Protestant Christianity
This is perhaps the biggest part of the problem (especially in the Western world) since it represents division within Christianity itself which, as we have seen, was intended by Christ to be the definitive witness to the truth throughout the whole world until His return at the end of time.
Indeed, in the generation following the Resurrection of Christ, as the Church was just beginning to set its theological “ducks in a row” (formulating ways to convey the truths of the faith in an ordered and systematic fashion), St. Paul (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) made the astute observation that Christ’s Church had, in a mystical (not just metaphorical) sense, all the essential characteristics of a living human body (cf. 1 Cor 12:4-27). The Church, quite simply, is the Body of Christ on earth (and more besides). Christ’s body, once raised from the dead, cannot die again. And so the Church, established as it is by the eternal Son of God to be His presence and witness in the world and to speak with His full authority until the end of time, is indefectible: the Church cannot be destroyed, either from without or from within (many have tried to do so, all in vain), and will stand forever. This is accomplished not by the resourcefulness, ingenuity or efforts of any of her members, but solely by the power of God maintaining her in existence. (Indeed, it has been observed by many a saint that the Church continues to exist, not because of her human members, but in spite of them.)
Christ Himself prayed to the Father, in what is called his High Priestly Prayer (Gospel of John, Chapter 17), for the unity of the Church (Jn 17:9-23; see especially verse 21). He prayed not for Christians as individuals (so any particular Christian can, by his own choosing (free will), sin and fall away from faith in Christ), but rather for the Church as a body, as an organic whole. And if you read this passage carefully, moreover, you will notice that the kind of unity he intends is not merely a cordial agreement on a few points of doctrine, but the intimate unity of the Trinity Itself. Even as Jesus and the Father are One in the bond of love which is the Holy Spirit, so is the Church called to be One. Indivisible, by Christ’s own word!
Is it possible that Jesus Christ prayed in vain to His Father? Is He incapable of keeping His Church unified in the Truth? Did he not already know the shortcomings of man, their weakness, self-centeredness and pride? Didn’t He know what the future would hold? Is He not God? It is absurd to believe in the divinity of Christ, to believe the words of Sacred Scripture, and at the same time to think that the Church He established could ever be divided or destroyed.
So what are we to think of all the Protestant “churches” that abound today? Are modern day Protestants considered “heretics” by the Catholic Church? No, they are not. While some of their doctrines are objectively heretical [i.e. incompatible with Apostolic Teaching], Protestants themselves are not considered heretics since they never held the fullness of Catholic faith to begin with. Theirs is not a formal denial of something they once professed as true. People who were raised Catholic, on the other hand, and who chose to abandon Catholicism for a Protestant denomination are heretics in this formal sense, but most Protestants never knew the truths of the faith firsthand and so cannot be faulted for their separation and God does not hold them accountable for this kind of ignorance. (For this reason the Church prefers the term “separated brethren.”) Most Protestants learned about Jesus and the Bible as children from their parents and teachers and have grown through their lives in the love of God and have benefited spiritually through their fellowship with other Christians. All this is very good!
But there is a fly in the ointment. Through no fault of their own, they lack the fullness of the truth and the means of grace promised by Christ to the members of His Body the Church.
Can Protestants get to heaven? Absolutely! (But so can a pagan who tries to form his conscience and follow it in accordance with the Natural Law (cf. Rom 2:13-16) through his cooperation with the actual graces God sends to every human being which confirm him in the love of his neighbor and guide him to his final destiny of union with God.) Protestants have much more going for them spiritually than the “good pagan,” since they already know and love God and His Son Jesus Christ, revere His Word in the Bible, and have the sacramental graces that come to them through baptism. But by the same token, they have the greater responsibility to follow the graces they have received out of obedience to God’s will (to whom much is given, much more is expected), even if these lead somewhere they might not want to go.
Can Catholics go to hell? Absolutely! Just because someone lives amid the fullness of truth and grace present in the Church, he may not avail himself of these gifts and wind up neglecting the condition of his soul, choosing instead to pursue the fleeting pleasures offered by the three sources of temptation: the world, the flesh and the devil. If he does not repent before he dies, hell will be his final destination.
Be that as it may, objectively speaking there can be only ONE Church in any Biblical sense. Those entities referred to as individual “churches” in the New Testament (e.g. “the churches of Galatia” (Galatians 1:2)) are what today are called local dioceses under their respective bishops—which even Canon Law today calls “particular churches” (can. 368ff). These New Testament churches were founded in various cities by the Apostles and their collaborators in spreading the gospel, and they were all unified in faith, governance and worship; they were NOT some ancient analogue of today’s Protestant denominations, each believing its own set of doctrines and “doing its own thing.”
The One Church must also be the Original Church, the one that was there at the beginning when Peter spoke to the crowd from the upper room (Acts 2), not one that came into existence at a later time. It is a fact of history that every church that is acknowledged as Christian must eventually trace its origin back to the Catholic Church. At some point in time its founders broke away from communion with the Catholic Church (or from some other church that itself broke from the Catholic Church). (The original Church founded by Jesus was known as “catholic” at least by the beginning of the 2nd Century as indicated by the Letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, ca. AD 107.)
But why would anyone who claims to believe in Christ, desires to follow and obey Him, and who believes in the inspired word of the Bible, want to break away from unity with the Church Christ established? (I am not speaking here of those who were brought up as Protestants, only those who originally broke away.) Jesus told his original disciples that they spoke with His own authority, and that those who refused to listen to the Church were to be considered as heathens (i.e. outside of the Church) (cf. Matt 18:17). St. Paul said that “the pillar and foundation of the truth” was, not Scripture, but “the Church” (1 Tim 3:15). The Bible, indeed, comes to us through the Church. So anyone who says, “I can’t trust the Church, I only trust the Bible,” doesn’t really know the Bible. What he is actually doing (probably without realizing it) is setting himself up as a judge of the Church, favoring his own personal interpretation of certain isolated passages of the Bible as alleged evidence of the defection of the Church from the truth given by Christ and the Apostles. But nowhere does the Bible—even remotely—make any provision for anyone to judge the Church. It’s always the visible Church who passes judgment on her members, not the other way around (e.g. Matt 18:17 and Acts 15, especially verses 19, 22 & 28).
Peter himself informs us, “No one can interpret any prophesy of Scripture by himself,” and that the Scriptures “contain some obscure passages which the ignorant and unstable misinterpret to their own ruin” (2 Pet 1:20; 3:16). It is for the Church as a body (under the authority of Peter and his successors, the popes) to interpret the Scriptures and formulate doctrine (cf. Jn 21:15-17). Individual Christians (even priests and bishops) lack this authority and presume upon it “to their own ruin” and that of anyone else who follows their erroneous teachings. To be sure, individual Christians are strongly encouraged to read and understand (interpret) the Bible, but only by the principles and within the bounds or limits set down by the Church’s ordinary teaching authority (magisterium). They are to read and interpret the Bible with the Church, not “by themselves” (formulating their own novel interpretations that are incompatible with what the Church has already laid out).
So what gives; what’s behind it all? Well, certainly the issue of ordinary human pride comes into play. After all, who really wants to submit to the authority of another person if he can avoid it? But that’s just the point, isn’t it? Jesus knew that no one would obey the Church over the long haul unless he knew he was under a divine command to do so. The temptation to say “I’ve got a better idea: I’ll just do it my way” is just too great for us fallen creatures.
Understanding human nature as He does, Jesus also knew that without a single, living, identifiable, “final authority” for settling the inevitable disputes, anarchy and error would soon erupt and destroy His Church. So He set up his Church with an identifiable and unmistakable visible hierarchy (human structure) with a single living head, and endowed the Church with the gift of infallibility (“the Spirit of truth” Jn 14:16-17) so it could not officially proclaim as truth what is actually false, so no one could say “Gee, I didn’t know.”
But sometimes people have been known to give in to the temptation to intellectual pride and the illusion of moral autonomy and say, “I don’t care. I still say I know better than the Church and I’m prepared to suffer the consequences.” And they do suffer eventually, which is fine for them, but what about the other people around them? Such doctrinal mavericks set a bad example for everyone else, saying by their actions that rebellion is OK after all. This is where the seed of confusion is first planted.
Without going over the whole 500 year history of Protestantism, I think it’s fair to say that it engenders a particular attitude and mindset that says, “I’m my own boss, and I don’t have to follow anyone I don’t want to. Heck, I can read the Bible can’t I? If I disagree with my pastor about what it says, I’ll just walk away and find another church I like better, or even start my own church, just like good ol’ Martin Luther did!” Setting aside the fact that that’s not quite how it went down in the 16th Century, I think this fairly describes what’s behind the “Protestant mentality” at the heart of our American experience. You know, that “rugged American individualism”? It’s partly rooted in the fundamental attitude of the Protestant founders and pioneers (etc.) of our country who figured that “just me and my Bible” was a satisfactory basis for discovering the truth.
But even Martin Luther realized by the end of his life that he’d made a catastrophic mistake when it became painfully obvious that “everyone is now his own pope!” But by then it was too late to close the barn door—the horses had escaped. Once the authority of the Church was jettisoned (in favor of “the Bible alone”), Luther discovered that there was no longer anyone to whom the ex-Catholics (fledgling “protestants”) could appeal to settle disputes of doctrine or practice (since not everybody was going to just settle for his personal interpretations any more than they’d settle for the old Catholic ones) and he saw that the inevitable result was the endless splintering off of denominations we see today. No unity, not even agreement as to what things are “essential” and what things are “OK to disagree on.” There’s nothing in the Bible that says anything like that indicating that such an approach is even acceptable (much less desirable), yet they still claim they only believe what’s in the Bible. Curious, no?
So today we have countless denominations and groups of various sizes—and even a few “lone rangers”—all professing faith in and wanting to follow Jesus, and all claiming the “Bible alone” as their final authority, yet each person surely realizing in the back of his mind that “the Spirit of truth” Christ promised to the Apostles could not be leading them all in such divergent directions, revealing to them all contradictory “truth.” It makes no sense!
And these are just the ones who call themselves Protestant. Adding to the confusion, there are also those thousands of “virtual Protestants” who disagree and demur (dissent) on any number of points of Catholic doctrine, and even dogma (i.e. infallibly defined doctrine that every Catholic is required to believe) yet still publicly claim to be Catholic. Today we call these folks “cafeteria Catholics” (because they pick and choose what they will put on their plate of personal belief, and pass on what they don’t like), but they are in fact “Protestant” in their overall attitude because they set themselves up as the final judge in matters of faith and morals, rejecting the divinely established and appointed public authority of the Church and its chief guardian, the pope.
Of course there are people who will say, “Once Catholic, always Catholic,” but that’s true only in the sense that the character of sacramental baptism is indelible. Since there is only “one baptism” (Eph 4:5), everyone who is baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church, whether he realizes it or not (sorry if that upsets anyone). But we don’t say that every baptized Protestant is Catholic, do we? No, because what they profess is not the fullness of the Catholic faith. True, they profess elements of it, but some truths are missing, some truths are categorically denied and some of the things they believe are entirely false. The religion they profess is a different thing, although they are still connected to the Church by virtue of that baptism and the elements of belief that they still hold in common with Catholic teaching. Their communion with Christ’s Church is, in a formal sense, imperfect. (I will discuss this further in Part 5.)
But what’s the big deal about that? So what? Who cares?
Hilaire Belloc explains why it’s such a “big deal” on page 91 of his book The Great Heresies: “Cultures spring from religions; ultimately the vital force which maintains any culture is its philosophy, its attitude toward the universe. The decay of a religion involves the decay of the culture corresponding to it—we see that most clearly in the breakdown of Christendom today [he wrote this sometime between 1936 and 1938]. The bad work begun at the [Protestant] Reformation is bearing its final fruit in the dissolution of our ancestral doctrines—the very structure of our society is dissolving” [emphasis added].
This is an apt description of the process we know as secularization, a ball that was set in motion by the Protestant Reformation. In my view, secularization is simply the internal logic of Protestantism playing itself out. What we commonly refer to as “the Reformation” was in fact nothing of the sort. It would more accurately be called the Protestant Rebellion. A true reformation (such as was accomplished in the Carmelite order by Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross in the late 1500s and in the Church at large by the Council of Trent over the course of many decades after it concluded in 1563) is a return to the foundational principles of the organization in question: a Re-Formation. What the Protestants of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries did (albeit inadvertently) was start a process of rending and fragmenting the Body of Christ. Although Luther never intended to break with the Catholic Church, by refusing to submit to its authority (and I admit that there were most probably serious abuses of that authority on the Catholic side), giving in to pride rather than cultivating humility, he wound up “creating a monster” he was unable to control.
He didn’t do it all on his own, of course. There WAS terrible corruption at work in the members and institutions of both the Church and secular society at the time, and the political situation was a powder keg just waiting for a spark to set it off. The chief civil authority (the emperor) was distracted with fighting the Muslims who were invading Europe through the Balkans and was unable to give the grievances of the German peasants the attention they deserved (etc., etc). Europe was a mess and everybody agreed that something had to be done, but open rebellion never solved a crisis.
Today you have secularists, pagans and all the other non-Christians pointing at (1) the sinful behavior of Christians (always a problem!) and (2) the irreconcilable differences of teaching and belief among the Protestants (both the explicit and virtual types) and saying, “See? If that’s what Christianity is all about, I don’t want any part of it!” Now, it is possible (even likely) that they’d want no part of Christianity even if these problems didn’t exist (and they’re just using it as an excuse not to join), but even so it’s a real good point they make.
Except for one thing: that’s not what Christianity is all about. But with all the conflicting chatter, who can tell, right? It’s a doctrinal “Tower of Babel.” But what should be obvious by now is that Protestantism is conflicting and divisive by its very nature and from its very inception. Catholicism, by contrast, has Unity as one of its four identifying Marks. A Catholic is one who is baptized and acknowledges the pope as the Vicar of Christ, successor of St. Peter, head of the college of bishops, and the visible head of Christ’s One True Church (Christ himself being the invisible head of the Church, His Body). Everyone who is baptized and professes (at least implicitly) the same faith as the pope is a member of the One Catholic Church. That’s not too hard is it?
But if a non-Christian looking at it from the outside is so confused that he can’t tell what real Christianity is, isn’t that just the opposite of what Christ wanted His Church to be? That’s not a “city on a hill that cannot be hidden,” not a “lamp on a lamp-stand that gives light to all in the house” (Matt 5:14-15), but rather an obstacle, a stumbling block, a source of confusion and an invitation for discord, a tacit admission that “if you’re looking for the real truth, you won’t find it here. We’re not even sure ourselves.”
In Europe at the time of Luther the lines between “church” and “state” were much less clearly demarcated than they are in America today. The rejection of the generally recognized authority of the Church led eventually to an erosion of people’s attitudes about authority in general. When legitimate authority is scorned and everyone seizes on an alleged “right” to be his own final judge in all things, the inevitable and unavoidable conclusion is anarchy, where the only “leaders” are the ones with the most guns and the biggest guns (either metaphorical or actual) and the will to use them on anyone and everyone. The only rule anyone understands at the end of this logical trajectory is the rule of force, not the rule of reason, and people get so tired of having the proverbial “gun pointed at their heads” all the time and become so calloused that, at the end of the day, hardly anyone values life or anything else.
Nowadays, road rage is all the rage and juveniles and young adults prowl city streets in gangs looking for someone to beat up, just to amuse themselves. No remorse, no acknowledgement or perhaps even awareness that they’re doing anything wrong; it’s just “fun.” Abortion is considered “normal” and euthanasia is making serious inroads into “mainstream” thinking and attitudes. Death becomes the pat answer to every problem, from financial difficulty and social embarrassment to boredom.
