Wow! That last one was really long (but I think it was worth it). I'll try to keep subsequent posts much more brief.
I plan to post soon on the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit, and maybe several of the virtues, fruits of the Holy Spirit, etc.
If you have any suggestions of other things you'd like to know more about, leave a comment and I'll research it & see what I can come up with.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Sunday, May 08, 2005
"Offer it up..."
These are words that every Catholic has (or should have) grown up hearing. Whenever you had a pain, whether physical or emotional, or some disappointment or any kind of suffering, your mother would tell you, "Offer it up." This was to say, turn your personal suffering into a prayer and offer it as a sacrifice, along with the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, to God the Father, in expiation for your own sins and the sins of others.
Sin always results in suffering. If not for you directly or immediately, then for someone else. There is a balance to the universe and when we sin, we upset the balance, and justice demands that the balance be restored: by making amends--righting the wrong we've done--or, if that isn't possible, by accepting the natural consequences and doing what we can to restore peace to our relationships with God, our fellow man (society) and the rest of creation (that's why one of the symbols of Justice is the balance).
Because sin abounds in this world, wherever we look, suffering is unavoidable. It is inevitable, from the moment the doctor slaps us on the butt when we enter the world, to the last moment of our death throes when we leave it.
[Dr. Alice von Hildebrand taught philosophy at a university for 37 years. (Her husband, Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889-1977), was one of the great philosophers of the last century.) Much of the following was expressed by her in 1999 in a talk on EWTN, the global Catholic television network. Some of this is paraphrase, but you can almost hear her quaint little German accent....]
Why is there suffering? This has always been one of the main arch-questions of all of human history. And, for many, one of the greatest obstacles to belief in God. Why are millions of people in despair, suffering, greiving, being tortured while we are comfortable & safe? Why, if God is all-good and all-powerful, WHY does He allow little children to be tortured? Injustice? All manner of suffering? Mankind has always searched for the answer to suffering.
The great French philosopher Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) made a distinction between problem and mystery. Mysteries [not supernatural mysteries, such as the triune nature of God, the incarnation or transubstantiation--he's not talking about those here] are questions of human existence that are so complex & so deep that they can never be answered fully and completely. A problem is something outside myself which has no relationship to myself, but which creates a difficulty which must be solved.
Problems can be solved, and once a problem is solved, it is no longer a problem. Flying to the moon was once a problem, but we solved that problem and now we can fly to the moon. Getting computers to talk to each other was a problem, but we learned how to network computers; that problem is solved, and we can move on to the next problem.
But a mystery is something else altogether. Evil. Suffering. Although much has been written to help man deal with such things, we can never say, "Now the problem [of suffering] is solved! Now we can finally get beyond that and move on."
Because men are arrogant and impertinent, they say from time to time such things as, "OK, everybody just follow MY rules, follow MY teaching, my ideas, and you will be liberated!"
1. Buddha said, basically, we suffer because we have an illegitimate attachment to existence. So if you sort of sever your craving for existence, and you extinguish it, you're going to reach this state of calm which is the door to Nirvana. Now this is a very attractive idea. If you just follow the rules and methods of Buddhism, one fine day you'll be like the Buddha--sitting serenely, looking inward, a smile upon his face, immovable, and you say, "That must be a very comfortable state."
Now, for a moment, compare the smiling Buddha to Christ on the cross. Which is more attractive?
2. Then there was Karl Marx. His basic idea was that there isn't happiness because there is social injustice & inequality. Let the State take over completely & totally, distribute wealth equally & justly. Then you will have what? The Workers' Paradise! This was introduced in Russia in 1917, but unfortunately the Workers' Paradise turned into gulags. Well that was rather a big disillusion when you were promised Paradise and the way it was implemented, you were sent to concentration camps by the millions. What his ideas created was much worse than the injustice he was planning to correct.
Obviously, when you look at it this way, suffering is a mystery. (You can never wrap your mind all the way around it & say "Ah, now I understand it completely!")
[Here is Dr. von Hildebrand's main thesis:]
In Christianity, you'll discover two things that are unique and amazing.
1. Christianity teaches the art of suffering; and
2. (Particularly emphasized in Roman Catholicism) the meaning of suffering.
Now, I might be such a coward & a sissy that I cannot take the prick of a needle on my finger if it has no meaning. Why should I take that? I don't like it! But the amazing thing is that when Christians discover the meaning of suffering, they can carry crushing crosses, and have a smile on their faces. We're going to get there.
The art of suffering, or should I say the holy art of suffering. This is not easy to learn because (due to original sin) we have a rebellious nature and we like to enjoy things and take it easy. And so suffering comes in and disturbs all our plans.
Consider what could be termed illegitimate sufferings. Self-made sufferings. Things that we are not supposed to suffer at all, but that we do suffer because of our own fault. St. Paul said that God does not try us beyond our strength (cf. 1 Cor 10:13). But every day, we say "That's wrong. I'm tried way beyond my strength to bear it. Therefore, either St. Paul & God are wrong or it is unjust. Why should I bear this? It's too much! I can't take it!"
Now think of this: Don't add to your suffering. Suppose for example that someone is full of vanity. You love compliments and notice and people praising you ... and suddenly someone criticizes you for what you're wearing or something you said, etc., and all of a sudden you feel very depressed.
Here is an example from Pride and Prejudice [one of Dr. von Hildebrand's favorites].
Mrs. Bennett has 5 daughters and wants very badly for them all to be married. One day she goes into hysterics & fits of despair. "Nobody knows what I suffer because I never complain ... (blah, blah, blah) ...." Why was she so upset? Because her next door neighbor's daughter got engaged ahead of her own daughters. Can you imagine anything so crushing, so terrible, so absolutely heart-rending? Who can take it!? And what's more, her husband (Mr. Bennett) is a bit of a cynic and was so cruel that he couldn't manage to shed a few crocodile tears along with her! She's SO misunderstood!
Is this legitimate suffering to go through such torture over such a small thing? It is silly, it's petty. But she is suffering, no question!
Another example:
Once my husband and I were visiting an elderly countess in Spain who described to us "the most terrible night of my life."
"I was 16, going to my first ball. I had such beautiful gems, such a beautiful gown! I was convinced I was going to be the queen of the ball! And as I entered this grand hall, I noticed that my 'best friend' had jewels that were much finer than mine & her dress was much more beautiful... I was crushed! All at once, the lights became dim, the flowers lost their perfume... It was a terrible night."
Now of course we had to pretend to sympathize with her out of courtesy, all the while doing our best to contain our mirth--inside, we were in stitches--at someone suffering so much over such a petty thing.
Or say I tend to be envious of others. What is envy? I might see someone who has a quality or some possession, which I might not necessarily want for myself, but I resent that he has it. And I suffer tortures that he has something good. But if I recognize my envy for what it is, & decide that I won't let it triumph over me, I can let it go and no longer allow it to cause me suffering. If I complain to someone that I am crushed by carrying this heavy burden, and he says, "Well, why do you cary it then?" Oh, yes, you're right. I don't need to.
Or take self-pity. Suppose you go to the hospital and you start feeling sorry for yourself. "Why should this have happened to ME? Why should I go through this and it doesn't happen to so-and-so?" and you start crying over yourself, and it's like deflating a tire. In a little while it's flat and you can no longer go.
To avoid self-pity, you turn your thoughts to people who suffer more than you do. And all of a sudden you realize that you're fortunate. Maybe you lost one leg, but the guy in the next bed lost two legs and a hand! There's always the possibility that things could be worse for you. If you turn to another person lovingly, you find that you can carry your own cross more easily.
The amazing thing is that if you carry the cross of another person, yours becomes lighter, it doesn't become heavier.
By far, the worst of all sources of illegitimate suffering: Pride. And that is the suffering of Satan. The pride of someone who refuses to acknowledge that anyone or anything is higher than himself. The proud person wants to be above everything else. After all, what is pride? To want to become God. That was the original sin. "Why should HE be God & not ME? I think I could pull it off extremely well. I want to be God!"
These people suffer constant torture because they feel that other people do not discover, are so blind that they do not see that they are geniuses. You see that among university professors, many of them (not all), who are so animated by pride that they beg you, so to speak, to recognize their genius, and if you don't give the proper expected response, they are crushed & they will hate you. To feel superior to others is a terrible burden. Forgetting that their talents come from God, they forget so completely that they feel superior to God.
The two phrases that the proud person cannot utter:
"Thank you." It is simply an acknowledgement that another person has been kind to me, but it is something that is fast disappearing from the English language.
And even worse: "Forgive me." We ought to say this every day, to family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, strangers, but most especially to God. "Forgive me, O Lord, because I am a sinner."
"What do you mean to call me a sinner!? I am a perfectly good and decent person! How dare you call me a sinner!" And you see these people suffer tortures. I know people who are paralyzed by their pride.
The trouble here is that this kind of suffering is needless because it is self-made.
If I know I have a problem being envious, for example, and I suffer because of my envy of others, I can't just say, "I won't be envious any more." It's not something you can turn off like a switch.
But I can say that this attitude is wrong and I don't want to be this way. I reject it and disavow it, I oppose it.
Then you begin the practice of what I call "holy pestering." You beg God day after day after day that He will liberate you from this sinful attitude.
St. Therese of Lisieux, from the age of 4 until 13, was a hypersensitive cry-baby. At the slightest word she would burst into tears. Hypersensitive people are so easily offended that whatever you say will be interpreted negatively, then they will either literally or figuratively storm off and feel dreadfully sorry for themselves. So it was with Therese.
Then when she was 13, the family had just returned from Christmas midnight Mass. Her sisters had decorated the house very nicely, with the beautiful tree and presents all around and so forth. Her father was elderly (63 at the time) and he was tired. As he walked in, he said "Well, I hope this is going to be the last time, because Therese is getting much too big for this." Well, this was of course one of her favorite feasts of the year. She burst out crying and ran up the stairs. Half way up the stairs, God's grace hit her. She stopped, turned around, returned to her family, smiling, and said, "from this day on I will never shed an unnecessary tear." But it took her 9 years of prayers before God granted her request to overcome this weakness.
So obviously we can't change the fact overnight, whether it is vanity, jealousy, pride, all these stupidities. But if we keep disavowing them, then you cut off the head of these ugly attitudes, and you keep begging God--holy pestering--keep knocking and keep knocking, and one day He will give it to you and then you will be liberated. And the day you are liberated, you will be capable of carrying very heavy crosses, because you won't be adding an ounce to the weight of the cross God is sending you. You will be able to bear crushing crosses, and nevertheless have peace, and have a smile on your face.
I am always noticing that some people carry crushing crosses and they're always at peace and always radiant; and some people carry just about *this much* and the next day they're flat on the floor, and telling you that they're being "treated unjustly by God, who I thought was a GOOD God..." You know, God is good as long as He does what I like. As soon as He does something I don't like, He is my enemy, He is mean, unjust and cruel.
No, a legitimate suffering is one that God chooses for me. He knows what we can handle and what is too much for us, and will not send us any more than we are able to bear. He loves us (much more than we love ourselves) and He sends us suffering to strengthen us, to teach us to call on Him for help, to teach us to help one another, to see our own weakness & come to realize that we cannot bear up under our own power, that we need Him and His grace to give us the strength to go on, to teach us patience, sympathy for others, compassion, and so on. The only way we can learn to practice virtue is by struggling with some kind of suffering, either our own or that of others.
