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
Friday, June 24, 2005
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Living a life of virtue (part 2)
The Human Virtues: the cardinal virtues (continued)
Justice is the moral virtue that consists in the consistent and firm will to give one's due to God and neighbor. Justice toward God is called the "virtue of religion." Justice toward men disposes one to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor. "You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor" (Leviticus 19:15). "Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven" (Colossians 4:1).
Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures firmness in the difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good. It strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the moral life. The virtue of fortitude enables one to conquer fear, even fear of death, and to face trials and persecutions. It disposes one even to renounce and sacrifice his life in defense of a just cause. "The Lord is my strength and my song" (Psalm 118:14). "In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will's mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: "Do not follow your inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart" (Sirach 5:2 [you'll need a Catholic bible to read the book of Sirach]; cf. 37:27-31). Temperance is often praised in the Old Testament: "Do not follow your base desires, but restrain your appetites" (Sir 18:30). In the New Testament it is called "moderation" or "sobriety." We ought "to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world" (Titus 2:12).
In his treatise De moribus ecclesiae catholicae (On the Morality of the Catholic Church) (A.D. 388), St. Augustine of Hippo sums up these human virtues in this fashion: "To live well is nothing other than to love God with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's efforts; from this it comes about that love is kept whole and incorrupted (through temperance). No misfortune can disturb it (and this is fortitude). It obeys only [God] (and this is justice), and it is careful in discerning things, so as not to be surprised by deceit or trickery (and this is prudence)."
The virtues and grace
Human virtues acquired by education, by deliberate acts and by a perseverence ever-renewed in repeated efforts are purified and elevated by divine grace. With God's help, they they forge character and give facility in the practice of the good. The virtuous man is happy to practice them.
It is not easy for man, wounded by sin, to maintain moral balance. Christ's gift of salvation offers us the grace necessary to persevere in the pursuit of the virtues. Everyone should always ask for this grace of light and strength, frequent the sacraments, cooperate with the Holy Spirit, and follow His calls to love what is good and shun evil.
Next: the theological virtues
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
Friday, June 10, 2005
What obsolete skill are you?
This is what I am:
You are 'Latin'. Even among obsolete skills, the
tongue of the ancient Romans is a real
anachronism. With its profusion of different
cases and conjugations, Latin is more than a
language; it is a whole different way of
thinking about things.
You are very classy, meaning that you value the
classics. You value old things, good things
which have stood the test of time. You value
things which have been proven worthy and
valuable, even if no one else these days sees
them that way. Your life is touched by a
certain 'pietas', or piety; perhaps you are
even a Stoic. Nonetheless, you have a certain
fascination with the grotesque and the profane.
Also, the modern world rejects you like a bad
transplant. Your problem is that Latin has
been obsolete for a long time.
What obsolete skill are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
Thank you, hoody, for this interesting quiz.
You are 'Latin'. Even among obsolete skills, the
tongue of the ancient Romans is a real
anachronism. With its profusion of different
cases and conjugations, Latin is more than a
language; it is a whole different way of
thinking about things.
You are very classy, meaning that you value the
classics. You value old things, good things
which have stood the test of time. You value
things which have been proven worthy and
valuable, even if no one else these days sees
them that way. Your life is touched by a
certain 'pietas', or piety; perhaps you are
even a Stoic. Nonetheless, you have a certain
fascination with the grotesque and the profane.
Also, the modern world rejects you like a bad
transplant. Your problem is that Latin has
been obsolete for a long time.
What obsolete skill are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
Thank you, hoody, for this interesting quiz.
Interlude... concerning "Gay Pride" Month
It seems that June has been designated "Gay Pride Month" in various places.
A friend of mine gave me a copy of an e-mail message (apparently non-confidential in nature, so I don't expect any problem sharing it with you) sent by Mr. J.A.B., president and acting-CEO of a well-known multinational corporation, to all of that company's employees (including my friend).
Here it is in its entirety (I will edit out identifying information):
"Subject: Gay Pride Month in context.
"June is Gay Pride Month, when we celebrate the contribution that this particular group of employees has made to [our company's] success. Since first publication of the Gay Pride Month link [on our internal employee website] earlier this month, I and members of the Executive Council have received a number of negative and derogatory messages against the company's support of Gay Pride Month.
"[Our company] observes various 'heritage months': Black History Month in February; Women's History Month in March; Asian Pacific Month in May; Gay Pride Month in June; Hispanic Heritage Month in September; Disability Awareness Month in October; American Indian Month in November; and Multicultural Celebration Day in December [I guess that means "Call-It-Anything-But-Christmas"?--G/F]. The point of all these is to drive inclusion, fight harassment and discrimination, and remind us to value people as individuals. Recognizing diversity--all elements of it--is a key component of our business strategy.
"The foundation of our success [here] is based on our ability to attract and retain the best people possible for the jobs we have. To do that, we must create and maintain an environment where, collectively, we can design, produce, and support products and services that make our customers and shareholders successful. A key part of creating that environment is aimed at helping all employees know that they are appreciated for the contributions they make toward helping [this company] meet its business objectives.
"We need to ensure that we treat all employees--including gay and lesbian employees--with dignity and respect. While we could point to the law as the rationale for our actions, I believe that it's our obligation to demonstrate on a regular basis not only our commitment--but also our resolve--to provide an opportunity for each employee to learn more about the diversity that underlies this company's strength.
"Thank you. --J..."
Well, that was rather instructive, I think. I don't quite understand his oblique reference to "the law" in the last paragraph, though. I'm not aware of any law that compels all companies to observe Gay Pride Month. (Maybe it has to do with possible government contracts the company has, I dunno...) All very politically correct and all.
I suggested to my friend that he respond to this message--as charitably as possible--through the company's approved channels, and he said he already intended to do so at the first opportunity.
If it were me, I'd respond like this:
Clarifying the context of Gay Pride Month
Dear Mr. B... ~
In your message titled "Gay Pride Month in context," you said rightly that "a key part of creating that environment (of success) is aimed at helping all employees know that they are appreciated for the contributions they make toward helping [this company] meet its business objectives."
Appreciated for their contributions to the business' success, certainly, but not for their "lifestyles" (or, more precisely, their personal socio-sexual inclinations, decisions or behaviors).
Being "gay" has nothing to do with who they are--despite their inevitable protestations to the contrary--as persons (as is the case with Blacks, women, Hispanics, American Indians, Italians, Chinese or Croatians), but rather what they do (their socio-sexual attitudes or behaviors and/or political/social activism).
If some employees choose to identify themselves primarily according to this psychological element of their personalities, that's fine & I have no problem understanding that. But there is no credible reason that a company such as yours should highlight this personal condition. (Please NOTE: Not all people who experience same-sex attractions identify themselves as "gay." That appellation was adopted/co-opted by a particular socio-political movement. It is improper (and to some degree, insulting) to refer to all homosexuals as "gays.")
However, if your company chooses to continue to observe "Gay Pride Month" in the future, why not (in all fairness) balance this by establishing "Christian Heritage Month" (how about in April?) to draw attention to the heritage of those employees (certainly much more numerous than those who identify themselves as gay) who identify themselves as Christians, to let them all know how much their contributions are valued and appreciated? After all, it would be a perfect "opportunity for each employee to learn more about the diversity that underlies this company's strength," don't you agree?
I have every confidence that this proposal would not offend non-Christian employees any more than non-gay or non-Hispanic employees are offended by the special recognition afforded those groups (which is to say not at all).
Thank you for your kind and thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully yours,
~ "the Green Flash"
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"
Monday, June 06, 2005
Living a life of virtue (part 1)
"Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Philippians 4:8)
At paragraph 1803, the Catechism of the Catholic Church begins its article on the virtues with the above quote from Holy Scripture. A virtue is an habitual and firm disposition to do the good. It allows the person not only to perform good acts, but to give the best of himself. The virtuous person tends toward the good with all his sensory and spiritual powers; he pursues the good and chooses it in concrete actions.
The article is divided into 3 parts: The Human Virtues (moral virtues, including the 4 cardinal virtues); The Theological Virtues; and The Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit, all of which I intend to discuss in the next few posts.
The Catechism organizes its exposition of Catholic doctrine into 4 parts: "The Profession of Faith" (the basic articles of faith in the creed); "The Celebration of the Christian Mysteries" (the theology and practice of the sacraments); "Life in Christ" (the moral life and the Ten Commandments); and "Christian Prayer" (obvious). The article on the virtues falls in Part 3 (Life in Christ), Section 1 (Man's Vocation: Life in the Spirit), Chapter 1 (The Dignity of the Human Person). The articles in this chapter are: (1) Man: the Image of God; (2) Our Vocation to Beatitude; (3) Man's Freedom; (4) The Morality of Human Acts; (5) The Morality of the Passions; (6) Moral Conscience; (7) The Virtues; and (8) Sin. (Chapter 2 of this section, The Human Community, then launches into man's relationship to and participation in human society.)
I. The Human Virtues
Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life. The virtuous man is he who practices the good.
The moral virtues are acquired by human effort. They are the fruit and seed of morally good acts; they dispose all the powers of the human being for communion with divine love.
The cardinal virtues
Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called cardinal [Latin: "hinge"]; all others are grouped around them. They are prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. These virtues are praised under other names in many passages of Scripture.
Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it. Prudence is "right reason in action," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It has been called auriga virtutem (the charioteer of the virtues) since it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to acheive and the evil to avoid.
Next: Justice, Fortitude & Temperance.
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.
Friday, May 27, 2005
What's next?
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.
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.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
"Offer it up..."
These are words that every Catholic has (or should have) grown up hearing. Whenever you had a pain, whether physical or emotional, or some disappointment or any kind of suffering, your mother would tell you, "Offer it up." This was to say, turn your personal suffering into a prayer and offer it as a sacrifice, along with the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, to God the Father, in expiation for your own sins and the sins of others.
