, murdered missionaries and cries of “the pope must die!” Hmm…. What do you suppose that means? Does this make any sense? Is this a good way for Muslims to witness to the truth? My view is that it fairly illustrates that Muslims in general (I am unaware of any substantial condemnation of these violent and aggressive acts coming from other Muslim leaders) are basically unconcerned with the notion of truth or rational discourse.

Violence is man’s usual and typical recourse if he cannot defend his position with reasonable argumentation. If I am looking for the truth about God and man, and Islam is not able to address such things, why should I believe it? Because there is a sword pressing against my throat, or the threat of death by explosion if I do not “submit”? This is not genuine faith, but fear. Truth casts out all fear. (The exact quote is “love casts out all fear” (1 Jn 4:18), but I think it applies to truth as well.) If truth is not one of the objects of Islam, then what is its appeal? Is Islam simply the religion of testosterone?

Writing in the late 1930s, Hilaire Belloc gave an excellent explanation of the history and nature of Islam from a Catholic perspective in the chapter “The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed” of his book The Great Heresies. (I highly recommend this book to everyone.) According to Belloc, Islam was not a new religion. It is in fact a perversion or distortion of true Christian doctrine (that’s what the term “heresy” means). I’ll try to summarize here.

Muhammad was pagan, as was the society in which he lived. He was never a Christian, hence he never had the benefit of the supernatural life of God (Sanctifying Grace) which comes through baptism, nor of experiencing God’s love from inside the Church. (See my posts, Life from the inside (Parts 1 & 2) [Feb. 5 & 14, 2006], and And another thing … [Feb. 19, 2006].) It is also not outside the realm of possibility, given what is known about his early years, that his experience of even natural love was somewhat limited: his father died before he was born and his mother died when he was 6, and it seems he had no older siblings or other close relatives (although reliable documentation is sketchy at best); he was taken in by his grandfather, but he also died when Muhammad was only 8; finally he came under the care of his uncle who was the leader of their clan which was the guardian of the pagan temple in Mecca. It is possible that by his adult years the memory of the warmth and intimacy of love he experienced in childhood may have grown cold and dim. Were this the case, he may have had difficulty relating to the concept of the love of God. Regardless of the reason, love has no part in the relationship between Allah and the Muslim. Islam is divine slavery.

If Muhammad was a prophet, he was a prophet like no other. His actual behavior and circumstances were more like some of the patriarchs and kings of Israel (having political power and many wives) and the judges like Gideon and Samson (waging wars of conquest). In contrast, the actual prophets of Israel and Judah, I think, tended to be unmarried (it’s hard to raise a family on a prophet’s salary!)—I know of only two who were married, Isaiah and Hosea (if I’m wrong here, please correct me). The Old Testament prophets lived under the near-constant threat of persecution and were frequently on the move (on foot, not horseback). Many were killed for their unpopular teachings, calling the people to reform their lives and return to the Lord. According to Muhammad, on the other hand, Prophethood came with “perks”—as Prophet he was entitled to have as many as eleven wives (total) [instead of the maximum of four permitted by the Qur’ân] (most of which were politically motivated to shore up his position by creating family ties with potential rivals), considerable material wealth and absolute political and judicial power.

Muhammad had a reflective turn of mind and an active imagination. He was a merchant and, starting in his teens, traveled far and had dealings with all kinds of people and picked up all kinds of new ideas. He took the Church’s teachings but then adapted them to suit his own sensibilities.

The foundation of his doctrine was the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God, His utter transcendence and personal nature, His creative power, the fact that He is all-good and exists outside of time, the good angels who serve Him, the bad angels who rebelled against Him, the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for its actions in this life, the final judgment—these are all elements of Catholic doctrine that he adopted. But where he departs from it—the central point of his heresy—is an absolute denial of the Incarnation or any possibility of an incarnate God. God is SO transcendent, Muhammad thought, that He couldn’t possibly enter into His creation by taking on a human nature (oh, the shame of it all!). So he eliminated the Trinity altogether (too confusing). Along with the Incarnation went the whole sacramental system, especially the Eucharist and the priesthood. Like every other heresy, Islam starts with the truth and then oversimplifies it. Neither Muhammad nor any of his followers ever developed a detailed theology. He was content to accept all that appealed to him and to reject all that seemed to him too complicated or mysterious to be true.

The root of the problem is that he set himself up as the final arbiter of truth; anything that seemed unreasonable to him, he simply tossed out (or twisted and reshaped into something else more to his liking). Where did he get that kind of authority? He claimed that the angel Gabriel told him it was so. But it couldn’t have been the real Gabriel, because Gabriel knew that Jesus was the Son of God (cf. Lk 1:26, 35), which Muhammad denied. Was Muhammad a fraud, making things up as he went along? That might be a little strong, although it could be the case. Or perhaps he was visited by another angel, a fallen angel (demon), who called himself “Gabriel” in order to deceive him. Or perhaps his “visions” were merely dreams which he misinterpreted and embellished. All three of these possibilities (or any combination, or others besides) might be the case. In any event, in his mind simplicity was the key to everything. And the structure and practice of Islam to this day utterly discourages any deep thought along religious or theological lines.

A large part of Islam’s initial success was its doctrine on social and economic justice. The Graeco-Roman world at that time (7th Century) suffered under ubiquitous slavery, rampant usury and indebtedness, complex and burdensome imperial taxation, the tyranny of lawyers and a meddlesome central government. (Hmm … Sort of like America today.) Muhammad preached a new spirit of freedom and relaxation: upon accepting Islam, slaves were freed, peasant farmers were relieved of their debts and crushing taxation, clerical and imperial discipline were swept away, usury was forbidden, and there was free justice under few and simple new laws that everyone could understand. The intricate tax system was replaced by a simple and straight system of tribute to the Caliph(s) (who succeeded Muhammad’s place of authority after his death). As a result of this arrangement the Caliphs became extremely wealthy and were thus able to carry on the expensive business of war and conquest over an extended period of time. Given the opportunity and probability for success of throwing off such unjust burdens, who wouldn’t want to sign on to such a venture? There was also a certain underlying historical character throughout the whole region of the Middle East of natural conformity, a sort of instinct for obedience to one religious head, which was also the civil head, and a general similarity of social structure. This general character is older than any historical record, and it persists to this day.

Muhammad had the good fortune to marry a wealthy widow (he was around 25 at the time, and she was about 40). From this position of security he was free to work out his visions and enthusiasms and undertook his propaganda. But even as his following grew and his doctrines spread, it was all done in a small and ignorant way; there was never any organization. Everything was undertaken in a haphazard and slipshod manner. The Muslim temperament was never tolerant. It was in the main fanatical and bloodthirsty. It felt no respect for, or even curiosity about, those from whom it differed and was absurdly vain of itself, regarding with contempt the high Christian culture around it. And yet it did not exterminate all those who did not accept the new faith. Why? Because the forces of Islam were still too few to govern by force. In the early centuries, the greater mass of the populations remained Christian, and it was they who preserved the Graeco-Roman civilization which was their heritage, surviving under the surface of Mohammedan government.

Certainly, there are numerous “points of light” (elements of truth) in Islamic teaching (e.g. profound reverence for Mary (Miriam), the mother of Jesus, and the recognition of Jesus’ virginal conception and birth), but, like the laudable passages of the Talmud, we have no problem with these. On those points there is no disagreement, no source of confusion. And, as noted above, these elements were all appropriated from Catholic teaching anyway.) Recent years have shown also how individuals or groups of members of both faiths can certainly agree and work cooperatively on certain issues of mutual concern.

But on the whole, especially in the realm of doctrine, Islam and Christianity are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive on the most fundamental level. These two religions cannot both be true because they flatly contradict one another on the most basic question: Who is Jesus Christ?

Religion Confusion, Part 2

2006-10-09T19:30:00.000-07:00

Judaism

Modern Judaism is a particularly difficult nut to crack. It must be understood that ancient Judaism (the Judaism of the Bible) no longer exists either in its religious or racial aspect. This is a fact of historical record. The Judaism of the Old and New Testaments was a hierarchical religion based on the Law of Moses and the priesthood of Aaron with its performance of various animal sacrifices which could only be consummated in the Temple in Jerusalem. This was the “true religion” up until the day that most of the Jewish hierarchy rejected their promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, around the year AD 30. For the next 40 years, Judaism was a walking corpse. When the Roman Legion razed the Jewish Temple and exterminated the entire priestly class in AD 70, Biblical Judaism simply ceased to exist.

From that time on, what we have is Rabbinical or Talmudic Judaism, a religion based on the commentaries and doctrines of rabbis (non-priestly theologian-types who teach and otherwise lead their congregations in the synagogues), which over the next several hundred years were written down and codified in the Talmud. I am not an expert on the Talmud (and there is actually more than one version, the most commonly used being the Babylonian Talmud), but those who are experts have said that many of its passages flatly contradict the Mosaic Law as given in the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible), which Jews today claim to reverence. And wherever there is a conflict or contradiction, the Talmud always trumps the Torah. (This is basically what Jesus condemned about the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees in Mark 7:1-13.) Jewish teaching in the synagogues today is from the Talmud, not the Torah. There are, to be sure, many good and exemplary rules and teachings in the Talmud, but those are not the things that concern us here. What we find problematic are the other teachings, the ones that require the violation of the Mosaic Law and the words of the Prophets (those teachings that “nullify the word of God” (cf. Matt 15:6-9; Mk 7: 1-13)). The Talmud also makes numerous vile and, from the Christian perspective, blasphemous statements about the person of Jesus (Yeshu), perhaps as a way to “inoculate” Jews against conversion to Christianity. (When confronted with these passages during medieval public debates on the Talmud’s contents, the pat answer (if they answered at all) was, “Oh, we don’t mean that Jesus. It’s some other [unspecified] guy named Jesus.” Yeah, right.)

So the Jewish religion we see being practiced today (established ca. AD 70, although its spiritual antecedents go back much farther) is actually of more recent origin than Christianity (established ca. AD 30, although its spiritual antecedents go back much farther), and is based principally on the definitive rejection of Jesus Christ (as if to say, “whoever the Messiah might be, it wasn’t him!”) and any notion of a suffering Messiah who would die in order to free mankind from our slavery to sin. The modern Jewish concept of “Messiah” is strictly and exclusively political, not spiritual, and most (if not all) political revolutions throughout history (e.g. France 1789 and Russia 1917) can be traced in some way to the advancement of this Talmudic Jewish idea of establishing the (political) “Kingdom of God” here on earth through force of arms and under Jewish hegemony. (Perhaps this is what was percolating through Mel Gibson’s mind as he ranted recently while in a drunken stupor.)

What is called the “Jewish race” today is also something entirely different than that which lived in Ancient Israel or Roman Palestine. That ancient race was scattered (deported and resettled) throughout the Roman world after the sack of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Jewish resistance at Masada a few years later. The Jews who survived subsequently (over the course of centuries) either converted to Christianity (at which point they relinquished their identity as Jews), intermarried with the various local tribes among which they found themselves, or were persecuted and killed for their perceived antisocial behaviors. (This last item is not a practice I would endorse or condone; I’m simply saying what happened.) The Jewish race of antiquity was thus “diluted” over time to the point where it essentially disappeared. However there were always pockets of “religious” Jews (i.e. people who kept the rabbinical laws of the Pharisees as given in the Talmud) scattered throughout the Roman and Byzantine Empires and they became disproportionately influential for their numbers in certain localities (chiefly through the use of finance). Although the Jewish “race” no longer existed as such, and the Jewish sacrificial religion of antiquity was no more, still there persisted a group of people that lived a distinct tradition (as codified in the Talmud) in more or less closely-knit communities throughout Europe, Northern Africa and Western Asia that were known universally as “Jews.” [Incidentally, that “race” which today has its political center in the modern state of Israel, its economic center in New York and its cultural center in Hollywood, is actually of Slavic not Semitic extraction (which explains why contemporary Jews/Israelis are generally fairer and look more like Russians, Czechs and Poles than their Eastern Mediterranean neighbors).]