But we need the supernatural life of God to do it. We need grace, because without Christ we can do nothing. And many of us fail to beg and beg and beg for help. We should say, "My love is about *this much*. God increase my love." Or, "My contrition is not what I know it should be, give me the gift of contrition." We are beggars. In fact, we are very happy beggars because we have a God who is so infinitely good & merciful and can give us what we ask for. We need to realize that we are just crawling on our own, but one day, if we persevere, he will give us wings.
The crosses God sends me are taylor-made. Just for me and no one else. And it fits. Me. It is very unwise to choose your own crosses because we invariably choose the wrong one & it doesn't fit & we cannot bear it. Let God send the cross that He chooses for you.
When we discover this art of suffering, we turn to Catholic teaching and we discover that suffering also has a meaning. It has no meaning in Buddhism, you're supposed to escape from it. It has no meaning in paganism, you escape from it. It has no meaning in Islam, you escape from it. For the ancient Greeks, suffering was an expression of the wrath of the gods, and you were a victim of the capricious fury of the gods.
But in Christianity, the amazing thing is that suffering is given a profound and sublime meaning. Paul Claudel (1868-1955), a great French Catholic poet, once wrote, "Christ did not come to abolish suffering, but to join in our suffering. He did not come to abolish the cross, He chose to lay down on the cross to save us."
It shows that the meaning of suffering on this earth is to be an expression of love. All of us know that when we love someone, we start to suffer. I love my child but I cannot protect him all the time. I love my spouse, my brothers, my parents, my friends, and I suddenly realize that I cannot protect them from suffering...from sickness, from poverty, from death.
Many times, I found myself fretting because my husband Dietrich was late returning from some talk he was giving, and because I love him, I worry, my imagination runs wild--he could have suffered a heart attack or been in an accident--what could have happened to him, & I cannot protect him. If you don't love somebody, you shrug and say, "Well, everybody has to die sometime, it's part of life. Why make such a big deal out of it?" But when you love someone, you can't help but suffer over them. So in this life, you cannot sever the link between love and suffering. They belong together.
But that happens to everyone, not just Christians. Now it gets even deeper. Now comes Christianity.
When Christ was crucified, suffering agonizing tortures that we cannot even picture, who was at the foot of the cross? His mother. And (I am proud to say) the other holy women. Where were the men? The apostles all fled (except St. John who came back). Why did the women stay? Because they loved more.
And the Holy Virgin could not do a thing to relieve the suffering of her beloved. Just imagine the torture of standing there for THREE HOURS seeing Him agonizing ... she can't do a thing! What did she do? She suffered with Him.
Now in modern pragmatic society, we are so utilitarian in our views, I hear some people say such stupid things as, "If he's in the hospital & they can't do anything for him, then why do you go there to visit him?"
We all know, if we have suffered, that to have someone there present, that the person cannot do a thing, cannot relieve your pain, but can simply say, "I am there and I am suffering with you."
The word compassion comes from 2 Latin words that mean to "suffer with." If you love, you want to suffer with the beloved. This is an expression of authentic love which endorses suffering because the beloved one is suffering. I am not going to say, "Oh, my husband is dying--I think I'll take a cruise to Bermuda to relax." Who would dream of doing that? How many mothers spend days and days at the side of a dying child without a thought of food or sleep--they want to be there, and they suffer with them.
The greatest love that exists is to give one's life for ones friends, and that is what Christ did for us. Not only did He suffer with us, but He suffered for us so that the doors of paradise could be reopened to us. This is the culmination of love: not only that you suffer because you love; not only that you suffer with; but that you suffer for.
Now what is the meaning of suffering for a Christian? That when I suffer a legitimate cross, sent by God--He is giving me His grace--and suddenly I realize I am deigned to join Christ on the cross, to be there with Him who has suffered--what is my suffering compared to His? And somehow in this moment He says to me, "Come close to my heart that has bled for you, that has suffered for you, that has been pierced by a lance for you."
This is why the saints, when they receive a cross, they see it as a way of coming closer to our Lord. And this is why, even though the sufferings can be terrible and agonizing, somehow they can be transfigured with a joy of knowing they are there on the cross with our Savior. This is uniquely stressed in Roman Catholicism. From this point of view, day in and day out, we should sing a song of gratitude because He has died for us, and He has given us the grace to carry our crosses.
How do we make suffering a joy?
Well, we cannot make it so by an act of will. But by accepting it, by meditating on the meaning of suffering, on the greatness of Christ's sacrifice (and our voluntary participation in it), one day it can be given to us as a reward.
One of the things my husband Dietrich developed so well was the idea that there are things I can do, and there are things I cannot do. I can command an action--I am going to drink--and I do it. But there are many things that I cannot command by an act of will, and nevertheless there is a great deal that I can do about it indirectly. He calls it "indirect freedom."
For example, one's prayer life. Or one's meditation on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, that you read the passion in the gospels and meditate on it. That you read in the lives of the saints and you see the sufferings they have borne for the sake of God's kingdom. And one very fine day it comes to you as a sort of reward, but you cannot command it. It is something that God gives to those who are faithful & persevering, and obviously it doesn't come overnight.
Is suffering a part of one's purification?
When we sin, and we all do of course, we owe a "debt" of sorts to God. Now in actuality, there is no way we can physically injure God the Father, and there is no way we can pay a debt of any kind to God, who created the entire universe out of nothing and is totally self-sufficient from all eternity, and technically has no need of us or anything that we can give Him or do for Him.
But God is not technical, and He created us out of love and for love, and we give Him that love--just because He is God.
You can think of it like a king who has a subject who refuses to pay the ordinary homage of respect to the king. Now the subject owes the king respect just because he is the king. If he refuses to show such respect, the king has every right to throw him into prison until he does. When we sin, we are offending the infinite love and majesty of God and, in all justice, we must make amends.
Once I experience authentic contrition, "Lord, have mercy on me, I am a sinner," then comes the desire to pay my debt, and usually this is suffering. But in Christianity it goes beyond that, because I not only suffer to expiate my own sins, which I should do, but I can also suffer for others. Suppose I have satisfied all the requirements of justice for my own debts. Then I can offer my suffering for the debts of others, and God accepts that in the service of love for my fellow man. We can pray and suffer for those who reject suffering, who may even commit crimes to avoid suffering. Then comes a moment of joy because like Christ, and with Him, we are suffering for the sins of others.
Expiation for sins is a punishment, and punishment is not supposed to be pleasant, that's not in the nature of punishment. You don't tell a child, "I'm going to punish you for what you did. Here is some ice cream." He won't learn that he's done something wrong and to avoid it in the future. So punishment has an essential element of education to it.
Sin always results in suffering. If not for you directly or immediately, then for someone else. There is a balance to the universe and when we sin, we upset the balance, and justice demands that the balance be restored: by making amends--righting the wrong we've done--or, if that isn't possible, by accepting the natural consequences and doing what we can to restore peace to our relationships with God, our fellow man (society) and the rest of creation (that's why one of the symbols of Justice is the balance).
Because sin abounds in this world, wherever we look, suffering is unavoidable. It is inevitable, from the moment the doctor slaps us on the butt when we enter the world, to the last moment of our death throes when we leave it.
[Dr. Alice von Hildebrand taught philosophy at a university for 37 years. (Her husband, Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889-1977), was one of the great philosophers of the last century.) Much of the following was expressed by her in 1999 in a talk on EWTN, the global Catholic television network. Some of this is paraphrase, but you can almost hear her quaint little German accent....]
Why is there suffering? This has always been one of the main arch-questions of all of human history. And, for many, one of the greatest obstacles to belief in God. Why are millions of people in despair, suffering, greiving, being tortured while we are comfortable & safe? Why, if God is all-good and all-powerful, WHY does He allow little children to be tortured? Injustice? All manner of suffering? Mankind has always searched for the answer to suffering.
The great French philosopher Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) made a distinction between problem and mystery. Mysteries [not supernatural mysteries, such as the triune nature of God, the incarnation or transubstantiation--he's not talking about those here] are questions of human existence that are so complex & so deep that they can never be answered fully and completely. A problem is something outside myself which has no relationship to myself, but which creates a difficulty which must be solved.
Problems can be solved, and once a problem is solved, it is no longer a problem. Flying to the moon was once a problem, but we solved that problem and now we can fly to the moon. Getting computers to talk to each other was a problem, but we learned how to network computers; that problem is solved, and we can move on to the next problem.
But a mystery is something else altogether. Evil. Suffering. Although much has been written to help man deal with such things, we can never say, "Now the problem [of suffering] is solved! Now we can finally get beyond that and move on."
Because men are arrogant and impertinent, they say from time to time such things as, "OK, everybody just follow MY rules, follow MY teaching, my ideas, and you will be liberated!"
1. Buddha said, basically, we suffer because we have an illegitimate attachment to existence. So if you sort of sever your craving for existence, and you extinguish it, you're going to reach this state of calm which is the door to Nirvana. Now this is a very attractive idea. If you just follow the rules and methods of Buddhism, one fine day you'll be like the Buddha--sitting serenely, looking inward, a smile upon his face, immovable, and you say, "That must be a very comfortable state."
Now, for a moment, compare the smiling Buddha to Christ on the cross. Which is more attractive?
2. Then there was Karl Marx. His basic idea was that there isn't happiness because there is social injustice & inequality. Let the State take over completely & totally, distribute wealth equally & justly. Then you will have what? The Workers' Paradise! This was introduced in Russia in 1917, but unfortunately the Workers' Paradise turned into gulags. Well that was rather a big disillusion when you were promised Paradise and the way it was implemented, you were sent to concentration camps by the millions. What his ideas created was much worse than the injustice he was planning to correct.
Obviously, when you look at it this way, suffering is a mystery. (You can never wrap your mind all the way around it & say "Ah, now I understand it completely!")
[Here is Dr. von Hildebrand's main thesis:]
In Christianity, you'll discover two things that are unique and amazing.
1. Christianity teaches the art of suffering; and
2. (Particularly emphasized in Roman Catholicism) the meaning of suffering.
Now, I might be such a coward & a sissy that I cannot take the prick of a needle on my finger if it has no meaning. Why should I take that? I don't like it! But the amazing thing is that when Christians discover the meaning of suffering, they can carry crushing crosses, and have a smile on their faces. We're going to get there.
The art of suffering, or should I say the holy art of suffering. This is not easy to learn because (due to original sin) we have a rebellious nature and we like to enjoy things and take it easy. And so suffering comes in and disturbs all our plans.
Consider what could be termed illegitimate sufferings. Self-made sufferings. Things that we are not supposed to suffer at all, but that we do suffer because of our own fault. St. Paul said that God does not try us beyond our strength (cf. 1 Cor 10:13). But every day, we say "That's wrong. I'm tried way beyond my strength to bear it. Therefore, either St. Paul & God are wrong or it is unjust. Why should I bear this? It's too much! I can't take it!"
Now think of this: Don't add to your suffering. Suppose for example that someone is full of vanity. You love compliments and notice and people praising you ... and suddenly someone criticizes you for what you're wearing or something you said, etc., and all of a sudden you feel very depressed.