Sin always results in suffering. If not for you directly or immediately, then for someone else. There is a balance to the universe and when we sin, we upset the balance, and justice demands that the balance be restored: by making amends--righting the wrong we've done--or, if that isn't possible, by accepting the natural consequences and doing what we can to restore peace to our relationships with God, our fellow man (society) and the rest of creation (that's why one of the symbols of Justice is the balance).
Because sin abounds in this world, wherever we look, suffering is unavoidable. It is inevitable, from the moment the doctor slaps us on the butt when we enter the world, to the last moment of our death throes when we leave it.
[Dr. Alice von Hildebrand taught philosophy at a university for 37 years. (Her husband, Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889-1977), was one of the great philosophers of the last century.) Much of the following was expressed by her in 1999 in a talk on EWTN, the global Catholic television network. Some of this is paraphrase, but you can almost hear her quaint little German accent....]
Why is there suffering? This has always been one of the main arch-questions of all of human history. And, for many, one of the greatest obstacles to belief in God. Why are millions of people in despair, suffering, greiving, being tortured while we are comfortable & safe? Why, if God is all-good and all-powerful, WHY does He allow little children to be tortured? Injustice? All manner of suffering? Mankind has always searched for the answer to suffering.
The great French philosopher Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) made a distinction between problem and mystery. Mysteries [not supernatural mysteries, such as the triune nature of God, the incarnation or transubstantiation--he's not talking about those here] are questions of human existence that are so complex & so deep that they can never be answered fully and completely. A problem is something outside myself which has no relationship to myself, but which creates a difficulty which must be solved.
Problems can be solved, and once a problem is solved, it is no longer a problem. Flying to the moon was once a problem, but we solved that problem and now we can fly to the moon. Getting computers to talk to each other was a problem, but we learned how to network computers; that problem is solved, and we can move on to the next problem.
But a mystery is something else altogether. Evil. Suffering. Although much has been written to help man deal with such things, we can never say, "Now the problem [of suffering] is solved! Now we can finally get beyond that and move on."
Because men are arrogant and impertinent, they say from time to time such things as, "OK, everybody just follow MY rules, follow MY teaching, my ideas, and you will be liberated!"
1. Buddha said, basically, we suffer because we have an illegitimate attachment to existence. So if you sort of sever your craving for existence, and you extinguish it, you're going to reach this state of calm which is the door to Nirvana. Now this is a very attractive idea. If you just follow the rules and methods of Buddhism, one fine day you'll be like the Buddha--sitting serenely, looking inward, a smile upon his face, immovable, and you say, "That must be a very comfortable state."
Now, for a moment, compare the smiling Buddha to Christ on the cross. Which is more attractive?
2. Then there was Karl Marx. His basic idea was that there isn't happiness because there is social injustice & inequality. Let the State take over completely & totally, distribute wealth equally & justly. Then you will have what? The Workers' Paradise! This was introduced in Russia in 1917, but unfortunately the Workers' Paradise turned into gulags. Well that was rather a big disillusion when you were promised Paradise and the way it was implemented, you were sent to concentration camps by the millions. What his ideas created was much worse than the injustice he was planning to correct.
Obviously, when you look at it this way, suffering is a mystery. (You can never wrap your mind all the way around it & say "Ah, now I understand it completely!")
[Here is Dr. von Hildebrand's main thesis:]
In Christianity, you'll discover two things that are unique and amazing.
1. Christianity teaches the art of suffering; and
2. (Particularly emphasized in Roman Catholicism) the meaning of suffering.
Now, I might be such a coward & a sissy that I cannot take the prick of a needle on my finger if it has no meaning. Why should I take that? I don't like it! But the amazing thing is that when Christians discover the meaning of suffering, they can carry crushing crosses, and have a smile on their faces. We're going to get there.
The art of suffering, or should I say the holy art of suffering. This is not easy to learn because (due to original sin) we have a rebellious nature and we like to enjoy things and take it easy. And so suffering comes in and disturbs all our plans.
Consider what could be termed illegitimate sufferings. Self-made sufferings. Things that we are not supposed to suffer at all, but that we do suffer because of our own fault. St. Paul said that God does not try us beyond our strength (cf. 1 Cor 10:13). But every day, we say "That's wrong. I'm tried way beyond my strength to bear it. Therefore, either St. Paul & God are wrong or it is unjust. Why should I bear this? It's too much! I can't take it!"
Now think of this: Don't add to your suffering. Suppose for example that someone is full of vanity. You love compliments and notice and people praising you ... and suddenly someone criticizes you for what you're wearing or something you said, etc., and all of a sudden you feel very depressed.
Here is an example from Pride and Prejudice [one of Dr. von Hildebrand's favorites].
Mrs. Bennett has 5 daughters and wants very badly for them all to be married. One day she goes into hysterics & fits of despair. "Nobody knows what I suffer because I never complain ... (blah, blah, blah) ...." Why was she so upset? Because her next door neighbor's daughter got engaged ahead of her own daughters. Can you imagine anything so crushing, so terrible, so absolutely heart-rending? Who can take it!? And what's more, her husband (Mr. Bennett) is a bit of a cynic and was so cruel that he couldn't manage to shed a few crocodile tears along with her! She's SO misunderstood!
Is this legitimate suffering to go through such torture over such a small thing? It is silly, it's petty. But she is suffering, no question!
Another example:
Once my husband and I were visiting an elderly countess in Spain who described to us "the most terrible night of my life."
"I was 16, going to my first ball. I had such beautiful gems, such a beautiful gown! I was convinced I was going to be the queen of the ball! And as I entered this grand hall, I noticed that my 'best friend' had jewels that were much finer than mine & her dress was much more beautiful... I was crushed! All at once, the lights became dim, the flowers lost their perfume... It was a terrible night."
Now of course we had to pretend to sympathize with her out of courtesy, all the while doing our best to contain our mirth--inside, we were in stitches--at someone suffering so much over such a petty thing.
Or say I tend to be envious of others. What is envy? I might see someone who has a quality or some possession, which I might not necessarily want for myself, but I resent that he has it. And I suffer tortures that he has something good. But if I recognize my envy for what it is, & decide that I won't let it triumph over me, I can let it go and no longer allow it to cause me suffering. If I complain to someone that I am crushed by carrying this heavy burden, and he says, "Well, why do you cary it then?" Oh, yes, you're right. I don't need to.
Or take self-pity. Suppose you go to the hospital and you start feeling sorry for yourself. "Why should this have happened to ME? Why should I go through this and it doesn't happen to so-and-so?" and you start crying over yourself, and it's like deflating a tire. In a little while it's flat and you can no longer go.
To avoid self-pity, you turn your thoughts to people who suffer more than you do. And all of a sudden you realize that you're fortunate. Maybe you lost one leg, but the guy in the next bed lost two legs and a hand! There's always the possibility that things could be worse for you. If you turn to another person lovingly, you find that you can carry your own cross more easily.
The amazing thing is that if you carry the cross of another person, yours becomes lighter, it doesn't become heavier.
By far, the worst of all sources of illegitimate suffering: Pride. And that is the suffering of Satan. The pride of someone who refuses to acknowledge that anyone or anything is higher than himself. The proud person wants to be above everything else. After all, what is pride? To want to become God. That was the original sin. "Why should HE be God & not ME? I think I could pull it off extremely well. I want to be God!"
These people suffer constant torture because they feel that other people do not discover, are so blind that they do not see that they are geniuses. You see that among university professors, many of them (not all), who are so animated by pride that they beg you, so to speak, to recognize their genius, and if you don't give the proper expected response, they are crushed & they will hate you. To feel superior to others is a terrible burden. Forgetting that their talents come from God, they forget so completely that they feel superior to God.
The two phrases that the proud person cannot utter:
"Thank you." It is simply an acknowledgement that another person has been kind to me, but it is something that is fast disappearing from the English language.
And even worse: "Forgive me." We ought to say this every day, to family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, strangers, but most especially to God. "Forgive me, O Lord, because I am a sinner."
"What do you mean to call me a sinner!? I am a perfectly good and decent person! How dare you call me a sinner!" And you see these people suffer tortures. I know people who are paralyzed by their pride.
The trouble here is that this kind of suffering is needless because it is self-made.
If I know I have a problem being envious, for example, and I suffer because of my envy of others, I can't just say, "I won't be envious any more." It's not something you can turn off like a switch.
But I can say that this attitude is wrong and I don't want to be this way. I reject it and disavow it, I oppose it.
Then you begin the practice of what I call "holy pestering." You beg God day after day after day that He will liberate you from this sinful attitude.
St. Therese of Lisieux, from the age of 4 until 13, was a hypersensitive cry-baby. At the slightest word she would burst into tears. Hypersensitive people are so easily offended that whatever you say will be interpreted negatively, then they will either literally or figuratively storm off and feel dreadfully sorry for themselves. So it was with Therese.
Then when she was 13, the family had just returned from Christmas midnight Mass. Her sisters had decorated the house very nicely, with the beautiful tree and presents all around and so forth. Her father was elderly (63 at the time) and he was tired. As he walked in, he said "Well, I hope this is going to be the last time, because Therese is getting much too big for this." Well, this was of course one of her favorite feasts of the year. She burst out crying and ran up the stairs. Half way up the stairs, God's grace hit her. She stopped, turned around, returned to her family, smiling, and said, "from this day on I will never shed an unnecessary tear." But it took her 9 years of prayers before God granted her request to overcome this weakness.
So obviously we can't change the fact overnight, whether it is vanity, jealousy, pride, all these stupidities. But if we keep disavowing them, then you cut off the head of these ugly attitudes, and you keep begging God--holy pestering--keep knocking and keep knocking, and one day He will give it to you and then you will be liberated. And the day you are liberated, you will be capable of carrying very heavy crosses, because you won't be adding an ounce to the weight of the cross God is sending you. You will be able to bear crushing crosses, and nevertheless have peace, and have a smile on your face.