Not that Martin Luther could possibly have predicted this logical trajectory, mind you. It took centuries for it to work itself out, but it did work itself out, and it's not finished yet.
But the One Church established by Christ to be His witness to the truth is always there, still standing like a rock in the storm—the winds of error and the waves of chaos always crashing against it—still telling the same truth it always has, even when no one else is listening or even cares. “Truth? Who can say for sure what is true anymore?” Hmm… How about returning to the One authority established and appointed by God for the express purpose of bearing witness to the truth until the end of the world?
I know it sounds crazy, but it just might work!
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Religion Confusion, Part 3½
Some clarification would be nice, if you please …
It has been brought to my attention that I may have skipped a crucial step (or two) in my rhetorical process back in Part 1 where I started by talking about truth, and then launched into a discussion of religion, without adequately explaining the connection between the two. I made the unwarranted assumption that the connection was obvious. Sorry about that. Permit me to fill in that blank part of the picture by defining a few terms and connecting some of the dots.
“God” is that entity (whoever or whatever it may be) that we choose to revere and honor above all others. I refer to the Creator of the universe as “God” or “the God” (with a capital G) and anyone or anything else one may choose to so honor as “god” or “a god” (with a small g). Since the four religious systems I’m discussing in this series all recognize the Creator-of-the-universe-God, that’s where my focus is at the moment.
“Religion” is one’s belief system, the way one thinks about and worships God, either by oneself or within a group. I personally feel that, since it deals directly with God, religion is (or should be) of paramount importance in our lives.
“Worship,” as I stated in paragraph 2 of Part 1, is that which is due to God as a matter of simple justice. He created us (as well as everything else we could possibly want or need) out of nothing and sustains us in existence moment by moment. We should recognize that He didn’t have to create us at all, but did so out of pure love. Since it is better to exist than not to, we owe Him a specially elevated kind of respect, honor and gratitude: worship.
I also stated in that same paragraph that God is the essence and source of all truth (or reality). Since He created everything that is real (even our mental abilities to imagine things that aren’t real), and in fact had to pre-exist everything else in order to do so, all reality comes from Him and He has reality as one of His own attributes (since one cannot give what one doesn’t already possess). “Truth” is our recognition of or conformity to things as they actually exist.
“Confusion,” on the other hand, is a failure to recognize truth on some level, and I contend that this is not a desirable condition, and that it is worth a considerable effort to overcome one’s confusion and so approach closer to the ascertainable objective truth about God and the universe.
By “the true religion,” I mean those things God (presumably) revealed about Himself, about us and our relationship to Him, coupled with those practices He (presumably) wishes us to follow in learning about Him and in worshiping Him. I am presuming for the sake of discussion that God did in fact reveal such things to mankind, and therefore that a “true” religion does indeed exist.
Since truth comes from God, and our recognition of truth leads us back toward God, and religion is the way we think about God and worship Him, it is my view that the religion we should want to adopt ought to be rooted in truth. If I can identify aspects of a particular religious system that diverge from truth, then perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that such a system might not be the true religion.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
It has been brought to my attention that I may have skipped a crucial step (or two) in my rhetorical process back in Part 1 where I started by talking about truth, and then launched into a discussion of religion, without adequately explaining the connection between the two. I made the unwarranted assumption that the connection was obvious. Sorry about that. Permit me to fill in that blank part of the picture by defining a few terms and connecting some of the dots.
“God” is that entity (whoever or whatever it may be) that we choose to revere and honor above all others. I refer to the Creator of the universe as “God” or “the God” (with a capital G) and anyone or anything else one may choose to so honor as “god” or “a god” (with a small g). Since the four religious systems I’m discussing in this series all recognize the Creator-of-the-universe-God, that’s where my focus is at the moment.
“Religion” is one’s belief system, the way one thinks about and worships God, either by oneself or within a group. I personally feel that, since it deals directly with God, religion is (or should be) of paramount importance in our lives.
“Worship,” as I stated in paragraph 2 of Part 1, is that which is due to God as a matter of simple justice. He created us (as well as everything else we could possibly want or need) out of nothing and sustains us in existence moment by moment. We should recognize that He didn’t have to create us at all, but did so out of pure love. Since it is better to exist than not to, we owe Him a specially elevated kind of respect, honor and gratitude: worship.
I also stated in that same paragraph that God is the essence and source of all truth (or reality). Since He created everything that is real (even our mental abilities to imagine things that aren’t real), and in fact had to pre-exist everything else in order to do so, all reality comes from Him and He has reality as one of His own attributes (since one cannot give what one doesn’t already possess). “Truth” is our recognition of or conformity to things as they actually exist.
“Confusion,” on the other hand, is a failure to recognize truth on some level, and I contend that this is not a desirable condition, and that it is worth a considerable effort to overcome one’s confusion and so approach closer to the ascertainable objective truth about God and the universe.
By “the true religion,” I mean those things God (presumably) revealed about Himself, about us and our relationship to Him, coupled with those practices He (presumably) wishes us to follow in learning about Him and in worshiping Him. I am presuming for the sake of discussion that God did in fact reveal such things to mankind, and therefore that a “true” religion does indeed exist.
Since truth comes from God, and our recognition of truth leads us back toward God, and religion is the way we think about God and worship Him, it is my view that the religion we should want to adopt ought to be rooted in truth. If I can identify aspects of a particular religious system that diverge from truth, then perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that such a system might not be the true religion.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Religion Confusion, Part 3
Islam
When the visible head of the Catholic Church gives an address at a Catholic university on the subject of the link between faith and reason in which he quotes a Medieval source in an attempt to illustrate the point that recourse to violence for the sake of religion is not rational, the response from the Islamic world is … fire-bombed churches, murdered missionaries and cries of “the pope must die!” Hmm…. What do you suppose that means? Does this make any sense? Is this a good way for Muslims to witness to the truth? My view is that it fairly illustrates that Muslims in general (I am unaware of any substantial condemnation of these violent and aggressive acts coming from other Muslim leaders) are basically unconcerned with the notion of truth or rational discourse.
Violence is man’s usual and typical recourse if he cannot defend his position with reasonable argumentation. If I am looking for the truth about God and man, and Islam is not able to address such things, why should I believe it? Because there is a sword pressing against my throat, or the threat of death by explosion if I do not “submit”? This is not genuine faith, but fear. Truth casts out all fear. (The exact quote is “love casts out all fear” (1 Jn 4:18), but I think it applies to truth as well.) If truth is not one of the objects of Islam, then what is its appeal? Is Islam simply the religion of testosterone?
Writing in the late 1930s, Hilaire Belloc gave an excellent explanation of the history and nature of Islam from a Catholic perspective in the chapter “The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed” of his book The Great Heresies. (I highly recommend this book to everyone.) According to Belloc, Islam was not a new religion. It is in fact a perversion or distortion of true Christian doctrine (that’s what the term “heresy” means). I’ll try to summarize here.
Muhammad was pagan, as was the society in which he lived. He was never a Christian, hence he never had the benefit of the supernatural life of God (Sanctifying Grace) which comes through baptism, nor of experiencing God’s love from inside the Church. (See my posts, Life from the inside (Parts 1 & 2) [Feb. 5 & 14, 2006], and And another thing … [Feb. 19, 2006].) It is also not outside the realm of possibility, given what is known about his early years, that his experience of even natural love was somewhat limited: his father died before he was born and his mother died when he was 6, and it seems he had no older siblings or other close relatives (although reliable documentation is sketchy at best); he was taken in by his grandfather, but he also died when Muhammad was only 8; finally he came under the care of his uncle who was the leader of their clan which was the guardian of the pagan temple in Mecca. It is possible that by his adult years the memory of the warmth and intimacy of love he experienced in childhood may have grown cold and dim. Were this the case, he may have had difficulty relating to the concept of the love of God. Regardless of the reason, love has no part in the relationship between Allah and the Muslim. Islam is divine slavery.
If Muhammad was a prophet, he was a prophet like no other. His actual behavior and circumstances were more like some of the patriarchs and kings of Israel (having political power and many wives) and the judges like Gideon and Samson (waging wars of conquest). In contrast, the actual prophets of Israel and Judah, I think, tended to be unmarried (it’s hard to raise a family on a prophet’s salary!)—I know of only two who were married, Isaiah and Hosea (if I’m wrong here, please correct me). The Old Testament prophets lived under the near-constant threat of persecution and were frequently on the move (on foot, not horseback). Many were killed for their unpopular teachings, calling the people to reform their lives and return to the Lord. According to Muhammad, on the other hand, Prophethood came with “perks”—as Prophet he was entitled to have as many as eleven wives (total) [instead of the maximum of four permitted by the Qur’ân] (most of which were politically motivated to shore up his position by creating family ties with potential rivals), considerable material wealth and absolute political and judicial power.
Muhammad had a reflective turn of mind and an active imagination. He was a merchant and, starting in his teens, traveled far and had dealings with all kinds of people and picked up all kinds of new ideas. He took the Church’s teachings but then adapted them to suit his own sensibilities.
The foundation of his doctrine was the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God, His utter transcendence and personal nature, His creative power, the fact that He is all-good and exists outside of time, the good angels who serve Him, the bad angels who rebelled against Him, the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for its actions in this life, the final judgment—these are all elements of Catholic doctrine that he adopted. But where he departs from it—the central point of his heresy—is an absolute denial of the Incarnation or any possibility of an incarnate God. God is SO transcendent, Muhammad thought, that He couldn’t possibly enter into His creation by taking on a human nature (oh, the shame of it all!). So he eliminated the Trinity altogether (too confusing). Along with the Incarnation went the whole sacramental system, especially the Eucharist and the priesthood. Like every other heresy, Islam starts with the truth and then oversimplifies it. Neither Muhammad nor any of his followers ever developed a detailed theology. He was content to accept all that appealed to him and to reject all that seemed to him too complicated or mysterious to be true.
The root of the problem is that he set himself up as the final arbiter of truth; anything that seemed unreasonable to him, he simply tossed out (or twisted and reshaped into something else more to his liking). Where did he get that kind of authority? He claimed that the angel Gabriel told him it was so. But it couldn’t have been the real Gabriel, because Gabriel knew that Jesus was the Son of God (cf. Lk 1:26, 35), which Muhammad denied. Was Muhammad a fraud, making things up as he went along? That might be a little strong, although it could be the case. Or perhaps he was visited by another angel, a fallen angel (demon), who called himself “Gabriel” in order to deceive him. Or perhaps his “visions” were merely dreams which he misinterpreted and embellished. All three of these possibilities (or any combination, or others besides) might be the case. In any event, in his mind simplicity was the key to everything. And the structure and practice of Islam to this day utterly discourages any deep thought along religious or theological lines.
A large part of Islam’s initial success was its doctrine on social and economic justice. The Graeco-Roman world at that time (7th Century) suffered under ubiquitous slavery, rampant usury and indebtedness, complex and burdensome imperial taxation, the tyranny of lawyers and a meddlesome central government. (Hmm … Sort of like America today.) Muhammad preached a new spirit of freedom and relaxation: upon accepting Islam, slaves were freed, peasant farmers were relieved of their debts and crushing taxation, clerical and imperial discipline were swept away, usury was forbidden, and there was free justice under few and simple new laws that everyone could understand. The intricate tax system was replaced by a simple and straight system of tribute to the Caliph(s) (who succeeded Muhammad’s place of authority after his death). As a result of this arrangement the Caliphs became extremely wealthy and were thus able to carry on the expensive business of war and conquest over an extended period of time. Given the opportunity and probability for success of throwing off such unjust burdens, who wouldn’t want to sign on to such a venture? There was also a certain underlying historical character throughout the whole region of the Middle East of natural conformity, a sort of instinct for obedience to one religious head, which was also the civil head, and a general similarity of social structure. This general character is older than any historical record, and it persists to this day.
Muhammad had the good fortune to marry a wealthy widow (he was around 25 at the time, and she was about 40). From this position of security he was free to work out his visions and enthusiasms and undertook his propaganda. But even as his following grew and his doctrines spread, it was all done in a small and ignorant way; there was never any organization. Everything was undertaken in a haphazard and slipshod manner. The Muslim temperament was never tolerant. It was in the main fanatical and bloodthirsty. It felt no respect for, or even curiosity about, those from whom it differed and was absurdly vain of itself, regarding with contempt the high Christian culture around it. And yet it did not exterminate all those who did not accept the new faith. Why? Because the forces of Islam were still too few to govern by force. In the early centuries, the greater mass of the populations remained Christian, and it was they who preserved the Graeco-Roman civilization which was their heritage, surviving under the surface of Mohammedan government.
Certainly, there are numerous “points of light” (elements of truth) in Islamic teaching (e.g. profound reverence for Mary (Miriam), the mother of Jesus, and the recognition of Jesus’ virginal conception and birth), but, like the laudable passages of the Talmud, we have no problem with these. On those points there is no disagreement, no source of confusion. And, as noted above, these elements were all appropriated from Catholic teaching anyway.) Recent years have shown also how individuals or groups of members of both faiths can certainly agree and work cooperatively on certain issues of mutual concern.
But on the whole, especially in the realm of doctrine, Islam and Christianity are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive on the most fundamental level. These two religions cannot both be true because they flatly contradict one another on the most basic question: Who is Jesus Christ?
When the visible head of the Catholic Church gives an address at a Catholic university on the subject of the link between faith and reason in which he quotes a Medieval source in an attempt to illustrate the point that recourse to violence for the sake of religion is not rational, the response from the Islamic world is … fire-bombed churches, murdered missionaries and cries of “the pope must die!” Hmm…. What do you suppose that means? Does this make any sense? Is this a good way for Muslims to witness to the truth? My view is that it fairly illustrates that Muslims in general (I am unaware of any substantial condemnation of these violent and aggressive acts coming from other Muslim leaders) are basically unconcerned with the notion of truth or rational discourse.
Violence is man’s usual and typical recourse if he cannot defend his position with reasonable argumentation. If I am looking for the truth about God and man, and Islam is not able to address such things, why should I believe it? Because there is a sword pressing against my throat, or the threat of death by explosion if I do not “submit”? This is not genuine faith, but fear. Truth casts out all fear. (The exact quote is “love casts out all fear” (1 Jn 4:18), but I think it applies to truth as well.) If truth is not one of the objects of Islam, then what is its appeal? Is Islam simply the religion of testosterone?
Writing in the late 1930s, Hilaire Belloc gave an excellent explanation of the history and nature of Islam from a Catholic perspective in the chapter “The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed” of his book The Great Heresies. (I highly recommend this book to everyone.) According to Belloc, Islam was not a new religion. It is in fact a perversion or distortion of true Christian doctrine (that’s what the term “heresy” means). I’ll try to summarize here.
Muhammad was pagan, as was the society in which he lived. He was never a Christian, hence he never had the benefit of the supernatural life of God (Sanctifying Grace) which comes through baptism, nor of experiencing God’s love from inside the Church. (See my posts, Life from the inside (Parts 1 & 2) [Feb. 5 & 14, 2006], and And another thing … [Feb. 19, 2006].) It is also not outside the realm of possibility, given what is known about his early years, that his experience of even natural love was somewhat limited: his father died before he was born and his mother died when he was 6, and it seems he had no older siblings or other close relatives (although reliable documentation is sketchy at best); he was taken in by his grandfather, but he also died when Muhammad was only 8; finally he came under the care of his uncle who was the leader of their clan which was the guardian of the pagan temple in Mecca. It is possible that by his adult years the memory of the warmth and intimacy of love he experienced in childhood may have grown cold and dim. Were this the case, he may have had difficulty relating to the concept of the love of God. Regardless of the reason, love has no part in the relationship between Allah and the Muslim. Islam is divine slavery.