Needless to say, (modern) Judaism and Christianity cannot both be true. I do not hesitate to affirm here that there are many good people who are professed and practicing Jews (Rabbi Daniel Lapin comes immediately to mind), and I do not mean to sound as if I condemn any of them in any way. I also affirm that Christianity is the fulfillment of the ancient Jewish religion. But the modern Jewish religion is an explicit renunciation of the Christian faith. So if we are looking for the one true religion (assuming for the moment that there is one), we cannot have it both ways. If one is true, the other must be false. We owe it to ourselves—and to our fellow man—to find the truth. If we are satisfied to accept the status quo (which seems to amount to an indifference to the truth) then only confusion can result, and that’s not good.

Religion Confusion, Part 1

2006-10-02T17:10:00.000-07:00

Introduction and general remarks

This topic is intimately connected to the nature of truth. Truth is—and must be—objective (something outside of ourselves) and is something that can be ascertained with a fair degree of reliability by human beings. By way of illustration, everyone uses the terms Right (or good) and Wrong (bad or evil)—although they don’t always agree on what ideas, words or actions should fall into those two basic categories. Without some sense of the objective character of truth, without some anchor outside of ourselves by which to judge the veracity of an idea or the rectitude of an action, the terms right and wrong become utterly meaningless. If “true” and “false” are merely subjective preferences (as in “What’s true for you might not be true for me”) then no one has any reason to complain about anyone else’s words or actions. If you claim that “truth” can somehow be different for each person, then who are you to say that I’m “wrong,” no matter what I say or do? What is your standard for saying that I shouldn’t say or do anything (implying that your “truth” is somehow superior to my truth)? This is the root dilemma of moral relativism. If moral relativism is true … (oh wait, can’t say “true”) … Hmm … Well, maybe there are no objectively truthful statements except the statement that “morality” is merely conventional, subjective or relative and can change from one time to another, from place to place, or from one person to the next. Well, how can you claim that that statement is true, but that other statements are not? What qualifies you to make such a definitive judgment? Of course you see the internal contradiction. Since it can thus be demonstrated that truth must be objective, we should at least agree that it would be helpful to find out the objective truth (to the extent we are humanly capable), and be humble enough to submit and subordinate our individual personal feelings, desires or preferences to that truth.

The point I want to drive home in this series of posts [I anticipate 5 parts in all] is this: the mere fact that there is a plethora of conflicting and competing religious systems throughout the world (each claiming to be true) is a grave disservice both to mankind and to God. The more of these conflicting doctrinal systems there are, the greater the likelihood people will be confused into thinking that it doesn’t really matter what we believe, if anything, since it seems impossible to sort it all out. Thus religion confusion (or perhaps truth frustration). God, the very essence and source of all truth, never intended it to be like this, and He gives each of us the means to overcome the confusion. He requests—and deserves—to be worshipped by everyone “in spirit and in truth” (cf. Jn 4:23-24) (worship is simply that which is due in justice to God, our Creator, just as respect is the bare minimum due our parents who gave us life). By the same token, all human beings have an innate desire—and deserve—to know the full truth about God and their relationship to Him. Since truth cannot contradict itself, and is a basic goal of human existence, is it not reasonable to conclude that it is both conceivable and desirable for all people to search for, approach, recognize, and finally accept and adhere to that unified, uncompromised truth? After all, there is nothing intrinsic to human nature that says we cannot agree if we all happen to arrive at the same place. (The goal of course is not the agreement as such. Agreement is merely coincidental to the common recognition and acceptance of the truth.)

I saw a bumper sticker a few weeks ago that said “God is too big for any one religion.” The implication (or suggestion), of course, is that no single religion is entirely true. This ignores the facts that (1) God made us and understands us thoroughly and absolutely, (2) God chose to reveal Himself to us in stages throughout our history in ways that we are capable of understanding, and (3) God did in fact come down to earth, assume a human nature and establish one religion for the salvation of all mankind (cf. Lk 10:16; Matt 28:18-20) and to lead us to the truth (cf. Jn 8:32; 14:6; 15:26; 16:13; 1 Tim 3:15). So while God, being infinite, is indeed “too big” for one religion, the fact remains that there is (at least conceivably) one religion which is big enough for all people. But which one might it be?

Well, what are our choices? The main “contenders” are: Judaism; Islam; Protestant [non-Catholic] Christianity (both explicit and virtual, too many forms to count); and Catholicism. (I will not here be discussing in any depth Eastern Orthodoxy, the various Asian philosophical systems and religions or any other sect, but they all have particular problems which effectively rule them out. Feel free to leave a comment below if you have the need to discuss this further.)

There are also those kinds of people who have a real problem with anything that smacks of “organized religion”: apostates (who believed in God at some time in the past, but have since disavowed all faith in Him); pagans (who worship or otherwise venerate one or more beings or concepts other than (and to the exclusion of) the God of the Old and New Testaments); atheists (who state more or less emphatically, “There IS no God”); agnostics (who in effect say, “Hmm … not sure”); and secularists (who rarely, if ever, give God a passing thought). These are not hard and fast categories and a given person may fall into more than one of them at any time. Besides, these “freethinking” types frequently refuse to be pinned down or pigeonholed in any way, even for the sake of discussion. Like the other minor religions I mentioned, these positions also suffer under the burden of serious logical difficulties. No doubt these folks will likely claim that they have no “innate desire” to know anything about God, because to them God is non-existent or unimportant. But if you inquire deep enough (and they are honest enough) you generally find out that they made a conscious decision somewhere along the way to reject the notion of a personal Creator-God, generally because of the possibility or likelihood of some sort of moral demands He might place on them which they were unwilling to accept. For them, life is more “fun” (fun being the ultimate goal of their lives) when you remove God from the picture; and so they do. This is of course not a proof that God does not exist, only a demonstration that they don’t want Him to exist so they can have their own way.

Naturally, it must be admitted that no one person understands another guy’s perspective or approach to religion completely or absolutely, since religious faith is the most personal of all human activities. One would have to get inside the other’s psychic experience to see and feel things exactly the way he does, which is of course impossible. However it is possible to (1) gather and study the written and spoken tenets of a given faith, (2) observe the practices of its adherents and (3) understand the religious institution in its historical context. It is then possible to make certain judgments about it through the use of reason and sound philosophical principles.

In the remainder of this series I will examine in turn each of the four contenders for the title of “The True Religion.”

Thinking BIG

2006-09-20T09:46:00.000-07:00

I hope my regular readers haven't given up on me. I'm still around and I'm still wrestling with "meaty" topics. These things take time.

What I'm working on now is something similar to ending Hunger or giving the final solution to World Peace. The stuff I'm working through now bears directly on all the big conflicts happening around the globe right now. I think I'm on the right track and I hope you'll be pleasantly surprised with what I come up with.

It will either be a very long post or a multi-parter (haven't decided yet), as you might have expected given the scope of my musings. But I hope to have it up in a week or so, God willing.

“Jesus, Mercy”

2006-08-08T18:52:00.000-07:00

A Catholic Perspective on Death

Time and space (our material universe) are contained within God’s eternal realm. Both heaven and hell, therefore, can be experienced (partially, in shadow form) here on earth in this life. At certain brief moments (or even over longer periods of time) in this life, we can get a glimpse or foretaste of our eternal destiny. Also, God and other spirits are able (within certain limits set forth by God) to penetrate into our physical world and sometimes manifest themselves to us, but we cannot break through the barrier of physicality into their invisible spiritual realm of eternity. Except through death.

Death is simply the portal into eternal life, nothing more and nothing less. The peculiar problem we experience acutely in this life, however, is that we don’t know exactly when (or under what circumstances) we will reach that mysterious doorway. Only God knows the precise moment (and manner) He will call each of us out of this life into the next. This is why the practice of living out a life of virtue (loving service to God and one’s neighbor) is so important. By loving God and placing ourselves at the service of others for His sake (cf. Mk 12:28-34), we are “rehearsing” for the moment of our own death when we finally make our eternal choice of Yes to God’s love. In this way, we will always be ready to meet the Lord, whenever He should call us. In His loving providence, He knows the best way and the most spiritually advantageous moment for each of us to cross over to Him, and that is the moment when He will call us.

This earthly life, whether brief or long, is “only a test” and not the “real thing.” The purpose of life is only for our instruction and “practice” for the Great Entrance Exam. The “Final” exam occurs for each of us individually only at the moment of death when the soul says to Jesus the Just Judge (cf. Matt 25: 31-46) either “Thy will be done,” or “My will be done.” By saying the former, we effectively throw ourselves upon God’s tender mercy. By doing this we enter heaven (although perhaps first passing through that “mud room” of heaven which Catholics call “purgatory” (cf. 1 Cor 3:12-15; 1 Pet 1:7; Rev 21:27)). By saying the latter, we set ourselves in defiance of God and his mercy, thereby cutting ourselves off from experiencing His love, and so fall into hell.

The all-important question which determines whether a soul enters the eternal life of heaven or falls into hell is its love for God—or rather its returning (or participating in) God’s own love for us. Love is a spiritual reality and can be present in a person without any visible manifestation (physical activity or emotional display), such as in an infant or young child, someone with severe retardation or brain damage, or a patient lying unconscious in a hospital bed. We receive this love of God through the divine gift of faith, and we exercise it through obedience to God’s will. The full truth of a man’s [1] love exists only in the quiet recesses of his heart, and only God can read a man’s heart. As the recently published (1994, 1997) Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches,

Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very
moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to
Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven—immediately or through a
purification—or immediate and everlasting damnation. [Paragraph 1022]

As St. John of the Cross (1542-91) stated, “At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.”
___________________
[1] (Throughout this essay I will use the word “man” in the traditional sense meaning both men and women, mankind.)
---------------------------
However, while it is possible that a person might not outwardly show his heart’s participation in the love of God which is his “ticket” to heaven, ordinarily we show (and grow in) this love of God through our love of and service to our neighbor (Matt 25:31-46). As our Lord often repeated through his parables, such is the kingdom of God.

Death is one of the mysterious “Four Last Things” which are explored in the branch of Catholic theology called eschatology. Those Last Things are death, judgment, heaven and hell. All four are very real. Although many people today believe otherwise (or simply avoid the subject altogether), they are mistaken—we have the Lord’s word on that.

[The next several paragraphs are excerpted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, 1997; paragraphs 1008-1013.]

The Church teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin (cf. Gen 2:17; 3:3; 3:19; Wisdom [2] 1:13; Rom 5:12; 6:23). Even though man’s nature is mortal, God had originally destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin (cf. Wis 2:23-24). Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned, is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered (cf. 1 Cor 15:26).
___________________
[2] (The Wisdom of Solomon (Wisdom) is one of the seven Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament found in Catholic editions of the Bible but which are typically excluded from Protestant versions.)
---------------------------
Jesus, the Son of God, also himself suffered the death that is part of the human condition. Yet, despite His anguish as He faced death, He accepted it in an act of complete and free submission to His Father’s will (cf. Mk 14:33-36; Heb 5:7-8). The obedience of Jesus has transformed the curse of death into a blessing (cf. Rom 5:19-21).