I am always noticing that some people carry crushing crosses and they're always at peace and always radiant; and some people carry just about *this much* and the next day they're flat on the floor, and telling you that they're being "treated unjustly by God, who I thought was a GOOD God..." You know, God is good as long as He does what I like. As soon as He does something I don't like, He is my enemy, He is mean, unjust and cruel.
No, a legitimate suffering is one that God chooses for me. He knows what we can handle and what is too much for us, and will not send us any more than we are able to bear. He loves us (much more than we love ourselves) and He sends us suffering to strengthen us, to teach us to call on Him for help, to teach us to help one another, to see our own weakness & come to realize that we cannot bear up under our own power, that we need Him and His grace to give us the strength to go on, to teach us patience, sympathy for others, compassion, and so on. The only way we can learn to practice virtue is by struggling with some kind of suffering, either our own or that of others.
But we need the supernatural life of God to do it. We need grace, because without Christ we can do nothing. And many of us fail to beg and beg and beg for help. We should say, "My love is about *this much*. God increase my love." Or, "My contrition is not what I know it should be, give me the gift of contrition." We are beggars. In fact, we are very happy beggars because we have a God who is so infinitely good & merciful and can give us what we ask for. We need to realize that we are just crawling on our own, but one day, if we persevere, he will give us wings.
The crosses God sends me are taylor-made. Just for me and no one else. And it fits. Me. It is very unwise to choose your own crosses because we invariably choose the wrong one & it doesn't fit & we cannot bear it. Let God send the cross that He chooses for you.
When we discover this art of suffering, we turn to Catholic teaching and we discover that suffering also has a meaning. It has no meaning in Buddhism, you're supposed to escape from it. It has no meaning in paganism, you escape from it. It has no meaning in Islam, you escape from it. For the ancient Greeks, suffering was an expression of the wrath of the gods, and you were a victim of the capricious fury of the gods.
But in Christianity, the amazing thing is that suffering is given a profound and sublime meaning. Paul Claudel (1868-1955), a great French Catholic poet, once wrote, "Christ did not come to abolish suffering, but to join in our suffering. He did not come to abolish the cross, He chose to lay down on the cross to save us."
It shows that the meaning of suffering on this earth is to be an expression of love. All of us know that when we love someone, we start to suffer. I love my child but I cannot protect him all the time. I love my spouse, my brothers, my parents, my friends, and I suddenly realize that I cannot protect them from suffering...from sickness, from poverty, from death.
Many times, I found myself fretting because my husband Dietrich was late returning from some talk he was giving, and because I love him, I worry, my imagination runs wild--he could have suffered a heart attack or been in an accident--what could have happened to him, & I cannot protect him. If you don't love somebody, you shrug and say, "Well, everybody has to die sometime, it's part of life. Why make such a big deal out of it?" But when you love someone, you can't help but suffer over them. So in this life, you cannot sever the link between love and suffering. They belong together.
But that happens to everyone, not just Christians. Now it gets even deeper. Now comes Christianity.
When Christ was crucified, suffering agonizing tortures that we cannot even picture, who was at the foot of the cross? His mother. And (I am proud to say) the other holy women. Where were the men? The apostles all fled (except St. John who came back). Why did the women stay? Because they loved more.
And the Holy Virgin could not do a thing to relieve the suffering of her beloved. Just imagine the torture of standing there for THREE HOURS seeing Him agonizing ... she can't do a thing! What did she do? She suffered with Him.
Now in modern pragmatic society, we are so utilitarian in our views, I hear some people say such stupid things as, "If he's in the hospital & they can't do anything for him, then why do you go there to visit him?"
We all know, if we have suffered, that to have someone there present, that the person cannot do a thing, cannot relieve your pain, but can simply say, "I am there and I am suffering with you."
The word compassion comes from 2 Latin words that mean to "suffer with." If you love, you want to suffer with the beloved. This is an expression of authentic love which endorses suffering because the beloved one is suffering. I am not going to say, "Oh, my husband is dying--I think I'll take a cruise to Bermuda to relax." Who would dream of doing that? How many mothers spend days and days at the side of a dying child without a thought of food or sleep--they want to be there, and they suffer with them.
The greatest love that exists is to give one's life for ones friends, and that is what Christ did for us. Not only did He suffer with us, but He suffered for us so that the doors of paradise could be reopened to us. This is the culmination of love: not only that you suffer because you love; not only that you suffer with; but that you suffer for.
Now what is the meaning of suffering for a Christian? That when I suffer a legitimate cross, sent by God--He is giving me His grace--and suddenly I realize I am deigned to join Christ on the cross, to be there with Him who has suffered--what is my suffering compared to His? And somehow in this moment He says to me, "Come close to my heart that has bled for you, that has suffered for you, that has been pierced by a lance for you."
This is why the saints, when they receive a cross, they see it as a way of coming closer to our Lord. And this is why, even though the sufferings can be terrible and agonizing, somehow they can be transfigured with a joy of knowing they are there on the cross with our Savior. This is uniquely stressed in Roman Catholicism. From this point of view, day in and day out, we should sing a song of gratitude because He has died for us, and He has given us the grace to carry our crosses.
How do we make suffering a joy?
Well, we cannot make it so by an act of will. But by accepting it, by meditating on the meaning of suffering, on the greatness of Christ's sacrifice (and our voluntary participation in it), one day it can be given to us as a reward.
One of the things my husband Dietrich developed so well was the idea that there are things I can do, and there are things I cannot do. I can command an action--I am going to drink--and I do it. But there are many things that I cannot command by an act of will, and nevertheless there is a great deal that I can do about it indirectly. He calls it "indirect freedom."
For example, one's prayer life. Or one's meditation on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, that you read the passion in the gospels and meditate on it. That you read in the lives of the saints and you see the sufferings they have borne for the sake of God's kingdom. And one very fine day it comes to you as a sort of reward, but you cannot command it. It is something that God gives to those who are faithful & persevering, and obviously it doesn't come overnight.
Is suffering a part of one's purification?
When we sin, and we all do of course, we owe a "debt" of sorts to God. Now in actuality, there is no way we can physically injure God the Father, and there is no way we can pay a debt of any kind to God, who created the entire universe out of nothing and is totally self-sufficient from all eternity, and technically has no need of us or anything that we can give Him or do for Him.
But God is not technical, and He created us out of love and for love, and we give Him that love--just because He is God.
You can think of it like a king who has a subject who refuses to pay the ordinary homage of respect to the king. Now the subject owes the king respect just because he is the king. If he refuses to show such respect, the king has every right to throw him into prison until he does. When we sin, we are offending the infinite love and majesty of God and, in all justice, we must make amends.
Once I experience authentic contrition, "Lord, have mercy on me, I am a sinner," then comes the desire to pay my debt, and usually this is suffering. But in Christianity it goes beyond that, because I not only suffer to expiate my own sins, which I should do, but I can also suffer for others. Suppose I have satisfied all the requirements of justice for my own debts. Then I can offer my suffering for the debts of others, and God accepts that in the service of love for my fellow man. We can pray and suffer for those who reject suffering, who may even commit crimes to avoid suffering. Then comes a moment of joy because like Christ, and with Him, we are suffering for the sins of others.
Expiation for sins is a punishment, and punishment is not supposed to be pleasant, that's not in the nature of punishment. You don't tell a child, "I'm going to punish you for what you did. Here is some ice cream." He won't learn that he's done something wrong and to avoid it in the future. So punishment has an essential element of education to it.
Sin always results in suffering. If not for you directly or immediately, then for someone else. There is a balance to the universe and when we sin, we upset the balance, and justice demands that the balance be restored: by making amends--righting the wrong we've done--or, if that isn't possible, by accepting the natural consequences and doing what we can to restore peace to our relationships with God, our fellow man (society) and the rest of creation (that's why one of the symbols of Justice is the balance).
Because sin abounds in this world, wherever we look, suffering is unavoidable. It is inevitable, from the moment the doctor slaps us on the butt when we enter the world, to the last moment of our death throes when we leave it.
[Dr. Alice von Hildebrand taught philosophy at a university for 37 years. (Her husband, Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889-1977), was one of the great philosophers of the last century.) Much of the following was expressed by her in 1999 in a talk on EWTN, the global Catholic television network. Some of this is paraphrase, but you can almost hear her quaint little German accent....]
Why is there suffering? This has always been one of the main arch-questions of all of human history. And, for many, one of the greatest obstacles to belief in God. Why are millions of people in despair, suffering, greiving, being tortured while we are comfortable & safe? Why, if God is all-good and all-powerful, WHY does He allow little children to be tortured? Injustice? All manner of suffering? Mankind has always searched for the answer to suffering.
The great French philosopher Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) made a distinction between problem and mystery. Mysteries [not supernatural mysteries, such as the triune nature of God, the incarnation or transubstantiation--he's not talking about those here] are questions of human existence that are so complex & so deep that they can never be answered fully and completely. A problem is something outside myself which has no relationship to myself, but which creates a difficulty which must be solved.
Problems can be solved, and once a problem is solved, it is no longer a problem. Flying to the moon was once a problem, but we solved that problem and now we can fly to the moon. Getting computers to talk to each other was a problem, but we learned how to network computers; that problem is solved, and we can move on to the next problem.
But a mystery is something else altogether. Evil. Suffering. Although much has been written to help man deal with such things, we can never say, "Now the problem [of suffering] is solved! Now we can finally get beyond that and move on."
Because men are arrogant and impertinent, they say from time to time such things as, "OK, everybody just follow MY rules, follow MY teaching, my ideas, and you will be liberated!"