Here is an example from Pride and Prejudice [one of Dr. von Hildebrand's favorites].
Mrs. Bennett has 5 daughters and wants very badly for them all to be married. One day she goes into hysterics & fits of despair. "Nobody knows what I suffer because I never complain ... (blah, blah, blah) ...." Why was she so upset? Because her next door neighbor's daughter got engaged ahead of her own daughters. Can you imagine anything so crushing, so terrible, so absolutely heart-rending? Who can take it!? And what's more, her husband (Mr. Bennett) is a bit of a cynic and was so cruel that he couldn't manage to shed a few crocodile tears along with her! She's SO misunderstood!
Is this legitimate suffering to go through such torture over such a small thing? It is silly, it's petty. But she is suffering, no question!
Another example:
Once my husband and I were visiting an elderly countess in Spain who described to us "the most terrible night of my life."
"I was 16, going to my first ball. I had such beautiful gems, such a beautiful gown! I was convinced I was going to be the queen of the ball! And as I entered this grand hall, I noticed that my 'best friend' had jewels that were much finer than mine & her dress was much more beautiful... I was crushed! All at once, the lights became dim, the flowers lost their perfume... It was a terrible night."
Now of course we had to pretend to sympathize with her out of courtesy, all the while doing our best to contain our mirth--inside, we were in stitches--at someone suffering so much over such a petty thing.
Or say I tend to be envious of others. What is envy? I might see someone who has a quality or some possession, which I might not necessarily want for myself, but I resent that he has it. And I suffer tortures that he has something good. But if I recognize my envy for what it is, & decide that I won't let it triumph over me, I can let it go and no longer allow it to cause me suffering. If I complain to someone that I am crushed by carrying this heavy burden, and he says, "Well, why do you cary it then?" Oh, yes, you're right. I don't need to.
Or take self-pity. Suppose you go to the hospital and you start feeling sorry for yourself. "Why should this have happened to ME? Why should I go through this and it doesn't happen to so-and-so?" and you start crying over yourself, and it's like deflating a tire. In a little while it's flat and you can no longer go.
To avoid self-pity, you turn your thoughts to people who suffer more than you do. And all of a sudden you realize that you're fortunate. Maybe you lost one leg, but the guy in the next bed lost two legs and a hand! There's always the possibility that things could be worse for you. If you turn to another person lovingly, you find that you can carry your own cross more easily.
The amazing thing is that if you carry the cross of another person, yours becomes lighter, it doesn't become heavier.
By far, the worst of all sources of illegitimate suffering: Pride. And that is the suffering of Satan. The pride of someone who refuses to acknowledge that anyone or anything is higher than himself. The proud person wants to be above everything else. After all, what is pride? To want to become God. That was the original sin. "Why should HE be God & not ME? I think I could pull it off extremely well. I want to be God!"
These people suffer constant torture because they feel that other people do not discover, are so blind that they do not see that they are geniuses. You see that among university professors, many of them (not all), who are so animated by pride that they beg you, so to speak, to recognize their genius, and if you don't give the proper expected response, they are crushed & they will hate you. To feel superior to others is a terrible burden. Forgetting that their talents come from God, they forget so completely that they feel superior to God.
The two phrases that the proud person cannot utter:
"Thank you." It is simply an acknowledgement that another person has been kind to me, but it is something that is fast disappearing from the English language.
And even worse: "Forgive me." We ought to say this every day, to family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, strangers, but most especially to God. "Forgive me, O Lord, because I am a sinner."
"What do you mean to call me a sinner!? I am a perfectly good and decent person! How dare you call me a sinner!" And you see these people suffer tortures. I know people who are paralyzed by their pride.
The trouble here is that this kind of suffering is needless because it is self-made.
If I know I have a problem being envious, for example, and I suffer because of my envy of others, I can't just say, "I won't be envious any more." It's not something you can turn off like a switch.
But I can say that this attitude is wrong and I don't want to be this way. I reject it and disavow it, I oppose it.
Then you begin the practice of what I call "holy pestering." You beg God day after day after day that He will liberate you from this sinful attitude.
St. Therese of Lisieux, from the age of 4 until 13, was a hypersensitive cry-baby. At the slightest word she would burst into tears. Hypersensitive people are so easily offended that whatever you say will be interpreted negatively, then they will either literally or figuratively storm off and feel dreadfully sorry for themselves. So it was with Therese.
Then when she was 13, the family had just returned from Christmas midnight Mass. Her sisters had decorated the house very nicely, with the beautiful tree and presents all around and so forth. Her father was elderly (63 at the time) and he was tired. As he walked in, he said "Well, I hope this is going to be the last time, because Therese is getting much too big for this." Well, this was of course one of her favorite feasts of the year. She burst out crying and ran up the stairs. Half way up the stairs, God's grace hit her. She stopped, turned around, returned to her family, smiling, and said, "from this day on I will never shed an unnecessary tear." But it took her 9 years of prayers before God granted her request to overcome this weakness.
So obviously we can't change the fact overnight, whether it is vanity, jealousy, pride, all these stupidities. But if we keep disavowing them, then you cut off the head of these ugly attitudes, and you keep begging God--holy pestering--keep knocking and keep knocking, and one day He will give it to you and then you will be liberated. And the day you are liberated, you will be capable of carrying very heavy crosses, because you won't be adding an ounce to the weight of the cross God is sending you. You will be able to bear crushing crosses, and nevertheless have peace, and have a smile on your face.
I am always noticing that some people carry crushing crosses and they're always at peace and always radiant; and some people carry just about *this much* and the next day they're flat on the floor, and telling you that they're being "treated unjustly by God, who I thought was a GOOD God..." You know, God is good as long as He does what I like. As soon as He does something I don't like, He is my enemy, He is mean, unjust and cruel.
No, a legitimate suffering is one that God chooses for me. He knows what we can handle and what is too much for us, and will not send us any more than we are able to bear. He loves us (much more than we love ourselves) and He sends us suffering to strengthen us, to teach us to call on Him for help, to teach us to help one another, to see our own weakness & come to realize that we cannot bear up under our own power, that we need Him and His grace to give us the strength to go on, to teach us patience, sympathy for others, compassion, and so on. The only way we can learn to practice virtue is by struggling with some kind of suffering, either our own or that of others.
But we need the supernatural life of God to do it. We need grace, because without Christ we can do nothing. And many of us fail to beg and beg and beg for help. We should say, "My love is about *this much*. God increase my love." Or, "My contrition is not what I know it should be, give me the gift of contrition." We are beggars. In fact, we are very happy beggars because we have a God who is so infinitely good & merciful and can give us what we ask for. We need to realize that we are just crawling on our own, but one day, if we persevere, he will give us wings.
The crosses God sends me are taylor-made. Just for me and no one else. And it fits. Me. It is very unwise to choose your own crosses because we invariably choose the wrong one & it doesn't fit & we cannot bear it. Let God send the cross that He chooses for you.
When we discover this art of suffering, we turn to Catholic teaching and we discover that suffering also has a meaning. It has no meaning in Buddhism, you're supposed to escape from it. It has no meaning in paganism, you escape from it. It has no meaning in Islam, you escape from it. For the ancient Greeks, suffering was an expression of the wrath of the gods, and you were a victim of the capricious fury of the gods.
But in Christianity, the amazing thing is that suffering is given a profound and sublime meaning. Paul Claudel (1868-1955), a great French Catholic poet, once wrote, "Christ did not come to abolish suffering, but to join in our suffering. He did not come to abolish the cross, He chose to lay down on the cross to save us."
It shows that the meaning of suffering on this earth is to be an expression of love. All of us know that when we love someone, we start to suffer. I love my child but I cannot protect him all the time. I love my spouse, my brothers, my parents, my friends, and I suddenly realize that I cannot protect them from suffering...from sickness, from poverty, from death.
Many times, I found myself fretting because my husband Dietrich was late returning from some talk he was giving, and because I love him, I worry, my imagination runs wild--he could have suffered a heart attack or been in an accident--what could have happened to him, & I cannot protect him. If you don't love somebody, you shrug and say, "Well, everybody has to die sometime, it's part of life. Why make such a big deal out of it?" But when you love someone, you can't help but suffer over them. So in this life, you cannot sever the link between love and suffering. They belong together.
But that happens to everyone, not just Christians. Now it gets even deeper. Now comes Christianity.
When Christ was crucified, suffering agonizing tortures that we cannot even picture, who was at the foot of the cross? His mother. And (I am proud to say) the other holy women. Where were the men? The apostles all fled (except St. John who came back). Why did the women stay? Because they loved more.
And the Holy Virgin could not do a thing to relieve the suffering of her beloved. Just imagine the torture of standing there for THREE HOURS seeing Him agonizing ... she can't do a thing! What did she do? She suffered with Him.
Now in modern pragmatic society, we are so utilitarian in our views, I hear some people say such stupid things as, "If he's in the hospital & they can't do anything for him, then why do you go there to visit him?"
We all know, if we have suffered, that to have someone there present, that the person cannot do a thing, cannot relieve your pain, but can simply say, "I am there and I am suffering with you."
The word compassion comes from 2 Latin words that mean to "suffer with." If you love, you want to suffer with the beloved. This is an expression of authentic love which endorses suffering because the beloved one is suffering. I am not going to say, "Oh, my husband is dying--I think I'll take a cruise to Bermuda to relax." Who would dream of doing that? How many mothers spend days and days at the side of a dying child without a thought of food or sleep--they want to be there, and they suffer with them.
The greatest love that exists is to give one's life for ones friends, and that is what Christ did for us. Not only did He suffer with us, but He suffered for us so that the doors of paradise could be reopened to us. This is the culmination of love: not only that you suffer because you love; not only that you suffer with; but that you suffer for.
Now what is the meaning of suffering for a Christian? That when I suffer a legitimate cross, sent by God--He is giving me His grace--and suddenly I realize I am deigned to join Christ on the cross, to be there with Him who has suffered--what is my suffering compared to His? And somehow in this moment He says to me, "Come close to my heart that has bled for you, that has suffered for you, that has been pierced by a lance for you."
This is why the saints, when they receive a cross, they see it as a way of coming closer to our Lord. And this is why, even though the sufferings can be terrible and agonizing, somehow they can be transfigured with a joy of knowing they are there on the cross with our Savior. This is uniquely stressed in Roman Catholicism. From this point of view, day in and day out, we should sing a song of gratitude because He has died for us, and He has given us the grace to carry our crosses.
How do we make suffering a joy?
Well, we cannot make it so by an act of will. But by accepting it, by meditating on the meaning of suffering, on the greatness of Christ's sacrifice (and our voluntary participation in it), one day it can be given to us as a reward.
One of the things my husband Dietrich developed so well was the idea that there are things I can do, and there are things I cannot do. I can command an action--I am going to drink--and I do it. But there are many things that I cannot command by an act of will, and nevertheless there is a great deal that I can do about it indirectly. He calls it "indirect freedom."
For example, one's prayer life. Or one's meditation on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, that you read the passion in the gospels and meditate on it. That you read in the lives of the saints and you see the sufferings they have borne for the sake of God's kingdom. And one very fine day it comes to you as a sort of reward, but you cannot command it. It is something that God gives to those who are faithful & persevering, and obviously it doesn't come overnight.
Is suffering a part of one's purification?