Because of Christ, Christian death has a positive meaning: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21). “The saying is sure: if we have died with Him, we also shall live with Him” (2 Tim 2:11). What is essentially new about Christian death is this: through Baptism, the Christian has already “died with Christ” sacramentally, in order to live a new life; and if we die in Christ’s grace, physical death completes this “dying with Christ” and so completes our incorporation into Him in His redeeming act:

It is better for me to die in Christ Jesus than to reign over the ends of the
earth. Him I seek—who died for us. Him it is I desire—who rose for us. I am on
the point of giving birth…. Let me receive pure light; when I shall have arrived
there, then shall I be a man. [St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. AD 107), bishop
of Antioch; speaking of his impending martyrdom in Rome]

In death, God calls man to Himself. Therefore the Christian can experience a desire for death like St. Paul’s “My desire is to depart and be with Christ” (Phil 1:23). A man can transform his own death into an act of obedience and love towards the Father, after the example of Christ (cf. Lk 23: 46):

My earthly desire has been crucified; …there is living water in me, water that
murmurs and says within me: Come to the Father. [St. Ignatius of Antioch]

I want to see God and, in order to see Him, I must die. [St. Teresa of Avila (1515-82)]

I am not dying; I am entering life. [St. Thérèse of Lisieux (1873-97)]

The Christian vision of death receives privileged expression in the liturgical prayer of the Church (cf. 1 Thes 4:13-14):

Lord, for your faithful people life is changed, not ended. When the body of our
earthly dwelling lies in death we gain an everlasting dwelling place in heaven.
[Roman Missal, Preface of Christian Death I]

Death is the end of man’s earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When the single course of our earthly life is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: “It is appointed for men to die once” (Heb 9:27). There is no “reincarnation” after death.
[End of excerpt from the Catechism.]

Whether death comes in an instant through an accident or the malice of another person (i.e. murder) or through the slow process of old age or disease, it is part of God’s will and is under His ultimate control. The sorrow and grief experienced by those of us who survive the death of friends and family members are the good, natural and healthy expressions of our love for the beloved deceased and of the loss of their presence among us. We should and must grieve. But after a reasonable period of time, despite the loss, life returns to a normal state. Time heals all wounds. We never forget the beloved, of course; the memories remain through-out our lives. The bonds of love are not destroyed by death, and the soul itself does not die. We are separated only for a time, not forever. We shall see them again when we join them in eternity after our own death. And we shall live together with them in the resurrection of the just in our glorified bodies, cleansed from every blemish and imperfection, at the end of time. In comparison to the eternity which awaits us (heaven), this time on earth is only a flicker.

It is rare for a human being to be in a state of the pure love and grace of God at the moment of death. Usually there is at least some impurity, spiritual imperfection or trace of sin in any person’s life. Sometimes this is obvious (if the person lived a manifest “life of sin”), but it frequently is known only to the dying person himself in the core of his being, and to God who knows all things. But God loves even the “manifest sinner” and we trust that He gives every soul the opportunity before death to repent and be saved, even at the last moment, even in the unconscious moments preceding actual death. Such things we cannot know. We the living survivors can and must always trust in the generous mercy of God to purify the departed soul of these sinful traces through the fire of His love and admit our loved ones into the glory of His eternal presence.

We all depend completely on the love and mercy of God, both in life and in death. It is therefore good and acceptable to pray to God for the purification of the departed soul (cf. 2 Maccabees [3] 12:46). We are called in Scripture to always pray for one another, and death is no barrier at all for prayer. (If their souls are already in heaven (having completed their purification) and no longer have need of our prayers, we may be assured that God will graciously apply them to other souls who do need them. Prayer is never wasted.) It is an act of concern and love for our departed brothers and sisters to pray:

Have mercy, Jesus. Bring them into Thy rest, O Lord. Amen.
__________________
[3] (2 Maccabees is another of the Deuterocanonical books to be found in Catholic editions of the Bible.)
--------------------------

"Why doesn't God answer my prayer?"

2006-07-01T18:06:00.000-07:00

Well, actually … He does. God answers every prayer. The problem is that we frequently don’t want to accept His answer or don’t recognize it when it comes, or are too impatient to wait for God to give His answer in His own time. We expect the answer to come on our terms and in our own time frame. But God answers on His own terms. He’s God; that’s His prerogative. He loves us too much to give us something that will ultimately harm us, prevent us (or someone else) from attaining heaven.

Sometimes (but rarely, I think) His answer is the one we want or expect (in other words, an unqualified “yes”). But when the answer is “no,” we fail to recognize it. Sometimes the answer is a provisional “yes” (i.e. “yes” to this or that aspect of the prayer request but “no” to others; or “yes”—but not yet, the time isn’t right). The reason a straight-forward and immediate “yes” is so rare is not that God doesn’t want to help us or give us good things, but that we usually don’t know what is best for us or for others and consequently ask for the wrong thing (or expect Him to do something in a particular way or in a particular time frame). But God sees the “Big Picture” that we can’t see because of our limitations, and He loves us more than we can possibly love ourselves, and so the answers almost always take us completely by surprise. Sometimes God will “compromise” with us. He may go ahead and give us what we ask for (so long as it is not something evil in and of itself) even though it might have a short-term harmful effect in order to teach us a valuable lesson in trust or humility or some other virtue. In short, He may let us have our own way for a while in order that we may learn from the mistake and become better for it in the long run. But if we truly want to do His will and if we “keep our eyes peeled” for the clues he sends us, it is amazing how close we can come in understanding His will (or “hearing His voice”) much of the time.

How does the answer come? How does God “talk” to us? Like the solution to the riddle Where does an 800 pound gorilla sleep? [Anywhere he wants], God, being God, can do what He wants and talk to us any way He wants. But normally He manifests His will to us (and answers our prayers) in the ordinary natural circumstances of our lives. Don’t expect to hear an audible voice from the sky (or a voice in your head) speaking actual words—although He could (and sometimes does) do it that way. It can come in such forms as an “uncanny coincidence,” a stranger’s offhanded remark, an unexpected call from a forgotten friend, a nagging feeling in the pit of your stomach (although that might also be indigestion, so you have to be careful in your discernment), or a persistent mental feeling or “image.” Quite often, it’s a prompting of your conscience (that little “alarm” bell God puts into every soul) or your guardian angel (yes, everybody has one) that “whispers” in your mind’s ear, “Um … I really shouldn’t be doing this …” or “Stop being so selfish …” or “Send your old Aunt Margaret a check for $350.00” (it happens). Sometimes it comes in the form of unexpected news that a distant cousin or childhood friend was killed in a car accident or died of cancer. Or perhaps a prompting to pick up, dust off and finally read that book someone gave you 10 years ago but you never found the time … It can come with the suddenness of lightning or gradually play out and solidify over a period of many years. (Or it can come with the suddenness of lightning after many years of persistent prayer.) It could be a passage in the Bible that jumps out at you from the page, or a line from a sermon that seems directed to you alone.

It doesn’t usually come in the form of a winning lottery ticket, although I suppose that’s still possible … (Believe me, I’ve tried!)

I am convinced that my wife was the answer to a very specific prayer I vividly remember uttering in one moment of deep emotional anguish (almost despair) I experienced a year or so before I met her: “Oh God! Send me someone I can truly love!” And he did. (It was weird how it all worked out.) That was almost 20 years ago.

He speaks to us in a Big way through His personally appointed means: the living Magisterium and ministry of the Catholic Church. This fact is frequently a real stumbling block for many people, both inside and outside of the Church’s visible communion. Most people don’t want to listen to the Church. But it is still God’s specially chosen (appointed) instrument of salvation to which He gave the authority to speak in His name until the end of time.

“You are Peter [Aramaic: Kepha] and upon this rock [kepha] I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:18-19; cf. Isaiah 22:22)

Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs” … “Tend my sheep.” … “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17)

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Lk 10:16; cf. Matt 10:40)

Jesus said to the paralytic, “…your sins are forgiven.” “…Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins”—He then said to the paralytic—“Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. … And they glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (Matt. 9:2-8; emphasis mine)

Jesus said to [the apostles] again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23)

“[Father,] sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in the truth. I do not pray for these [the apostles] only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one…” (John 17:17-23; emphasis mine)

And Jesus came and said to them [the eleven apostles—Judas Iscariot was dead], “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. (1 Thes 2:13; emphasis mine)

This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle … a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (1 Tim 2:3-7)

I am writing these instructions to you so that … you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (ibid. 3:14-15)

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:1-2; an allusion to apostolic succession)

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men … Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)

So if you’re really interested in hearing about God’s plan for you, it would be worth your while to look into the Catholic Church’s official teaching (though not necessarily the pronouncements of every bishop, priest or theologian because he might be way off base).

These scriptural passages indicate that God’s (ordinary) prophetic voice is the Church. But most folks find that too hard to swallow and usually refuse to accept (for whatever reason, and it might not be entirely their own fault) that the Church actually speaks for God today, or even that God has anything whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church. That’s okay too, because God knows each one of us intimately (because He made us and understands us thoroughly) and He knows the best way to approach us and speaks to us in ways he knows we can understand. We call this “actual grace,” and everybody receives it, whatever the state of his soul. As long as a person hasn’t shut God completely out of his life and awareness, as long as there is the slightest “crack” in his resistance to Him, He will send him some hint, some light, some clue, some answer that will turn him in the right direction. God always accepts us where we are, but He loves us too much to leave us where he finds us. He moves us along according to His particular will for our individual lives.

God never abandons us. If anything, it is we who abandon Him, but still He pursues us (He has been called “the Hound of heaven” who tracks us down and finds us no matter where we try to hide from Him).

Prayer
Prayer doesn’t change God. It changes us. We can never bend God to our will. And God can’t be bribed, so don’t try. We cannot “dictate terms” to God. Prayer is a type of request, never a demand. When we demand something of God, we are setting up our wills in opposition to His, and more likely than not He’ll sit back and let us cool our heels until we come to our senses.

Prayer can be defined as some level of interpersonal communion with God. Whenever we pray (in earnest) we are “tuning in” to His grace, His will, and we are changed for the better by exposing our souls to the radiance of His love. If in our prayer we are “asking God for something” (called prayer of petition), and our request is granted (usually in a way better than we could have imagined), that doesn’t mean that God “changed His mind” and decided to help us. Rather, He sees and hears our prayer in time from His perspective in the timelessness of eternity. Our perspective is stuck in time, but He sees all of time “from the foundation of the world”—all at once. You might say (without putting too fine a theological point on it) that He intended to help us all along—but only if we prayed. So He didn’t change at all, anymore than the landscape changes when we drive out of the mountains onto the plain. It was we who changed by turning to Him in our need. Another example: if the seasons change in Montana, it is because of the change in relationship of position between the earth and the sun. We experience the change on earth, but the sun didn’t change at all! God’s will is like the sun in this respect.