If Muhammad was a prophet, he was a prophet like no other. His actual behavior and circumstances were more like some of the patriarchs and kings of Israel (having political power and many wives) and the judges like Gideon and Samson (waging wars of conquest). In contrast, the actual prophets of Israel and Judah, I think, tended to be unmarried (it’s hard to raise a family on a prophet’s salary!)—I know of only two who were married, Isaiah and Hosea (if I’m wrong here, please correct me). The Old Testament prophets lived under the near-constant threat of persecution and were frequently on the move (on foot, not horseback). Many were killed for their unpopular teachings, calling the people to reform their lives and return to the Lord. According to Muhammad, on the other hand, Prophethood came with “perks”—as Prophet he was entitled to have as many as eleven wives (total) [instead of the maximum of four permitted by the Qur’ân] (most of which were politically motivated to shore up his position by creating family ties with potential rivals), considerable material wealth and absolute political and judicial power.
Muhammad had a reflective turn of mind and an active imagination. He was a merchant and, starting in his teens, traveled far and had dealings with all kinds of people and picked up all kinds of new ideas. He took the Church’s teachings but then adapted them to suit his own sensibilities.
The foundation of his doctrine was the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God, His utter transcendence and personal nature, His creative power, the fact that He is all-good and exists outside of time, the good angels who serve Him, the bad angels who rebelled against Him, the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for its actions in this life, the final judgment—these are all elements of Catholic doctrine that he adopted. But where he departs from it—the central point of his heresy—is an absolute denial of the Incarnation or any possibility of an incarnate God. God is SO transcendent, Muhammad thought, that He couldn’t possibly enter into His creation by taking on a human nature (oh, the shame of it all!). So he eliminated the Trinity altogether (too confusing). Along with the Incarnation went the whole sacramental system, especially the Eucharist and the priesthood. Like every other heresy, Islam starts with the truth and then oversimplifies it. Neither Muhammad nor any of his followers ever developed a detailed theology. He was content to accept all that appealed to him and to reject all that seemed to him too complicated or mysterious to be true.
The root of the problem is that he set himself up as the final arbiter of truth; anything that seemed unreasonable to him, he simply tossed out (or twisted and reshaped into something else more to his liking). Where did he get that kind of authority? He claimed that the angel Gabriel told him it was so. But it couldn’t have been the real Gabriel, because Gabriel knew that Jesus was the Son of God (cf. Lk 1:26, 35), which Muhammad denied. Was Muhammad a fraud, making things up as he went along? That might be a little strong, although it could be the case. Or perhaps he was visited by another angel, a fallen angel (demon), who called himself “Gabriel” in order to deceive him. Or perhaps his “visions” were merely dreams which he misinterpreted and embellished. All three of these possibilities (or any combination, or others besides) might be the case. In any event, in his mind simplicity was the key to everything. And the structure and practice of Islam to this day utterly discourages any deep thought along religious or theological lines.
A large part of Islam’s initial success was its doctrine on social and economic justice. The Graeco-Roman world at that time (7th Century) suffered under ubiquitous slavery, rampant usury and indebtedness, complex and burdensome imperial taxation, the tyranny of lawyers and a meddlesome central government. (Hmm … Sort of like America today.) Muhammad preached a new spirit of freedom and relaxation: upon accepting Islam, slaves were freed, peasant farmers were relieved of their debts and crushing taxation, clerical and imperial discipline were swept away, usury was forbidden, and there was free justice under few and simple new laws that everyone could understand. The intricate tax system was replaced by a simple and straight system of tribute to the Caliph(s) (who succeeded Muhammad’s place of authority after his death). As a result of this arrangement the Caliphs became extremely wealthy and were thus able to carry on the expensive business of war and conquest over an extended period of time. Given the opportunity and probability for success of throwing off such unjust burdens, who wouldn’t want to sign on to such a venture? There was also a certain underlying historical character throughout the whole region of the Middle East of natural conformity, a sort of instinct for obedience to one religious head, which was also the civil head, and a general similarity of social structure. This general character is older than any historical record, and it persists to this day.
Muhammad had the good fortune to marry a wealthy widow (he was around 25 at the time, and she was about 40). From this position of security he was free to work out his visions and enthusiasms and undertook his propaganda. But even as his following grew and his doctrines spread, it was all done in a small and ignorant way; there was never any organization. Everything was undertaken in a haphazard and slipshod manner. The Muslim temperament was never tolerant. It was in the main fanatical and bloodthirsty. It felt no respect for, or even curiosity about, those from whom it differed and was absurdly vain of itself, regarding with contempt the high Christian culture around it. And yet it did not exterminate all those who did not accept the new faith. Why? Because the forces of Islam were still too few to govern by force. In the early centuries, the greater mass of the populations remained Christian, and it was they who preserved the Graeco-Roman civilization which was their heritage, surviving under the surface of Mohammedan government.
Certainly, there are numerous “points of light” (elements of truth) in Islamic teaching (e.g. profound reverence for Mary (Miriam), the mother of Jesus, and the recognition of Jesus’ virginal conception and birth), but, like the laudable passages of the Talmud, we have no problem with these. On those points there is no disagreement, no source of confusion. And, as noted above, these elements were all appropriated from Catholic teaching anyway.) Recent years have shown also how individuals or groups of members of both faiths can certainly agree and work cooperatively on certain issues of mutual concern.
But on the whole, especially in the realm of doctrine, Islam and Christianity are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive on the most fundamental level. These two religions cannot both be true because they flatly contradict one another on the most basic question: Who is Jesus Christ?
Monday, October 09, 2006
Religion Confusion, Part 2
Judaism
Modern Judaism is a particularly difficult nut to crack. It must be understood that ancient Judaism (the Judaism of the Bible) no longer exists either in its religious or racial aspect. This is a fact of historical record. The Judaism of the Old and New Testaments was a hierarchical religion based on the Law of Moses and the priesthood of Aaron with its performance of various animal sacrifices which could only be consummated in the Temple in Jerusalem. This was the “true religion” up until the day that most of the Jewish hierarchy rejected their promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, around the year AD 30. For the next 40 years, Judaism was a walking corpse. When the Roman Legion razed the Jewish Temple and exterminated the entire priestly class in AD 70, Biblical Judaism simply ceased to exist.
From that time on, what we have is Rabbinical or Talmudic Judaism, a religion based on the commentaries and doctrines of rabbis (non-priestly theologian-types who teach and otherwise lead their congregations in the synagogues), which over the next several hundred years were written down and codified in the Talmud. I am not an expert on the Talmud (and there is actually more than one version, the most commonly used being the Babylonian Talmud), but those who are experts have said that many of its passages flatly contradict the Mosaic Law as given in the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible), which Jews today claim to reverence. And wherever there is a conflict or contradiction, the Talmud always trumps the Torah. (This is basically what Jesus condemned about the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees in Mark 7:1-13.) Jewish teaching in the synagogues today is from the Talmud, not the Torah. There are, to be sure, many good and exemplary rules and teachings in the Talmud, but those are not the things that concern us here. What we find problematic are the other teachings, the ones that require the violation of the Mosaic Law and the words of the Prophets (those teachings that “nullify the word of God” (cf. Matt 15:6-9; Mk 7: 1-13)). The Talmud also makes numerous vile and, from the Christian perspective, blasphemous statements about the person of Jesus (Yeshu), perhaps as a way to “inoculate” Jews against conversion to Christianity. (When confronted with these passages during medieval public debates on the Talmud’s contents, the pat answer (if they answered at all) was, “Oh, we don’t mean that Jesus. It’s some other [unspecified] guy named Jesus.” Yeah, right.)
So the Jewish religion we see being practiced today (established ca. AD 70, although its spiritual antecedents go back much farther) is actually of more recent origin than Christianity (established ca. AD 30, although its spiritual antecedents go back much farther), and is based principally on the definitive rejection of Jesus Christ (as if to say, “whoever the Messiah might be, it wasn’t him!”) and any notion of a suffering Messiah who would die in order to free mankind from our slavery to sin. The modern Jewish concept of “Messiah” is strictly and exclusively political, not spiritual, and most (if not all) political revolutions throughout history (e.g. France 1789 and Russia 1917) can be traced in some way to the advancement of this Talmudic Jewish idea of establishing the (political) “Kingdom of God” here on earth through force of arms and under Jewish hegemony. (Perhaps this is what was percolating through Mel Gibson’s mind as he ranted recently while in a drunken stupor.)
What is called the “Jewish race” today is also something entirely different than that which lived in Ancient Israel or Roman Palestine. That ancient race was scattered (deported and resettled) throughout the Roman world after the sack of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Jewish resistance at Masada a few years later. The Jews who survived subsequently (over the course of centuries) either converted to Christianity (at which point they relinquished their identity as Jews), intermarried with the various local tribes among which they found themselves, or were persecuted and killed for their perceived antisocial behaviors. (This last item is not a practice I would endorse or condone; I’m simply saying what happened.) The Jewish race of antiquity was thus “diluted” over time to the point where it essentially disappeared. However there were always pockets of “religious” Jews (i.e. people who kept the rabbinical laws of the Pharisees as given in the Talmud) scattered throughout the Roman and Byzantine Empires and they became disproportionately influential for their numbers in certain localities (chiefly through the use of finance). Although the Jewish “race” no longer existed as such, and the Jewish sacrificial religion of antiquity was no more, still there persisted a group of people that lived a distinct tradition (as codified in the Talmud) in more or less closely-knit communities throughout Europe, Northern Africa and Western Asia that were known universally as “Jews.” [Incidentally, that “race” which today has its political center in the modern state of Israel, its economic center in New York and its cultural center in Hollywood, is actually of Slavic not Semitic extraction (which explains why contemporary Jews/Israelis are generally fairer and look more like Russians, Czechs and Poles than their Eastern Mediterranean neighbors).]
Needless to say, (modern) Judaism and Christianity cannot both be true. I do not hesitate to affirm here that there are many good people who are professed and practicing Jews (Rabbi Daniel Lapin comes immediately to mind), and I do not mean to sound as if I condemn any of them in any way. I also affirm that Christianity is the fulfillment of the ancient Jewish religion. But the modern Jewish religion is an explicit renunciation of the Christian faith. So if we are looking for the one true religion (assuming for the moment that there is one), we cannot have it both ways. If one is true, the other must be false. We owe it to ourselves—and to our fellow man—to find the truth. If we are satisfied to accept the status quo (which seems to amount to an indifference to the truth) then only confusion can result, and that’s not good.
Modern Judaism is a particularly difficult nut to crack. It must be understood that ancient Judaism (the Judaism of the Bible) no longer exists either in its religious or racial aspect. This is a fact of historical record. The Judaism of the Old and New Testaments was a hierarchical religion based on the Law of Moses and the priesthood of Aaron with its performance of various animal sacrifices which could only be consummated in the Temple in Jerusalem. This was the “true religion” up until the day that most of the Jewish hierarchy rejected their promised Messiah, Jesus Christ, around the year AD 30. For the next 40 years, Judaism was a walking corpse. When the Roman Legion razed the Jewish Temple and exterminated the entire priestly class in AD 70, Biblical Judaism simply ceased to exist.
From that time on, what we have is Rabbinical or Talmudic Judaism, a religion based on the commentaries and doctrines of rabbis (non-priestly theologian-types who teach and otherwise lead their congregations in the synagogues), which over the next several hundred years were written down and codified in the Talmud. I am not an expert on the Talmud (and there is actually more than one version, the most commonly used being the Babylonian Talmud), but those who are experts have said that many of its passages flatly contradict the Mosaic Law as given in the Torah (the first 5 books of the Bible), which Jews today claim to reverence. And wherever there is a conflict or contradiction, the Talmud always trumps the Torah. (This is basically what Jesus condemned about the teaching of the Scribes and Pharisees in Mark 7:1-13.) Jewish teaching in the synagogues today is from the Talmud, not the Torah. There are, to be sure, many good and exemplary rules and teachings in the Talmud, but those are not the things that concern us here. What we find problematic are the other teachings, the ones that require the violation of the Mosaic Law and the words of the Prophets (those teachings that “nullify the word of God” (cf. Matt 15:6-9; Mk 7: 1-13)). The Talmud also makes numerous vile and, from the Christian perspective, blasphemous statements about the person of Jesus (Yeshu), perhaps as a way to “inoculate” Jews against conversion to Christianity. (When confronted with these passages during medieval public debates on the Talmud’s contents, the pat answer (if they answered at all) was, “Oh, we don’t mean that Jesus. It’s some other [unspecified] guy named Jesus.” Yeah, right.)
So the Jewish religion we see being practiced today (established ca. AD 70, although its spiritual antecedents go back much farther) is actually of more recent origin than Christianity (established ca. AD 30, although its spiritual antecedents go back much farther), and is based principally on the definitive rejection of Jesus Christ (as if to say, “whoever the Messiah might be, it wasn’t him!”) and any notion of a suffering Messiah who would die in order to free mankind from our slavery to sin. The modern Jewish concept of “Messiah” is strictly and exclusively political, not spiritual, and most (if not all) political revolutions throughout history (e.g. France 1789 and Russia 1917) can be traced in some way to the advancement of this Talmudic Jewish idea of establishing the (political) “Kingdom of God” here on earth through force of arms and under Jewish hegemony. (Perhaps this is what was percolating through Mel Gibson’s mind as he ranted recently while in a drunken stupor.)
What is called the “Jewish race” today is also something entirely different than that which lived in Ancient Israel or Roman Palestine. That ancient race was scattered (deported and resettled) throughout the Roman world after the sack of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Jewish resistance at Masada a few years later. The Jews who survived subsequently (over the course of centuries) either converted to Christianity (at which point they relinquished their identity as Jews), intermarried with the various local tribes among which they found themselves, or were persecuted and killed for their perceived antisocial behaviors. (This last item is not a practice I would endorse or condone; I’m simply saying what happened.) The Jewish race of antiquity was thus “diluted” over time to the point where it essentially disappeared. However there were always pockets of “religious” Jews (i.e. people who kept the rabbinical laws of the Pharisees as given in the Talmud) scattered throughout the Roman and Byzantine Empires and they became disproportionately influential for their numbers in certain localities (chiefly through the use of finance). Although the Jewish “race” no longer existed as such, and the Jewish sacrificial religion of antiquity was no more, still there persisted a group of people that lived a distinct tradition (as codified in the Talmud) in more or less closely-knit communities throughout Europe, Northern Africa and Western Asia that were known universally as “Jews.” [Incidentally, that “race” which today has its political center in the modern state of Israel, its economic center in New York and its cultural center in Hollywood, is actually of Slavic not Semitic extraction (which explains why contemporary Jews/Israelis are generally fairer and look more like Russians, Czechs and Poles than their Eastern Mediterranean neighbors).]