When we sin, and we all do of course, we owe a "debt" of sorts to God. Now in actuality, there is no way we can physically injure God the Father, and there is no way we can pay a debt of any kind to God, who created the entire universe out of nothing and is totally self-sufficient from all eternity, and technically has no need of us or anything that we can give Him or do for Him.
But God is not technical, and He created us out of love and for love, and we give Him that love--just because He is God.
You can think of it like a king who has a subject who refuses to pay the ordinary homage of respect to the king. Now the subject owes the king respect just because he is the king. If he refuses to show such respect, the king has every right to throw him into prison until he does. When we sin, we are offending the infinite love and majesty of God and, in all justice, we must make amends.
Once I experience authentic contrition, "Lord, have mercy on me, I am a sinner," then comes the desire to pay my debt, and usually this is suffering. But in Christianity it goes beyond that, because I not only suffer to expiate my own sins, which I should do, but I can also suffer for others. Suppose I have satisfied all the requirements of justice for my own debts. Then I can offer my suffering for the debts of others, and God accepts that in the service of love for my fellow man. We can pray and suffer for those who reject suffering, who may even commit crimes to avoid suffering. Then comes a moment of joy because like Christ, and with Him, we are suffering for the sins of others.
Expiation for sins is a punishment, and punishment is not supposed to be pleasant, that's not in the nature of punishment. You don't tell a child, "I'm going to punish you for what you did. Here is some ice cream." He won't learn that he's done something wrong and to avoid it in the future. So punishment has an essential element of education to it.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Sorry it's been so long...
...since my last post. I've been rather busy. I had some difficulties with my computer, JohnnyK has been a big distraction lately (don't let it go to your head, JK)--see the many "comments" on the last post (Happy Easter!)--and miscellaneous other stuff.
Pope John Paul the Great, rest in peace!
God bless and long live Pope Benedict XVI!
I intend to post soon (God willing) on the topic of suffering based on thoughts by Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, so stay tuned....
Pope John Paul the Great, rest in peace!
God bless and long live Pope Benedict XVI!
I intend to post soon (God willing) on the topic of suffering based on thoughts by Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, so stay tuned....
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Happy Easter!
May the Resurrection of our Lord and the promise of our own be a source of joy, blessings and peace to you all!
We can praise and thank God that Michael Schiavo has relented in the rigor of his "mercy" to permit his wife to receive the sacraments of the Church one last time. May God shower additional graces upon Michael for this act of kindness. We can rest assured that Terri now has the benefit of every grace that can be provided in this world to assist her soul in its entrance into the next.
God is indeed merciful!
We can praise and thank God that Michael Schiavo has relented in the rigor of his "mercy" to permit his wife to receive the sacraments of the Church one last time. May God shower additional graces upon Michael for this act of kindness. We can rest assured that Terri now has the benefit of every grace that can be provided in this world to assist her soul in its entrance into the next.
God is indeed merciful!
Friday, March 18, 2005
A Clarification
Some folks who have left comments on this blog have occasionally made some statements that seem to indicate a misunderstanding on their part as to its purpose. I apologize now for being the possible occasion of this misunderstanding and offer this clarification in reparation for my shortsightedness and omissions.
Nothing I post on this blog is meant in any way to insult or provoke a verbal fight with anyone over their potentially opposing views. It is meant to provoke thought, but not a fight, and certainly not a knee-jerk "reaction." I don't doubt that emotions may be elevated, but I hope not tempers.
If I write something that seems unreasonable to someone, it is likely that either (a) I wrote it without sufficient reflection and stand ready for gentle correction, or (b) that person is himself unable or unwilling to engage his own powers of reason & is reacting on the level of emotion alone. If (a), then I would expect to see an example of superior insight to steer me back onto the right path. If (b), then I pray the person will take a "time out" to re-evaluate his own position & not waste his or my time with emotional appeals to a debased, random or somnolent conscience.
I write from my own personal convictions, opinions and beliefs based on what I have learned (seen, read or heard). That is my right--this is my blog. I publish my thoughts "for what it's worth" and for "anyone who cares." I expect many who visit here will not agree with me. That's OK. If they don't like it, they are free to leave and never return if they so choose. I have no idea who visits if they don't leave a comment, and I don't care how many "hits" I get (you'll notice I don't have a hit-counter & I have no particular curiosity to track my stats). My words are offered as a "public service" for anyone who may enjoy or learn something from them.
I do read every comment that is posted, even if I don't reply to it. I take no offense at people who disagree with me. They are certainly entitled to do so, but I hope they also realize that irrational or gut-based arguments are unlikely to make any impression, much less change my mind. (For example, if your opinion is that I am an unsophisticated bigot, well, I've been called that (and worse) to no effect. You'd be wasting your keystrokes by telling me again.) This shouldn't surprise anyone, since I would expect that same attitude from anyone who speaks from conviction.
If someone is excessively perturbed by what he reads here, I would be puzzled if he kept returning to torture himself.
If someone leaves provocative comments just to "bait" me for his own or his friends' amusement, I would hope he'd soon tire of wasting his wit on someone who just doesn't "get it."
If someone comes here looking for originality or novelty, he'd better just keep walking--he won't find that here. I feel it's better to be right than original. (Of course I mean these are just my own opinions & I don't claim to be absolutely right (aligned with truth) in and of myself. I am not the standard of truth. I only try to pass on any fragments of truth I may have gleaned from elsewhere. I leave you, the reader, to be your own judge.)
Sorry, I know I tend toward verbosity. I just don't want to leave any stones unturned. If this "clarification" has only had the opposite effect, I guess I'll just apologize again and leave it at that.
Nothing I post on this blog is meant in any way to insult or provoke a verbal fight with anyone over their potentially opposing views. It is meant to provoke thought, but not a fight, and certainly not a knee-jerk "reaction." I don't doubt that emotions may be elevated, but I hope not tempers.
If I write something that seems unreasonable to someone, it is likely that either (a) I wrote it without sufficient reflection and stand ready for gentle correction, or (b) that person is himself unable or unwilling to engage his own powers of reason & is reacting on the level of emotion alone. If (a), then I would expect to see an example of superior insight to steer me back onto the right path. If (b), then I pray the person will take a "time out" to re-evaluate his own position & not waste his or my time with emotional appeals to a debased, random or somnolent conscience.
I write from my own personal convictions, opinions and beliefs based on what I have learned (seen, read or heard). That is my right--this is my blog. I publish my thoughts "for what it's worth" and for "anyone who cares." I expect many who visit here will not agree with me. That's OK. If they don't like it, they are free to leave and never return if they so choose. I have no idea who visits if they don't leave a comment, and I don't care how many "hits" I get (you'll notice I don't have a hit-counter & I have no particular curiosity to track my stats). My words are offered as a "public service" for anyone who may enjoy or learn something from them.
I do read every comment that is posted, even if I don't reply to it. I take no offense at people who disagree with me. They are certainly entitled to do so, but I hope they also realize that irrational or gut-based arguments are unlikely to make any impression, much less change my mind. (For example, if your opinion is that I am an unsophisticated bigot, well, I've been called that (and worse) to no effect. You'd be wasting your keystrokes by telling me again.) This shouldn't surprise anyone, since I would expect that same attitude from anyone who speaks from conviction.
If someone is excessively perturbed by what he reads here, I would be puzzled if he kept returning to torture himself.
If someone leaves provocative comments just to "bait" me for his own or his friends' amusement, I would hope he'd soon tire of wasting his wit on someone who just doesn't "get it."
If someone comes here looking for originality or novelty, he'd better just keep walking--he won't find that here. I feel it's better to be right than original. (Of course I mean these are just my own opinions & I don't claim to be absolutely right (aligned with truth) in and of myself. I am not the standard of truth. I only try to pass on any fragments of truth I may have gleaned from elsewhere. I leave you, the reader, to be your own judge.)
Sorry, I know I tend toward verbosity. I just don't want to leave any stones unturned. If this "clarification" has only had the opposite effect, I guess I'll just apologize again and leave it at that.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Happy Saint Patrick's Day
from the Green Flash.
Please pray for Terri Schiavo, her parents, her estranged husband and the judge who is deciding her case.
Please pray for Terri Schiavo, her parents, her estranged husband and the judge who is deciding her case.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Why I am a Catholic (Part 3)
What is faith?
Faith n.
"1. allegiance to duty or a person; loyalty. 2. belief & trust in God. 3. confidence. 4. a system of religious beliefs." --The Merriam-Webster [pocket] Dictionary, 1974
"1. confidence or trust in a person or thing. 2. belief that is not based on proof. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, or the occurrence of a future event. 5. a system of religious belief: the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: to act in good faith. 8. Christian Theol. the trust in God and in his promises as made by Christ and the Scriptures by which man is justified or saved. --Syn. 5. doctrine, tenet, creed, dogma, persuasion, religion. --Ant. 1, 2. distrust, skepticism." --The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition, 1980
"The acceptance of the word of another, trusting that one knows what the other is saying and is honest in telling the truth. The basic motive of all faith is the authority (or right to be believed) of someone who is speaking. This authority is an adequate knowledge of what he or she is talking about, and integrity in not wanting to deceive. It is called divine faith when the one believed is God, and human faith when the persons believed are human beings." --Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, Doubleday & Co. 1980
"Faith is 'the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen' (Heb 11:1). It is an act of the understanding and a Divinely infused virtue whereby we accept as true all that God has revealed, because He has revealed it. The matter of faith is what God has revealed and through His Church teaches us to believe. The motive is the truthfulness of God. Faith is necessary for salvation.
"It is not enough, however, to hold as true the truths of faith. For faith to be complete, its teachings must bring us into a more personal relationship with God. In other words, we must live according to what we believe. Every religious truth should bind us more closely to God. Faith then becomes our response to God's call to follow Him.
"In this connection, the Liturgy is the most complete and most perfect expression of faith, for it is the active adherence of the ecclesial community to the God of the Covenant.
"Thus Christian faith us faith in the redeeming love of God, in the Divine and eternal life of human beings, in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus Christ the Savior. Faith is the encounter of Jesus in the Church and the Liturgy. Belief in Christ means practicing the Liturgy. Faith has need of the Liturgy because it is in the Liturgy that Christ comes to us.
"By the same token, the Liturgy has need of faith; it is for believers. It celebrates faith. 'Christian worship...is a work which proceeds from faith and is based on it' (Code of Canon Law (1983) Can. 836).
"Faith also refers to the set of beliefs, the Divinely revealed truths. As such, the Faith vitalizes and directs the Liturgy, while in return the Liturgy avows and bears witness to the Faith." --Dictionary of the Liturgy by Rev. Jovian P. Lang, OFM, Catholic Book Publishing Co. 1989.
--------------------
Even newborn infants instinctively have a kind of faith that they will be taken care of (fed, kept warm and comfortable) until and unless they begin to be ill-treated (neglected, left hungry, dirty and uncomfortable, slapped or otherwise mishandled). They want to trust that their parents will take care of their needs, and that their environment will not harm them. They generally will maintain this initial trust unless a series of events (it usually takes several, not just 1 or 2) leads them to believe that things are substantially changed. For the first few years, this trust (or lack thereof) forms the foundation of the temperment/disposition/personality that they will likely retain (with slight modifications) throughout their lives.