When we pray for someone else (this is called intercession) there is always the chance that although God showers every grace upon that individual, the person may have shut himself off from the operation of that grace by the exercise of his own free will. I believe this is most often the reason it can seem to take so long for God to “answer our prayers.” He accedes to our prayer requests (in a manner according to His own will and counsel) all the while working on the other person through the circumstances of his life. By our perseverance in prayer, even when it seems like “nothing is happening” and we are tempted to think that God is “ignoring us,” still His grace is working. We are growing in our love of God and perhaps insight into His will, strength of faith, compassion for our neighbor, and the exercise of all the other virtues. All because we prayed. Even if the other person never opens himself up to God (so that God can heal the situation that was the occasion for our prayer in the first place), grace is still at work on our account and we will be given the consolation and assurance that God’s will (at least His permissive will) is being done, and much greater good was achieved in the world, all on account of our prayer. This consolation may be the only answer we get in this life. If that is the case, we can also be assured that the full story will be disclosed to us in the life to come, and we will glorify Him in eternity for His justice, His mercy and His love.

Trust in the Lord always! God is good!

I once thought I was wrong ...

2006-06-17T18:58:00.000-07:00

…but I was mistaken.

Way back on October 14, 2005, I posted an essay on the topic of Global Warming (titled “Tastes kinda like chicken…”) in which I stated my belief (at that time) that Global Warming actually was “For Real” and based on apparently sound scientific evidence. I now recant that position and repent of having made that statement. I’m now back to where I was before (not that any of you probably care), having read a little more on the nature of the evidence for both sides and of the controversy itself. I’m convinced now that it isn’t really about potentially catastrophic long-term climate change at all (just as I originally suspected), but rather about fame & money (Pulitzer Prizes, government-funded research, etc.) and international political and social control (you know, the UN for example, and its plans to implement and enforce international standards for personal behavior?) of, well, everything. Control of your behavior and mine, of entire industries, the sovereignty of less-powerful countries, all aspects of domestic and international commerce and trade … everything. This is really depressing. If you think it sounds like I’m talking about an international conspiracy, you would be…um…right. Or there may be more than one conspiracy going on, but if so, they all tend to work in the same general direction (that of concentrating more of the world’s wealth, political power and social control in the hands of an elite few), so for the sake of simplicity (?) I will speak as if there were only one.

You know, it’s a funny thing about conspiracies. They only work in the dark, i.e. if nobody knows about them. If everybody knew about their nature and agenda (i.e. if that agenda were out in the open) there would be no need for the conspiracy, of course, and it wouldn’t exist. But what is a conspiracy? A conspiracy consists in two or more persons involved together in planning and executing some selfish or nefarious agenda that most people would oppose if it were made known (hence the need for secrecy). And plainly such things do exist or else the State wouldn’t waste its time prosecuting people for such things as “Conspiracy to Commit Murder.” But nowadays, when it comes to the idea of really big conspiracies involving a particular class of people (e.g. the top 2% of the wealthiest people in the world), those who might be involved, those who stand to gain powerfully by its continuance and eventual or ongoing success (and who have the material and political means to ensure its continued secrecy), simply have to deny its existence and imply that the person who has gotten wind of it and is raising suspicions of its clandestine operations, is “just another crazy Conspiracy Theorist.” They never have to answer any inconvenient questions concerning their activities that may have come to light, or refuting the points of alleged evidence indicating the likelihood of said conspiracy. They simply chuckle and say “Conspiracy Theory!” and every average Joe who might see the public exchange is expected to say to himself, “Oh, yeah. ‘Conspiracy Theory.’ What a nutcase! Of course, there aren’t any conspiracies. What a foolish idea! It’s just too far-fetched.” And every conspirator mops his brow and mutters under his breath, “Whew! We dodged that bullet again…”

But sometimes the presence of a conspiracy is the only conceptual framework that can account for all the known facts. For example, that the Directors of all the biggest multinational corporations are, for the most part, all the same people—all sitting on each others’ Boards, voting each other enormous salary/compensation packages, buying politicians into office who will do their bidding and sign on to international treaties such as GATT, NAFTA, WTO (and they are working on more) that will circumvent (and supersede) the U.S. Constitution in matters pertaining to (for example) the regulation of commerce and trade, treaties which facilitate the accumulation of still more of the world’s wealth in the hands of said Directors (certainly in their control if not actually in their pockets) at the expense of their employees’ standard of living and job security, etc., etc., etc.

Wow! Those are some pretty far-fetched suppositions, I admit, and there’s probably nothing to them, nor to the fact that most of them (Directors and CEOs of multinational corporations), along with various Heads of State (G8 nations) and the world’s most powerful & influential politicians, policy makers and media people are all members of one group that is so secret in its purpose and doings that it doesn’t even have a name (but is affectionately referred to by outsiders as “The Bilderberg Group” after the name of the hotel in The Netherlands where they held their first meeting in May 1954), which meets every couple of years under Top Security. But the attendees at these meetings never mention in public or to the press just what it is they discuss, or even that they discuss anything. Like I said, there’s probably nothing to it, and I’m sure it’s all just a happy coincidence. In all likelihood they meet just to compare their golf scores… but still … it kinda makes you wonder….

Well anyway … what was I talking about? … Oh, yeah! Global Warming. Well, as it turns out, all the “evidence” in favor of the theory is based on selectively edited observations less than 100 years old, bubbles found deep in glacial ice (ancient air samples), tree rings, and a lot of assumptions (like “CO2 is the main culprit”) about the causes (and effects) of average atmospheric warming/cooling on a global scale, and (here’s the kicker) projections (numerical models) into the distant future (100 years or more), which in turn are based on their own sets of assumptions.

It also seems to be the case that there are relatively few (but extremely influential) people (who generally know nothing about science—but quite a bit about money and shaping public opinion) who are interested in pushing it as a socio-political agenda (people like Ted Turner, owner of CNN, etc.). Symposiums and conferences on Global Warming (G.W.) tend to be carefully orchestrated and one-sided affairs, with forums for the airing of dissenting positions given very limited time and space and generally relegated to the hinterlands. Whenever the dissenting scientists hold a symposium of their own, they are quietly ignored by CNN, ABC, the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and everyone else that looks to them for cues on what is or isn’t “newsworthy.”

My question is this: If G.W. is such a self-evident fact, why aren’t the people who know all about it dragging the dissenters out into the spotlight in front of God and everybody, publicly scrutinizing their positions and generally doing everything they can to make them look as foolish as their allegedly crack-pot theories, letting the facts speak for themselves?

I recently read an article in that prestigious scientific journal, The Seattle Times (the syndicated article was by Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post) that I hoped & expected from the headline to give the dissenting side of the Global Warming issue. I found those hopes dashed on the rocks of ideology and political correctness.

Bill Gray (the scientist who is the main subject of the article) has over 50 years of professional experience in meteorology (which undoubtedly requires a working knowledge in all other disciplines which have a bearing on weather and climate) which leads him to this professional opinion: “Global Warming” is a hoax. This is based on the idea that direct observations and measurements don’t lie. And while computer-generated theoretical models (upon which the dominant theory of G.W. is based) can’t “lie,” they can be in error. Anyone who is familiar with computer software is familiar with GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). In other words, the results you get from running a computer program will only be as good as the instructions written into the program itself. If the instructions (which will include any number of assumptions the programmer has in his mind and wants to test using the program) are defective, inaccurate or erroneous, the resulting answers or projections will be wrong.

Bill Gray contends (and he is not alone by any means) that many of the assumptions that form the basis of the computer models that seem to indicate ongoing G.W. are unwarranted because they are not based on sufficient direct observation of natural events and patterns, and there is insufficient scientific foundation for many of their fundamental assumptions or estimates. In other words, the weather “ain’t broke, so stop trying to fix it.” The changing weather patterns experienced around the world over the past several decades are normal and part of huge cycles (over centuries) that are occurring around the earth all the time. While man-made “greenhouse” gas emissions might contribute (slightly) to the situation, there is no reason to suspect their effect to be greater than about 2%. Of much greater impact are the purely natural forces (e.g. volcanoes, both on land and under the ocean) over which we have absolutely no control. There is certainly no reason for all this hype and panic! The best scientists (whether or not they receive government (tax) money), when you really pin them down, will admit that there is so much that we really don’t know about all the factors that influence weather and climate, that all they’re really doing is following their hunches.

Over the years, our ability to take precise measurements of the weather and ocean currents, etc. (more satellites, improved research techniques, better instruments, etc.) has improved tremendously. And those better measurements indicate that the warming trend (yes, there was a warming trend) that we’ve been experiencing since about 1970 stopped in 1998! Since 1998 the average global temperatures have not been increasing, but holding steady (or even going down [cooling] slightly). This too is part of a big natural pattern, and certainly nothing to panic about. But it is actual evidence that (contrary to the computer projections and the “dominant paradigm”) if G.W. was occurring, it no longer is. (In fact there are a number of scientists who believe that a much more likely scenario is another major Ice Age.)

Where is the evidence for this cooling? Examples are that land-bound polar ice (Antarctica, Greenland, northern Europe, Siberia, Alaska & Canada)—(sea ice depth has no effect on ocean levels)—is getting thicker and many glaciers around the world are beginning to advance again (rather than receding). But even when reports of such observations find their way into the mainstream press, they are misinterpreted to fit the G.W. paradigm. For example, a reporter might conclude that since the terminal face (front end) of a glacier is moving downhill, it must be melting faster and sliding downhill at a faster pace! (More Panic!) Well, that isn’t how glaciers behave. Whenever they melt faster, they recede (the terminal face goes uphill). And they don’t “slide” downhill, they grind. If the terminal face is moving downhill, that means the glacier is melting slower and getting larger (indicating a general cooling trend in the glacier’s vicinity).

But the folks who are in the grip of G.W. panic (and those who keep the panic alive by their manipulation of the data and their published and broadcast “reports”) all seem to be screaming, “So what if the actual evidence is inconclusive? We can’t just wait for something (bad) to happen! We can’t afford to just sit around and do nothing!” And that “we,” by the way, almost always refers to government intervention. Things like increasing regulation of entire industries and individuals’ personal habits and behaviors (like driving to work every day, what you can and cannot buy, and what it is going to cost you, etc.). Well, yes, as a matter of fact, we can—and should—just sit back and do nothing. In fact, I can’t think of one thing that the government has gotten involved in that it hasn’t actually made worse by its meddling, intrusive efforts to “fix” the supposed “problem.” Politicians simply don’t know what they are doing. But that never seems to stop them from feeling they have to prove to their constituents (and especially to the moneyed people whose campaign contributions ensure their continuance in office) that they are “doing something.”

So anyway … The point of the Achenbach article doesn’t seem to be to explain what the skeptics are saying, but to hold them up to ridicule. It mentions their claims (or at least some of the highlights), but avoids going into the reasons behind those claims. It intimates that “the realm of the skeptics” is “a parallel Earth,” implying that they don’t live in the Real World (*wink*). It says that “the skeptics don’t have to win the argument. They just have to stay in the game…” It also states, “They’re winning the [political] battle.” (Well, do you suppose it might be possible that the reason they’re winning is that they make more sense?) The article keeps referring to Gray’s knowledge and research as “stuff,” a word Gray himself uses for the sake of brevity, but which Achenbach seems to use to suggest that his views amount to vague nonsense. People who hold similar views, we are told, are “in every field of science. There are always people on the fringes” (*wink*). It’s as though he wanted to end his article by saying, “See? I told you they were crack-pots.”

There is undoubtedly a “consensus” in favor of a G.W. scenario among those scientists who get media attention and government (tax) money for their research, but the extent (or even existence) of a general consensus among all scientists in the field has yet to be demonstrated. The "consensus" they refer to is among "reputable" scientists, and if you disagree on G.W. you are by definition no longer considered (by them) "reputable." That's why.