Needless to say, (modern) Judaism and Christianity cannot both be true. I do not hesitate to affirm here that there are many good people who are professed and practicing Jews (Rabbi Daniel Lapin comes immediately to mind), and I do not mean to sound as if I condemn any of them in any way. I also affirm that Christianity is the fulfillment of the ancient Jewish religion. But the modern Jewish religion is an explicit renunciation of the Christian faith. So if we are looking for the one true religion (assuming for the moment that there is one), we cannot have it both ways. If one is true, the other must be false. We owe it to ourselves—and to our fellow man—to find the truth. If we are satisfied to accept the status quo (which seems to amount to an indifference to the truth) then only confusion can result, and that’s not good.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Religion Confusion, Part 1
Introduction and general remarks
This topic is intimately connected to the nature of truth. Truth is—and must be—objective (something outside of ourselves) and is something that can be ascertained with a fair degree of reliability by human beings. By way of illustration, everyone uses the terms Right (or good) and Wrong (bad or evil)—although they don’t always agree on what ideas, words or actions should fall into those two basic categories. Without some sense of the objective character of truth, without some anchor outside of ourselves by which to judge the veracity of an idea or the rectitude of an action, the terms right and wrong become utterly meaningless. If “true” and “false” are merely subjective preferences (as in “What’s true for you might not be true for me”) then no one has any reason to complain about anyone else’s words or actions. If you claim that “truth” can somehow be different for each person, then who are you to say that I’m “wrong,” no matter what I say or do? What is your standard for saying that I shouldn’t say or do anything (implying that your “truth” is somehow superior to my truth)? This is the root dilemma of moral relativism. If moral relativism is true … (oh wait, can’t say “true”) … Hmm … Well, maybe there are no objectively truthful statements except the statement that “morality” is merely conventional, subjective or relative and can change from one time to another, from place to place, or from one person to the next. Well, how can you claim that that statement is true, but that other statements are not? What qualifies you to make such a definitive judgment? Of course you see the internal contradiction. Since it can thus be demonstrated that truth must be objective, we should at least agree that it would be helpful to find out the objective truth (to the extent we are humanly capable), and be humble enough to submit and subordinate our individual personal feelings, desires or preferences to that truth.
The point I want to drive home in this series of posts [I anticipate 5 parts in all] is this: the mere fact that there is a plethora of conflicting and competing religious systems throughout the world (each claiming to be true) is a grave disservice both to mankind and to God. The more of these conflicting doctrinal systems there are, the greater the likelihood people will be confused into thinking that it doesn’t really matter what we believe, if anything, since it seems impossible to sort it all out. Thus religion confusion (or perhaps truth frustration). God, the very essence and source of all truth, never intended it to be like this, and He gives each of us the means to overcome the confusion. He requests—and deserves—to be worshipped by everyone “in spirit and in truth” (cf. Jn 4:23-24) (worship is simply that which is due in justice to God, our Creator, just as respect is the bare minimum due our parents who gave us life). By the same token, all human beings have an innate desire—and deserve—to know the full truth about God and their relationship to Him. Since truth cannot contradict itself, and is a basic goal of human existence, is it not reasonable to conclude that it is both conceivable and desirable for all people to search for, approach, recognize, and finally accept and adhere to that unified, uncompromised truth? After all, there is nothing intrinsic to human nature that says we cannot agree if we all happen to arrive at the same place. (The goal of course is not the agreement as such. Agreement is merely coincidental to the common recognition and acceptance of the truth.)
I saw a bumper sticker a few weeks ago that said “God is too big for any one religion.” The implication (or suggestion), of course, is that no single religion is entirely true. This ignores the facts that (1) God made us and understands us thoroughly and absolutely, (2) God chose to reveal Himself to us in stages throughout our history in ways that we are capable of understanding, and (3) God did in fact come down to earth, assume a human nature and establish one religion for the salvation of all mankind (cf. Lk 10:16; Matt 28:18-20) and to lead us to the truth (cf. Jn 8:32; 14:6; 15:26; 16:13; 1 Tim 3:15). So while God, being infinite, is indeed “too big” for one religion, the fact remains that there is (at least conceivably) one religion which is big enough for all people. But which one might it be?
Well, what are our choices? The main “contenders” are: Judaism; Islam; Protestant [non-Catholic] Christianity (both explicit and virtual, too many forms to count); and Catholicism. (I will not here be discussing in any depth Eastern Orthodoxy, the various Asian philosophical systems and religions or any other sect, but they all have particular problems which effectively rule them out. Feel free to leave a comment below if you have the need to discuss this further.)
There are also those kinds of people who have a real problem with anything that smacks of “organized religion”: apostates (who believed in God at some time in the past, but have since disavowed all faith in Him); pagans (who worship or otherwise venerate one or more beings or concepts other than (and to the exclusion of) the God of the Old and New Testaments); atheists (who state more or less emphatically, “There IS no God”); agnostics (who in effect say, “Hmm … not sure”); and secularists (who rarely, if ever, give God a passing thought). These are not hard and fast categories and a given person may fall into more than one of them at any time. Besides, these “freethinking” types frequently refuse to be pinned down or pigeonholed in any way, even for the sake of discussion. Like the other minor religions I mentioned, these positions also suffer under the burden of serious logical difficulties. No doubt these folks will likely claim that they have no “innate desire” to know anything about God, because to them God is non-existent or unimportant. But if you inquire deep enough (and they are honest enough) you generally find out that they made a conscious decision somewhere along the way to reject the notion of a personal Creator-God, generally because of the possibility or likelihood of some sort of moral demands He might place on them which they were unwilling to accept. For them, life is more “fun” (fun being the ultimate goal of their lives) when you remove God from the picture; and so they do. This is of course not a proof that God does not exist, only a demonstration that they don’t want Him to exist so they can have their own way.
Naturally, it must be admitted that no one person understands another guy’s perspective or approach to religion completely or absolutely, since religious faith is the most personal of all human activities. One would have to get inside the other’s psychic experience to see and feel things exactly the way he does, which is of course impossible. However it is possible to (1) gather and study the written and spoken tenets of a given faith, (2) observe the practices of its adherents and (3) understand the religious institution in its historical context. It is then possible to make certain judgments about it through the use of reason and sound philosophical principles.
In the remainder of this series I will examine in turn each of the four contenders for the title of “The True Religion.”
This topic is intimately connected to the nature of truth. Truth is—and must be—objective (something outside of ourselves) and is something that can be ascertained with a fair degree of reliability by human beings. By way of illustration, everyone uses the terms Right (or good) and Wrong (bad or evil)—although they don’t always agree on what ideas, words or actions should fall into those two basic categories. Without some sense of the objective character of truth, without some anchor outside of ourselves by which to judge the veracity of an idea or the rectitude of an action, the terms right and wrong become utterly meaningless. If “true” and “false” are merely subjective preferences (as in “What’s true for you might not be true for me”) then no one has any reason to complain about anyone else’s words or actions. If you claim that “truth” can somehow be different for each person, then who are you to say that I’m “wrong,” no matter what I say or do? What is your standard for saying that I shouldn’t say or do anything (implying that your “truth” is somehow superior to my truth)? This is the root dilemma of moral relativism. If moral relativism is true … (oh wait, can’t say “true”) … Hmm … Well, maybe there are no objectively truthful statements except the statement that “morality” is merely conventional, subjective or relative and can change from one time to another, from place to place, or from one person to the next. Well, how can you claim that that statement is true, but that other statements are not? What qualifies you to make such a definitive judgment? Of course you see the internal contradiction. Since it can thus be demonstrated that truth must be objective, we should at least agree that it would be helpful to find out the objective truth (to the extent we are humanly capable), and be humble enough to submit and subordinate our individual personal feelings, desires or preferences to that truth.
The point I want to drive home in this series of posts [I anticipate 5 parts in all] is this: the mere fact that there is a plethora of conflicting and competing religious systems throughout the world (each claiming to be true) is a grave disservice both to mankind and to God. The more of these conflicting doctrinal systems there are, the greater the likelihood people will be confused into thinking that it doesn’t really matter what we believe, if anything, since it seems impossible to sort it all out. Thus religion confusion (or perhaps truth frustration). God, the very essence and source of all truth, never intended it to be like this, and He gives each of us the means to overcome the confusion. He requests—and deserves—to be worshipped by everyone “in spirit and in truth” (cf. Jn 4:23-24) (worship is simply that which is due in justice to God, our Creator, just as respect is the bare minimum due our parents who gave us life). By the same token, all human beings have an innate desire—and deserve—to know the full truth about God and their relationship to Him. Since truth cannot contradict itself, and is a basic goal of human existence, is it not reasonable to conclude that it is both conceivable and desirable for all people to search for, approach, recognize, and finally accept and adhere to that unified, uncompromised truth? After all, there is nothing intrinsic to human nature that says we cannot agree if we all happen to arrive at the same place. (The goal of course is not the agreement as such. Agreement is merely coincidental to the common recognition and acceptance of the truth.)
I saw a bumper sticker a few weeks ago that said “God is too big for any one religion.” The implication (or suggestion), of course, is that no single religion is entirely true. This ignores the facts that (1) God made us and understands us thoroughly and absolutely, (2) God chose to reveal Himself to us in stages throughout our history in ways that we are capable of understanding, and (3) God did in fact come down to earth, assume a human nature and establish one religion for the salvation of all mankind (cf. Lk 10:16; Matt 28:18-20) and to lead us to the truth (cf. Jn 8:32; 14:6; 15:26; 16:13; 1 Tim 3:15). So while God, being infinite, is indeed “too big” for one religion, the fact remains that there is (at least conceivably) one religion which is big enough for all people. But which one might it be?
Well, what are our choices? The main “contenders” are: Judaism; Islam; Protestant [non-Catholic] Christianity (both explicit and virtual, too many forms to count); and Catholicism. (I will not here be discussing in any depth Eastern Orthodoxy, the various Asian philosophical systems and religions or any other sect, but they all have particular problems which effectively rule them out. Feel free to leave a comment below if you have the need to discuss this further.)
There are also those kinds of people who have a real problem with anything that smacks of “organized religion”: apostates (who believed in God at some time in the past, but have since disavowed all faith in Him); pagans (who worship or otherwise venerate one or more beings or concepts other than (and to the exclusion of) the God of the Old and New Testaments); atheists (who state more or less emphatically, “There IS no God”); agnostics (who in effect say, “Hmm … not sure”); and secularists (who rarely, if ever, give God a passing thought). These are not hard and fast categories and a given person may fall into more than one of them at any time. Besides, these “freethinking” types frequently refuse to be pinned down or pigeonholed in any way, even for the sake of discussion. Like the other minor religions I mentioned, these positions also suffer under the burden of serious logical difficulties. No doubt these folks will likely claim that they have no “innate desire” to know anything about God, because to them God is non-existent or unimportant. But if you inquire deep enough (and they are honest enough) you generally find out that they made a conscious decision somewhere along the way to reject the notion of a personal Creator-God, generally because of the possibility or likelihood of some sort of moral demands He might place on them which they were unwilling to accept. For them, life is more “fun” (fun being the ultimate goal of their lives) when you remove God from the picture; and so they do. This is of course not a proof that God does not exist, only a demonstration that they don’t want Him to exist so they can have their own way.
Naturally, it must be admitted that no one person understands another guy’s perspective or approach to religion completely or absolutely, since religious faith is the most personal of all human activities. One would have to get inside the other’s psychic experience to see and feel things exactly the way he does, which is of course impossible. However it is possible to (1) gather and study the written and spoken tenets of a given faith, (2) observe the practices of its adherents and (3) understand the religious institution in its historical context. It is then possible to make certain judgments about it through the use of reason and sound philosophical principles.
In the remainder of this series I will examine in turn each of the four contenders for the title of “The True Religion.”
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Thinking BIG
I hope my regular readers haven't given up on me. I'm still around and I'm still wrestling with "meaty" topics. These things take time.
What I'm working on now is something similar to ending Hunger or giving the final solution to World Peace. The stuff I'm working through now bears directly on all the big conflicts happening around the globe right now. I think I'm on the right track and I hope you'll be pleasantly surprised with what I come up with.
It will either be a very long post or a multi-parter (haven't decided yet), as you might have expected given the scope of my musings. But I hope to have it up in a week or so, God willing.
What I'm working on now is something similar to ending Hunger or giving the final solution to World Peace. The stuff I'm working through now bears directly on all the big conflicts happening around the globe right now. I think I'm on the right track and I hope you'll be pleasantly surprised with what I come up with.
It will either be a very long post or a multi-parter (haven't decided yet), as you might have expected given the scope of my musings. But I hope to have it up in a week or so, God willing.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
“Jesus, Mercy”
A Catholic Perspective on Death
Time and space (our material universe) are contained within God’s eternal realm. Both heaven and hell, therefore, can be experienced (partially, in shadow form) here on earth in this life. At certain brief moments (or even over longer periods of time) in this life, we can get a glimpse or foretaste of our eternal destiny. Also, God and other spirits are able (within certain limits set forth by God) to penetrate into our physical world and sometimes manifest themselves to us, but we cannot break through the barrier of physicality into their invisible spiritual realm of eternity. Except through death.
Death is simply the portal into eternal life, nothing more and nothing less. The peculiar problem we experience acutely in this life, however, is that we don’t know exactly when (or under what circumstances) we will reach that mysterious doorway. Only God knows the precise moment (and manner) He will call each of us out of this life into the next. This is why the practice of living out a life of virtue (loving service to God and one’s neighbor) is so important. By loving God and placing ourselves at the service of others for His sake (cf. Mk 12:28-34), we are “rehearsing” for the moment of our own death when we finally make our eternal choice of Yes to God’s love. In this way, we will always be ready to meet the Lord, whenever He should call us. In His loving providence, He knows the best way and the most spiritually advantageous moment for each of us to cross over to Him, and that is the moment when He will call us.
This earthly life, whether brief or long, is “only a test” and not the “real thing.” The purpose of life is only for our instruction and “practice” for the Great Entrance Exam. The “Final” exam occurs for each of us individually only at the moment of death when the soul says to Jesus the Just Judge (cf. Matt 25: 31-46) either “Thy will be done,” or “My will be done.” By saying the former, we effectively throw ourselves upon God’s tender mercy. By doing this we enter heaven (although perhaps first passing through that “mud room” of heaven which Catholics call “purgatory” (cf. 1 Cor 3:12-15; 1 Pet 1:7; Rev 21:27)). By saying the latter, we set ourselves in defiance of God and his mercy, thereby cutting ourselves off from experiencing His love, and so fall into hell.
The all-important question which determines whether a soul enters the eternal life of heaven or falls into hell is its love for God—or rather its returning (or participating in) God’s own love for us. Love is a spiritual reality and can be present in a person without any visible manifestation (physical activity or emotional display), such as in an infant or young child, someone with severe retardation or brain damage, or a patient lying unconscious in a hospital bed. We receive this love of God through the divine gift of faith, and we exercise it through obedience to God’s will. The full truth of a man’s [1] love exists only in the quiet recesses of his heart, and only God can read a man’s heart. As the recently published (1994, 1997) Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches,
___________________
[1] (Throughout this essay I will use the word “man” in the traditional sense meaning both men and women, mankind.)
---------------------------
However, while it is possible that a person might not outwardly show his heart’s participation in the love of God which is his “ticket” to heaven, ordinarily we show (and grow in) this love of God through our love of and service to our neighbor (Matt 25:31-46). As our Lord often repeated through his parables, such is the kingdom of God.
Death is one of the mysterious “Four Last Things” which are explored in the branch of Catholic theology called eschatology. Those Last Things are death, judgment, heaven and hell. All four are very real. Although many people today believe otherwise (or simply avoid the subject altogether), they are mistaken—we have the Lord’s word on that.
[The next several paragraphs are excerpted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, 1997; paragraphs 1008-1013.]
The Church teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin (cf. Gen 2:17; 3:3; 3:19; Wisdom [2] 1:13; Rom 5:12; 6:23). Even though man’s nature is mortal, God had originally destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin (cf. Wis 2:23-24). Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned, is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered (cf. 1 Cor 15:26).
___________________
[2] (The Wisdom of Solomon (Wisdom) is one of the seven Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament found in Catholic editions of the Bible but which are typically excluded from Protestant versions.)
---------------------------
Jesus, the Son of God, also himself suffered the death that is part of the human condition. Yet, despite His anguish as He faced death, He accepted it in an act of complete and free submission to His Father’s will (cf. Mk 14:33-36; Heb 5:7-8). The obedience of Jesus has transformed the curse of death into a blessing (cf. Rom 5:19-21).