This describes human faith in very broad and general terms.
As we grow through the several stages of maturity, we see, hear & read all kinds of things. Since it is not possible to experience everything directly (firsthand), we gradually learn to accept as valid things other people tell us, but which we haven't actually experienced ourselves. We also learn over time to recognize that some sources of information are more worthy of trust than others. This most often happens if & when we see others operating from selfish motives and not out of love or concern for us personally or the truth in general. We rightly suspect that such a one is untrustworthy as a source of reliable information. We decide where and in whom we will place our trust (faith). We choose to believe some sources of information and not others.
God's Family
I count it my good fortune to have been born into a strong Catholic family (so I didn't have far to look before finding the truth). Over the years, I have heard about God and His infinite love for me (and for everyone) from people and sources I trust. Everything I have experienced (so far) about God and His action in my life and in the world is consistent with what I have been taught (that's why I trust it). I have heard just about all the arguments there are against the Catholic faith. (I say this because it's been many years since I've heard a new one--although I recognize the theoretical posibility of there being one or more out there that I haven't heard yet.) Upon careful investigation I find that none of them hold water. The Catholic Church teaches the most consistent, most unified system for understanding the universe, both visible (material) and invisible (spiritual), and I remain confident that it can withstand any challenge ("the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18)). The Church doesn't teach science or mathematics, of course, but recognizes that everything that is true comes from God and ultimately points toward God, so natural reason and supernatural faith--properly understood and applied--can never be in conflict, but rather assist and support one another. God is truth itself.
Catholic doctrine (the deposit of faith), like our Lord's tunic for which His executioners cast lots (John 19:23-24), is a seamless whole. You can't remove a single teaching without doing violence to all the rest. Each doctrine is interrelated to all the rest. The Trinity, the Eucharist, obedience to one's parents, charity toward others, sexual morality (all of it), the historicity of the gospel accounts, baptism and the other sacraments, the papacy, purgatory, heaven & hell, angels (both the good and the bad), the Blessed Virgin Mary & the communion of saints, bearing suffering graciously with the crucified Christ, trusting in God's providence, sacrificing oneself for others, etc., etc. They are all different facets of a beautiful, unified whole.
Once you recognize this and no longer view its various doctrines as a random and eclectic mess, you'll understand that the Church isn't just another human institution (with merely human rules and restrictions) but is in fact the family of God. Now, every family must have rules. An essential part of familial love is obedience to those rules ("If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15)). Any parent can attest to this fact. A good parent commands ultimately out of love for his children, and God infinitely more so. I trust God's word for the same reason that I trusted my own earthly father (may God rest his soul): I recognize that He loves me (but infinitely more than my own father did/does), and that I can do no better than to love Him in return. I am an (adopted) child of God. My Father is the King of the universe and I am (therefore) royalty.
I am a Catholic because I rest in the love of God.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
+/- II
(Positive or Negative, part 2)
In part 1, I attempted to demonstrate that most things (objects, actions, concepts) have some kind of objective character which is independent of how any one of us may feel about them. (I said most things. There are some things, I'm sure, which could best be characterized subjectively--based on our personal feelings, which of course vary from one individual to another. However, it is NOT my intention to discuss those things--whatever they are--at this time.)
I also tried to show how people tend to "label" (identify in some fashion) & "categorize" (sort) the experiences they have and the people & things they encounter--at the very least as to whether they like, dislike or are indifferent to someone/something. (This is not the same thing as "judging" someone in the sense of determining the final state of another's soul, something we reserve to God alone.) This process is very basic and necessary for memory and reason to function at all, not to mention communication.
We must first mentally identify and sort things in order to "file them away" in our short term (& eventually long term) memories in order to process the information that those things represent so we can make sense out of the world around us. And we have to "coordinate" this process (to a greater or lesser degree) with others in order to communicate with them. (If there is no commonality of understanding about certain basic images/words/experiences between Joe's mind and Sue's mind, Joe and Sue cannot communicate.)
The various disciplines within the fields of science, mathematics and language, for example, depend fundamentally on the objective character of things in the universe (and the universe as a whole). If there's nothing solid "out there" (and not just inside my head), then how can we study anything? If "reality" was truly up for grabs, awaiting each individual to define it for himself, nothing could be predicted (like the orbits of planets, local weather patterns or the result of a mathematical equation) and the universe would make no sense. The word truth itself--like everything else--would be meaningless.
(Now it should be admitted that some people do have some trouble making sense out of the world around them, but that's not the fault of the world around them, nor does Mr. X's failure to recognize its objective character take anything away from that character. In other words, reality is still objective even if crazy Mr. X says it isn't and keeps trying to redefine it to suit himself.)
Now we get down to the whole point of this long essay, which is the existence of objective truth. Here are a few examples of things that are objectively true:
2+2=4 (not 5).
Oak trees sprout from acorns, grow into strong trees of a predictable size, shape and structure (given enough sun, moisture and nutrients in the soil) and eventually die, fall over and decay (acorns do not sprout holly bushes or tulips).
There is insufficient breathable oxygen on the surface of the moon to sustain life (if you remove your helmet on the moon you will die very quickly).
Household current is useful for running refrigerators and hair dryers, but can be lethal if misused (don't drop a plug-in radio into bathwater or someone may die).
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
A large amount of arsenic is not fit for human consumption (if you eat it you could die a painful death).
It is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being (that's called murder).
Human embryos and fetuses are innocent (they've done nothing wrong) and they are human beings (they are not fish or dogs, even if superficial visual similarities may exist).
The sole function of the anus is the elimination of the solid waste of digestion (so introducing foreign objects into the rectum for the sake of a thrill, such as pencils, fingers, penises, knives or gerbils, can harm the body).
Sodomy is a very immuno-depressive behavior (those who engage in it regularly will get seriously sick).
Sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will (after a while, one who persists in grave sin begins to call what is evil good and what is good evil, and gradually becomes unable to control his own unruly passions).
Confession is good for the soul (people need to "unburden" themselves to another human being to achieve spiritual healing).
Now, anyone is of course free to deny the truth of any one or all of these statements if he so chooses. But he does so at his own peril, and he shouldn't blame anyone else for his own foolish behavior. A good friend would try to point out (warn) if someone he knew had problems recognizing or conforming to objective truth (reality) and was involved with embarassing, stupid, self-destructive or evil activity.
If I saw someone, for example, following a metaphorical path on which I knew there was a huge pit, I would be sinning against charity if I failed to warn him of the danger. I would not be "judging" him if I shouted over, "hey, buddy, the path you've chosen leads to destruction--you going to fall into a pit!" That person should not get angry with me simply because I tried to warn him of danger. He is free to disregard my warning, but if he falls into the pit anyway, at least it won't be on my head since I knew about the danger and TRIED to warn him of it. (If I am mistaken and there actually IS NO danger, there is no real harm in my well-intentioned warning--one should always be cautious anyway.)
If a thing--anything--is objectively true (+), it cannot at the same time also be false (-). A person may be unwilling or unable to recognize the objective nature of this truth, but it remains true nonetheless. Getting angry and complaining about it changes nothing. A person can be truly happy only by conforming to objective truth.
(On the other hand, if I'm a raving lunatic and everything I've said in this essay is a load of hogwash, getting upset about it won't help either, since I would be (according to that scenario) a raving lunatic and your "reasoning" would be lost on me anyway.)
So (to answer my original question) if a person ever tells you he doesn't believe in anything in particular (e.g. regarding religious faith or human behavior), or that he doesn't accept the notion that truth can be objective, since (he says), "what's true for YOU isn't necessarily true for ME" or "MY truth is different than YOUR truth," he is either lying or doesn't really understand what truth is. This would not be a positive situation. Perhaps he's just being negative.
In part 1, I attempted to demonstrate that most things (objects, actions, concepts) have some kind of objective character which is independent of how any one of us may feel about them. (I said most things. There are some things, I'm sure, which could best be characterized subjectively--based on our personal feelings, which of course vary from one individual to another. However, it is NOT my intention to discuss those things--whatever they are--at this time.)
I also tried to show how people tend to "label" (identify in some fashion) & "categorize" (sort) the experiences they have and the people & things they encounter--at the very least as to whether they like, dislike or are indifferent to someone/something. (This is not the same thing as "judging" someone in the sense of determining the final state of another's soul, something we reserve to God alone.) This process is very basic and necessary for memory and reason to function at all, not to mention communication.
We must first mentally identify and sort things in order to "file them away" in our short term (& eventually long term) memories in order to process the information that those things represent so we can make sense out of the world around us. And we have to "coordinate" this process (to a greater or lesser degree) with others in order to communicate with them. (If there is no commonality of understanding about certain basic images/words/experiences between Joe's mind and Sue's mind, Joe and Sue cannot communicate.)
The various disciplines within the fields of science, mathematics and language, for example, depend fundamentally on the objective character of things in the universe (and the universe as a whole). If there's nothing solid "out there" (and not just inside my head), then how can we study anything? If "reality" was truly up for grabs, awaiting each individual to define it for himself, nothing could be predicted (like the orbits of planets, local weather patterns or the result of a mathematical equation) and the universe would make no sense. The word truth itself--like everything else--would be meaningless.
(Now it should be admitted that some people do have some trouble making sense out of the world around them, but that's not the fault of the world around them, nor does Mr. X's failure to recognize its objective character take anything away from that character. In other words, reality is still objective even if crazy Mr. X says it isn't and keeps trying to redefine it to suit himself.)
Now we get down to the whole point of this long essay, which is the existence of objective truth. Here are a few examples of things that are objectively true:
2+2=4 (not 5).
Oak trees sprout from acorns, grow into strong trees of a predictable size, shape and structure (given enough sun, moisture and nutrients in the soil) and eventually die, fall over and decay (acorns do not sprout holly bushes or tulips).
There is insufficient breathable oxygen on the surface of the moon to sustain life (if you remove your helmet on the moon you will die very quickly).
Household current is useful for running refrigerators and hair dryers, but can be lethal if misused (don't drop a plug-in radio into bathwater or someone may die).
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
A large amount of arsenic is not fit for human consumption (if you eat it you could die a painful death).
It is always and everywhere wrong to intentionally take the life of an innocent human being (that's called murder).
Human embryos and fetuses are innocent (they've done nothing wrong) and they are human beings (they are not fish or dogs, even if superficial visual similarities may exist).
The sole function of the anus is the elimination of the solid waste of digestion (so introducing foreign objects into the rectum for the sake of a thrill, such as pencils, fingers, penises, knives or gerbils, can harm the body).
Sodomy is a very immuno-depressive behavior (those who engage in it regularly will get seriously sick).
Sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will (after a while, one who persists in grave sin begins to call what is evil good and what is good evil, and gradually becomes unable to control his own unruly passions).
Confession is good for the soul (people need to "unburden" themselves to another human being to achieve spiritual healing).
Now, anyone is of course free to deny the truth of any one or all of these statements if he so chooses. But he does so at his own peril, and he shouldn't blame anyone else for his own foolish behavior. A good friend would try to point out (warn) if someone he knew had problems recognizing or conforming to objective truth (reality) and was involved with embarassing, stupid, self-destructive or evil activity.