Feet of clay

2006-06-01T21:20:00.000-07:00

Judge not, lest ye be judged (Matt 7:1; Lk 6:37; cf. Rom 14:10-13).
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matt 7:12; Lk 6:31).
Don’t put people up on pedestals because sooner or later they will fall off. (I don’t think that’s in the Bible, but it’s still true.)

Here are words to live by: Don’t expect people to be perfect. We are all (every one of us alive today) fallen human creatures with limited mental resources and a plethora of moral weaknesses and sinful tendencies. If you idolize someone (beyond the strictly metaphorical sense) that’s, well, the sin of idolatry. Scientists aren’t perfect. Teachers aren’t perfect. Parents and spouses aren’t perfect. Priests aren’t perfect. Popes aren’t perfect. Even people generally identified as “living saints” make errors and get cranky from time to time. If you’re the kind of person who expects uniform impeccability from anyone, you are doomed to disappointment. To be sure, we are all called to strive for perfection in this life (and some even make considerable progress in that direction), but eventually we all fall short of the mark and must rely on God’s mercy to bring us to our heavenly home. And we all need the help of others along the way (whether we are willing to admit it or not).

Don’t be devastated, don’t lose your faith because some (religious) authority—or presumed authority—(priest, nun, parish Director of Religious Education, bishop, theologian, etc.) makes some mistake in action or judgment, makes a false statement (or writes a book of heresy) or abuses his (or her) authority in some way. Even if the error is objective, obvious and impossible to ignore, do not be too quick to judge the person’s interior disposition or degree of culpability (guilt before God).

It has been said (I’m not sure where) that the floor of the lowest pit of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. That may be true, but I would never presume to say which bishops they might be. I would never want to be a bishop myself because of the responsibility he bears for so many souls. (In fact, I’d say if any man actually aspires to be a bishop or the pope, that alone should be enough to disqualify him.) The reason bishops are more likely than your average layman to wind up in hell is not so much that they may have done so many more evil deeds as that they didn’t do enough to lead souls to God (sins of omission), or that they set a bad example. To whom much (grace) is given, much more is expected.

The office of bishop or pope (or even your humble parish priest) is bigger than the man. The important thing is the office itself, not necessarily the individual holding it at any particular time. Every bishop and pope is a sinner. And yet his office is essential to the work of the Church which must continue to the end of time. So though we may have to suffer from time to time (sometimes for quite a long time) with the deleterious acts and pronouncements of some sinful bishops, yet we must love them and prayerfully support them for (if nothing else) the sake of their souls (and our own), and for the sake of Christ and His Church. (Prudence dictates, however, that, if we are the flock of such shepherds, we look elsewhere to our own education in the faith.)

It is said (I have heard) in courses of moral theology that the office (i.e. duty, purpose) of the Church stops at the threshold of conscience. That being said, it must also be understood that a person’s conscience does not form itself in a vacuum. There are certain universal moral precepts (cf. Rom 2:13-16) to which all men must adhere without exception. A conscience must be well formed in order to serve the purpose for which it was created. What the Church does is propose, not impose. Its job is to propose (preach, present, explain) the truth that is revealed by God to the world (all men and women everywhere). Men and women of good will should listen to and weigh what the Church has to say and apply it to their lives for their own benefit (getting to heaven) and for the common good of society (assisting others to get to heaven). It is up to individual men and women to receive the truth freely and implement it in their lives (by practicing virtue and rejecting vice) and apply the virtues for the good of society (e.g. legislators making positive law that protects the natural rights of all human beings, encourages truth and the practice of virtue and discourages vice).

The Church’s project, her assigned task, is to lead souls to heaven, not to drag them there against their will—that can’t be done anyway, though some over-zealous people do try that approach from time to time. Actual conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit and is a gift that He offers to each person individually in the context of his particular circumstances, which each person is free to either accept (and repent) or reject (and keep on sinning). We cannot force anyone to receive the faith. (A baptism, for example, administered to someone [an adult capable of understanding what it’s all about] without his actual (or at least reasonably presumed, if he is unconscious) consent is invalid.)

Fraternal correction
What is the difference between “passing judgment” on someone and giving a warning to your neighbor who may be sinning? The saying that “if it’s asked for, it’s called advice; if it isn’t, it’s called criticism” applies only narrowly. Sometimes it isn’t criticism even if it’s not solicited. For example, “Hey buddy, your right-rear tire is low on air.” Now while I suppose there might be some who would take offense at such a remark (“What a jerk! Who does he think he is, anyway?! Master Mechanic? He’s criticizing me because he thinks I’m not maintaining my car properly!”), most people would take it in the spirit in which it was given and be grateful for a stranger’s kind observation.

It is possible to make a relatively objective appraisal of another person’s behavior without passing judgment on the inner disposition of his soul (only God can do that). In fact, elsewhere in Scripture (e.g. Matt 18:15-17; Jn 7:24) we are charged to make judgments concerning other people’s sinful activity. However the point of such judgment is not to crush the sinner in vengeance, but to show him the error of his ways and thus show him the way to repentance. This is an act of mercy, an act of true love, concern for another’s salvation and ultimate happiness.

If someone else (be he friend or stranger) sees a problem that I might not see (even if it is a character flaw or personal “blind spot”), I would hope he points it out to me (as gently as possible, of course). Why? Because I recognize that I am human too, I also have feet of clay. I want to be the best person I can be, and so rely on others to help me grow, improve and root out faults. I crave the truth, even if it is the “ugly” truth about myself. I’m man enough to take it. I want to get to heaven!

“That crazy little thing called love …”

2006-05-24T21:09:00.000-07:00

This seems to be a recurring theme for me. I guess that’s because the concept of love is so widely misunderstood and the word love is abused and misapplied by so many people that we can all use a periodic refresher (or, perhaps for some, a first instruction) about what love really is (and what it isn’t). But like the romantic troubadour who realizes that no one can ever write the perfect love song, I don’t expect this present composition to come anywhere close to a final exposition on the topic.

(NB: In this essay I will be using the word “object” in two distinct senses: the grammatical sense (i.e. a person or thing to which something else—in this case, love—is directed by a subject) and, for lack of a better term, the materialist sense (i.e. specifically a thing, not a person.)

The emotion called love
In the broadest possible sense, anything can conceivably be, to one degree or another, an object [that to which something is directed] of love, and that love can be either ordered toward the good, or it can be disordered, depending on a wide range of circumstances and motives. In this sense people can love chocolate, rainy days, a pet, a car, one’s job, a certain shade of blue or a favorite book. However, most people who say they love such things realize that it isn’t real love, but only some degree of affection or preference. They realize that real love ought to be directed toward another person, not just a thing.

But even given that condition, many people (perhaps even most) think of love as just an emotion, one among many other emotions. You know, you can fall in love, and (sometimes) you fall out of love. Love (they say) is that real intense excitement you feel when you really care, you really want to be near someone special. Sometimes you get that “tingly” feeling all over, that fire that can last for hours or even days at a time. Or some people might say it’s “chemistry,” or even “magic.” You just know when you’re in love with someone because it feels so right. You can’t really control it—it just happens all by itself. It’s either there or it isn’t. (This would be the common understanding among starry-eyed teenagers.)

And then, sometimes the magic seems to fade away over time. If and when that happens, sometimes you can “rekindle” the fire; and sometimes, no matter what you do, it just goes cold and there’s no getting it back. (*Sigh*) When that happens, they say you’ve “fallen out of love” and the best thing you can do is just say Good-bye and move on. No sense wasting your time, or worse, opening old wounds. Maybe you will find a new love somewhere else….

Well in general terms this is fine, as far as it goes. It’s a start, but only a start. It’s not what I mean by real love. This emotional kind of love would more properly be called affection (attraction or tender attachment), even if it is very intense. And as I said, it is a good thing as far as it goes (so long as it doesn’t get out of hand and we don’t let ourselves become consumed with an inordinate affection for an inappropriate object). But it is an immature sort of love. Of course this kind of affection can—and often does—mature into genuine love, but it isn’t there yet.

Real love
By contrast, real love is a conscious act of the will and also involves the use of the intellect. Will and intellect are the principal faculties of the human spirit, and so real love is a spiritual activity rather than a physiological one.

The only proper object of real love is another person. Such love relates to that other person specifically as a person, rather than as an object [a thing]. Love is the decision to consider and work for the other person’s highest good, not to use him or her to satisfy one’s own desires (even if one feels it is a mutually agreeable exchange: “we are giving one another pleasure, each fulfilling the other’s desire”). Love isn’t that tingly sensation in the loins. Love, properly speaking, is the conscious and deliberate decision to give oneself completely to another person for his own sake as a person. This decision is made irrespective of the possibility that the other person may at a later point in time abuse or even reject the gift you make of yourself. Real love always defers to the beloved. It is utterly unconcerned for the self. This is perfectly reflected in Jesus’ prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, “Father, not my will, but thine be done” (Lk 22:42). It is therefore characteristic of love to be sacrificial of the self for the good of the other.

All the basic expressions of love (both human & divine) are manifested throughout the narratives of Christ’s passion, beginning with the Last Supper.

Friendship (“Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends …” Jn 15:13-15)

Concern for the lives and safety of others (“Jesus answered [his captors], ‘I have told you that I am he; so if you seek me, let these men go …’” Jn 18:8-9)

Filial obedience coupled with the resolve to undergo whatever is necessary for the greater good (“Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” Lk 22:42)

Forgiveness for a grave injustice (“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” Lk 23:34)

Jesus’ death itself is rightly called the consummation of His marriage to His bride, the Church (“Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her… A man shall … be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh… I am speaking of Christ and his Church” Eph 5:25, 31-32). In fact, ordinary human marriage between a man and a woman is seen as merely an image (shadow or reflection) of this ultimate and total self-giving act of fruitful generation on the part of Christ to and for His bride, the consuming act of self-immolation by Love itself for the sake of the beloved.

This is how it is possible to love, not only your family and friends, but also the friend who betrayed you, the thief who robbed you and the axe murderer sitting on death row. (God takes no pleasure in the death of the sinner, but rather that the sinner turn away from his wickedness and live. Cf. Ezek 33:11) God loves everything and everyone He has created. Everything God creates is good, and we are called to love as God Himself loves. Sin, however, is not of God but a free choice we make that is contrary to God’s law. So we cannot love the sin (the choice to do evil), but we must love the sinner (the person created in God’s image), and hope and pray for his eventual repentance. This is the way of true love. (We are not called to like (feel affection for) everyone, but we must love everyone: never wishing harm or evil on anyone but instead hoping that all receive and respond to the gift of faith, come to final repentance, and thus to eternal life.) (Cf. Matt 5:43-48.)

God is love, so when we truly love one another and when we love God, we are only participating in the love of God for us (“Love consists in this: not that we love God, but that He loved us first…” cf. 1 Jn 4:7-16). We cannot originate love on our own. So if our attitudes and/or conduct work against (are contrary to) the love of God and the good of others (e.g. fornication, adultery, contraceptive sex, homosexual activity in all its forms), they cannot objectively be considered real love (irrespective of the attraction they may exert on us) since they all fail in some way to involve the fruitful self-sacrificial gift which is essential to genuine love. They all fail to participate in God’s love, but are rather veiled examples of self-gratification instead of self-giving. People may call such things “love” but they are mistaken. (I could call a rock a “toad,” but my calling it such does not make it a real toad. The same holds true for false applications of the word “love.”)