Because of Christ, Christian death has a positive meaning: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21). “The saying is sure: if we have died with Him, we also shall live with Him” (2 Tim 2:11). What is essentially new about Christian death is this: through Baptism, the Christian has already “died with Christ” sacramentally, in order to live a new life; and if we die in Christ’s grace, physical death completes this “dying with Christ” and so completes our incorporation into Him in His redeeming act:
[End of excerpt from the Catechism.]
Whether death comes in an instant through an accident or the malice of another person (i.e. murder) or through the slow process of old age or disease, it is part of God’s will and is under His ultimate control. The sorrow and grief experienced by those of us who survive the death of friends and family members are the good, natural and healthy expressions of our love for the beloved deceased and of the loss of their presence among us. We should and must grieve. But after a reasonable period of time, despite the loss, life returns to a normal state. Time heals all wounds. We never forget the beloved, of course; the memories remain through-out our lives. The bonds of love are not destroyed by death, and the soul itself does not die. We are separated only for a time, not forever. We shall see them again when we join them in eternity after our own death. And we shall live together with them in the resurrection of the just in our glorified bodies, cleansed from every blemish and imperfection, at the end of time. In comparison to the eternity which awaits us (heaven), this time on earth is only a flicker.
It is rare for a human being to be in a state of the pure love and grace of God at the moment of death. Usually there is at least some impurity, spiritual imperfection or trace of sin in any person’s life. Sometimes this is obvious (if the person lived a manifest “life of sin”), but it frequently is known only to the dying person himself in the core of his being, and to God who knows all things. But God loves even the “manifest sinner” and we trust that He gives every soul the opportunity before death to repent and be saved, even at the last moment, even in the unconscious moments preceding actual death. Such things we cannot know. We the living survivors can and must always trust in the generous mercy of God to purify the departed soul of these sinful traces through the fire of His love and admit our loved ones into the glory of His eternal presence.
We all depend completely on the love and mercy of God, both in life and in death. It is therefore good and acceptable to pray to God for the purification of the departed soul (cf. 2 Maccabees [3] 12:46). We are called in Scripture to always pray for one another, and death is no barrier at all for prayer. (If their souls are already in heaven (having completed their purification) and no longer have need of our prayers, we may be assured that God will graciously apply them to other souls who do need them. Prayer is never wasted.) It is an act of concern and love for our departed brothers and sisters to pray:
Have mercy, Jesus. Bring them into Thy rest, O Lord. Amen.
__________________
[3] (2 Maccabees is another of the Deuterocanonical books to be found in Catholic editions of the Bible.)
--------------------------
Time and space (our material universe) are contained within God’s eternal realm. Both heaven and hell, therefore, can be experienced (partially, in shadow form) here on earth in this life. At certain brief moments (or even over longer periods of time) in this life, we can get a glimpse or foretaste of our eternal destiny. Also, God and other spirits are able (within certain limits set forth by God) to penetrate into our physical world and sometimes manifest themselves to us, but we cannot break through the barrier of physicality into their invisible spiritual realm of eternity. Except through death.
Death is simply the portal into eternal life, nothing more and nothing less. The peculiar problem we experience acutely in this life, however, is that we don’t know exactly when (or under what circumstances) we will reach that mysterious doorway. Only God knows the precise moment (and manner) He will call each of us out of this life into the next. This is why the practice of living out a life of virtue (loving service to God and one’s neighbor) is so important. By loving God and placing ourselves at the service of others for His sake (cf. Mk 12:28-34), we are “rehearsing” for the moment of our own death when we finally make our eternal choice of Yes to God’s love. In this way, we will always be ready to meet the Lord, whenever He should call us. In His loving providence, He knows the best way and the most spiritually advantageous moment for each of us to cross over to Him, and that is the moment when He will call us.
This earthly life, whether brief or long, is “only a test” and not the “real thing.” The purpose of life is only for our instruction and “practice” for the Great Entrance Exam. The “Final” exam occurs for each of us individually only at the moment of death when the soul says to Jesus the Just Judge (cf. Matt 25: 31-46) either “Thy will be done,” or “My will be done.” By saying the former, we effectively throw ourselves upon God’s tender mercy. By doing this we enter heaven (although perhaps first passing through that “mud room” of heaven which Catholics call “purgatory” (cf. 1 Cor 3:12-15; 1 Pet 1:7; Rev 21:27)). By saying the latter, we set ourselves in defiance of God and his mercy, thereby cutting ourselves off from experiencing His love, and so fall into hell.
The all-important question which determines whether a soul enters the eternal life of heaven or falls into hell is its love for God—or rather its returning (or participating in) God’s own love for us. Love is a spiritual reality and can be present in a person without any visible manifestation (physical activity or emotional display), such as in an infant or young child, someone with severe retardation or brain damage, or a patient lying unconscious in a hospital bed. We receive this love of God through the divine gift of faith, and we exercise it through obedience to God’s will. The full truth of a man’s [1] love exists only in the quiet recesses of his heart, and only God can read a man’s heart. As the recently published (1994, 1997) Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches,
Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the veryAs St. John of the Cross (1542-91) stated, “At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.”
moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to
Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven—immediately or through a
purification—or immediate and everlasting damnation. [Paragraph 1022]
___________________
[1] (Throughout this essay I will use the word “man” in the traditional sense meaning both men and women, mankind.)
---------------------------
However, while it is possible that a person might not outwardly show his heart’s participation in the love of God which is his “ticket” to heaven, ordinarily we show (and grow in) this love of God through our love of and service to our neighbor (Matt 25:31-46). As our Lord often repeated through his parables, such is the kingdom of God.
Death is one of the mysterious “Four Last Things” which are explored in the branch of Catholic theology called eschatology. Those Last Things are death, judgment, heaven and hell. All four are very real. Although many people today believe otherwise (or simply avoid the subject altogether), they are mistaken—we have the Lord’s word on that.
[The next several paragraphs are excerpted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, 1997; paragraphs 1008-1013.]
The Church teaches that death entered the world on account of man’s sin (cf. Gen 2:17; 3:3; 3:19; Wisdom [2] 1:13; Rom 5:12; 6:23). Even though man’s nature is mortal, God had originally destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin (cf. Wis 2:23-24). Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned, is thus “the last enemy” of man left to be conquered (cf. 1 Cor 15:26).
___________________
[2] (The Wisdom of Solomon (Wisdom) is one of the seven Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament found in Catholic editions of the Bible but which are typically excluded from Protestant versions.)
---------------------------
Jesus, the Son of God, also himself suffered the death that is part of the human condition. Yet, despite His anguish as He faced death, He accepted it in an act of complete and free submission to His Father’s will (cf. Mk 14:33-36; Heb 5:7-8). The obedience of Jesus has transformed the curse of death into a blessing (cf. Rom 5:19-21).
Because of Christ, Christian death has a positive meaning: “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21). “The saying is sure: if we have died with Him, we also shall live with Him” (2 Tim 2:11). What is essentially new about Christian death is this: through Baptism, the Christian has already “died with Christ” sacramentally, in order to live a new life; and if we die in Christ’s grace, physical death completes this “dying with Christ” and so completes our incorporation into Him in His redeeming act:
It is better for me to die in Christ Jesus than to reign over the ends of theIn death, God calls man to Himself. Therefore the Christian can experience a desire for death like St. Paul’s “My desire is to depart and be with Christ” (Phil 1:23). A man can transform his own death into an act of obedience and love towards the Father, after the example of Christ (cf. Lk 23: 46):
earth. Him I seek—who died for us. Him it is I desire—who rose for us. I am on
the point of giving birth…. Let me receive pure light; when I shall have arrived
there, then shall I be a man. [St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. AD 107), bishop
of Antioch; speaking of his impending martyrdom in Rome]
My earthly desire has been crucified; …there is living water in me, water thatThe Christian vision of death receives privileged expression in the liturgical prayer of the Church (cf. 1 Thes 4:13-14):
murmurs and says within me: Come to the Father. [St. Ignatius of Antioch]
I want to see God and, in order to see Him, I must die. [St. Teresa of Avila (1515-82)]
I am not dying; I am entering life. [St. Thérèse of Lisieux (1873-97)]
Lord, for your faithful people life is changed, not ended. When the body of ourDeath is the end of man’s earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When the single course of our earthly life is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: “It is appointed for men to die once” (Heb 9:27). There is no “reincarnation” after death.
earthly dwelling lies in death we gain an everlasting dwelling place in heaven.
[Roman Missal, Preface of Christian Death I]
[End of excerpt from the Catechism.]
Whether death comes in an instant through an accident or the malice of another person (i.e. murder) or through the slow process of old age or disease, it is part of God’s will and is under His ultimate control. The sorrow and grief experienced by those of us who survive the death of friends and family members are the good, natural and healthy expressions of our love for the beloved deceased and of the loss of their presence among us. We should and must grieve. But after a reasonable period of time, despite the loss, life returns to a normal state. Time heals all wounds. We never forget the beloved, of course; the memories remain through-out our lives. The bonds of love are not destroyed by death, and the soul itself does not die. We are separated only for a time, not forever. We shall see them again when we join them in eternity after our own death. And we shall live together with them in the resurrection of the just in our glorified bodies, cleansed from every blemish and imperfection, at the end of time. In comparison to the eternity which awaits us (heaven), this time on earth is only a flicker.
It is rare for a human being to be in a state of the pure love and grace of God at the moment of death. Usually there is at least some impurity, spiritual imperfection or trace of sin in any person’s life. Sometimes this is obvious (if the person lived a manifest “life of sin”), but it frequently is known only to the dying person himself in the core of his being, and to God who knows all things. But God loves even the “manifest sinner” and we trust that He gives every soul the opportunity before death to repent and be saved, even at the last moment, even in the unconscious moments preceding actual death. Such things we cannot know. We the living survivors can and must always trust in the generous mercy of God to purify the departed soul of these sinful traces through the fire of His love and admit our loved ones into the glory of His eternal presence.
We all depend completely on the love and mercy of God, both in life and in death. It is therefore good and acceptable to pray to God for the purification of the departed soul (cf. 2 Maccabees [3] 12:46). We are called in Scripture to always pray for one another, and death is no barrier at all for prayer. (If their souls are already in heaven (having completed their purification) and no longer have need of our prayers, we may be assured that God will graciously apply them to other souls who do need them. Prayer is never wasted.) It is an act of concern and love for our departed brothers and sisters to pray:
Have mercy, Jesus. Bring them into Thy rest, O Lord. Amen.
__________________
[3] (2 Maccabees is another of the Deuterocanonical books to be found in Catholic editions of the Bible.)
--------------------------
Saturday, July 01, 2006
"Why doesn't God answer my prayer?"
Well, actually … He does. God answers every prayer. The problem is that we frequently don’t want to accept His answer or don’t recognize it when it comes, or are too impatient to wait for God to give His answer in His own time. We expect the answer to come on our terms and in our own time frame. But God answers on His own terms. He’s God; that’s His prerogative. He loves us too much to give us something that will ultimately harm us, prevent us (or someone else) from attaining heaven.
Sometimes (but rarely, I think) His answer is the one we want or expect (in other words, an unqualified “yes”). But when the answer is “no,” we fail to recognize it. Sometimes the answer is a provisional “yes” (i.e. “yes” to this or that aspect of the prayer request but “no” to others; or “yes”—but not yet, the time isn’t right). The reason a straight-forward and immediate “yes” is so rare is not that God doesn’t want to help us or give us good things, but that we usually don’t know what is best for us or for others and consequently ask for the wrong thing (or expect Him to do something in a particular way or in a particular time frame). But God sees the “Big Picture” that we can’t see because of our limitations, and He loves us more than we can possibly love ourselves, and so the answers almost always take us completely by surprise. Sometimes God will “compromise” with us. He may go ahead and give us what we ask for (so long as it is not something evil in and of itself) even though it might have a short-term harmful effect in order to teach us a valuable lesson in trust or humility or some other virtue. In short, He may let us have our own way for a while in order that we may learn from the mistake and become better for it in the long run. But if we truly want to do His will and if we “keep our eyes peeled” for the clues he sends us, it is amazing how close we can come in understanding His will (or “hearing His voice”) much of the time.
How does the answer come? How does God “talk” to us? Like the solution to the riddle Where does an 800 pound gorilla sleep? [Anywhere he wants], God, being God, can do what He wants and talk to us any way He wants. But normally He manifests His will to us (and answers our prayers) in the ordinary natural circumstances of our lives. Don’t expect to hear an audible voice from the sky (or a voice in your head) speaking actual words—although He could (and sometimes does) do it that way. It can come in such forms as an “uncanny coincidence,” a stranger’s offhanded remark, an unexpected call from a forgotten friend, a nagging feeling in the pit of your stomach (although that might also be indigestion, so you have to be careful in your discernment), or a persistent mental feeling or “image.” Quite often, it’s a prompting of your conscience (that little “alarm” bell God puts into every soul) or your guardian angel (yes, everybody has one) that “whispers” in your mind’s ear, “Um … I really shouldn’t be doing this …” or “Stop being so selfish …” or “Send your old Aunt Margaret a check for $350.00” (it happens). Sometimes it comes in the form of unexpected news that a distant cousin or childhood friend was killed in a car accident or died of cancer. Or perhaps a prompting to pick up, dust off and finally read that book someone gave you 10 years ago but you never found the time … It can come with the suddenness of lightning or gradually play out and solidify over a period of many years. (Or it can come with the suddenness of lightning after many years of persistent prayer.) It could be a passage in the Bible that jumps out at you from the page, or a line from a sermon that seems directed to you alone.
It doesn’t usually come in the form of a winning lottery ticket, although I suppose that’s still possible … (Believe me, I’ve tried!)
I am convinced that my wife was the answer to a very specific prayer I vividly remember uttering in one moment of deep emotional anguish (almost despair) I experienced a year or so before I met her: “Oh God! Send me someone I can truly love!” And he did. (It was weird how it all worked out.) That was almost 20 years ago.
He speaks to us in a Big way through His personally appointed means: the living Magisterium and ministry of the Catholic Church. This fact is frequently a real stumbling block for many people, both inside and outside of the Church’s visible communion. Most people don’t want to listen to the Church. But it is still God’s specially chosen (appointed) instrument of salvation to which He gave the authority to speak in His name until the end of time.
These scriptural passages indicate that God’s (ordinary) prophetic voice is the Church. But most folks find that too hard to swallow and usually refuse to accept (for whatever reason, and it might not be entirely their own fault) that the Church actually speaks for God today, or even that God has anything whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church. That’s okay too, because God knows each one of us intimately (because He made us and understands us thoroughly) and He knows the best way to approach us and speaks to us in ways he knows we can understand. We call this “actual grace,” and everybody receives it, whatever the state of his soul. As long as a person hasn’t shut God completely out of his life and awareness, as long as there is the slightest “crack” in his resistance to Him, He will send him some hint, some light, some clue, some answer that will turn him in the right direction. God always accepts us where we are, but He loves us too much to leave us where he finds us. He moves us along according to His particular will for our individual lives.
God never abandons us. If anything, it is we who abandon Him, but still He pursues us (He has been called “the Hound of heaven” who tracks us down and finds us no matter where we try to hide from Him).
Prayer
Prayer doesn’t change God. It changes us. We can never bend God to our will. And God can’t be bribed, so don’t try. We cannot “dictate terms” to God. Prayer is a type of request, never a demand. When we demand something of God, we are setting up our wills in opposition to His, and more likely than not He’ll sit back and let us cool our heels until we come to our senses.