1. Buddha said, basically, we suffer because we have an illegitimate attachment to existence. So if you sort of sever your craving for existence, and you extinguish it, you're going to reach this state of calm which is the door to Nirvana. Now this is a very attractive idea. If you just follow the rules and methods of Buddhism, one fine day you'll be like the Buddha--sitting serenely, looking inward, a smile upon his face, immovable, and you say, "That must be a very comfortable state."
Now, for a moment, compare the smiling Buddha to Christ on the cross. Which is more attractive?
2. Then there was Karl Marx. His basic idea was that there isn't happiness because there is social injustice & inequality. Let the State take over completely & totally, distribute wealth equally & justly. Then you will have what? The Workers' Paradise! This was introduced in Russia in 1917, but unfortunately the Workers' Paradise turned into gulags. Well that was rather a big disillusion when you were promised Paradise and the way it was implemented, you were sent to concentration camps by the millions. What his ideas created was much worse than the injustice he was planning to correct.
Obviously, when you look at it this way, suffering is a mystery. (You can never wrap your mind all the way around it & say "Ah, now I understand it completely!")
[Here is Dr. von Hildebrand's main thesis:]
In Christianity, you'll discover two things that are unique and amazing.
1. Christianity teaches the art of suffering; and
2. (Particularly emphasized in Roman Catholicism) the meaning of suffering.
Now, I might be such a coward & a sissy that I cannot take the prick of a needle on my finger if it has no meaning. Why should I take that? I don't like it! But the amazing thing is that when Christians discover the meaning of suffering, they can carry crushing crosses, and have a smile on their faces. We're going to get there.
The art of suffering, or should I say the holy art of suffering. This is not easy to learn because (due to original sin) we have a rebellious nature and we like to enjoy things and take it easy. And so suffering comes in and disturbs all our plans.
Consider what could be termed illegitimate sufferings. Self-made sufferings. Things that we are not supposed to suffer at all, but that we do suffer because of our own fault. St. Paul said that God does not try us beyond our strength (cf. 1 Cor 10:13). But every day, we say "That's wrong. I'm tried way beyond my strength to bear it. Therefore, either St. Paul & God are wrong or it is unjust. Why should I bear this? It's too much! I can't take it!"
Now think of this: Don't add to your suffering. Suppose for example that someone is full of vanity. You love compliments and notice and people praising you ... and suddenly someone criticizes you for what you're wearing or something you said, etc., and all of a sudden you feel very depressed.
Here is an example from Pride and Prejudice [one of Dr. von Hildebrand's favorites].
Mrs. Bennett has 5 daughters and wants very badly for them all to be married. One day she goes into hysterics & fits of despair. "Nobody knows what I suffer because I never complain ... (blah, blah, blah) ...." Why was she so upset? Because her next door neighbor's daughter got engaged ahead of her own daughters. Can you imagine anything so crushing, so terrible, so absolutely heart-rending? Who can take it!? And what's more, her husband (Mr. Bennett) is a bit of a cynic and was so cruel that he couldn't manage to shed a few crocodile tears along with her! She's SO misunderstood!
Is this legitimate suffering to go through such torture over such a small thing? It is silly, it's petty. But she is suffering, no question!
Another example:
Once my husband and I were visiting an elderly countess in Spain who described to us "the most terrible night of my life."
"I was 16, going to my first ball. I had such beautiful gems, such a beautiful gown! I was convinced I was going to be the queen of the ball! And as I entered this grand hall, I noticed that my 'best friend' had jewels that were much finer than mine & her dress was much more beautiful... I was crushed! All at once, the lights became dim, the flowers lost their perfume... It was a terrible night."
Now of course we had to pretend to sympathize with her out of courtesy, all the while doing our best to contain our mirth--inside, we were in stitches--at someone suffering so much over such a petty thing.
Or say I tend to be envious of others. What is envy? I might see someone who has a quality or some possession, which I might not necessarily want for myself, but I resent that he has it. And I suffer tortures that he has something good. But if I recognize my envy for what it is, & decide that I won't let it triumph over me, I can let it go and no longer allow it to cause me suffering. If I complain to someone that I am crushed by carrying this heavy burden, and he says, "Well, why do you cary it then?" Oh, yes, you're right. I don't need to.
Or take self-pity. Suppose you go to the hospital and you start feeling sorry for yourself. "Why should this have happened to ME? Why should I go through this and it doesn't happen to so-and-so?" and you start crying over yourself, and it's like deflating a tire. In a little while it's flat and you can no longer go.
To avoid self-pity, you turn your thoughts to people who suffer more than you do. And all of a sudden you realize that you're fortunate. Maybe you lost one leg, but the guy in the next bed lost two legs and a hand! There's always the possibility that things could be worse for you. If you turn to another person lovingly, you find that you can carry your own cross more easily.
The amazing thing is that if you carry the cross of another person, yours becomes lighter, it doesn't become heavier.
By far, the worst of all sources of illegitimate suffering: Pride. And that is the suffering of Satan. The pride of someone who refuses to acknowledge that anyone or anything is higher than himself. The proud person wants to be above everything else. After all, what is pride? To want to become God. That was the original sin. "Why should HE be God & not ME? I think I could pull it off extremely well. I want to be God!"
These people suffer constant torture because they feel that other people do not discover, are so blind that they do not see that they are geniuses. You see that among university professors, many of them (not all), who are so animated by pride that they beg you, so to speak, to recognize their genius, and if you don't give the proper expected response, they are crushed & they will hate you. To feel superior to others is a terrible burden. Forgetting that their talents come from God, they forget so completely that they feel superior to God.
The two phrases that the proud person cannot utter:
"Thank you." It is simply an acknowledgement that another person has been kind to me, but it is something that is fast disappearing from the English language.
And even worse: "Forgive me." We ought to say this every day, to family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, strangers, but most especially to God. "Forgive me, O Lord, because I am a sinner."
"What do you mean to call me a sinner!? I am a perfectly good and decent person! How dare you call me a sinner!" And you see these people suffer tortures. I know people who are paralyzed by their pride.
The trouble here is that this kind of suffering is needless because it is self-made.
If I know I have a problem being envious, for example, and I suffer because of my envy of others, I can't just say, "I won't be envious any more." It's not something you can turn off like a switch.
But I can say that this attitude is wrong and I don't want to be this way. I reject it and disavow it, I oppose it.
Then you begin the practice of what I call "holy pestering." You beg God day after day after day that He will liberate you from this sinful attitude.
St. Therese of Lisieux, from the age of 4 until 13, was a hypersensitive cry-baby. At the slightest word she would burst into tears. Hypersensitive people are so easily offended that whatever you say will be interpreted negatively, then they will either literally or figuratively storm off and feel dreadfully sorry for themselves. So it was with Therese.
Then when she was 13, the family had just returned from Christmas midnight Mass. Her sisters had decorated the house very nicely, with the beautiful tree and presents all around and so forth. Her father was elderly (63 at the time) and he was tired. As he walked in, he said "Well, I hope this is going to be the last time, because Therese is getting much too big for this." Well, this was of course one of her favorite feasts of the year. She burst out crying and ran up the stairs. Half way up the stairs, God's grace hit her. She stopped, turned around, returned to her family, smiling, and said, "from this day on I will never shed an unnecessary tear." But it took her 9 years of prayers before God granted her request to overcome this weakness.
So obviously we can't change the fact overnight, whether it is vanity, jealousy, pride, all these stupidities. But if we keep disavowing them, then you cut off the head of these ugly attitudes, and you keep begging God--holy pestering--keep knocking and keep knocking, and one day He will give it to you and then you will be liberated. And the day you are liberated, you will be capable of carrying very heavy crosses, because you won't be adding an ounce to the weight of the cross God is sending you. You will be able to bear crushing crosses, and nevertheless have peace, and have a smile on your face.
I am always noticing that some people carry crushing crosses and they're always at peace and always radiant; and some people carry just about *this much* and the next day they're flat on the floor, and telling you that they're being "treated unjustly by God, who I thought was a GOOD God..." You know, God is good as long as He does what I like. As soon as He does something I don't like, He is my enemy, He is mean, unjust and cruel.
No, a legitimate suffering is one that God chooses for me. He knows what we can handle and what is too much for us, and will not send us any more than we are able to bear. He loves us (much more than we love ourselves) and He sends us suffering to strengthen us, to teach us to call on Him for help, to teach us to help one another, to see our own weakness & come to realize that we cannot bear up under our own power, that we need Him and His grace to give us the strength to go on, to teach us patience, sympathy for others, compassion, and so on. The only way we can learn to practice virtue is by struggling with some kind of suffering, either our own or that of others.
But we need the supernatural life of God to do it. We need grace, because without Christ we can do nothing. And many of us fail to beg and beg and beg for help. We should say, "My love is about *this much*. God increase my love." Or, "My contrition is not what I know it should be, give me the gift of contrition." We are beggars. In fact, we are very happy beggars because we have a God who is so infinitely good & merciful and can give us what we ask for. We need to realize that we are just crawling on our own, but one day, if we persevere, he will give us wings.
The crosses God sends me are taylor-made. Just for me and no one else. And it fits. Me. It is very unwise to choose your own crosses because we invariably choose the wrong one & it doesn't fit & we cannot bear it. Let God send the cross that He chooses for you.
When we discover this art of suffering, we turn to Catholic teaching and we discover that suffering also has a meaning. It has no meaning in Buddhism, you're supposed to escape from it. It has no meaning in paganism, you escape from it. It has no meaning in Islam, you escape from it. For the ancient Greeks, suffering was an expression of the wrath of the gods, and you were a victim of the capricious fury of the gods.
But in Christianity, the amazing thing is that suffering is given a profound and sublime meaning. Paul Claudel (1868-1955), a great French Catholic poet, once wrote, "Christ did not come to abolish suffering, but to join in our suffering. He did not come to abolish the cross, He chose to lay down on the cross to save us."