When we participate in the love of God, we are like a log in a fireplace that participates in the fire. The wood of the log, cold and lifeless if left on its own, takes on certain characteristics of the fire when it is placed on it. The log is not identical to the fire, but because of its proximity to the fire it begins to glow with light and to radiate heat, just as the fire itself does. The log is transformed from ordinary wood into the likeness of the fire. So it is when we allow ourselves to be transformed by participation in the love of God. We begin to take on such divine characteristics as the light of truth and the warmth of consolation.

So let us shun all false and deceitful conceptions of love and truly strive to harmonize our affections with the realities of life. May everyone recognize God’s love at work in the world and strive to cooperate with and participate in it. May we all work diligently for the good of each person we encounter every day, for the common good of all, and for our own individual good. The highest possible good for which we were all created is final union with our Creator and loving Father, and with His Son, our Bridegroom, for all eternity. Anything else is only self-love, false-love.

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: Is it really a question for science?

2006-04-28T20:24:00.000-07:00

The way I learned things years ago, science was a subject that dealt with how things are and how they behave—in the present. You know, following the “scientific method” to learn the truth about nature, etc.: observe phenomenon, formulate hypothesis, devise and execute experiment, analyze data, predict future outcome, verify or revise hypothesis …. (Did I get it right?)

But when you begin to ask “where did things come from, what were things like before what we are able to observe today, how did they come into existence?” you have crossed over the line into the realm of philosophy or metaphysics. At that point you are embarking on a journey of speculation about things that cannot be observed or tested. Strictly speaking, this is no longer science.

Of course, that is not to say that things couldn’t have happened as you speculate, only that we cannot observe or test today something that might only have happened in the dark and distant past. We may, for example, find dinosaur bones in Montana, study them in any number of ways and, perhaps, notice structural similarities between them and the bones of certain other species alive today. But one cannot, as a result of this seeming similarity, then declare as fact that certain species of dinosaurs “evolved” into certain species of birds (for example), or fish into lizards, (or even fish species A into fish species B) unless we can actually observe the evolutionary transformation process (or event). So a scientist is perfectly free to say that, in his opinion, evolution might have occurred, but he cannot say that it actually did occur, because such a claim cannot be observed or tested in any way. (The same goes for the “Creationist,” needless to say.)

To the best of my knowledge (which I admit is quite limited) no one has ever yet observed such an evolutionary transformation. The assumption or postulate, therefore, is simply made by those who embrace evolution that these things are so similar in structure or apparent function that they must have evolved from one into the other. Well, cars are similar too. Is it therefore reasonable to assume that the Ford Taurus evolved from the Nash Rambler? Of course not, you say. That’s silly! Cars don’t reproduce themselves. They are engineered and manufactured. Even if I am not an engineer or assembly mechanic, I can observe (if given the opportunity) and understand the whole process step-by-step. OK. I’ll buy that. Cars aren’t living things but mechanical contrivances and do not reproduce themselves biologically because biology is not involved.

The unspoken assumption of the evolution theorists, of course, that there is no Creator-God who could have made (engineered and manufactured) the two (unrelated) species separately but designed them with similar anatomical structures. So the “theory” of evolution (whichever of the many “theories” you may prefer) is based fundamentally on the worldview of atheism.

Of course, this atheistic claim cannot be proven, and no one who is smart enough to land a career as a professional scientist would be fool enough to attempt it. So the whole atheism thing is quietly swept under the rug and studiously avoided. Which is fine, I suppose. But then those who do so shouldn’t get their shorts all in a bunch if some other scientist trips over the lump under the rug and decides to take a look. After all, free inquiry and investigation is what science is all about, right? Haul things out into the light of day and examine them to see if we can make any sense out of them.

So. What is the rational answer to this “debate”? Should (macro)evolution be taught in science classes? No, certainly not.

Should intelligent design be taught in science classes instead? Again, the answer is no.

“Say WHAT!?”

Consider it this way. Scientist A is free to make the philosophical statement, and give his reasons, that he thinks macroevolution actually occurred, although he can’t demonstrate it scientifically. But scientist B should also be free to make his own philosophical statement that he thinks macroevolution is an untenable proposition and that, in his opinion, it is much more likely (and give his reasons) that the universe (or some part of it) was designed by some intelligent principle or being (perhaps what some people choose to call “God”), while still admitting that he can’t demonstrate that scientifically either.

Since neither statement can be either proved or disproved scientifically, neither should be written into the curricula of science classes (especially for primary and secondary schools), unless it is also emphasized that such a position is strictly one of opinion and not a scientific fact. This seems to me the only reasonable solution to the situation.

Go ahead and discuss the issue all you like in a philosophy course, but not in science class, and certainly not as a required element of “basic” education. Teach the students in science class about observable scientific facts and instruct them in the scientific method, and let them learn about how things really are by their careful application of its principles. But the question “where did we (ultimately) come from?” ought to be left to the philosophers and theologians to work out according to the established principles of those disciplines.

God's will

2006-04-09T21:42:00.000-07:00

[For Charlie's earlier adventure, see the post titled Different (in the archive for December 2005).]

* * * * * * *

“Charlie! Hey Charlie, wait up…”

Charlie turned around when he heard the voice. “Jimmy. Good to see you! You back from the university?” Charlie had been on his usual morning walk through the neighborhood when his good friend Jim Willis came running up from behind.

“Just for the Thanksgiving holiday. I’ll be going back next week.”

“Well how are you doing? …How’s the thesis coming?”

Charlie had known Jim since he was born—before he was born in fact. Indeed, he and his family had been friends with the Willises for nearly as long as he could remember, going on, oh… close to 65 years now.

“Oh fine… I still have a few points I have to work out, but it’s coming along.” They were walking side-by-side now but Charlie had slowed his usual brisk pace to a more casual, conversational stroll.

“What’s on your mind?”

There was a long thoughtful pause before Jim opened his mouth to speak. “You’ve been friends with my dad a long time…”

“All my life. And I knew your grandfather too, when I was just a young-un. We used to go to his church down on 16th Street for years and years.”

“I didn’t know you were a Lutheran too. I always thought you were…”

“Catholic? I am. I converted when I was… well, in my early college years. But what were you saying… about your dad?”

“Oh it’s… I don’t know. It’s not even about him. I’m a little… I’ve been thinking about… Charlie, how do you know what it is that God wants you to do? I mean, when you’re faced with… a fork in the road… or maybe two or three. How do you make the right choice? How do you know what you’re… What’s the best thing to do…?”

The older man pressed his lips together. “…Mmm… That’s a good one. What kind of choices are we talking about?”

“I want to finish my degree. But… I’m not sure Janice is going to like what I’m planning to…" (long pause, then a sigh). "I think I’m supposed to go to Peru.”

Charlie arched his eyebrows and took a sideways glance at his young friend. “What’s in Peru?”

“Dad just learned about a mission down there that needs… well it was nearly wiped out in that big flood last year.”

“I remember the flood; it was all over the news. And… you want to help rebuild this mission. But you’re not really sure it’s what you want to do? Or rather what God wants you to do? Have you talked to Janice about it?”

“Uh-uh, not yet. Dad only told me about it on Sunday and I’d been thinking about it on the flight and all. We talked about it a little when he picked me up at the airport yesterday. To tell you the truth, I’m not sure how to even bring it up with her. I was hoping we could get married next year, but this could change everything!”

“And you want me to tell you how to discern God’s will in all this, right?”

Jim didn’t answer. He didn’t have to.

After a long thoughtful pause, Charlie started slowly, “You know, Jimmy, it’s natural for a man to think of God’s will as something ‘out there’ somewhere,” (he gestured with a short sweep of his arm) “some big job in a far away place that he’s sure God wants him to do. Save the world, or at least a reasonable piece of it. All he has to do is pray and listen for God to tell him what it is. And sometimes that’s it, God might have a ‘big job’ for him to do.

“But for most of us, that’s not the case. For most of us—and I’d say for all of us most of the time—God’s will is right in front of us, right under our noses, staring us in the face. Moment-by-moment. And it’s right in here too,” (he tapped his finger on his own chest). “God’s will for each of us always starts with changing our own hearts—constantly working at the little sins and faults every day in our own lives. God sends his grace on us all, like the rain, but if we want his help to clean sin out of our lives, we can’t go around with an umbrella, you know what I mean?”

“Yeah, don’t put barriers in the way. Let God work on us.”

“That’s right. And not just that, but work along with God, cooperate with his grace. He wants us to try too, not just sit there passively and expect Him to do it all for us. ‘Work out our own salvation with fear and trembling,’ I believe St. Paul put it. I hope that’s not too ‘Catholic’ an idea for you.”

“Oh no, I understand. I believe that too.”

“And it’s usually our ordinary sinful tendencies that block our inner vision from seeing what it is that God wants us to do, not just out there, but right here, right now. We don’t have to go out looking for God’s will. It comes looking for us. We just have to live it when it finds us. Usually, we can’t see God’s will coming at us before it actually hits us and lands in our lap. It’s usually the little things—no, I take that back; it’s always the little things—that come across our path every minute of the day. You don’t have to plan out doing God’s will. He’s already done that. He’s in charge of the Big Picture, and all the little details too. There are no accidents. It’s all God’s will, either ordained or permitted. What we have to wrestle with is what to do right now, do the right thing this minute and not worry about what may or may not happen the next minute, because that’s in God’s hands. You know right from wrong, Jimmy! It’s not that hard, right? God knows what He wants us to do, project-wise, and He will open the doors ahead of us. Open up some and close others, hm? Our job is to do what our hearts tell us is right (assuming you have a well-formed conscience, of course), follow our interests, like your degree for instance, and even things like hobbies. All these things came from God anyway, right? He gave us those interests for a reason, even if we don’t see what the reason might be. I’ve heard your dad tell you that a hundred times.

“Don’t worry about the future. God’s grace comes to us only in the present moment. He manifests His will to us in that grace, minute by minute, in the people we meet and the situations that we find ourselves in. Help the lady in the aisle at the grocery store. Help your friends at school with their classes as much as you are able. Don’t be afraid to ask other people for help too. Forgive the jerk who flips you off in his impatience. We are channels of God’s grace to those around us too, and grace comes to us and flows all around in unpredictable ways and operates in us and all the people we bump into each day in ways we can never fully understand. Just let God do what He wants in us and it will all turn out all right. His love for us never lets up, and He’ll lead us where He knows we’ll be the happiest, even if it’s a hard road getting there. Even the bad things that happen to us—the things that seem bad to us—are from God. They help shape us, knock off the sharp corners and rough edges, smooth us into something better.

“I’m sorry, am I rambling too much or is any of this helping?”

Jim’s gaze was off in the distance, straight ahead. “Yeah. It helps. You’re pretty smart, for a Catholic I mean.”

They walked for about a minute more in silence until Jim said, “So. What do you think I ought to do?”

“Hoo-Boy!” Charlie rolled his eyes, a slight smirk on his lined face, as if he and the younger man shared a private joke.

“Well, if I were you,” he continued, “I’d take that pretty little lady of yours out to lunch or something real soon and, as casually as possible, tell her what’s up. Then let her tell you what she thinks. She might just have a few interesting ideas for you herself, things maybe you hadn’t thought of yourself. Life is full of surprises… Look, Jimmy, if God wants you to go to Peru, you’ll go to Peru, trust me. He’ll let you know in no uncertain terms. But if He doesn’t, if He’s got other plans for you, He’ll let you know that too. But all in His own time. You know that old poster-platitude that goes: ‘Yesterday is but a memory; and Tomorrow is but a dream. But Today is a gift. That’s why it’s called the Present’?

“Yeah,” said Jim, turning his head to smile at his friend. “It’s hanging on my dorm room wall.”