Prayer can be defined as some level of interpersonal communion with God. Whenever we pray (in earnest) we are “tuning in” to His grace, His will, and we are changed for the better by exposing our souls to the radiance of His love. If in our prayer we are “asking God for something” (called prayer of petition), and our request is granted (usually in a way better than we could have imagined), that doesn’t mean that God “changed His mind” and decided to help us. Rather, He sees and hears our prayer in time from His perspective in the timelessness of eternity. Our perspective is stuck in time, but He sees all of time “from the foundation of the world”—all at once. You might say (without putting too fine a theological point on it) that He intended to help us all along—but only if we prayed. So He didn’t change at all, anymore than the landscape changes when we drive out of the mountains onto the plain. It was we who changed by turning to Him in our need. Another example: if the seasons change in Montana, it is because of the change in relationship of position between the earth and the sun. We experience the change on earth, but the sun didn’t change at all! God’s will is like the sun in this respect.
When we pray for someone else (this is called intercession) there is always the chance that although God showers every grace upon that individual, the person may have shut himself off from the operation of that grace by the exercise of his own free will. I believe this is most often the reason it can seem to take so long for God to “answer our prayers.” He accedes to our prayer requests (in a manner according to His own will and counsel) all the while working on the other person through the circumstances of his life. By our perseverance in prayer, even when it seems like “nothing is happening” and we are tempted to think that God is “ignoring us,” still His grace is working. We are growing in our love of God and perhaps insight into His will, strength of faith, compassion for our neighbor, and the exercise of all the other virtues. All because we prayed. Even if the other person never opens himself up to God (so that God can heal the situation that was the occasion for our prayer in the first place), grace is still at work on our account and we will be given the consolation and assurance that God’s will (at least His permissive will) is being done, and much greater good was achieved in the world, all on account of our prayer. This consolation may be the only answer we get in this life. If that is the case, we can also be assured that the full story will be disclosed to us in the life to come, and we will glorify Him in eternity for His justice, His mercy and His love.
Trust in the Lord always! God is good!
Sometimes (but rarely, I think) His answer is the one we want or expect (in other words, an unqualified “yes”). But when the answer is “no,” we fail to recognize it. Sometimes the answer is a provisional “yes” (i.e. “yes” to this or that aspect of the prayer request but “no” to others; or “yes”—but not yet, the time isn’t right). The reason a straight-forward and immediate “yes” is so rare is not that God doesn’t want to help us or give us good things, but that we usually don’t know what is best for us or for others and consequently ask for the wrong thing (or expect Him to do something in a particular way or in a particular time frame). But God sees the “Big Picture” that we can’t see because of our limitations, and He loves us more than we can possibly love ourselves, and so the answers almost always take us completely by surprise. Sometimes God will “compromise” with us. He may go ahead and give us what we ask for (so long as it is not something evil in and of itself) even though it might have a short-term harmful effect in order to teach us a valuable lesson in trust or humility or some other virtue. In short, He may let us have our own way for a while in order that we may learn from the mistake and become better for it in the long run. But if we truly want to do His will and if we “keep our eyes peeled” for the clues he sends us, it is amazing how close we can come in understanding His will (or “hearing His voice”) much of the time.
How does the answer come? How does God “talk” to us? Like the solution to the riddle Where does an 800 pound gorilla sleep? [Anywhere he wants], God, being God, can do what He wants and talk to us any way He wants. But normally He manifests His will to us (and answers our prayers) in the ordinary natural circumstances of our lives. Don’t expect to hear an audible voice from the sky (or a voice in your head) speaking actual words—although He could (and sometimes does) do it that way. It can come in such forms as an “uncanny coincidence,” a stranger’s offhanded remark, an unexpected call from a forgotten friend, a nagging feeling in the pit of your stomach (although that might also be indigestion, so you have to be careful in your discernment), or a persistent mental feeling or “image.” Quite often, it’s a prompting of your conscience (that little “alarm” bell God puts into every soul) or your guardian angel (yes, everybody has one) that “whispers” in your mind’s ear, “Um … I really shouldn’t be doing this …” or “Stop being so selfish …” or “Send your old Aunt Margaret a check for $350.00” (it happens). Sometimes it comes in the form of unexpected news that a distant cousin or childhood friend was killed in a car accident or died of cancer. Or perhaps a prompting to pick up, dust off and finally read that book someone gave you 10 years ago but you never found the time … It can come with the suddenness of lightning or gradually play out and solidify over a period of many years. (Or it can come with the suddenness of lightning after many years of persistent prayer.) It could be a passage in the Bible that jumps out at you from the page, or a line from a sermon that seems directed to you alone.
It doesn’t usually come in the form of a winning lottery ticket, although I suppose that’s still possible … (Believe me, I’ve tried!)
I am convinced that my wife was the answer to a very specific prayer I vividly remember uttering in one moment of deep emotional anguish (almost despair) I experienced a year or so before I met her: “Oh God! Send me someone I can truly love!” And he did. (It was weird how it all worked out.) That was almost 20 years ago.
He speaks to us in a Big way through His personally appointed means: the living Magisterium and ministry of the Catholic Church. This fact is frequently a real stumbling block for many people, both inside and outside of the Church’s visible communion. Most people don’t want to listen to the Church. But it is still God’s specially chosen (appointed) instrument of salvation to which He gave the authority to speak in His name until the end of time.
- “You are Peter [Aramaic: Kepha] and upon this rock [kepha] I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:18-19; cf. Isaiah 22:22)
- Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs” … “Tend my sheep.” … “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15-17)
- “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Lk 10:16; cf. Matt 10:40)
- Jesus said to the paralytic, “…your sins are forgiven.” “…Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins”—He then said to the paralytic—“Rise, take up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. … And they glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (Matt. 9:2-8; emphasis mine)
- Jesus said to [the apostles] again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23)
- “[Father,] sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in the truth. I do not pray for these [the apostles] only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one…” (John 17:17-23; emphasis mine)
- And Jesus came and said to them [the eleven apostles—Judas Iscariot was dead], “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)
- And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. (1 Thes 2:13; emphasis mine)
- This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle … a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (1 Tim 2:3-7)
- I am writing these instructions to you so that … you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (ibid. 3:14-15)
- You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:1-2; an allusion to apostolic succession)
- For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men … Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)
These scriptural passages indicate that God’s (ordinary) prophetic voice is the Church. But most folks find that too hard to swallow and usually refuse to accept (for whatever reason, and it might not be entirely their own fault) that the Church actually speaks for God today, or even that God has anything whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church. That’s okay too, because God knows each one of us intimately (because He made us and understands us thoroughly) and He knows the best way to approach us and speaks to us in ways he knows we can understand. We call this “actual grace,” and everybody receives it, whatever the state of his soul. As long as a person hasn’t shut God completely out of his life and awareness, as long as there is the slightest “crack” in his resistance to Him, He will send him some hint, some light, some clue, some answer that will turn him in the right direction. God always accepts us where we are, but He loves us too much to leave us where he finds us. He moves us along according to His particular will for our individual lives.
God never abandons us. If anything, it is we who abandon Him, but still He pursues us (He has been called “the Hound of heaven” who tracks us down and finds us no matter where we try to hide from Him).
Prayer
Prayer doesn’t change God. It changes us. We can never bend God to our will. And God can’t be bribed, so don’t try. We cannot “dictate terms” to God. Prayer is a type of request, never a demand. When we demand something of God, we are setting up our wills in opposition to His, and more likely than not He’ll sit back and let us cool our heels until we come to our senses.
Prayer can be defined as some level of interpersonal communion with God. Whenever we pray (in earnest) we are “tuning in” to His grace, His will, and we are changed for the better by exposing our souls to the radiance of His love. If in our prayer we are “asking God for something” (called prayer of petition), and our request is granted (usually in a way better than we could have imagined), that doesn’t mean that God “changed His mind” and decided to help us. Rather, He sees and hears our prayer in time from His perspective in the timelessness of eternity. Our perspective is stuck in time, but He sees all of time “from the foundation of the world”—all at once. You might say (without putting too fine a theological point on it) that He intended to help us all along—but only if we prayed. So He didn’t change at all, anymore than the landscape changes when we drive out of the mountains onto the plain. It was we who changed by turning to Him in our need. Another example: if the seasons change in Montana, it is because of the change in relationship of position between the earth and the sun. We experience the change on earth, but the sun didn’t change at all! God’s will is like the sun in this respect.
When we pray for someone else (this is called intercession) there is always the chance that although God showers every grace upon that individual, the person may have shut himself off from the operation of that grace by the exercise of his own free will. I believe this is most often the reason it can seem to take so long for God to “answer our prayers.” He accedes to our prayer requests (in a manner according to His own will and counsel) all the while working on the other person through the circumstances of his life. By our perseverance in prayer, even when it seems like “nothing is happening” and we are tempted to think that God is “ignoring us,” still His grace is working. We are growing in our love of God and perhaps insight into His will, strength of faith, compassion for our neighbor, and the exercise of all the other virtues. All because we prayed. Even if the other person never opens himself up to God (so that God can heal the situation that was the occasion for our prayer in the first place), grace is still at work on our account and we will be given the consolation and assurance that God’s will (at least His permissive will) is being done, and much greater good was achieved in the world, all on account of our prayer. This consolation may be the only answer we get in this life. If that is the case, we can also be assured that the full story will be disclosed to us in the life to come, and we will glorify Him in eternity for His justice, His mercy and His love.
Trust in the Lord always! God is good!
Saturday, June 17, 2006
I once thought I was wrong ...
…but I was mistaken.
Way back on October 14, 2005, I posted an essay on the topic of Global Warming (titled “Tastes kinda like chicken…”) in which I stated my belief (at that time) that Global Warming actually was “For Real” and based on apparently sound scientific evidence. I now recant that position and repent of having made that statement. I’m now back to where I was before (not that any of you probably care), having read a little more on the nature of the evidence for both sides and of the controversy itself. I’m convinced now that it isn’t really about potentially catastrophic long-term climate change at all (just as I originally suspected), but rather about fame & money (Pulitzer Prizes, government-funded research, etc.) and international political and social control (you know, the UN for example, and its plans to implement and enforce international standards for personal behavior?) of, well, everything. Control of your behavior and mine, of entire industries, the sovereignty of less-powerful countries, all aspects of domestic and international commerce and trade … everything. This is really depressing. If you think it sounds like I’m talking about an international conspiracy, you would be…um…right. Or there may be more than one conspiracy going on, but if so, they all tend to work in the same general direction (that of concentrating more of the world’s wealth, political power and social control in the hands of an elite few), so for the sake of simplicity (?) I will speak as if there were only one.
You know, it’s a funny thing about conspiracies. They only work in the dark, i.e. if nobody knows about them. If everybody knew about their nature and agenda (i.e. if that agenda were out in the open) there would be no need for the conspiracy, of course, and it wouldn’t exist. But what is a conspiracy? A conspiracy consists in two or more persons involved together in planning and executing some selfish or nefarious agenda that most people would oppose if it were made known (hence the need for secrecy). And plainly such things do exist or else the State wouldn’t waste its time prosecuting people for such things as “Conspiracy to Commit Murder.” But nowadays, when it comes to the idea of really big conspiracies involving a particular class of people (e.g. the top 2% of the wealthiest people in the world), those who might be involved, those who stand to gain powerfully by its continuance and eventual or ongoing success (and who have the material and political means to ensure its continued secrecy), simply have to deny its existence and imply that the person who has gotten wind of it and is raising suspicions of its clandestine operations, is “just another crazy Conspiracy Theorist.” They never have to answer any inconvenient questions concerning their activities that may have come to light, or refuting the points of alleged evidence indicating the likelihood of said conspiracy. They simply chuckle and say “Conspiracy Theory!” and every average Joe who might see the public exchange is expected to say to himself, “Oh, yeah. ‘Conspiracy Theory.’ What a nutcase! Of course, there aren’t any conspiracies. What a foolish idea! It’s just too far-fetched.” And every conspirator mops his brow and mutters under his breath, “Whew! We dodged that bullet again…”
But sometimes the presence of a conspiracy is the only conceptual framework that can account for all the known facts. For example, that the Directors of all the biggest multinational corporations are, for the most part, all the same people—all sitting on each others’ Boards, voting each other enormous salary/compensation packages, buying politicians into office who will do their bidding and sign on to international treaties such as GATT, NAFTA, WTO (and they are working on more) that will circumvent (and supersede) the U.S. Constitution in matters pertaining to (for example) the regulation of commerce and trade, treaties which facilitate the accumulation of still more of the world’s wealth in the hands of said Directors (certainly in their control if not actually in their pockets) at the expense of their employees’ standard of living and job security, etc., etc., etc.
Wow! Those are some pretty far-fetched suppositions, I admit, and there’s probably nothing to them, nor to the fact that most of them (Directors and CEOs of multinational corporations), along with various Heads of State (G8 nations) and the world’s most powerful & influential politicians, policy makers and media people are all members of one group that is so secret in its purpose and doings that it doesn’t even have a name (but is affectionately referred to by outsiders as “The Bilderberg Group” after the name of the hotel in The Netherlands where they held their first meeting in May 1954), which meets every couple of years under Top Security. But the attendees at these meetings never mention in public or to the press just what it is they discuss, or even that they discuss anything. Like I said, there’s probably nothing to it, and I’m sure it’s all just a happy coincidence. In all likelihood they meet just to compare their golf scores… but still … it kinda makes you wonder….
Well anyway … what was I talking about? … Oh, yeah! Global Warming. Well, as it turns out, all the “evidence” in favor of the theory is based on selectively edited observations less than 100 years old, bubbles found deep in glacial ice (ancient air samples), tree rings, and a lot of assumptions (like “CO2 is the main culprit”) about the causes (and effects) of average atmospheric warming/cooling on a global scale, and (here’s the kicker) projections (numerical models) into the distant future (100 years or more), which in turn are based on their own sets of assumptions.
It also seems to be the case that there are relatively few (but extremely influential) people (who generally know nothing about science—but quite a bit about money and shaping public opinion) who are interested in pushing it as a socio-political agenda (people like Ted Turner, owner of CNN, etc.). Symposiums and conferences on Global Warming (G.W.) tend to be carefully orchestrated and one-sided affairs, with forums for the airing of dissenting positions given very limited time and space and generally relegated to the hinterlands. Whenever the dissenting scientists hold a symposium of their own, they are quietly ignored by CNN, ABC, the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and everyone else that looks to them for cues on what is or isn’t “newsworthy.”
My question is this: If G.W. is such a self-evident fact, why aren’t the people who know all about it dragging the dissenters out into the spotlight in front of God and everybody, publicly scrutinizing their positions and generally doing everything they can to make them look as foolish as their allegedly crack-pot theories, letting the facts speak for themselves?
I recently read an article in that prestigious scientific journal, The Seattle Times (the syndicated article was by Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post) that I hoped & expected from the headline to give the dissenting side of the Global Warming issue. I found those hopes dashed on the rocks of ideology and political correctness.
Bill Gray (the scientist who is the main subject of the article) has over 50 years of professional experience in meteorology (which undoubtedly requires a working knowledge in all other disciplines which have a bearing on weather and climate) which leads him to this professional opinion: “Global Warming” is a hoax. This is based on the idea that direct observations and measurements don’t lie. And while computer-generated theoretical models (upon which the dominant theory of G.W. is based) can’t “lie,” they can be in error. Anyone who is familiar with computer software is familiar with GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). In other words, the results you get from running a computer program will only be as good as the instructions written into the program itself. If the instructions (which will include any number of assumptions the programmer has in his mind and wants to test using the program) are defective, inaccurate or erroneous, the resulting answers or projections will be wrong.