It shows that the meaning of suffering on this earth is to be an expression of love. All of us know that when we love someone, we start to suffer. I love my child but I cannot protect him all the time. I love my spouse, my brothers, my parents, my friends, and I suddenly realize that I cannot protect them from suffering...from sickness, from poverty, from death.
Many times, I found myself fretting because my husband Dietrich was late returning from some talk he was giving, and because I love him, I worry, my imagination runs wild--he could have suffered a heart attack or been in an accident--what could have happened to him, & I cannot protect him. If you don't love somebody, you shrug and say, "Well, everybody has to die sometime, it's part of life. Why make such a big deal out of it?" But when you love someone, you can't help but suffer over them. So in this life, you cannot sever the link between love and suffering. They belong together.
But that happens to everyone, not just Christians. Now it gets even deeper. Now comes Christianity.
When Christ was crucified, suffering agonizing tortures that we cannot even picture, who was at the foot of the cross? His mother. And (I am proud to say) the other holy women. Where were the men? The apostles all fled (except St. John who came back). Why did the women stay? Because they loved more.
And the Holy Virgin could not do a thing to relieve the suffering of her beloved. Just imagine the torture of standing there for THREE HOURS seeing Him agonizing ... she can't do a thing! What did she do? She suffered with Him.
Now in modern pragmatic society, we are so utilitarian in our views, I hear some people say such stupid things as, "If he's in the hospital & they can't do anything for him, then why do you go there to visit him?"
We all know, if we have suffered, that to have someone there present, that the person cannot do a thing, cannot relieve your pain, but can simply say, "I am there and I am suffering with you."
The word compassion comes from 2 Latin words that mean to "suffer with." If you love, you want to suffer with the beloved. This is an expression of authentic love which endorses suffering because the beloved one is suffering. I am not going to say, "Oh, my husband is dying--I think I'll take a cruise to Bermuda to relax." Who would dream of doing that? How many mothers spend days and days at the side of a dying child without a thought of food or sleep--they want to be there, and they suffer with them.
The greatest love that exists is to give one's life for ones friends, and that is what Christ did for us. Not only did He suffer with us, but He suffered for us so that the doors of paradise could be reopened to us. This is the culmination of love: not only that you suffer because you love; not only that you suffer with; but that you suffer for.
Now what is the meaning of suffering for a Christian? That when I suffer a legitimate cross, sent by God--He is giving me His grace--and suddenly I realize I am deigned to join Christ on the cross, to be there with Him who has suffered--what is my suffering compared to His? And somehow in this moment He says to me, "Come close to my heart that has bled for you, that has suffered for you, that has been pierced by a lance for you."
This is why the saints, when they receive a cross, they see it as a way of coming closer to our Lord. And this is why, even though the sufferings can be terrible and agonizing, somehow they can be transfigured with a joy of knowing they are there on the cross with our Savior. This is uniquely stressed in Roman Catholicism. From this point of view, day in and day out, we should sing a song of gratitude because He has died for us, and He has given us the grace to carry our crosses.
How do we make suffering a joy?
Well, we cannot make it so by an act of will. But by accepting it, by meditating on the meaning of suffering, on the greatness of Christ's sacrifice (and our voluntary participation in it), one day it can be given to us as a reward.
One of the things my husband Dietrich developed so well was the idea that there are things I can do, and there are things I cannot do. I can command an action--I am going to drink--and I do it. But there are many things that I cannot command by an act of will, and nevertheless there is a great deal that I can do about it indirectly. He calls it "indirect freedom."
For example, one's prayer life. Or one's meditation on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, that you read the passion in the gospels and meditate on it. That you read in the lives of the saints and you see the sufferings they have borne for the sake of God's kingdom. And one very fine day it comes to you as a sort of reward, but you cannot command it. It is something that God gives to those who are faithful & persevering, and obviously it doesn't come overnight.
Is suffering a part of one's purification?
When we sin, and we all do of course, we owe a "debt" of sorts to God. Now in actuality, there is no way we can physically injure God the Father, and there is no way we can pay a debt of any kind to God, who created the entire universe out of nothing and is totally self-sufficient from all eternity, and technically has no need of us or anything that we can give Him or do for Him.
But God is not technical, and He created us out of love and for love, and we give Him that love--just because He is God.
You can think of it like a king who has a subject who refuses to pay the ordinary homage of respect to the king. Now the subject owes the king respect just because he is the king. If he refuses to show such respect, the king has every right to throw him into prison until he does. When we sin, we are offending the infinite love and majesty of God and, in all justice, we must make amends.
Once I experience authentic contrition, "Lord, have mercy on me, I am a sinner," then comes the desire to pay my debt, and usually this is suffering. But in Christianity it goes beyond that, because I not only suffer to expiate my own sins, which I should do, but I can also suffer for others. Suppose I have satisfied all the requirements of justice for my own debts. Then I can offer my suffering for the debts of others, and God accepts that in the service of love for my fellow man. We can pray and suffer for those who reject suffering, who may even commit crimes to avoid suffering. Then comes a moment of joy because like Christ, and with Him, we are suffering for the sins of others.
Expiation for sins is a punishment, and punishment is not supposed to be pleasant, that's not in the nature of punishment. You don't tell a child, "I'm going to punish you for what you did. Here is some ice cream." He won't learn that he's done something wrong and to avoid it in the future. So punishment has an essential element of education to it.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Sorry it's been so long...
...since my last post. I've been rather busy. I had some difficulties with my computer, JohnnyK has been a big distraction lately (don't let it go to your head, JK)--see the many "comments" on the last post (Happy Easter!)--and miscellaneous other stuff.
Pope John Paul the Great, rest in peace!
God bless and long live Pope Benedict XVI!
I intend to post soon (God willing) on the topic of suffering based on thoughts by Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, so stay tuned....
Pope John Paul the Great, rest in peace!
God bless and long live Pope Benedict XVI!
I intend to post soon (God willing) on the topic of suffering based on thoughts by Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, so stay tuned....
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Happy Easter!
May the Resurrection of our Lord and the promise of our own be a source of joy, blessings and peace to you all!
We can praise and thank God that Michael Schiavo has relented in the rigor of his "mercy" to permit his wife to receive the sacraments of the Church one last time. May God shower additional graces upon Michael for this act of kindness. We can rest assured that Terri now has the benefit of every grace that can be provided in this world to assist her soul in its entrance into the next.
God is indeed merciful!
We can praise and thank God that Michael Schiavo has relented in the rigor of his "mercy" to permit his wife to receive the sacraments of the Church one last time. May God shower additional graces upon Michael for this act of kindness. We can rest assured that Terri now has the benefit of every grace that can be provided in this world to assist her soul in its entrance into the next.
God is indeed merciful!
Friday, March 18, 2005
A Clarification
Some folks who have left comments on this blog have occasionally made some statements that seem to indicate a misunderstanding on their part as to its purpose. I apologize now for being the possible occasion of this misunderstanding and offer this clarification in reparation for my shortsightedness and omissions.
Nothing I post on this blog is meant in any way to insult or provoke a verbal fight with anyone over their potentially opposing views. It is meant to provoke thought, but not a fight, and certainly not a knee-jerk "reaction." I don't doubt that emotions may be elevated, but I hope not tempers.
If I write something that seems unreasonable to someone, it is likely that either (a) I wrote it without sufficient reflection and stand ready for gentle correction, or (b) that person is himself unable or unwilling to engage his own powers of reason & is reacting on the level of emotion alone. If (a), then I would expect to see an example of superior insight to steer me back onto the right path. If (b), then I pray the person will take a "time out" to re-evaluate his own position & not waste his or my time with emotional appeals to a debased, random or somnolent conscience.
I write from my own personal convictions, opinions and beliefs based on what I have learned (seen, read or heard). That is my right--this is my blog. I publish my thoughts "for what it's worth" and for "anyone who cares." I expect many who visit here will not agree with me. That's OK. If they don't like it, they are free to leave and never return if they so choose. I have no idea who visits if they don't leave a comment, and I don't care how many "hits" I get (you'll notice I don't have a hit-counter & I have no particular curiosity to track my stats). My words are offered as a "public service" for anyone who may enjoy or learn something from them.
I do read every comment that is posted, even if I don't reply to it. I take no offense at people who disagree with me. They are certainly entitled to do so, but I hope they also realize that irrational or gut-based arguments are unlikely to make any impression, much less change my mind. (For example, if your opinion is that I am an unsophisticated bigot, well, I've been called that (and worse) to no effect. You'd be wasting your keystrokes by telling me again.) This shouldn't surprise anyone, since I would expect that same attitude from anyone who speaks from conviction.
If someone is excessively perturbed by what he reads here, I would be puzzled if he kept returning to torture himself.
If someone leaves provocative comments just to "bait" me for his own or his friends' amusement, I would hope he'd soon tire of wasting his wit on someone who just doesn't "get it."
If someone comes here looking for originality or novelty, he'd better just keep walking--he won't find that here. I feel it's better to be right than original. (Of course I mean these are just my own opinions & I don't claim to be absolutely right (aligned with truth) in and of myself. I am not the standard of truth. I only try to pass on any fragments of truth I may have gleaned from elsewhere. I leave you, the reader, to be your own judge.)
Sorry, I know I tend toward verbosity. I just don't want to leave any stones unturned. If this "clarification" has only had the opposite effect, I guess I'll just apologize again and leave it at that.
Nothing I post on this blog is meant in any way to insult or provoke a verbal fight with anyone over their potentially opposing views. It is meant to provoke thought, but not a fight, and certainly not a knee-jerk "reaction." I don't doubt that emotions may be elevated, but I hope not tempers.