“Well it’s true. The present moment is all we’ve got, really. We can’t control either the past or the future, only what we’re doing right now. Dealing with the little things God sends us each minute we’re alive. That’s where God’s will is.”

Justice & Mercy

2006-03-05T21:31:00.000-08:00

God’s attributes
Have you ever thought about God and wondered, “Why is He so complicated?”

Well, the fact is He isn’t. God, being pure spirit, is utterly simple. God is the fullness of perfection, and therefore has no parts and does not change. If He could change, He wouldn’t be perfect, because a change implies movement either from a state of lesser perfection to greater (improvement) or from greater perfection to lesser (deterioration or degradation). But God is simply perfect, and so can never be either more or less perfect than He already is. So He cannot change.

To understand how a spirit can have no parts, you only have to realize that it is completely immaterial. Try this: think of an idea (any idea on any topic). Now, what part of that idea forms the idea’s boundary? OK? What are its dimensions & how does it work? Or is there one corner of the idea that isn’t touching the center of the idea? Get it? These questions make no sense, right? They don’t apply to ideas because ideas don’t have parts. Neither do spirits. (The big difference between an idea and a spirit is that a spirit is a person that possesses an intellect and a will, and it controls both. An idea is not a person but merely a function of an intellect and cannot control itself, but is controlled by the person who generated it.) The only other major hurdle I can see regarding the nature of spirits is to understand how a being can be considered living without having a material body. But that is a discussion for another time.

God isn’t big or small, fast or slow, old or young. He simply is. That’s why the best way to describe Him—the best name we can give Him—is the name He gave to Himself: “I am who I am” (Ex 3:14). We know from this that He is a living and personal entity, not an impersonal “force,” (and so can identify Himself as “I”) and that He exists outside of time (with its relations of past and future) and is therefore eternal (everything to Him is present, now—“am”—not was or will be, but only am). And He is the only being who fits this description, since there can only be one eternal, infinite and perfect thing (if there were two, for example, there would be some sort of “boundary” separating or distinguishing the two, which would be a limit, so by that fact they wouldn’t be infinite).

The reason He seems complicated to us is that we are so limited that we can only understand Him by mentally dividing up His divine essence into individual attributes and looking at them one at a time. (Not that they are actually separate from one another, they are actually all the same thing—they are God—but this is too much for our created intellects to grasp.) And so in order to understand anything about Him we have to study these attributes individually, and then try to understand how they aren’t really separate or opposed to one another at all, but actually all simultaneously and integrally the same thing—God Himself.

God’s justice and mercy
So we can take two of these attributes, which we recognize as good things, and say that God is both infinitely and perfectly just, and infinitely and perfectly merciful (all of His attributes are infinite [without limit] and perfect [impossible to improve upon]). To our human way of understanding things, justice is usually viewed as something harsh—punishment for wrongdoing—and mercy as somehow opposed to it—softening or taking away from real justice. But God’s justice really is merciful, and because of His infinite love for us, His mercy really is justice.

At the end of time (as-we-know-it), there will only be heaven and hell. Heaven is defined as eternal life with God, and hell is eternal “life” [conscious existence] without God. In the end, each created spirit will be in one or the other of these “places.” (We can’t really imagine what heaven or hell will be like (1 Cor 2:9), since time-and-space-as-we-know-them will have passed away (2 Pet 3:10). They probably won’t be places like places on earth, but rather conditions or states of being which are determined by each spirit’s own attitude toward and relationship with God and the other spirits He created. The holy ones (the ones who love God) and the reprobate (the ones who reject God) will somehow be invisible to each other and incapable of either interacting with each other or changing their respective states from one to the other, so for all intents and purposes they may just as well be in completely different places.)
The angels will remain as they have always been since the moment of their creation (incorporeal beings with intellect and will) and the human souls will be reunited with their human bodies (which will have been transformed into incorruptibility). Those in heaven will enjoy eternal bliss and those in hell will experience eternal torment. The exact nature of this bliss and torment has not been revealed to us (hell has been described as an unquenchable fire; that may be just a metaphor, or maybe not), and it will probably be as individuated to each person as his experiences were on earth. What has been revealed is that they will be beyond anything we can imagine in this life.

Now, each human person alive today can choose either to believe that revelation or disbelieve it. But given the stakes, are you really willing to risk the loss of bliss beyond measure and end up in torment beyond measure if you choose disbelief and then turn out to be wrong? It boggles my mind to think that there are actually people who, after hearing the gospel message, decide to “take their chances” and live like there is no God, that this present existence is all there is and they can live as they please, and that there will be no hell to greet them when they die. Call me a coward, but I’m not willing to risk it. I am content to sacrifice a little pleasure and submit to a little pain and humiliation in the here-and-now in exchange for just the possibility of heaven on the other side of the door of death.

God’s perfect justice will ensure that those who can’t stand the idea of spending eternity with Him will have someplace else to spend their eternity. And that’s also a mercy, giving them exactly what their hearts desire. But those who would rather be with Him, He will gather to Himself. By our sins, we deserve hell; that’s justice, because any offense against the Eternal deserves eternal separation from Him. But in His mercy, He chose to take upon Himself the eternal penalty for our sins in the Sacrifice of love in the Person of His Son. In justice, only an eternal Person could adequately compensate for an eternal penalty. In His human nature, He returned to humanity the possibility of eternal life with Him. All we have to do is choose to serve Him in this life, and ask for His mercy for our sins, submitting to the operation of His grace.

And another thing, ...

2006-02-19T15:44:00.000-08:00

There was another aspect of Catholicism that I intended to cover in my last post [February 14: Life from the inside (Part 2)], but forgot. And that is: why Catholic teaching seems so, well, so complicated.

Non-Catholics typically look at the well-known practices & beliefs of Catholics and think of them as an eclectic, jumbled hodgepodge of unrelated and eccentric ideas and behaviors. A veritable grab-bag of nonsense invented or accumulated in pack-rat fashion over the centuries. I mean, just look at them:

Papal infallibility, praying to saints, fish on Fridays, “the Mass” as a
sacrifice, penance & personal mortification, confession to a priest, rosary
beads, mortal & venial sins, crucifixes & statues, holy water,
condemnation of contraception, marriage tribunals, priestly celibacy, the whole
Mary thing, sign of the cross, seven sacraments, yada, yada, yada ….

That’s the outsider’s view.

But once a person makes the decision, moved by grace, to take the teachings and practices of the Church seriously and begins to look into their meaning and history, it’s as if he takes the huge pile of fabric he once mistook for a “grab-bag” and begins to open and unroll it and takes a hard look at it. He then realizes that it is actually a tapestry, ingeniously woven in a seamless integrated pattern. The images depicted on it are not random and confused, but interconnected, historically organic & rationally sound. (Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman said to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.)

And as he looks more closely, he begins to notice certain threads in the fabric that can be traced from one doctrine to the next, to the next … tracing them all the way to the central figure: Jesus Christ, true God & true man, His life, passion, death and resurrection. It’s called the unity of faith.

Everything, no matter how remote it may seem at first, eventually relates to and takes its meaning from the person of Jesus Christ. Catholicism, properly understood, is a unified whole, not a random mishmash. This is why, once you begin to “tug” on a particular thread (say, you think there’s nothing wrong with artificial contraception), you very soon start to see that one thread, once pulled out of place, begins to mar and distort the others nearby (e.g., the total gift of self in marriage, the dignity of the human person, the sanctity of human life, reliance on divine providence …). Before long, the whole pattern starts to come undone, just because you thought “one little thread … way down here in the corner” wasn’t to your liking, wasn’t necessary, and it was OK to pull it out.

It doesn’t work that way, though. “Cafeteria Catholicism” (the practice of picking and choosing the doctrines you like and skipping over the ones you don’t) is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Once you reject the magisterial (teaching) authority of the Church, in effect making yourself the final judge of the way things should be, you cease to be Catholic and become, well, something else. Politicians (to use the most common example) who claim to be Catholic, yet maintain that it is desirable to protect the heinous practice of abortion by every possible law are lying. They are not Catholic because they dismiss fundamental Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life (and a whole lot more besides, because you can’t reject one without implicitly rejecting a host of others).

On the other hand, once, through the operation of grace, you make the act of faith that you “believe and profess all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God,”* while you may not understand every detail of every article of the faith, you still believe, on the word of Jesus, that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matt 16:19), that it would never formally teach an error as truth to be believed by all. And, if you choose to dig deeper into any of the individual tenets of the faith, that truth is always borne out to an amazing degree, bringing with that understanding a deep sense of peace and satisfaction (and even love) that an “outsider” cannot know.

* (part of the Profession of Faith made by adult converts)

Life from the inside (Part 2)

2006-02-14T20:05:00.000-08:00

The Catholic Church is not a human institution. It is a divine institution with human members.

This is because it was founded by a divine Person, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, Jesus Christ. And the life (animating principle) of the Church is also a divine Person. The New Testament refers to the Church as the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23, 4:12; Col 1:24). Christ died for us all on the hill of Calvary at one moment in history (approximately 1,975 years ago), but rose again from the dead less than 48 hours later, never to die again. Therefore, the Body of Christ today is a living Body. The life principle (soul) of the living Body of Christ, the Church, is the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit, originally manifested in the infant Church on Pentecost Sunday (Acts 2), ten days after Jesus ascended into heaven (Acts 1:8-9).

For this reason, membership in the Catholic Church cannot be compared to membership in any merely human institution, such as a club or other fraternal, social or religious organization. Each of these was founded by a human being, even the various Protestant churches. (This also explains why the Catholic Church cannot be destroyed—despite the best efforts of both its enemies and its members. It is maintained in existence through time, not by human effort or ingenuity, but purely by the power of God to be Christ’s presence in the world until He returns at the end of time.)

It is more like membership in a family than in some other human institution. While it is possible for a non-member to study the principles and tenets of an organization in order to understand why it exists and what it’s all about, the same cannot be said of a family. The only way to thoroughly understand and appreciate a family is to join it.

I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve heard stories by former Protestants who, following the path of truth, heeded the unmistakable call of God to find His “One True Church,” the original Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Typically, they’d start in one of the Protestant denominations (the church of their youth) and over time come to realize that there were certain elements among the traditions or teachings of their church that didn’t quite square with the Biblical principles they’d been taught, or certain passages in the New Testament that made absolutely no sense given their church’s standard interpretation. So they left it and “went shopping” for another church that made more sense.

Well, after years (or even decades) of searching around the denominations, finding elements of Christian life and truth in each one, yet also finding each one somehow seriously flawed, eventually they would find they had run out of options. They realize that the fullness of the Christian life and Christian truth was not to be found among the Protestant denominations.

At this point, they often report breaking out in a cold sweat: “No, no, NO!!! (they would typically pray), NOT the ‘Whore of Babylon’—not the Catholic church!! Please, God, Noooo! Anything but THAT!!”

So they might try one of the Eastern Orthodox churches instead, recognizing their valid priesthood and the validity of their sacraments (beyond Baptism and Matrimony which were already valid in Protestantism, not requiring priestly ordination). This will do, they think. “I can have all the biblical sacraments, and not have to join the Catholic church. Whew! Far out!”

But after a while the nagging thoughts come back and they sense that this too is only a detour, not their final destination. This realization always centers in some way on the question of authority, especially of the Petrine office, the principle of visible unity in the Church Jesus established on earth (Matt 16:17-19; Lk 22:32; Jn 21:15-17).

So, in time, they find themselves on the threshold of the Catholic Church.