If I saw someone, for example, following a metaphorical path on which I knew there was a huge pit, I would be sinning against charity if I failed to warn him of the danger. I would not be "judging" him if I shouted over, "hey, buddy, the path you've chosen leads to destruction--you going to fall into a pit!" That person should not get angry with me simply because I tried to warn him of danger. He is free to disregard my warning, but if he falls into the pit anyway, at least it won't be on my head since I knew about the danger and TRIED to warn him of it. (If I am mistaken and there actually IS NO danger, there is no real harm in my well-intentioned warning--one should always be cautious anyway.)
If a thing--anything--is objectively true (+), it cannot at the same time also be false (-). A person may be unwilling or unable to recognize the objective nature of this truth, but it remains true nonetheless. Getting angry and complaining about it changes nothing. A person can be truly happy only by conforming to objective truth.
(On the other hand, if I'm a raving lunatic and everything I've said in this essay is a load of hogwash, getting upset about it won't help either, since I would be (according to that scenario) a raving lunatic and your "reasoning" would be lost on me anyway.)
So (to answer my original question) if a person ever tells you he doesn't believe in anything in particular (e.g. regarding religious faith or human behavior), or that he doesn't accept the notion that truth can be objective, since (he says), "what's true for YOU isn't necessarily true for ME" or "MY truth is different than YOUR truth," he is either lying or doesn't really understand what truth is. This would not be a positive situation. Perhaps he's just being negative.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
+/- I
(Positive or Negative, part 1)
It has been said that everybody believes in something.
It's a truism; it's so obvious, nobody needs to explain it.
Or is it? Are there some people who don't believe in anything?
Background
Everyone, whether he knows it or not, sees the universe as a hierarchy in which some things are considered more important or valuable than others. Material objects and forces are all around him (such as his own body, other people, animals and plants, the sun, moon & stars, warmth, wetness, gravity, electricity) and he recognizes, labels and categorizes everything he sees and feels, whether he is aware of it--or admits it--or not. There are also various intangible ideas and concepts which he understands more or less well: joy, fear, anxiety, love, courage, confusion, trust, compassion, justice, anger,...calculus..., you get the idea. Mental labels (words or pictures) are the basis of thought & language. We give particular names to particular objects, actions & concepts that everyone is expected to generally agree upon. (A catalogue of these names/labels is called a dictionary or lexicon.) Without labels, no one would understand what anyone else was talking about and communication would be impossible.
It has been said that everybody believes in something.
It's a truism; it's so obvious, nobody needs to explain it.
Or is it? Are there some people who don't believe in anything?
Background
Everyone, whether he knows it or not, sees the universe as a hierarchy in which some things are considered more important or valuable than others. Material objects and forces are all around him (such as his own body, other people, animals and plants, the sun, moon & stars, warmth, wetness, gravity, electricity) and he recognizes, labels and categorizes everything he sees and feels, whether he is aware of it--or admits it--or not. There are also various intangible ideas and concepts which he understands more or less well: joy, fear, anxiety, love, courage, confusion, trust, compassion, justice, anger,...calculus..., you get the idea. Mental labels (words or pictures) are the basis of thought & language. We give particular names to particular objects, actions & concepts that everyone is expected to generally agree upon. (A catalogue of these names/labels is called a dictionary or lexicon.) Without labels, no one would understand what anyone else was talking about and communication would be impossible.
There are at least three categories that EVERYONE uses about EVERYTHING: (1) "I like that (it's good);" (2) "I don't like that (it's bad);" and (3) "I don't care about that either way (it's neutral)." Of course there are usually innumerable subtle gradations of value within each of these (such as, "I don't know much about that but I'd like to learn more," or "I think that is weird in a pleasant (or unpleasant) sort of way"). There are also two other categories everyone uses: (4) "that's TRUE (whether I like it or not)" and (5) "that's FALSE (whether I like it or not),"--although not everyone admits to using them. There is a word that describes people who don't use categories AT ALL: they're called "comatose."
This process of categorization involves a faculty of the mind called judgment, and every thinking person uses it. Those who claim not to judge, label or categorize anything actually have an extraordinarily LARGE "I don't care" category and JUDGE that most people and things they encounter go into it. Either that, or they aren't very honest (either with themselves, or others, or both).
We--individually or collectively--are not always accurate in our judgments about things (we are frequently mistaken--e.g. "Just go through that puddle--we can make it ..."), but that doesn't change the objective nature of the thing(s) in question. People who refuse to accept or admit that most things have some kind of objective character that is independent of one's feelings toward them are usually considered "insane" (or disconnected from reality). A person might claim he can "define his own reality," but in reality, he does so at his own peril. (Or perhaps his self-defined "reality" consists merely of a number of outrageous claims that are difficult or bothersome for others to verify one way or the other, so people generally leave him alone, unless he becomes a recognizable danger to himself or others.) For example, if 99 people observe that object X is bright white, hard and rough, and 1 person says the same object (at the same time) is dark blue,soft and musical, the others would rightly judge that there must be "something wrong" either with his perception, judgement, mental process or honesty--and the rest may choose, depending on circumstances, to either "make allowances" for his exceptional claim, or take positive steps to correct it. (This is neither merely a case of majority rule nor a debate about the labels in conventional use, but a consideration of the nature (or objective character) of object X.)
OK, is everybody on the same page?
(To be continued...)
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Why I am a Catholic (Part 2)
The Bible
The Bible is actually not one book, but rather a collection of several books (73 to be exact), a veritable library, which has been gathered together and (usually) put in one cover. But who made this collection, and why were these books included and others excluded?
The Old Testament books (those written before Jesus’ time) were written by (or are at least attributed to) Moses and numerous later members of the ancient Jewish/Hebrew religion (prophets (or their followers), kings or other leaders, and perhaps one or more anonymous writers). They consist of the Hebrew canon of 39 books, which are generally accepted by Jews, Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics alike: (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel, I & II Kings, I & II Chronicles, Ezra (or I Esdras), Nehemiah (or II Esdras), Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (or Canticle of Canticles/Song of Songs), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations (sometimes included in Jeremiah), Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea (or Osee), Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi), and the 7 Deuterocanonical books, which are generally accepted only by Catholics and Orthodox: (Tobit (or Tobias), Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (a.k.a. Ecclesiasticus), Baruch and I & II Maccabees)—these 7 are frequently (but erroneously) called "Apocrypha" by Protestants. All of these 46 books were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Scriptures used and quoted by the Apostles and all of the early Church fathers. They accepted them all as canonical, which is why the Catholic Church does so to this day.
The 27 New Testament books (written after Jesus’ time) were written by some of the 12 Apostles and some of their close collaborators, which are generally accepted by all Christians: (the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Acts (of the Apostles), Romans, I & II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, I & II Peter, I, II & III John, James, Jude and Revelation (or the Apocalypse of St. John)).
Some people (e.g. some, but not all, atheists, agnostics & neo-pagans) dismiss the Bible as "myth," fanciful stories made up, they claim, by various primitive peoples to explain the unknown, or for other, perhaps political, reasons. They can't be historical (they say), they contain such far-fetched things, "miracles" and such—just like the magic one encounters in ancient Greek mythology!
The books of the Old Testament are written in various genres, just like the variety of books one finds in a modern library. There are books of history, poetry, "wisdom" literature (e.g. Proverbs), even what we today might call "historical fiction," and perhaps a few styles we are unfamiliar with today. These differing styles of writing were all common and readily recognizable in the time in which they were composed. The trick in modern Biblical exegesis (interpretation) is knowing which book (or portion of a book) belongs in which category. For example, the deuterocanonical book of Judith appears on the surface to be straight history, but in all likelihood, is actually an elaborate parable, an allegory (symbolic "historical fiction"). The historical works, while they cannot compare to our modern standards of historical documentation, compare quite favorably with other non-religious ancient works in establishing the historical record. Frequently their claims are ("Surprise!") verified through modern archeology (e.g. the modern discovery of the Hittite race). Prophetic works are verified through the historical fulfillment of the prophetic utterances. And so on.
The historical books of the New Testament (the 4 Gospels and Acts) also measure up as good history when compared to contemporary examples, such as the works of Josephus and Tacitus. They place the events they recount within the framework of history by references to various rulers and other contemporary persons and events recognizable by the original readers/hearers (and in large part verifiable today by archeological and other secular documentary evidence), and by conscientious reliance on eyewitnesses. The letters (epistles) also fall nicely into the contemporary historical context. None of this can be said of Greek or Nordic mythology. There is no compelling reason not to accept them as authentic and reliable.
EXCEPT for all those miracles (and the bad science).
Well, the Bible makes no claim about teaching science. The events it describes which some people sometimes try to interpret as science are descriptions of real events as they appeared to the people who witnessed them. The creation accounts in Genesis 1 & 2 were passed on through oral tradition perhaps over several thousands of years before writing was even invented. We might call them "folktales" that describe essential truths about God and our relationship to Him (that He created the universe out of *nothing* by a pure act of will, we are His creatures, He created us not out of necessity, but out of love, and owe Him worship as the creator). They can still be accepted as true, but in a philosophical or allegorical sense rather than a strictly scientific (empirical) sense.
My guess is that people who reject the accounts of miraculous events described in the Bible do so simply because they deny the possibility of miracles at all. To their way of thinking, a claim in favor of a miracle must be made up fantasy or delusion, because (by their definition) miracles do not exist and cannot happen, period. "Since miracles do not occur in the natural course of events, and I admit only natural events (thus eliminating anything 'supernatural'), miracles cannot exist or occur, by definition." Those who deny the existence of miracles must not have witnessed one. But many other people have witnessed miracles (verified by the scientific community as having no natural explanation) and have come to believe as a result. Examples are the numerous miraculous cures documented in the files of the medical bureau at Lourdes, France; the eucharistic miracle at Lanciano, Italy (the host (bread) that visibly changed into bleeding human flesh at the consecration--and remains preserved to this day); the miracle of the sun that was witnessed by many thousands of people--and was reported in the secular newspapers at the time--on Oct. 13, 1917 in Fatima, Portugal; the incorruptable (not mummified, but fresh) bodies of several saints who've been dead hundreds of years; and innumerable less publicized (but no less authentic) miracles that occur periodically right up our own time.
Believers agree that a miracle requires a special intervention by a supernatural power (God) in natural events. That’s what it means to be a miracle. The only difference is that believers accept the existence of God and the possibility of His intervention, and non-believers don’t. (I’ll get into reasons for faith/belief in later installments.)
So I (and other believers) accept the Bible as a reliable document and use it as a rule of faith. As I said above, the Apostles and their disciples used the Septuagint version of the Old Testament scriptures. (Greek was the lingua franca of the whole Mediterranean world, including Palestine. The Jews spoke Aramaic and Hebrew amongst themselves but communicated with others (like the Romans and other foreigners) in Greek.) From the Septuagint they taught that the man Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of all the messianic prophecies. Jesus claimed at various times and places that He was God (John 8:53-59; 10:30-38; etc.). In fact, this is the very reason the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Him and turned Him over to the Romans for crucifixion (Mark 14:61-64, 15:1).
He demonstrated through his miracles and His teaching that he had power from God, and when He raised Himself from the dead, he demonstrated that He WAS God. Was His resurrection simply an elaborate hoax as many have claimed throughout history? His followers believed in Him and gave their lives for this faith. Men may go a long way in promoting a hoax, but how many are willing to DIE for a hoax? But the first several generations of Christians happily died in the numerous periods of intense persecution as a result of their faith in Jesus Christ. They believed, and I believe on the word of their testimony.