If I write something that seems unreasonable to someone, it is likely that either (a) I wrote it without sufficient reflection and stand ready for gentle correction, or (b) that person is himself unable or unwilling to engage his own powers of reason & is reacting on the level of emotion alone. If (a), then I would expect to see an example of superior insight to steer me back onto the right path. If (b), then I pray the person will take a "time out" to re-evaluate his own position & not waste his or my time with emotional appeals to a debased, random or somnolent conscience.
I write from my own personal convictions, opinions and beliefs based on what I have learned (seen, read or heard). That is my right--this is my blog. I publish my thoughts "for what it's worth" and for "anyone who cares." I expect many who visit here will not agree with me. That's OK. If they don't like it, they are free to leave and never return if they so choose. I have no idea who visits if they don't leave a comment, and I don't care how many "hits" I get (you'll notice I don't have a hit-counter & I have no particular curiosity to track my stats). My words are offered as a "public service" for anyone who may enjoy or learn something from them.
I do read every comment that is posted, even if I don't reply to it. I take no offense at people who disagree with me. They are certainly entitled to do so, but I hope they also realize that irrational or gut-based arguments are unlikely to make any impression, much less change my mind. (For example, if your opinion is that I am an unsophisticated bigot, well, I've been called that (and worse) to no effect. You'd be wasting your keystrokes by telling me again.) This shouldn't surprise anyone, since I would expect that same attitude from anyone who speaks from conviction.
If someone is excessively perturbed by what he reads here, I would be puzzled if he kept returning to torture himself.
If someone leaves provocative comments just to "bait" me for his own or his friends' amusement, I would hope he'd soon tire of wasting his wit on someone who just doesn't "get it."
If someone comes here looking for originality or novelty, he'd better just keep walking--he won't find that here. I feel it's better to be right than original. (Of course I mean these are just my own opinions & I don't claim to be absolutely right (aligned with truth) in and of myself. I am not the standard of truth. I only try to pass on any fragments of truth I may have gleaned from elsewhere. I leave you, the reader, to be your own judge.)
Sorry, I know I tend toward verbosity. I just don't want to leave any stones unturned. If this "clarification" has only had the opposite effect, I guess I'll just apologize again and leave it at that.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Happy Saint Patrick's Day
from the Green Flash.
Please pray for Terri Schiavo, her parents, her estranged husband and the judge who is deciding her case.
Please pray for Terri Schiavo, her parents, her estranged husband and the judge who is deciding her case.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Why I am a Catholic (Part 3)
What is faith?
Faith n.
"1. allegiance to duty or a person; loyalty. 2. belief & trust in God. 3. confidence. 4. a system of religious beliefs." --The Merriam-Webster [pocket] Dictionary, 1974
"1. confidence or trust in a person or thing. 2. belief that is not based on proof. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, or the occurrence of a future event. 5. a system of religious belief: the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: to act in good faith. 8. Christian Theol. the trust in God and in his promises as made by Christ and the Scriptures by which man is justified or saved. --Syn. 5. doctrine, tenet, creed, dogma, persuasion, religion. --Ant. 1, 2. distrust, skepticism." --The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition, 1980
"The acceptance of the word of another, trusting that one knows what the other is saying and is honest in telling the truth. The basic motive of all faith is the authority (or right to be believed) of someone who is speaking. This authority is an adequate knowledge of what he or she is talking about, and integrity in not wanting to deceive. It is called divine faith when the one believed is God, and human faith when the persons believed are human beings." --Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, Doubleday & Co. 1980
"Faith is 'the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen' (Heb 11:1). It is an act of the understanding and a Divinely infused virtue whereby we accept as true all that God has revealed, because He has revealed it. The matter of faith is what God has revealed and through His Church teaches us to believe. The motive is the truthfulness of God. Faith is necessary for salvation.
"It is not enough, however, to hold as true the truths of faith. For faith to be complete, its teachings must bring us into a more personal relationship with God. In other words, we must live according to what we believe. Every religious truth should bind us more closely to God. Faith then becomes our response to God's call to follow Him.
"In this connection, the Liturgy is the most complete and most perfect expression of faith, for it is the active adherence of the ecclesial community to the God of the Covenant.
"Thus Christian faith us faith in the redeeming love of God, in the Divine and eternal life of human beings, in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus Christ the Savior. Faith is the encounter of Jesus in the Church and the Liturgy. Belief in Christ means practicing the Liturgy. Faith has need of the Liturgy because it is in the Liturgy that Christ comes to us.
"By the same token, the Liturgy has need of faith; it is for believers. It celebrates faith. 'Christian worship...is a work which proceeds from faith and is based on it' (Code of Canon Law (1983) Can. 836).
"Faith also refers to the set of beliefs, the Divinely revealed truths. As such, the Faith vitalizes and directs the Liturgy, while in return the Liturgy avows and bears witness to the Faith." --Dictionary of the Liturgy by Rev. Jovian P. Lang, OFM, Catholic Book Publishing Co. 1989.
--------------------
Even newborn infants instinctively have a kind of faith that they will be taken care of (fed, kept warm and comfortable) until and unless they begin to be ill-treated (neglected, left hungry, dirty and uncomfortable, slapped or otherwise mishandled). They want to trust that their parents will take care of their needs, and that their environment will not harm them. They generally will maintain this initial trust unless a series of events (it usually takes several, not just 1 or 2) leads them to believe that things are substantially changed. For the first few years, this trust (or lack thereof) forms the foundation of the temperment/disposition/personality that they will likely retain (with slight modifications) throughout their lives.
This describes human faith in very broad and general terms.
As we grow through the several stages of maturity, we see, hear & read all kinds of things. Since it is not possible to experience everything directly (firsthand), we gradually learn to accept as valid things other people tell us, but which we haven't actually experienced ourselves. We also learn over time to recognize that some sources of information are more worthy of trust than others. This most often happens if & when we see others operating from selfish motives and not out of love or concern for us personally or the truth in general. We rightly suspect that such a one is untrustworthy as a source of reliable information. We decide where and in whom we will place our trust (faith). We choose to believe some sources of information and not others.
God's Family
I count it my good fortune to have been born into a strong Catholic family (so I didn't have far to look before finding the truth). Over the years, I have heard about God and His infinite love for me (and for everyone) from people and sources I trust. Everything I have experienced (so far) about God and His action in my life and in the world is consistent with what I have been taught (that's why I trust it). I have heard just about all the arguments there are against the Catholic faith. (I say this because it's been many years since I've heard a new one--although I recognize the theoretical posibility of there being one or more out there that I haven't heard yet.) Upon careful investigation I find that none of them hold water. The Catholic Church teaches the most consistent, most unified system for understanding the universe, both visible (material) and invisible (spiritual), and I remain confident that it can withstand any challenge ("the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)). The Church doesn't teach science or mathematics, of course, but recognizes that everything that is true comes from God and ultimately points toward God, so natural reason and supernatural faith--properly understood and applied--can never be in conflict, but rather assist and support one another. God is truth itself.
Catholic doctrine (the deposit of faith), like our Lord's tunic for which His executioners cast lots (John 19:23-24), is a seamless whole. You can't remove a single teaching without doing violence to all the rest. Each doctrine is interrelated to all the rest. The Trinity, the Eucharist, obedience to one's parents, charity toward others, sexual morality (all of it), the historicity of the gospel accounts, baptism and the other sacraments, the papacy, purgatory, heaven & hell, angels (both the good and the bad), the Blessed Virgin Mary & the communion of saints, bearing suffering graciously with the crucified Christ, trusting in God's providence, sacrificing oneself for others, etc., etc. They are all different facets of a beautiful, unified whole.
Once you recognize this and no longer view its various doctrines as a random and eclectic mess, you'll understand that the Church isn't just another human institution (with merely human rules and restrictions) but is in fact the family of God. Now, every family must have rules. An essential part of familial love is obedience to those rules ("If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15)). Any parent can attest to this fact. A good parent commands ultimately out of love for his children, and God infinitely more so. I trust God's word for the same reason that I trusted my own earthly father (may God rest his soul): I recognize that He loves me (but infinitely more than my own father did/does), and that I can do no better than to love Him in return. I am an (adopted) child of God. My Father is the King of the universe and I am (therefore) royalty.
I am a Catholic because I rest in the love of God.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
+/- II
(Positive or Negative, part 2)
In part 1, I attempted to demonstrate that most things (objects, actions, concepts) have some kind of objective character which is independent of how any one of us may feel about them. (I said most things. There are some things, I'm sure, which could best be characterized subjectively--based on our personal feelings, which of course vary from one individual to another. However, it is NOT my intention to discuss those things--whatever they are--at this time.)
I also tried to show how people tend to "label" (identify in some fashion) & "categorize" (sort) the experiences they have and the people & things they encounter--at the very least as to whether they like, dislike or are indifferent to someone/something. (This is not the same thing as "judging" someone in the sense of determining the final state of another's soul, something we reserve to God alone.) This process is very basic and necessary for memory and reason to function at all, not to mention communication.
We must first mentally identify and sort things in order to "file them away" in our short term (& eventually long term) memories in order to process the information that those things represent so we can make sense out of the world around us. And we have to "coordinate" this process (to a greater or lesser degree) with others in order to communicate with them. (If there is no commonality of understanding about certain basic images/words/experiences between Joe's mind and Sue's mind, Joe and Sue cannot communicate.)
The various disciplines within the fields of science, mathematics and language, for example, depend fundamentally on the objective character of things in the universe (and the universe as a whole). If there's nothing solid "out there" (and not just inside my head), then how can we study anything? If "reality" was truly up for grabs, awaiting each individual to define it for himself, nothing could be predicted (like the orbits of planets, local weather patterns or the result of a mathematical equation) and the universe would make no sense. The word truth itself--like everything else--would be meaningless.
(Now it should be admitted that some people do have some trouble making sense out of the world around them, but that's not the fault of the world around them, nor does Mr. X's failure to recognize its objective character take anything away from that character. In other words, reality is still objective even if crazy Mr. X says it isn't and keeps trying to redefine it to suit himself.)