Bill Gray contends (and he is not alone by any means) that many of the assumptions that form the basis of the computer models that seem to indicate ongoing G.W. are unwarranted because they are not based on sufficient direct observation of natural events and patterns, and there is insufficient scientific foundation for many of their fundamental assumptions or estimates. In other words, the weather “ain’t broke, so stop trying to fix it.” The changing weather patterns experienced around the world over the past several decades are normal and part of huge cycles (over centuries) that are occurring around the earth all the time. While man-made “greenhouse” gas emissions might contribute (slightly) to the situation, there is no reason to suspect their effect to be greater than about 2%. Of much greater impact are the purely natural forces (e.g. volcanoes, both on land and under the ocean) over which we have absolutely no control. There is certainly no reason for all this hype and panic! The best scientists (whether or not they receive government (tax) money), when you really pin them down, will admit that there is so much that we really don’t know about all the factors that influence weather and climate, that all they’re really doing is following their hunches.
Over the years, our ability to take precise measurements of the weather and ocean currents, etc. (more satellites, improved research techniques, better instruments, etc.) has improved tremendously. And those better measurements indicate that the warming trend (yes, there was a warming trend) that we’ve been experiencing since about 1970 stopped in 1998! Since 1998 the average global temperatures have not been increasing, but holding steady (or even going down [cooling] slightly). This too is part of a big natural pattern, and certainly nothing to panic about. But it is actual evidence that (contrary to the computer projections and the “dominant paradigm”) if G.W. was occurring, it no longer is. (In fact there are a number of scientists who believe that a much more likely scenario is another major Ice Age.)
Where is the evidence for this cooling? Examples are that land-bound polar ice (Antarctica, Greenland, northern Europe, Siberia, Alaska & Canada)—(sea ice depth has no effect on ocean levels)—is getting thicker and many glaciers around the world are beginning to advance again (rather than receding). But even when reports of such observations find their way into the mainstream press, they are misinterpreted to fit the G.W. paradigm. For example, a reporter might conclude that since the terminal face (front end) of a glacier is moving downhill, it must be melting faster and sliding downhill at a faster pace! (More Panic!) Well, that isn’t how glaciers behave. Whenever they melt faster, they recede (the terminal face goes uphill). And they don’t “slide” downhill, they grind. If the terminal face is moving downhill, that means the glacier is melting slower and getting larger (indicating a general cooling trend in the glacier’s vicinity).
But the folks who are in the grip of G.W. panic (and those who keep the panic alive by their manipulation of the data and their published and broadcast “reports”) all seem to be screaming, “So what if the actual evidence is inconclusive? We can’t just wait for something (bad) to happen! We can’t afford to just sit around and do nothing!” And that “we,” by the way, almost always refers to government intervention. Things like increasing regulation of entire industries and individuals’ personal habits and behaviors (like driving to work every day, what you can and cannot buy, and what it is going to cost you, etc.). Well, yes, as a matter of fact, we can—and should—just sit back and do nothing. In fact, I can’t think of one thing that the government has gotten involved in that it hasn’t actually made worse by its meddling, intrusive efforts to “fix” the supposed “problem.” Politicians simply don’t know what they are doing. But that never seems to stop them from feeling they have to prove to their constituents (and especially to the moneyed people whose campaign contributions ensure their continuance in office) that they are “doing something.”
So anyway … The point of the Achenbach article doesn’t seem to be to explain what the skeptics are saying, but to hold them up to ridicule. It mentions their claims (or at least some of the highlights), but avoids going into the reasons behind those claims. It intimates that “the realm of the skeptics” is “a parallel Earth,” implying that they don’t live in the Real World (*wink*). It says that “the skeptics don’t have to win the argument. They just have to stay in the game…” It also states, “They’re winning the [political] battle.” (Well, do you suppose it might be possible that the reason they’re winning is that they make more sense?) The article keeps referring to Gray’s knowledge and research as “stuff,” a word Gray himself uses for the sake of brevity, but which Achenbach seems to use to suggest that his views amount to vague nonsense. People who hold similar views, we are told, are “in every field of science. There are always people on the fringes” (*wink*). It’s as though he wanted to end his article by saying, “See? I told you they were crack-pots.”
There is undoubtedly a “consensus” in favor of a G.W. scenario among those scientists who get media attention and government (tax) money for their research, but the extent (or even existence) of a general consensus among all scientists in the field has yet to be demonstrated. The "consensus" they refer to is among "reputable" scientists, and if you disagree on G.W. you are by definition no longer considered (by them) "reputable." That's why.
Way back on October 14, 2005, I posted an essay on the topic of Global Warming (titled “Tastes kinda like chicken…”) in which I stated my belief (at that time) that Global Warming actually was “For Real” and based on apparently sound scientific evidence. I now recant that position and repent of having made that statement. I’m now back to where I was before (not that any of you probably care), having read a little more on the nature of the evidence for both sides and of the controversy itself. I’m convinced now that it isn’t really about potentially catastrophic long-term climate change at all (just as I originally suspected), but rather about fame & money (Pulitzer Prizes, government-funded research, etc.) and international political and social control (you know, the UN for example, and its plans to implement and enforce international standards for personal behavior?) of, well, everything. Control of your behavior and mine, of entire industries, the sovereignty of less-powerful countries, all aspects of domestic and international commerce and trade … everything. This is really depressing. If you think it sounds like I’m talking about an international conspiracy, you would be…um…right. Or there may be more than one conspiracy going on, but if so, they all tend to work in the same general direction (that of concentrating more of the world’s wealth, political power and social control in the hands of an elite few), so for the sake of simplicity (?) I will speak as if there were only one.
You know, it’s a funny thing about conspiracies. They only work in the dark, i.e. if nobody knows about them. If everybody knew about their nature and agenda (i.e. if that agenda were out in the open) there would be no need for the conspiracy, of course, and it wouldn’t exist. But what is a conspiracy? A conspiracy consists in two or more persons involved together in planning and executing some selfish or nefarious agenda that most people would oppose if it were made known (hence the need for secrecy). And plainly such things do exist or else the State wouldn’t waste its time prosecuting people for such things as “Conspiracy to Commit Murder.” But nowadays, when it comes to the idea of really big conspiracies involving a particular class of people (e.g. the top 2% of the wealthiest people in the world), those who might be involved, those who stand to gain powerfully by its continuance and eventual or ongoing success (and who have the material and political means to ensure its continued secrecy), simply have to deny its existence and imply that the person who has gotten wind of it and is raising suspicions of its clandestine operations, is “just another crazy Conspiracy Theorist.” They never have to answer any inconvenient questions concerning their activities that may have come to light, or refuting the points of alleged evidence indicating the likelihood of said conspiracy. They simply chuckle and say “Conspiracy Theory!” and every average Joe who might see the public exchange is expected to say to himself, “Oh, yeah. ‘Conspiracy Theory.’ What a nutcase! Of course, there aren’t any conspiracies. What a foolish idea! It’s just too far-fetched.” And every conspirator mops his brow and mutters under his breath, “Whew! We dodged that bullet again…”
But sometimes the presence of a conspiracy is the only conceptual framework that can account for all the known facts. For example, that the Directors of all the biggest multinational corporations are, for the most part, all the same people—all sitting on each others’ Boards, voting each other enormous salary/compensation packages, buying politicians into office who will do their bidding and sign on to international treaties such as GATT, NAFTA, WTO (and they are working on more) that will circumvent (and supersede) the U.S. Constitution in matters pertaining to (for example) the regulation of commerce and trade, treaties which facilitate the accumulation of still more of the world’s wealth in the hands of said Directors (certainly in their control if not actually in their pockets) at the expense of their employees’ standard of living and job security, etc., etc., etc.
Wow! Those are some pretty far-fetched suppositions, I admit, and there’s probably nothing to them, nor to the fact that most of them (Directors and CEOs of multinational corporations), along with various Heads of State (G8 nations) and the world’s most powerful & influential politicians, policy makers and media people are all members of one group that is so secret in its purpose and doings that it doesn’t even have a name (but is affectionately referred to by outsiders as “The Bilderberg Group” after the name of the hotel in The Netherlands where they held their first meeting in May 1954), which meets every couple of years under Top Security. But the attendees at these meetings never mention in public or to the press just what it is they discuss, or even that they discuss anything. Like I said, there’s probably nothing to it, and I’m sure it’s all just a happy coincidence. In all likelihood they meet just to compare their golf scores… but still … it kinda makes you wonder….
Well anyway … what was I talking about? … Oh, yeah! Global Warming. Well, as it turns out, all the “evidence” in favor of the theory is based on selectively edited observations less than 100 years old, bubbles found deep in glacial ice (ancient air samples), tree rings, and a lot of assumptions (like “CO2 is the main culprit”) about the causes (and effects) of average atmospheric warming/cooling on a global scale, and (here’s the kicker) projections (numerical models) into the distant future (100 years or more), which in turn are based on their own sets of assumptions.
It also seems to be the case that there are relatively few (but extremely influential) people (who generally know nothing about science—but quite a bit about money and shaping public opinion) who are interested in pushing it as a socio-political agenda (people like Ted Turner, owner of CNN, etc.). Symposiums and conferences on Global Warming (G.W.) tend to be carefully orchestrated and one-sided affairs, with forums for the airing of dissenting positions given very limited time and space and generally relegated to the hinterlands. Whenever the dissenting scientists hold a symposium of their own, they are quietly ignored by CNN, ABC, the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe and everyone else that looks to them for cues on what is or isn’t “newsworthy.”
My question is this: If G.W. is such a self-evident fact, why aren’t the people who know all about it dragging the dissenters out into the spotlight in front of God and everybody, publicly scrutinizing their positions and generally doing everything they can to make them look as foolish as their allegedly crack-pot theories, letting the facts speak for themselves?
I recently read an article in that prestigious scientific journal, The Seattle Times (the syndicated article was by Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post) that I hoped & expected from the headline to give the dissenting side of the Global Warming issue. I found those hopes dashed on the rocks of ideology and political correctness.
Bill Gray (the scientist who is the main subject of the article) has over 50 years of professional experience in meteorology (which undoubtedly requires a working knowledge in all other disciplines which have a bearing on weather and climate) which leads him to this professional opinion: “Global Warming” is a hoax. This is based on the idea that direct observations and measurements don’t lie. And while computer-generated theoretical models (upon which the dominant theory of G.W. is based) can’t “lie,” they can be in error. Anyone who is familiar with computer software is familiar with GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). In other words, the results you get from running a computer program will only be as good as the instructions written into the program itself. If the instructions (which will include any number of assumptions the programmer has in his mind and wants to test using the program) are defective, inaccurate or erroneous, the resulting answers or projections will be wrong.
Bill Gray contends (and he is not alone by any means) that many of the assumptions that form the basis of the computer models that seem to indicate ongoing G.W. are unwarranted because they are not based on sufficient direct observation of natural events and patterns, and there is insufficient scientific foundation for many of their fundamental assumptions or estimates. In other words, the weather “ain’t broke, so stop trying to fix it.” The changing weather patterns experienced around the world over the past several decades are normal and part of huge cycles (over centuries) that are occurring around the earth all the time. While man-made “greenhouse” gas emissions might contribute (slightly) to the situation, there is no reason to suspect their effect to be greater than about 2%. Of much greater impact are the purely natural forces (e.g. volcanoes, both on land and under the ocean) over which we have absolutely no control. There is certainly no reason for all this hype and panic! The best scientists (whether or not they receive government (tax) money), when you really pin them down, will admit that there is so much that we really don’t know about all the factors that influence weather and climate, that all they’re really doing is following their hunches.
Over the years, our ability to take precise measurements of the weather and ocean currents, etc. (more satellites, improved research techniques, better instruments, etc.) has improved tremendously. And those better measurements indicate that the warming trend (yes, there was a warming trend) that we’ve been experiencing since about 1970 stopped in 1998! Since 1998 the average global temperatures have not been increasing, but holding steady (or even going down [cooling] slightly). This too is part of a big natural pattern, and certainly nothing to panic about. But it is actual evidence that (contrary to the computer projections and the “dominant paradigm”) if G.W. was occurring, it no longer is. (In fact there are a number of scientists who believe that a much more likely scenario is another major Ice Age.)
Where is the evidence for this cooling? Examples are that land-bound polar ice (Antarctica, Greenland, northern Europe, Siberia, Alaska & Canada)—(sea ice depth has no effect on ocean levels)—is getting thicker and many glaciers around the world are beginning to advance again (rather than receding). But even when reports of such observations find their way into the mainstream press, they are misinterpreted to fit the G.W. paradigm. For example, a reporter might conclude that since the terminal face (front end) of a glacier is moving downhill, it must be melting faster and sliding downhill at a faster pace! (More Panic!) Well, that isn’t how glaciers behave. Whenever they melt faster, they recede (the terminal face goes uphill). And they don’t “slide” downhill, they grind. If the terminal face is moving downhill, that means the glacier is melting slower and getting larger (indicating a general cooling trend in the glacier’s vicinity).
But the folks who are in the grip of G.W. panic (and those who keep the panic alive by their manipulation of the data and their published and broadcast “reports”) all seem to be screaming, “So what if the actual evidence is inconclusive? We can’t just wait for something (bad) to happen! We can’t afford to just sit around and do nothing!” And that “we,” by the way, almost always refers to government intervention. Things like increasing regulation of entire industries and individuals’ personal habits and behaviors (like driving to work every day, what you can and cannot buy, and what it is going to cost you, etc.). Well, yes, as a matter of fact, we can—and should—just sit back and do nothing. In fact, I can’t think of one thing that the government has gotten involved in that it hasn’t actually made worse by its meddling, intrusive efforts to “fix” the supposed “problem.” Politicians simply don’t know what they are doing. But that never seems to stop them from feeling they have to prove to their constituents (and especially to the moneyed people whose campaign contributions ensure their continuance in office) that they are “doing something.”
So anyway … The point of the Achenbach article doesn’t seem to be to explain what the skeptics are saying, but to hold them up to ridicule. It mentions their claims (or at least some of the highlights), but avoids going into the reasons behind those claims. It intimates that “the realm of the skeptics” is “a parallel Earth,” implying that they don’t live in the Real World (*wink*). It says that “the skeptics don’t have to win the argument. They just have to stay in the game…” It also states, “They’re winning the [political] battle.” (Well, do you suppose it might be possible that the reason they’re winning is that they make more sense?) The article keeps referring to Gray’s knowledge and research as “stuff,” a word Gray himself uses for the sake of brevity, but which Achenbach seems to use to suggest that his views amount to vague nonsense. People who hold similar views, we are told, are “in every field of science. There are always people on the fringes” (*wink*). It’s as though he wanted to end his article by saying, “See? I told you they were crack-pots.”
There is undoubtedly a “consensus” in favor of a G.W. scenario among those scientists who get media attention and government (tax) money for their research, but the extent (or even existence) of a general consensus among all scientists in the field has yet to be demonstrated. The "consensus" they refer to is among "reputable" scientists, and if you disagree on G.W. you are by definition no longer considered (by them) "reputable." That's why.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Feet of clay
- Judge not, lest ye be judged (Matt 7:1; Lk 6:37; cf. Rom 14:10-13).
- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matt 7:12; Lk 6:31).
- Don’t put people up on pedestals because sooner or later they will fall off. (I don’t think that’s in the Bible, but it’s still true.)
Don’t be devastated, don’t lose your faith because some (religious) authority—or presumed authority—(priest, nun, parish Director of Religious Education, bishop, theologian, etc.) makes some mistake in action or judgment, makes a false statement (or writes a book of heresy) or abuses his (or her) authority in some way. Even if the error is objective, obvious and impossible to ignore, do not be too quick to judge the person’s interior disposition or degree of culpability (guilt before God).