Jesus established a church (Matt. 16:18) and gave it authority to teach and work miracles (to demonstrate their divine authority) in His name (i.e. with His own authority as God) (Luke 10:1, 9, 16, 17; Matt. ch. 10; 28:18-20). But Jesus did not write a word of scripture. As I said in Part 1, Jesus' teaching authority and power continues to this day through His Mystical Body, the Church (I Cor. 12:27) which He established for this purpose. With the exception of the visions recorded in Revelation, Jesus never told anyone to write anything. The New Testament scriptures were written by the authority of this Church and were derived fron its existing oral tradition. The authority of the New Testament rests on the authority of the Church, not the other way around. (Cf. I Tim. 3:15—it is the Church, not scripture, that is the pillar and foundation of the truth; I Thes. 2:13—the oral preaching of the Apostles, not only written scripture, is the word of God.) It was the bishops of the Church that determined which books were to be included in the canon of scripture. Some of the books we accept today were disputed well into the 3rd century, e.g. III John and Revelation—and there were many other disputed books that never "made the cut." Anyone who accepts the inspiration and authority of the Bible at all, receives it on the authority of the Catholic Church alone.
For this reason, the Bible cannot be the sole rule of faith for Christians. Along with the written scriptures there must also be the oral Apostolic Tradition to which the scriptures themselves give witness (John 21:25; I Thes 2:13; II Thes 3:15; III John 13-14) and the Magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, which guarantees their proper interpretation. These three support each other like the legs of a milking stool. If you take any one of them away, the other two must fall.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Why I am a Catholic (Part 1)
The short answer is that I am convinced that Catholicism is TRUE.
I am, of course, aware that many people dispute this (even many who call themselves Catholics). (I hope everyone who does dispute it leaves a comment so I can address each one--there is an answer for every question.)
Let's explore some of the claims of the Catholic Church.
First of all, one must remember that Catholicism is NOT just another Christian denomination. Denominationalism started when groups started breaking away from the Catholic Church. This is not mere opinion, but historical fact. Anyone who accepts the New Testament and believes that Jesus was the Son of God ought to recognize that He intended to, and indeed DID, found a church, the one true church. He founded it on the 12 Apostles with Peter ("Rock") as their head (Matt 16:16-19).
A thumbnail sketch of Christian history
Originally, and for a few generations after the first Christian Pentecost (Acts ch. 2), those who believed in Jesus remained a sect within Judaism. (Gradually over many years, they grew more and more distinct from other Jewish sects, and eventually the "official" Jewish leadership expelled them from the synagogue and they became a separate religion.) Over the years this one group of Jesus' followers (or disciples) spread outward from Jerusalem, and in various places came to be known by various names. Some people called them Nazarenes because they followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. In Antioch (in present day southern Turkey), they were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).
The Apostles traveled from city to city and taught the people about Christ and many converted from Judaism and paganism by their oral preaching, and were baptized. The Apostles would frequently train and ordain men to lead these local congregations. (These men were called episcopoi (bishops, or overseers) and presbyteroi (priests, or elders).)
Here and there, a number of errors began to be taught by some of these local leaders. The first big error was taught by the Judaizers, who held that all Christians had to keep observing all the minutiae of the Law of Moses. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35) was called to deal with this question, and many of the letters in the New Testament deal with it extensively.
For the first couple of decades, all teaching was in the form of oral preaching. Nothing that appears in what we today call the New Testament was penned for at least 10 years after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. No one followed Jesus or the Apostles around taking notes (their memories were much better in those days than ours are today because they didn't have the luxury of cheap books and common literacy--they HAD to remember what they heard). And, as I said, the Apostles would appoint leaders in the towns and cities wherever they went (1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6) and instructed them to pass this same apostolic teaching and authority on to other men, faithfully and in its entirety (2 Tim 2:2; Titus 1:5).
Eventually all the Apostles died, but their teaching and authority lived on in the persons of the bishops they appointed (Catholics today refer to this as "apostolic succession"). Whenever doctrinal disputes arose, the bishops within the affected area would come together in synods or councils and discuss the matter and sift through the issue to separate what the Apostles actually taught from the novel and erroneous teaching. (This wasn't always easy, since often the dispute wasn't necessarily one of outright error, but might have been just new ways of expressing true apostolic teaching. The bishops' job was to figure this out, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit according to the promise of Christ (John 15:13) and to declare the truth.)
Some errors refused to go away, however. People frequently decided they knew better than the bishops, forgetting that only the bishops (as a body or "college," not individually) had the apostolic authority to declare the true apostolic doctrine. So they went off in their own groups, and their false teachings were known as "heresies," many of which persist in one form or another to this day.
By the end of the First Century (certainly by A.D. 107 or 110 when Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote his letter to the Smyrnaeans) it was apparently common to distinguish between the Christians that followed the bishops' (i.e. apostolic) teaching, and the various groups of "heretics" (those who "take out") by the word "catholic" ("of the whole," or universal). This same apostolic teaching is preserved to our own day in the one Catholic Church.
Next installment: The Bible
Some "lost" comments have been found!
Someone saved a copy of 14 of the comments that were posted on the old template (before they were deleted) and sent them to me. They were comments on the November 20th post (on same-sex "marriage"). I have now reproduced them in the comment box under that post [with a few minor editorial changes--order of some comments, corrected typos, etc.].
If anyone has similar records of any of the other comments (or can remember any of them) please e-mail them to me and I will restore them (or you can just post them yourself). Or post new ones.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
"You call that an argument?"
(...or a funny thing happened on the way to the conclusion)
"...That's not a real argument! Why, the source of your premise that the sky is blue also said the earth is flat and the stars revolve on glass spheres! Hubble proved Socrates was wrong and Darwin was right long ago, and there's no turning back the clock, you idiot. And I happen to know that the source of your claim that light refracts through a prism ate over 16 eggs and smoked 5 cigars a week (and you can't deny it), so you know his cholesterol was way out of whack! And besides, your tie clashes with your suit! Who dressed you this morning? What you should do is go to this little shop down in Greenwich Village, called Straight Lines for Crossed Eyes--they make the sweetest little things that could make even you look good. And besides, my car is much faster than your's, and I'll bet you don't even donate to Planned Parenthood. (What kind of a snob are you!?) And if your people in Congress really cared about 'the little people,' money wouldn't be a problem and Greenspan would be out on the street! It's those selfish, greedy fat-cats in big hotels who think everybody else is worthless just because their idea of fun is a little different! And you're the same way! It's NOT MY FAULT!! You have no idea how much it hurt when my dad took away the keys when I was seventeen. He had NO RIGHT! And neither do you! You pompous ass! You can't possibly know what you're talking about!! Case closed ... I WIN! (You know, you really should have done your homework before you tried to tangle with the likes of me.)"
(Any resemblence between this diatribe and a REAL rebuttal is purely coincidental.)
Monday, December 13, 2004
Logical Fallacies (non sequiturs) (partial list)
I. Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Begging the question (petitio principii): to employ circular reasoning by using one's conclusion (in a disguised form) as a premise.
2. Complex or Leading Question: a question that is phrased in such a way that it cannot be answered without granting some particular answer to some point at issue. (E.g. "Are you still beating your wife?")
3. Accident (fallacia accidentis): improperly applying a generalization or general principle to a particular instance. This is the opposite of the hasty or sweeping generalization (see II., 3, below).
4. Continuum or "Argument of the Beard" (as in, "exactly how many whiskers must a man have before he can be said to have a beard?"): an attempt to establish that the existence of a gradual continuum between extremes is proof against any real difference between them, because there is no absolute dividing line.
5. Bad Analogy: an attempt to equate two things when only a superficial similarity exists. This is refutable by reductio ad absurdum (reducing the analogy to a patent absurdity merely by extending the line of reasoning).
6. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): to infer causality from mere temporal priority. (Just because one event happened before another does not mean that the first event caused the second one.)
7. Composition: an argument that a property which is affirmed or denied of every part of some whole must also be affirmed or denied of the whole. (E.g. the affirmation that since all members of the Catholic Church (on earth) are sinners, therefore the Catholic Church is sinful is a fallacy of composition. The truth is that the Church, being the Bride of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ, is a sinless society by the promise of Christ and the agency of the Holy Spirit, despite the fact that all her members remain sinners.)
8. Division: the opposite of composition; an argument that a property which is affirmed or denied of a whole must also be affirmed or denied of each of its constituent parts. (E.g. it is fallacious to affirm that, since the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals, each one of Her members must also be likewise personally infallible. This fallacy is employed by the "We Are Church" crowd.)
9. Equivocation (equivocatio or homonymia): playing upon the double meaning of a term in a misleading or erroneous fashion.
10. Amphiboly: A sentence with a built-in ambiguity due to its peculiar structure is said to be amphibolous. The fallacy of amphiboly is committed when the amphibolous structure of a sentence is played upon in a misleading or erroneous fashion.
11. Accent: Sometimes a sentence takes on different meanings as it is accented in different ways. The fallacy of accent is committed when a false or misleading inference is made from a sentence which is improperly accented (i.e. some of its terms are unnecessarily stressed) when the same sentence, when properly accented, is perfectly true and clear.
II. Irrelevant Appeals
Aristotle identified fallacies that were committed by people who were ignorant of the question at issue. These fallacies are classified in general as ignorantio elenchi, ignorant refutations, that is to say, the person committing them either proves the wrong point or he arrives at his conclusion by a set of premises irrelevant to the point at issue, or both. With the exception of the hasty generalization, these are informal fallacies, i.e. they do not necessarily involve a formal mistake in logic, they are merely irrelevant.
1. Abusing the Man (argumentum ad hominem, arguing to the man; as opposed to arguing ad rem, to the point): there are at least four basic types:
a. Name-calling
b. "Let's-play-amateur-psychoanalyst" (calling into question the opponent's mental health)
c. Casting aspersions on the opponent's moral character
d. Poisoning the wells (an attempt to discredit the opponent absolutely, to destroy his reliability for anything in the eyes of the audience).
2. Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people or popular sentiments): there are three main types:
a. Argumentum ad captandum vulgas (appeal to the emotions of the crowd)
b. Argumentum ad invidium (appeal to the prejudices of one's audience)
c. Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to the pity or sympathy of one's audience)
3. Hasty (or Sweeping) Generalization: This is committed when, after observing that a small number or a special sort of the members of some group have some property, it is then inferred that the whole group has this property. One must not draw unnecessary conclusions or make a judgment about a large population on the basis of an observation of certain members of that population who have very special positions or functions or who happen to be in extraordinary or atypical situations.
4. Shifting the Burden of Proof: The burden of proof properly rests on the proponent, the one making the assertion; the opponent has no obligation to disprove the assertion or to prove the contrary. The proponent commits a logical error if he tries to force the opponent to prove the assertion to be false when he has not adequately proven it to be true.
5. Special Pleading: citing only those facts which seem to support one's position while avoiding those which seem to undermine it. Logic requires a proponent to consider all of the pertinent facts. Special pleading misrepresents the proponent's case by excluding any facts which might damage it.
6. Red Herring: an attempt to divert attention away from the topic at hand by bringing up side-issues or subtly changing the subject altogether.