Now we get down to the whole point of this long essay, which is the existence of objective truth. Here are a few examples of things that are objectively true:
2+2=4 (not 5).
Oak trees sprout from acorns, grow into strong trees of a predictable size, shape and structure (given enough sun, moisture and nutrients in the soil) and eventually die, fall over and decay (acorns do not sprout holly bushes or tulips).
There is insufficient breathable oxygen on the surface of the moon to sustain life (if you remove your helmet on the moon you will die very quickly).
Household current is useful for running refrigerators and hair dryers, but can be lethal if misused (don't drop a plug-in radio into bathwater or someone may die).
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
A large amount of arsenic is not fit for human consumption (if you eat it you could die a painful death).
It is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being (that's called murder).
Human embryos and fetuses are innocent (they've done nothing wrong) and they are human beings (they are not fish or dogs, even if superficial visual similarities may exist).
The sole function of the anus is the elimination of the solid waste of digestion (so introducing foreign objects into the rectum for the sake of a thrill, such as pencils, fingers, penises, knives or gerbils, can harm the body).
Sodomy is a very immuno-depressive behavior (those who engage in it regularly will get seriously sick).
Sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will (after a while, one who persists in grave sin begins to call what is evil good and what is good evil, and gradually becomes unable to control his own unruly passions).
Confession is good for the soul (people need to "unburden" themselves to another human being to achieve spiritual healing).
Now, anyone is of course free to deny the truth of any one or all of these statements if he so chooses. But he does so at his own peril, and he shouldn't blame anyone else for his own foolish behavior. A good friend would try to point out (warn) if someone he knew had problems recognizing or conforming to objective truth (reality) and was involved with embarassing, stupid, self-destructive or evil activity.
If I saw someone, for example, following a metaphorical path on which I knew there was a huge pit, I would be sinning against charity if I failed to warn him of the danger. I would not be "judging" him if I shouted over, "hey, buddy, the path you've chosen leads to destruction--you going to fall into a pit!" That person should not get angry with me simply because I tried to warn him of danger. He is free to disregard my warning, but if he falls into the pit anyway, at least it won't be on my head since I knew about the danger and TRIED to warn him of it. (If I am mistaken and there actually IS NO danger, there is no real harm in my well-intentioned warning--one should always be cautious anyway.)
If a thing--anything--is objectively true (+), it cannot at the same time also be false (-). A person may be unwilling or unable to recognize the objective nature of this truth, but it remains true nonetheless. Getting angry and complaining about it changes nothing. A person can be truly happy only by conforming to objective truth.
(On the other hand, if I'm a raving lunatic and everything I've said in this essay is a load of hogwash, getting upset about it won't help either, since I would be (according to that scenario) a raving lunatic and your "reasoning" would be lost on me anyway.)
So (to answer my original question) if a person ever tells you he doesn't believe in anything in particular (e.g. regarding religious faith or human behavior), or that he doesn't accept the notion that truth can be objective, since (he says), "what's true for YOU isn't necessarily true for ME" or "MY truth is different than YOUR truth," he is either lying or doesn't really understand what truth is. This would not be a positive situation. Perhaps he's just being negative.
In part 1, I attempted to demonstrate that most things (objects, actions, concepts) have some kind of objective character which is independent of how any one of us may feel about them. (I said most things. There are some things, I'm sure, which could best be characterized subjectively--based on our personal feelings, which of course vary from one individual to another. However, it is NOT my intention to discuss those things--whatever they are--at this time.)
I also tried to show how people tend to "label" (identify in some fashion) & "categorize" (sort) the experiences they have and the people & things they encounter--at the very least as to whether they like, dislike or are indifferent to someone/something. (This is not the same thing as "judging" someone in the sense of determining the final state of another's soul, something we reserve to God alone.) This process is very basic and necessary for memory and reason to function at all, not to mention communication.
We must first mentally identify and sort things in order to "file them away" in our short term (& eventually long term) memories in order to process the information that those things represent so we can make sense out of the world around us. And we have to "coordinate" this process (to a greater or lesser degree) with others in order to communicate with them. (If there is no commonality of understanding about certain basic images/words/experiences between Joe's mind and Sue's mind, Joe and Sue cannot communicate.)
The various disciplines within the fields of science, mathematics and language, for example, depend fundamentally on the objective character of things in the universe (and the universe as a whole). If there's nothing solid "out there" (and not just inside my head), then how can we study anything? If "reality" was truly up for grabs, awaiting each individual to define it for himself, nothing could be predicted (like the orbits of planets, local weather patterns or the result of a mathematical equation) and the universe would make no sense. The word truth itself--like everything else--would be meaningless.
(Now it should be admitted that some people do have some trouble making sense out of the world around them, but that's not the fault of the world around them, nor does Mr. X's failure to recognize its objective character take anything away from that character. In other words, reality is still objective even if crazy Mr. X says it isn't and keeps trying to redefine it to suit himself.)
Now we get down to the whole point of this long essay, which is the existence of objective truth. Here are a few examples of things that are objectively true:
2+2=4 (not 5).
Oak trees sprout from acorns, grow into strong trees of a predictable size, shape and structure (given enough sun, moisture and nutrients in the soil) and eventually die, fall over and decay (acorns do not sprout holly bushes or tulips).
There is insufficient breathable oxygen on the surface of the moon to sustain life (if you remove your helmet on the moon you will die very quickly).
Household current is useful for running refrigerators and hair dryers, but can be lethal if misused (don't drop a plug-in radio into bathwater or someone may die).
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
A large amount of arsenic is not fit for human consumption (if you eat it you could die a painful death).
It is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being (that's called murder).
Human embryos and fetuses are innocent (they've done nothing wrong) and they are human beings (they are not fish or dogs, even if superficial visual similarities may exist).
The sole function of the anus is the elimination of the solid waste of digestion (so introducing foreign objects into the rectum for the sake of a thrill, such as pencils, fingers, penises, knives or gerbils, can harm the body).
Sodomy is a very immuno-depressive behavior (those who engage in it regularly will get seriously sick).
Sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will (after a while, one who persists in grave sin begins to call what is evil good and what is good evil, and gradually becomes unable to control his own unruly passions).
Confession is good for the soul (people need to "unburden" themselves to another human being to achieve spiritual healing).
Now, anyone is of course free to deny the truth of any one or all of these statements if he so chooses. But he does so at his own peril, and he shouldn't blame anyone else for his own foolish behavior. A good friend would try to point out (warn) if someone he knew had problems recognizing or conforming to objective truth (reality) and was involved with embarassing, stupid, self-destructive or evil activity.
If I saw someone, for example, following a metaphorical path on which I knew there was a huge pit, I would be sinning against charity if I failed to warn him of the danger. I would not be "judging" him if I shouted over, "hey, buddy, the path you've chosen leads to destruction--you going to fall into a pit!" That person should not get angry with me simply because I tried to warn him of danger. He is free to disregard my warning, but if he falls into the pit anyway, at least it won't be on my head since I knew about the danger and TRIED to warn him of it. (If I am mistaken and there actually IS NO danger, there is no real harm in my well-intentioned warning--one should always be cautious anyway.)
If a thing--anything--is objectively true (+), it cannot at the same time also be false (-). A person may be unwilling or unable to recognize the objective nature of this truth, but it remains true nonetheless. Getting angry and complaining about it changes nothing. A person can be truly happy only by conforming to objective truth.
(On the other hand, if I'm a raving lunatic and everything I've said in this essay is a load of hogwash, getting upset about it won't help either, since I would be (according to that scenario) a raving lunatic and your "reasoning" would be lost on me anyway.)
So (to answer my original question) if a person ever tells you he doesn't believe in anything in particular (e.g. regarding religious faith or human behavior), or that he doesn't accept the notion that truth can be objective, since (he says), "what's true for YOU isn't necessarily true for ME" or "MY truth is different than YOUR truth," he is either lying or doesn't really understand what truth is. This would not be a positive situation. Perhaps he's just being negative.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
+/- I
(Positive or Negative, part 1)
It has been said that everybody believes in something.
It's a truism; it's so obvious, nobody needs to explain it.
Or is it? Are there some people who don't believe in anything?
Background
Everyone, whether he knows it or not, sees the universe as a hierarchy in which some things are considered more important or valuable than others. Material objects and forces are all around him (such as his own body, other people, animals and plants, the sun, moon & stars, warmth, wetness, gravity, electricity) and he recognizes, labels and categorizes everything he sees and feels, whether he is aware of it--or admits it--or not. There are also various intangible ideas and concepts which he understands more or less well: joy, fear, anxiety, love, courage, confusion, trust, compassion, justice, anger,...calculus..., you get the idea. Mental labels (words or pictures) are the basis of thought & language. We give particular names to particular objects, actions & concepts that everyone is expected to generally agree upon. (A catalogue of these names/labels is called a dictionary or lexicon.) Without labels, no one would understand what anyone else was talking about and communication would be impossible.
It has been said that everybody believes in something.
It's a truism; it's so obvious, nobody needs to explain it.
Or is it? Are there some people who don't believe in anything?
Background
Everyone, whether he knows it or not, sees the universe as a hierarchy in which some things are considered more important or valuable than others. Material objects and forces are all around him (such as his own body, other people, animals and plants, the sun, moon & stars, warmth, wetness, gravity, electricity) and he recognizes, labels and categorizes everything he sees and feels, whether he is aware of it--or admits it--or not. There are also various intangible ideas and concepts which he understands more or less well: joy, fear, anxiety, love, courage, confusion, trust, compassion, justice, anger,...calculus..., you get the idea. Mental labels (words or pictures) are the basis of thought & language. We give particular names to particular objects, actions & concepts that everyone is expected to generally agree upon. (A catalogue of these names/labels is called a dictionary or lexicon.) Without labels, no one would understand what anyone else was talking about and communication would be impossible.