There is a time (sometimes a long time) of confusion and indecision, not unlike the period of time when a man is making up his mind to ask the woman he loves if she will consent to become his wife. In both situations, such a one realizes that he is on the verge of a life-changing moment—a defining moment in his existence as a person. Joining the Catholic Church (he realizes) is most definitely not like joining the Lutherans or the Baptists. It really is more like getting married. Jesus is the biblical Bridegroom (Matt 9:15, etc.) and the Church is his Bride.

Once they are finally received into full communion with the Church however—they already enjoyed an imperfect, partial communion within their Protestant denominations by virtue of their baptism—they are invariably flooded almost immediately with the deep, mystical and joyful sense that they are finally home. They realize now that they could never be happy anywhere else, and wonder why they took so long to find the ONE place they were meant to be all along!

So just as it is impossible for an “outsider” to perfectly understand a human family, the same holds for the family of God, the Catholic Church.

Life from the inside (Part 1)

2006-02-05T12:20:00.000-08:00

You may have been wondering what the point was of that post below titled Different (Dec. 4, 2005). It was intended as an elementary illustration of the principle that quite frequently things look completely different from the inside than they do from the outside. So different, in fact, that it is impossible to truly know the thing until you experience it from the inside. I intended to post subsequent examples in a similar vein, but “never got around to it ....” The other two posts were to be on the topics of love & marriage, and the Catholic Church. I will try to sum up my thoughts on those topics in this present post & the next (I hope), but without the elaborate illustrative narratives.

Love is something everybody knows something about. Every person has some experience on some level of something they call “love.” Love is a thing that is generally hard to define with any precision, but usually people claim that they “know it when they see it.” And it’s safe to say, I think, that no two people experience love in quite the same way. I’m sure everyone would agree that love is probably the most precious thing on this earth.

Whether it is the love experienced between spouses, parents & children, or close friends, it is a treasure that is universally recognized and prized. It is quite distinct from the person we love (or sense loves us). Love is not the other person; it is a separate something that is shared between two persons (or, sadly, that is wasted on a material object or some other impersonal concept that cannot return it), and distinct even from the manner in which we express it to the other person (e.g. gentle words, a caress or kiss, conjugal embrace, etc.). Love is absolutely intangible because it is a spiritual reality, not physical. (It frequently spills over, it is true, from the spirit into the emotions, and we experience such physiological manifestations as accelerated respiration, mental preoccupation and/or confusion, but real love isn’t the only thing that can produce these effects, so it is always wise to proceed with great caution.)

It’s the stuff of poetry and music. Popular “love songs” attempt to describe it. It is a beauty that cannot be seen or heard, but is absolutely and inescapably real.

(It is tragically also true that there are some people who mainly experience love as a void because they see others experience the joy of love, but they themselves are so alone in life that they do not have anyone to love themselves, or to love them back.)

Now I could talk about love all day long in sentimental, analytical, allegorical, metaphysical or theological terms and, although that might give you a few new insights (or thoroughly convince you I was crazy), it still would not give you the actual experience of love itself. When two persons experience real love, their view of life itself changes—drastically. When you’re “in love,” colors seem brighter, sounds seem sweeter, everything around you takes on a newness and clarity that is startling. Of course, things don’t actually change, only your perception of things is heightened because love has changed your outlook on everything around you—on life itself.

Life itself looks different from the inside of a loving relationship than it does from the outside.

Love comes through knowledge of another person. It is impossible to truly love anyone you know nothing about. A man courts a woman, for example, in order to get to know her better, and to let her know him better. And, hopefully, with mutual knowledge will come mutual love; the more insightful the knowledge, the deeper the love.

Before I met my wife, she was a stranger, and I might not have given her a second glance (had circumstances been different). Once we met, we decided we wanted to get to know one another better, and over time, I began to appreciate her personality (and personal quirks) in ways that couldn’t be imagined before. Our love deepened and now she’s my wife. And our love continues to deepen over the years. Someone who doesn’t know my wife or me would never understand why we love each other the way we do. But that’s OK; they don’t have to. I understand, because I see it from the inside.

But true love isn’t limited to married love. Siblings can love one another very deeply, as can parents their children, of course, and vice versa, as well as close friends of the same or opposite sex. (Deep love need not be expressed genitally, as that is appropriate only to the state of marriage—between one man and one woman.) There is also the love of a priest or religious (sister/nun or brother) for the Lord or for His bride, the Church. And someone outside that relationship cannot understand it properly. Only those who experience the love from the inside can truly know what it’s all about or truly appreciate it.

Catholics in American public life

2006-01-26T18:55:00.000-08:00

A news commentator makes the pointed observation that, with the expected confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, there would be 5 Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court. Was there any emotion in his words, any hint that he felt either good or bad about this fact? I don’t know; I didn’t actually hear the remark, but only a report about it from a colleague. What difference does it make what religion the respective justices profess? What would prompt the pundit to remark on it in the first place?

According to one theory, it shouldn’t make the slightest difference, any more than his hair or eye color. Aren’t we still free to exercise any religion we choose without any interference from the government? (Isn’t that guaranteed by the First Amendment?) Well, that’s the theory anyway.

But religion is almost universally considered a “hot button” topic, especially in regard to public policy and public behavior (and getting more so every day), and this seems to be true a fortiori with respect to the Catholic religion. Why is this? Most likely because the unique doctrinal claims of the Catholic Church and its firm stand on many moral issues seem to rub some people the wrong way, and perhaps the demands placed on individual Catholics by Church discipline cause some people (both Catholics and non-Catholics) to chafe, and at the same time make faithful Catholics an easy target for derision.

A common assumption seems to be that “the Catholic Church” is monolithic, that the pope wields enormous power over virtually every aspect of the lives of Catholics, and for their part, individual Catholics generally obey the pope without question. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. While the Church does make a concerted effort to instruct the faithful (and everyone else) unambiguously about doctrine and practice (and the pope is the only individual who can speak officially for the whole Church on his own authority)—and Catholics have a moral obligation to receive such instruction with a degree of reverent assent and obedience—Catholics are still human beings with free will and sinful tendencies, and are therefore free to reject it. (Sadly many Catholics prefer to accommodate themselves to “this world” and so choose to reject Church teaching, and yet insist on retaining the name “Catholic.”)

But I think most people would agree that one of the principal functions of any religion is to inform the consciences of those who allegedly profess it, to teach them what things are right and what are wrong. And the Catholic Church, as everybody knows, has some very strong things to say about right & wrong with respect to a number of specific behaviors that are very much in dispute in American life today (e.g., abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia and the nature of marriage).

Americans who favor (for example) the unrestricted practice of abortion or homosexuality fear that if enough Catholics (who take the teachings of their Church seriously and use them to inform their individual consciences) are elected or appointed to positions of power in the halls of government, that they will try to institutionalize Catholic doctrine in public policy. Consequently, long before the candidacy of John F. Kennedy, it was a common enough opinion that the only good Catholic (i.e. one considered suitable for public office) was a bad Catholic (i.e. one who rejected the authoritative teachings of his Church)—even if people didn’t consciously think about it in those terms. And a lot of people thought that the only way Kennedy could win a national election was for him to stipulate that he would in no way permit his Catholicism to have any effect on his decisions regarding public policy. And so he did, and so he was. Could he have been elected had he not made that promise? Given the attitudes of most Americans—and especially of the “power brokers”—at that time, probably not. And that has been the accepted standard for Catholics seeking public office ever since.

Now back to Judge Alito for the Supreme Court. On the nine-member Court, any 5 justices constitute a majority which can nowadays pretty much have its way with the American legal system. (Of course, it wasn’t supposed to be this way, as the framers of the Constitution considered the judiciary to be the weakest of the 3 branches of government and nothing to worry about—but that’s another story.) This is how the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision became the purported “law of the land” on Jan. 22, 1973.

Actually, I don’t think it’s so much Catholics they’re worried about as social conservatives. After all, it’s “Catholics” like Ted Kennedy who are among the strongest opponents to Alito’s confirmation! And one or two of the “Catholics” already on the Court are on the “liberal” end of the ideological scale. But for them to say in effect “social conservatives need not apply” would only highlight their own social-liberal ideology and agenda, which ordinarily only works when it’s kept “under the radar” and away from intellectual scrutiny.

But since Samuel Alito is (*gasp*) both reportedly a social conservative and a faithful Roman Catholic (not to mention a “strict constructionist” who bases his interpretation of the law on what the Constitution actually says (what a concept!) rather than what he wishes it to mean)—as was John Roberts before him—his opponents feel the safest course of action is to insinuate unspecified fears about his Catholicism (the object of the last “socially acceptable” bigotry at work in America today) into the public discussion in order to rally public opinion against him.

Historically (until fairly recently), this country has looked to its traditional Christian ethos as perhaps its most prominent foundational principle. However, this ethos or philosophical paradigm was not merely “Christian,” but specifically Protestant (Puritan) in nature, which from its roots in the late Middle Ages in Europe had a deep-seated suspicion of & even antagonism against the Church of Rome. Given this native cultural attitude among most Americans, it is understandable that Catholics who conscientiously followed the teachings of their Church would be only just tolerated most of the time in most places, and even at times actively and viciously persecuted (as they were in the mid to late 19th Century).

Many dyed-in-the-wool liberals today are beginning to sense that the “icon” of the left-liberal agenda (the Roe vs. Wade decision & the practice of abortion-on-demand it legally permitted) is hanging by a thread and that its days are numbered, and they are desperate to save it. Their main problem is that because it was cut from the cloth of pure ideology there is no rational argument they can marshal to defend it. So their only hope is to keep principled judges off the Court. And without a Bill Clinton making the nominations, they have to keep emotions high and rely on “smear” campaigns.

No, I'm not dead.

2006-01-12T13:18:00.000-08:00

Nor have I abandoned this blog. I've just been ... well, busy. Either busy or exhausted (I'll spare you the details).

I have lots of ideas about things to post about, but no time to write them down, so they just rattle around in my head, and time marches on, and you folks wonder if I'm still around or what. I hope to write something interesting sometime soon (promises, promises), so stay tuned....

Different

2005-12-04T20:09:00.000-08:00

“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

2005-11-16T08:22:00.000-08:00

“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

2005-11-10T18:34:00.000-08:00

(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

2005-10-28T22:30:00.000-07:00

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 ..."

2005-10-14T22:21:00.000-07:00

… 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

2005-10-06T21:03:00.000-07:00

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:

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.)

It’s good practice in honing my rhetorical skills.

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?

2005-09-06T23:15:00.000-07:00

[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:

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)
People (who might not have otherwise done so) were prodded into helping their neighbors (both near and far)
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)
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!)
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)
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 ...

2005-09-02T15:26:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-08-07T20:00:00.000-07:00

Click here.

(Just kidding.)

Bear Kids

2005-07-16T19:45:00.000-07:00

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)

2005-07-10T16:37:00.000-07:00

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)

2005-06-24T22:18:00.000-07:00

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)

2005-06-19T21:07:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-06-10T22:36:00.000-07:00

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

2005-06-10T17:59:00.000-07:00

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)

2005-06-06T16:59:00.000-07:00

"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.

What's next?

2005-05-27T09:13:00.000-07:00

Wow! That last one was really long (but I think it was worth it). I'll try to keep subsequent posts much more brief.

I plan to post soon on the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit, and maybe several of the virtues, fruits of the Holy Spirit, etc.

If you have any suggestions of other things you'd like to know more about, leave a comment and I'll research it & see what I can come up with.