It has been said (I’m not sure where) that the floor of the lowest pit of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. That may be true, but I would never presume to say which bishops they might be. I would never want to be a bishop myself because of the responsibility he bears for so many souls. (In fact, I’d say if any man actually aspires to be a bishop or the pope, that alone should be enough to disqualify him.) The reason bishops are more likely than your average layman to wind up in hell is not so much that they may have done so many more evil deeds as that they didn’t do enough to lead souls to God (sins of omission), or that they set a bad example. To whom much (grace) is given, much more is expected.
The office of bishop or pope (or even your humble parish priest) is bigger than the man. The important thing is the office itself, not necessarily the individual holding it at any particular time. Every bishop and pope is a sinner. And yet his office is essential to the work of the Church which must continue to the end of time. So though we may have to suffer from time to time (sometimes for quite a long time) with the deleterious acts and pronouncements of some sinful bishops, yet we must love them and prayerfully support them for (if nothing else) the sake of their souls (and our own), and for the sake of Christ and His Church. (Prudence dictates, however, that, if we are the flock of such shepherds, we look elsewhere to our own education in the faith.)
It is said (I have heard) in courses of moral theology that the office (i.e. duty, purpose) of the Church stops at the threshold of conscience. That being said, it must also be understood that a person’s conscience does not form itself in a vacuum. There are certain universal moral precepts (cf. Rom 2:13-16) to which all men must adhere without exception. A conscience must be well formed in order to serve the purpose for which it was created. What the Church does is propose, not impose. Its job is to propose (preach, present, explain) the truth that is revealed by God to the world (all men and women everywhere). Men and women of good will should listen to and weigh what the Church has to say and apply it to their lives for their own benefit (getting to heaven) and for the common good of society (assisting others to get to heaven). It is up to individual men and women to receive the truth freely and implement it in their lives (by practicing virtue and rejecting vice) and apply the virtues for the good of society (e.g. legislators making positive law that protects the natural rights of all human beings, encourages truth and the practice of virtue and discourages vice).
The Church’s project, her assigned task, is to lead souls to heaven, not to drag them there against their will—that can’t be done anyway, though some over-zealous people do try that approach from time to time. Actual conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit and is a gift that He offers to each person individually in the context of his particular circumstances, which each person is free to either accept (and repent) or reject (and keep on sinning). We cannot force anyone to receive the faith. (A baptism, for example, administered to someone [an adult capable of understanding what it’s all about] without his actual (or at least reasonably presumed, if he is unconscious) consent is invalid.)
Fraternal correction
What is the difference between “passing judgment” on someone and giving a warning to your neighbor who may be sinning? The saying that “if it’s asked for, it’s called advice; if it isn’t, it’s called criticism” applies only narrowly. Sometimes it isn’t criticism even if it’s not solicited. For example, “Hey buddy, your right-rear tire is low on air.” Now while I suppose there might be some who would take offense at such a remark (“What a jerk! Who does he think he is, anyway?! Master Mechanic? He’s criticizing me because he thinks I’m not maintaining my car properly!”), most people would take it in the spirit in which it was given and be grateful for a stranger’s kind observation.
It is possible to make a relatively objective appraisal of another person’s behavior without passing judgment on the inner disposition of his soul (only God can do that). In fact, elsewhere in Scripture (e.g. Matt 18:15-17; Jn 7:24) we are charged to make judgments concerning other people’s sinful activity. However the point of such judgment is not to crush the sinner in vengeance, but to show him the error of his ways and thus show him the way to repentance. This is an act of mercy, an act of true love, concern for another’s salvation and ultimate happiness.
If someone else (be he friend or stranger) sees a problem that I might not see (even if it is a character flaw or personal “blind spot”), I would hope he points it out to me (as gently as possible, of course). Why? Because I recognize that I am human too, I also have feet of clay. I want to be the best person I can be, and so rely on others to help me grow, improve and root out faults. I crave the truth, even if it is the “ugly” truth about myself. I’m man enough to take it. I want to get to heaven!
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
“That crazy little thing called love …”
This seems to be a recurring theme for me. I guess that’s because the concept of love is so widely misunderstood and the word love is abused and misapplied by so many people that we can all use a periodic refresher (or, perhaps for some, a first instruction) about what love really is (and what it isn’t). But like the romantic troubadour who realizes that no one can ever write the perfect love song, I don’t expect this present composition to come anywhere close to a final exposition on the topic.
(NB: In this essay I will be using the word “object” in two distinct senses: the grammatical sense (i.e. a person or thing to which something else—in this case, love—is directed by a subject) and, for lack of a better term, the materialist sense (i.e. specifically a thing, not a person.)
The emotion called love
In the broadest possible sense, anything can conceivably be, to one degree or another, an object [that to which something is directed] of love, and that love can be either ordered toward the good, or it can be disordered, depending on a wide range of circumstances and motives. In this sense people can love chocolate, rainy days, a pet, a car, one’s job, a certain shade of blue or a favorite book. However, most people who say they love such things realize that it isn’t real love, but only some degree of affection or preference. They realize that real love ought to be directed toward another person, not just a thing.
But even given that condition, many people (perhaps even most) think of love as just an emotion, one among many other emotions. You know, you can fall in love, and (sometimes) you fall out of love. Love (they say) is that real intense excitement you feel when you really care, you really want to be near someone special. Sometimes you get that “tingly” feeling all over, that fire that can last for hours or even days at a time. Or some people might say it’s “chemistry,” or even “magic.” You just know when you’re in love with someone because it feels so right. You can’t really control it—it just happens all by itself. It’s either there or it isn’t. (This would be the common understanding among starry-eyed teenagers.)
And then, sometimes the magic seems to fade away over time. If and when that happens, sometimes you can “rekindle” the fire; and sometimes, no matter what you do, it just goes cold and there’s no getting it back. (*Sigh*) When that happens, they say you’ve “fallen out of love” and the best thing you can do is just say Good-bye and move on. No sense wasting your time, or worse, opening old wounds. Maybe you will find a new love somewhere else….
Well in general terms this is fine, as far as it goes. It’s a start, but only a start. It’s not what I mean by real love. This emotional kind of love would more properly be called affection (attraction or tender attachment), even if it is very intense. And as I said, it is a good thing as far as it goes (so long as it doesn’t get out of hand and we don’t let ourselves become consumed with an inordinate affection for an inappropriate object). But it is an immature sort of love. Of course this kind of affection can—and often does—mature into genuine love, but it isn’t there yet.
Real love
By contrast, real love is a conscious act of the will and also involves the use of the intellect. Will and intellect are the principal faculties of the human spirit, and so real love is a spiritual activity rather than a physiological one.
The only proper object of real love is another person. Such love relates to that other person specifically as a person, rather than as an object [a thing]. Love is the decision to consider and work for the other person’s highest good, not to use him or her to satisfy one’s own desires (even if one feels it is a mutually agreeable exchange: “we are giving one another pleasure, each fulfilling the other’s desire”). Love isn’t that tingly sensation in the loins. Love, properly speaking, is the conscious and deliberate decision to give oneself completely to another person for his own sake as a person. This decision is made irrespective of the possibility that the other person may at a later point in time abuse or even reject the gift you make of yourself. Real love always defers to the beloved. It is utterly unconcerned for the self. This is perfectly reflected in Jesus’ prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, “Father, not my will, but thine be done” (Lk 22:42). It is therefore characteristic of love to be sacrificial of the self for the good of the other.
All the basic expressions of love (both human & divine) are manifested throughout the narratives of Christ’s passion, beginning with the Last Supper.
This is how it is possible to love, not only your family and friends, but also the friend who betrayed you, the thief who robbed you and the axe murderer sitting on death row. (God takes no pleasure in the death of the sinner, but rather that the sinner turn away from his wickedness and live. Cf. Ezek 33:11) God loves everything and everyone He has created. Everything God creates is good, and we are called to love as God Himself loves. Sin, however, is not of God but a free choice we make that is contrary to God’s law. So we cannot love the sin (the choice to do evil), but we must love the sinner (the person created in God’s image), and hope and pray for his eventual repentance. This is the way of true love. (We are not called to like (feel affection for) everyone, but we must love everyone: never wishing harm or evil on anyone but instead hoping that all receive and respond to the gift of faith, come to final repentance, and thus to eternal life.) (Cf. Matt 5:43-48.)
God is love, so when we truly love one another and when we love God, we are only participating in the love of God for us (“Love consists in this: not that we love God, but that He loved us first…” cf. 1 Jn 4:7-16). We cannot originate love on our own. So if our attitudes and/or conduct work against (are contrary to) the love of God and the good of others (e.g. fornication, adultery, contraceptive sex, homosexual activity in all its forms), they cannot objectively be considered real love (irrespective of the attraction they may exert on us) since they all fail in some way to involve the fruitful self-sacrificial gift which is essential to genuine love. They all fail to participate in God’s love, but are rather veiled examples of self-gratification instead of self-giving. People may call such things “love” but they are mistaken. (I could call a rock a “toad,” but my calling it such does not make it a real toad. The same holds true for false applications of the word “love.”)
When we participate in the love of God, we are like a log in a fireplace that participates in the fire. The wood of the log, cold and lifeless if left on its own, takes on certain characteristics of the fire when it is placed on it. The log is not identical to the fire, but because of its proximity to the fire it begins to glow with light and to radiate heat, just as the fire itself does. The log is transformed from ordinary wood into the likeness of the fire. So it is when we allow ourselves to be transformed by participation in the love of God. We begin to take on such divine characteristics as the light of truth and the warmth of consolation.
So let us shun all false and deceitful conceptions of love and truly strive to harmonize our affections with the realities of life. May everyone recognize God’s love at work in the world and strive to cooperate with and participate in it. May we all work diligently for the good of each person we encounter every day, for the common good of all, and for our own individual good. The highest possible good for which we were all created is final union with our Creator and loving Father, and with His Son, our Bridegroom, for all eternity. Anything else is only self-love, false-love.
(NB: In this essay I will be using the word “object” in two distinct senses: the grammatical sense (i.e. a person or thing to which something else—in this case, love—is directed by a subject) and, for lack of a better term, the materialist sense (i.e. specifically a thing, not a person.)
The emotion called love
In the broadest possible sense, anything can conceivably be, to one degree or another, an object [that to which something is directed] of love, and that love can be either ordered toward the good, or it can be disordered, depending on a wide range of circumstances and motives. In this sense people can love chocolate, rainy days, a pet, a car, one’s job, a certain shade of blue or a favorite book. However, most people who say they love such things realize that it isn’t real love, but only some degree of affection or preference. They realize that real love ought to be directed toward another person, not just a thing.
But even given that condition, many people (perhaps even most) think of love as just an emotion, one among many other emotions. You know, you can fall in love, and (sometimes) you fall out of love. Love (they say) is that real intense excitement you feel when you really care, you really want to be near someone special. Sometimes you get that “tingly” feeling all over, that fire that can last for hours or even days at a time. Or some people might say it’s “chemistry,” or even “magic.” You just know when you’re in love with someone because it feels so right. You can’t really control it—it just happens all by itself. It’s either there or it isn’t. (This would be the common understanding among starry-eyed teenagers.)
And then, sometimes the magic seems to fade away over time. If and when that happens, sometimes you can “rekindle” the fire; and sometimes, no matter what you do, it just goes cold and there’s no getting it back. (*Sigh*) When that happens, they say you’ve “fallen out of love” and the best thing you can do is just say Good-bye and move on. No sense wasting your time, or worse, opening old wounds. Maybe you will find a new love somewhere else….
Well in general terms this is fine, as far as it goes. It’s a start, but only a start. It’s not what I mean by real love. This emotional kind of love would more properly be called affection (attraction or tender attachment), even if it is very intense. And as I said, it is a good thing as far as it goes (so long as it doesn’t get out of hand and we don’t let ourselves become consumed with an inordinate affection for an inappropriate object). But it is an immature sort of love. Of course this kind of affection can—and often does—mature into genuine love, but it isn’t there yet.
Real love
By contrast, real love is a conscious act of the will and also involves the use of the intellect. Will and intellect are the principal faculties of the human spirit, and so real love is a spiritual activity rather than a physiological one.
The only proper object of real love is another person. Such love relates to that other person specifically as a person, rather than as an object [a thing]. Love is the decision to consider and work for the other person’s highest good, not to use him or her to satisfy one’s own desires (even if one feels it is a mutually agreeable exchange: “we are giving one another pleasure, each fulfilling the other’s desire”). Love isn’t that tingly sensation in the loins. Love, properly speaking, is the conscious and deliberate decision to give oneself completely to another person for his own sake as a person. This decision is made irrespective of the possibility that the other person may at a later point in time abuse or even reject the gift you make of yourself. Real love always defers to the beloved. It is utterly unconcerned for the self. This is perfectly reflected in Jesus’ prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, “Father, not my will, but thine be done” (Lk 22:42). It is therefore characteristic of love to be sacrificial of the self for the good of the other.
All the basic expressions of love (both human & divine) are manifested throughout the narratives of Christ’s passion, beginning with the Last Supper.
- Friendship (“Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends …” Jn 15:13-15)
- Concern for the lives and safety of others (“Jesus answered [his captors], ‘I have told you that I am he; so if you seek me, let these men go …’” Jn 18:8-9)
- Filial obedience coupled with the resolve to undergo whatever is necessary for the greater good (“Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” Lk 22:42)
- Forgiveness for a grave injustice (“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” Lk 23:34)
This is how it is possible to love, not only your family and friends, but also the friend who betrayed you, the thief who robbed you and the axe murderer sitting on death row. (God takes no pleasure in the death of the sinner, but rather that the sinner turn away from his wickedness and live. Cf. Ezek 33:11) God loves everything and everyone He has created. Everything God creates is good, and we are called to love as God Himself loves. Sin, however, is not of God but a free choice we make that is contrary to God’s law. So we cannot love the sin (the choice to do evil), but we must love the sinner (the person created in God’s image), and hope and pray for his eventual repentance. This is the way of true love. (We are not called to like (feel affection for) everyone, but we must love everyone: never wishing harm or evil on anyone but instead hoping that all receive and respond to the gift of faith, come to final repentance, and thus to eternal life.) (Cf. Matt 5:43-48.)
God is love, so when we truly love one another and when we love God, we are only participating in the love of God for us (“Love consists in this: not that we love God, but that He loved us first…” cf. 1 Jn 4:7-16). We cannot originate love on our own. So if our attitudes and/or conduct work against (are contrary to) the love of God and the good of others (e.g. fornication, adultery, contraceptive sex, homosexual activity in all its forms), they cannot objectively be considered real love (irrespective of the attraction they may exert on us) since they all fail in some way to involve the fruitful self-sacrificial gift which is essential to genuine love. They all fail to participate in God’s love, but are rather veiled examples of self-gratification instead of self-giving. People may call such things “love” but they are mistaken. (I could call a rock a “toad,” but my calling it such does not make it a real toad. The same holds true for false applications of the word “love.”)
When we participate in the love of God, we are like a log in a fireplace that participates in the fire. The wood of the log, cold and lifeless if left on its own, takes on certain characteristics of the fire when it is placed on it. The log is not identical to the fire, but because of its proximity to the fire it begins to glow with light and to radiate heat, just as the fire itself does. The log is transformed from ordinary wood into the likeness of the fire. So it is when we allow ourselves to be transformed by participation in the love of God. We begin to take on such divine characteristics as the light of truth and the warmth of consolation.
So let us shun all false and deceitful conceptions of love and truly strive to harmonize our affections with the realities of life. May everyone recognize God’s love at work in the world and strive to cooperate with and participate in it. May we all work diligently for the good of each person we encounter every day, for the common good of all, and for our own individual good. The highest possible good for which we were all created is final union with our Creator and loving Father, and with His Son, our Bridegroom, for all eternity. Anything else is only self-love, false-love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)