There are at least three categories that EVERYONE uses about EVERYTHING: (1) "I like that (it's good);" (2) "I don't like that (it's bad);" and (3) "I don't care about that either way (it's neutral)." Of course there are usually innumerable subtle gradations of value within each of these (such as, "I don't know much about that but I'd like to learn more," or "I think that is weird in a pleasant (or unpleasant) sort of way"). There are also two other categories everyone uses: (4) "that's TRUE (whether I like it or not)" and (5) "that's FALSE (whether I like it or not),"--although not everyone admits to using them. There is a word that describes people who don't use categories AT ALL: they're called "comatose."
This process of categorization involves a faculty of the mind called judgment, and every thinking person uses it. Those who claim not to judge, label or categorize anything actually have an extraordinarily LARGE "I don't care" category and JUDGE that most people and things they encounter go into it. Either that, or they aren't very honest (either with themselves, or others, or both).
We--individually or collectively--are not always accurate in our judgments about things (we are frequently mistaken--e.g. "Just go through that puddle--we can make it ..."), but that doesn't change the objective nature of the thing(s) in question. People who refuse to accept or admit that most things have some kind of objective character that is independent of one's feelings toward them are usually considered "insane" (or disconnected from reality). A person might claim he can "define his own reality," but in reality, he does so at his own peril. (Or perhaps his self-defined "reality" consists merely of a number of outrageous claims that are difficult or bothersome for others to verify one way or the other, so people generally leave him alone, unless he becomes a recognizable danger to himself or others.) For example, if 99 people observe that object X is bright white, hard and rough, and 1 person says the same object (at the same time) is dark blue,soft and musical, the others would rightly judge that there must be "something wrong" either with his perception, judgement, mental process or honesty--and the rest may choose, depending on circumstances, to either "make allowances" for his exceptional claim, or take positive steps to correct it. (This is neither merely a case of majority rule nor a debate about the labels in conventional use, but a consideration of the nature (or objective character) of object X.)
OK, is everybody on the same page?
(To be continued...)
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Why I am a Catholic (Part 2)
The Bible
The Bible is actually not one book, but rather a collection of several books (73 to be exact), a veritable library, which has been gathered together and (usually) put in one cover. But who made this collection, and why were these books included and others excluded?
The Old Testament books (those written before Jesus’ time) were written by (or are at least attributed to) Moses and numerous later members of the ancient Jewish/Hebrew religion (prophets (or their followers), kings or other leaders, and perhaps one or more anonymous writers). They consist of the Hebrew canon of 39 books, which are generally accepted by Jews, Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics alike: (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, I & II Chronicles, Ezra (or I Esdras), Nehemiah (or II Esdras), Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (or Canticle of Canticles/Song of Songs), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations (sometimes included in Jeremiah), Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea (or Osee), Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi), and the 7 Deuterocanonical books, which are generally accepted only by Catholics and Orthodox: (Tobit (or Tobias), Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (a.k.a. Ecclesiasticus), Baruch and I & II Maccabees)—these 7 are frequently (but erroneously) called "Apocrypha" by Protestants. All of these 46 books were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Scriptures used and quoted by the Apostles and all of the early Church fathers. They accepted them all as canonical, which is why the Catholic Church does so to this day.
The 27 New Testament books (written after Jesus’ time) were written by some of the 12 Apostles and some of their close collaborators, which are generally accepted by all Christians: (the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts (of the Apostles), Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, I & II Peter, I, II & III John, James, Jude and Revelation (or the Apocalypse of St. John)).
Some people (e.g. some, but not all, atheists, agnostics & neo-pagans) dismiss the Bible as "myth," fanciful stories made up, they claim, by various primitive peoples to explain the unknown, or for other, perhaps political, reasons. They can't be historical (they say), they contain such far-fetched things, "miracles" and such—just like the magic one encounters in ancient Greek mythology!
The books of the Old Testament are written in various genres, just like the variety of books one finds in a modern library. There are books of history, poetry, "wisdom" literature (e.g. Proverbs), even what we today might call "historical fiction," and perhaps a few styles we are unfamiliar with today. These differing styles of writing were all common and readily recognizable in the time in which they were composed. The trick in modern Biblical exegesis (interpretation) is knowing which book (or portion of a book) belongs in which category. For example, the deuterocanonical book of Judith appears on the surface to be straight history, but in all likelihood, is actually an elaborate parable, an allegory (symbolic "historical fiction"). The historical works, while they cannot compare to our modern standards of historical documentation, compare quite favorably with other non-religious ancient works in establishing the historical record. Frequently their claims are ("Surprise!") verified through modern archeology (e.g. the modern discovery of the Hittite race). Prophetic works are verified through the historical fulfillment of the prophetic utterances. And so on.
The historical books of the New Testament (the 4 Gospels and Acts) also measure up as good history when compared to contemporary examples, such as the works of Josephus and Tacitus. They place the events they recount within the framework of history by references to various rulers and other contemporary persons and events recognizable by the original readers/hearers (and in large part verifiable today by archeological and other secular documentary evidence), and by conscientious reliance on eyewitnesses. The letters (epistles) also fall nicely into the contemporary historical context. None of this can be said of Greek or Nordic mythology. There is no compelling reason not to accept them as authentic and reliable.
EXCEPT for all those miracles (and the bad science).
Well, the Bible makes no claim about teaching science. The events it describes which some people sometimes try to interpret as science are descriptions of real events as they appeared to the people who witnessed them. The creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 were passed on through oral tradition perhaps over several thousands of years before writing was even invented. We might call them "folktales" that describe essential truths about God and our relationship to Him (that He created the universe out of *nothing* by a pure act of will, we are His creatures, He created us not out of necessity, but out of love, and owe Him worship as the creator). They can still be accepted as true, but in a philosophical or allegorical sense rather than a strictly scientific (empirical) sense.
My guess is that people who reject the accounts of miraculous events described in the Bible do so simply because they deny the possibility of miracles at all. To their way of thinking, a claim in favor of a miracle must be made up fantasy or delusion, because (by their definition) miracles do not exist and cannot happen, period. "Since miracles do not occur in the natural course of events, and I admit only natural events (thus eliminating anything 'supernatural'), miracles cannot exist or occur, by definition." Those who deny the existence of miracles must not have witnessed one. But many other people have witnessed miracles (verified by the scientific community as having no natural explanation) and have come to believe as a result. Examples are the numerous miraculous cures documented in the files of the medical bureau at Lourdes, France; the eucharistic miracle at Lanciano, Italy (the host (bread) that visibly changed into bleeding human flesh at the consecration--and remains preserved to this day); the miracle of the sun that was witnessed by many thousands of people--and was reported in the secular newspapers at the time--on Oct. 13, 1917 in Fatima, Portugal; the incorruptable (not mummified, but fresh) bodies of several saints who've been dead hundreds of years; and innumerable less publicized (but no less authentic) miracles that occur periodically right up our own time.
Believers agree that a miracle requires a special intervention by a supernatural power (God) in natural events. That’s what it means to be a miracle. The only difference is that believers accept the existence of God and the possibility of His intervention, and non-believers don’t. (I’ll get into reasons for faith/belief in later installments.)
So I (and other believers) accept the Bible as a reliable document and use it as a rule of faith. As I said above, the Apostles and their disciples used the Septuagint version of the Old Testament scriptures. (Greek was the lingua franca of the whole Mediterranean world, including Palestine. The Jews spoke Aramaic and Hebrew amongst themselves but communicated with others (like the Romans and other foreigners) in Greek.) From the Septuagint they taught that the man Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of all the messianic prophecies. Jesus claimed at various times and places that He was God (John 8:53-59; 10:30-38; etc.). In fact, this is the very reason the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Him and turned Him over to the Romans for crucifixion (Mark 14:61-64, 15:1).
He demonstrated through his miracles and His teaching that he had power from God, and when He raised Himself from the dead, he demonstrated that He WAS God. Was His resurrection simply an elaborate hoax as many have claimed throughout history? His followers believed in Him and gave their lives for this faith. Men may go a long way in promoting a hoax, but how many are willing to DIE for a hoax? But the first several generations of Christians happily died in the numerous periods of intense persecution as a result of their faith in Jesus Christ. They believed, and I believe on the word of their testimony.
Jesus established a church (Matt. 16:18) and gave it authority to teach and work miracles (to demonstrate their divine authority) in His name (i.e. with His own authority as God) (Luke 10:1, 9, 16, 17; Matt. ch. 10; 28:18-20). But Jesus did not write a word of scripture. As I said in Part 1, Jesus' teaching authority and power continues to this day through His Mystical Body, the Church (I Cor. 12:27) which He established for this purpose. With the exception of the visions recorded in Revelation, Jesus never told anyone to write anything. The New Testament scriptures were written by the authority of this Church and were derived fron its existing oral tradition. The authority of the New Testament rests on the authority of the Church, not the other way around. (Cf. I Tim. 3:15—it is the Church, not scripture, that is the pillar and foundation of the truth; I Thes. 2:13—the oral preaching of the Apostles, not only written scripture, is the word of God.) It was the bishops of the Church that determined which books were to be included in the canon of scripture. Some of the books we accept today were disputed well into the 3rd century, e.g. III John and Revelation—and there were many other disputed books that never "made the cut." Anyone who accepts the inspiration and authority of the Bible at all, receives it on the authority of the Catholic Church alone.
For this reason, the Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith for Christians. Along with the written scriptures there must also be the oral Apostolic Tradition to which the scriptures themselves give witness (John 21:25; I Thes 2:13; II Thes 3:15; III John 13-14) and the Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, which guarantees their proper interpretation. These three support each other like the legs of a milking stool. If you take any one of them away, the other two must fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)