7. Straw Man: This is a misrepresentation--a caricature--of one's opponent's position, which the proponent sets up so as to easily knock it down. Since a straw man is not an accurate statement of the opponent's position, what the proponent is actually attacking is not the true position at all, but a figment of his own imagination.
8. False Antithesis, Faulty Dilemma or False Dichotomy: assuming two options to be opposite and/or mutually exclusive when such might not actually be the case. There may be more than two options and/or they may not be opposed to each other, but rather complementary aspects of a unified truth. This fallacy is the flip-side of the "argument of the beard" (continuum). Both demand an absolute division between positions which may not in fact exist.
9. Argumentum ad ignorantiam (appealing to the ignorance of the opponent or audience): basing one's argument on some field of expertise of which one presumes the opponent or audience is ignorant--very dangerous if the proponent is himself ignorant of it.
10. Misuse of Authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument to modesty or bashfulness-because the proponent is attempting to hide behind some authority rather than letting his own reasoning or evidence stand subject to evaluation or scrutiny): This fallacy is related to the argumentum ad ignorantiam. One must first understand the nature and use of authority and its overall context, as well as the limitations of any single authority, or the attempt to use it may backfire in fallacy.
11. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad baculum): This is committed when a proponent attempts to sway an opponent to accept his view by applying some real or imagined threat of force or violence. Although the appeal to force is, logically speaking, irrelevant, it is often persuasive nonetheless.
12. Cliché Thinking: "the lazy man's guide to truth;" clichés and truisms, however convenient and appropriate in casual discourse, cannot substitute for sound reasoning and must not be the basis of one's argument or point of view.
13. Chronological Snobbery: to imply in one's argument that an idea that is old is therefore no longer true; a basis for the heresy called "Modernism."
14. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: to base one's argument on a hypothetical situation, "what might have been." "If only…" and "what if…" statements cannot serve as valid premises.
1. Begging the question (petitio principii): to employ circular reasoning by using one's conclusion (in a disguised form) as a premise.
2. Complex or Leading Question: a question that is phrased in such a way that it cannot be answered without granting some particular answer to some point at issue. (E.g. "Are you still beating your wife?")
3. Accident (fallacia accidentis): improperly applying a generalization or general principle to a particular instance. This is the opposite of the hasty or sweeping generalization (see II., 3, below).
4. Continuum or "Argument of the Beard" (as in, "exactly how many whiskers must a man have before he can be said to have a beard?"): an attempt to establish that the existence of a gradual continuum between extremes is proof against any real difference between them, because there is no absolute dividing line.
5. Bad Analogy: an attempt to equate two things when only a superficial similarity exists. This is refutable by reductio ad absurdum (reducing the analogy to a patent absurdity merely by extending the line of reasoning).
6. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): to infer causality from mere temporal priority. (Just because one event happened before another does not mean that the first event caused the second one.)
7. Composition: an argument that a property which is affirmed or denied of every part of some whole must also be affirmed or denied of the whole. (E.g. the affirmation that since all members of the Catholic Church (on earth) are sinners, therefore the Catholic Church is sinful is a fallacy of composition. The truth is that the Church, being the Bride of Christ and the Mystical Body of Christ, is a sinless society by the promise of Christ and the agency of the Holy Spirit, despite the fact that all her members remain sinners.)
8. Division: the opposite of composition; an argument that a property which is affirmed or denied of a whole must also be affirmed or denied of each of its constituent parts. (E.g. it is fallacious to affirm that, since the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals, each one of Her members must also be likewise personally infallible. This fallacy is employed by the "We Are Church" crowd.)
9. Equivocation (equivocatio or homonymia): playing upon the double meaning of a term in a misleading or erroneous fashion.
10. Amphiboly: A sentence with a built-in ambiguity due to its peculiar structure is said to be amphibolous. The fallacy of amphiboly is committed when the amphibolous structure of a sentence is played upon in a misleading or erroneous fashion.
11. Accent: Sometimes a sentence takes on different meanings as it is accented in different ways. The fallacy of accent is committed when a false or misleading inference is made from a sentence which is improperly accented (i.e. some of its terms are unnecessarily stressed) when the same sentence, when properly accented, is perfectly true and clear.
II. Irrelevant Appeals
Aristotle identified fallacies that were committed by people who were ignorant of the question at issue. These fallacies are classified in general as ignorantio elenchi, ignorant refutations, that is to say, the person committing them either proves the wrong point or he arrives at his conclusion by a set of premises irrelevant to the point at issue, or both. With the exception of the hasty generalization, these are informal fallacies, i.e. they do not necessarily involve a formal mistake in logic, they are merely irrelevant.
1. Abusing the Man (argumentum ad hominem, arguing to the man; as opposed to arguing ad rem, to the point): there are at least four basic types:
a. Name-calling
b. "Let's-play-amateur-psychoanalyst" (calling into question the opponent's mental health)
c. Casting aspersions on the opponent's moral character
d. Poisoning the wells (an attempt to discredit the opponent absolutely, to destroy his reliability for anything in the eyes of the audience).
2. Argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people or popular sentiments): there are three main types:
a. Argumentum ad captandum vulgas (appeal to the emotions of the crowd)
b. Argumentum ad invidium (appeal to the prejudices of one's audience)
c. Argumentum ad misericordiam (appeal to the pity or sympathy of one's audience)
3. Hasty (or Sweeping) Generalization: This is committed when, after observing that a small number or a special sort of the members of some group have some property, it is then inferred that the whole group has this property. One must not draw unnecessary conclusions or make a judgment about a large population on the basis of an observation of certain members of that population who have very special positions or functions or who happen to be in extraordinary or atypical situations.
4. Shifting the Burden of Proof: The burden of proof properly rests on the proponent, the one making the assertion; the opponent has no obligation to disprove the assertion or to prove the contrary. The proponent commits a logical error if he tries to force the opponent to prove the assertion to be false when he has not adequately proven it to be true.
5. Special Pleading: citing only those facts which seem to support one's position while avoiding those which seem to undermine it. Logic requires a proponent to consider all of the pertinent facts. Special pleading misrepresents the proponent's case by excluding any facts which might damage it.
6. Red Herring: an attempt to divert attention away from the topic at hand by bringing up side-issues or subtly changing the subject altogether.
7. Straw Man: This is a misrepresentation--a caricature--of one's opponent's position, which the proponent sets up so as to easily knock it down. Since a straw man is not an accurate statement of the opponent's position, what the proponent is actually attacking is not the true position at all, but a figment of his own imagination.
8. False Antithesis, Faulty Dilemma or False Dichotomy: assuming two options to be opposite and/or mutually exclusive when such might not actually be the case. There may be more than two options and/or they may not be opposed to each other, but rather complementary aspects of a unified truth. This fallacy is the flip-side of the "argument of the beard" (continuum). Both demand an absolute division between positions which may not in fact exist.
9. Argumentum ad ignorantiam (appealing to the ignorance of the opponent or audience): basing one's argument on some field of expertise of which one presumes the opponent or audience is ignorant--very dangerous if the proponent is himself ignorant of it.
10. Misuse of Authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam (argument to modesty or bashfulness-because the proponent is attempting to hide behind some authority rather than letting his own reasoning or evidence stand subject to evaluation or scrutiny): This fallacy is related to the argumentum ad ignorantiam. One must first understand the nature and use of authority and its overall context, as well as the limitations of any single authority, or the attempt to use it may backfire in fallacy.
11. Appeal to Force (Argumentum ad baculum): This is committed when a proponent attempts to sway an opponent to accept his view by applying some real or imagined threat of force or violence. Although the appeal to force is, logically speaking, irrelevant, it is often persuasive nonetheless.
12. Cliché Thinking: "the lazy man's guide to truth;" clichés and truisms, however convenient and appropriate in casual discourse, cannot substitute for sound reasoning and must not be the basis of one's argument or point of view.
13. Chronological Snobbery: to imply in one's argument that an idea that is old is therefore no longer true; a basis for the heresy called "Modernism."
14. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: to base one's argument on a hypothetical situation, "what might have been." "If only…" and "what if…" statements cannot serve as valid premises.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Why would I want to read Gödel?
Kurt Gödel (1906-1978) was a brilliant logician/mathemetician, no question about it. But unless I was a mathematics graduate student, engineer or professor (which I'm not), I can't see myself being absorbed in his writings. My occupation, hobbies, personal interests, none of these are related to the field of mathematics. I nevertheless understand logic and how to use it. Logic is basically the rules for clear reasoning. I appreciate Gödel's contributions in the area of logic. I can follow a logical argument and can recognize a number of logical fallacies. My fundamental interests however are mainly directed toward getting myself to heaven (i.e., eternal life with God) and helping my family (and as many other people as I can) to get there too.
Some people (of self-described atheist, agnostic or pagan persuasion) have recently posted comments on other blogs (e.g., bloghogger) contrasting Gödel with Thomas Aquinas, saying "I'd take Gödel over Aquinas any day." True, they both deal in "proofs," but their subject matter is of an entirely different order. It's like comparing apples with oranges (or apples with angels). Is that logical? I can understand someone preferring Gödel's theorems and proofs over Aquinas'. The objects of Gödel's proofs (impersonal propositions and equations) make no claims on our lives as persons. They don't tell us how we are to behave. However the object of Aquinas' proofs (God) certainly does make such claims, claims that require a committed response on our part. We can choose to avoid this commitment (in this life), but it becomes unavoidable in the afterlife. (For now, I have no intention to attempt to "prove" that there is an afterlife. Let's save that for another time, shall we?)
Unfortunately, the place where we will be "committed" in eternity must be freely decided (by us) in the time we have on earth. Those people who avoid making the choice in this life (i.e., those who choose not to commit themselves to the love of God), ipso facto choose eternity without Him. That's what Christians mean by "hell"--eternity without God. God does not force Himself on us, requiring us to choose Him instead, and these are our only alternatives: God or no-God.
Of course, God cannot be "proven" logically (in a mathematical sense). He cannot be reduced to an equation, nor is He an experiment that can be viewed under a microscope. He is in no way material and cannot be analyzed by material creatures throught material means. Since He is pure spirit, in order to know Him you have to accept His invitation and open yourself up to Him spiritually.
It should be equally obvious that God's mercy and action are beyond any of us to observe, much less understand. That's why the Church is competent to declare someone to be in heaven with God, but never pronounces that anyone is in hell. Not Judas, not Hitler, not Stalin, not Mao, no one. And Christians must always resist the temptation to presume to judge the condition or status of any other soul but our own. But this in no way exempts us from the responsibility (or commission) to preach the gospel to every creature (always with our actions, sometimes with our words).
Gödel no doubt said many brilliant things about how a logical argument is technically constructed, but that, by itself, won't help me get to heaven. I feel my time would be better spent in other pursuits.
Some people (of self-described atheist, agnostic or pagan persuasion) have recently posted comments on other blogs (e.g., bloghogger) contrasting Gödel with Thomas Aquinas, saying "I'd take Gödel over Aquinas any day." True, they both deal in "proofs," but their subject matter is of an entirely different order. It's like comparing apples with oranges (or apples with angels). Is that logical? I can understand someone preferring Gödel's theorems and proofs over Aquinas'. The objects of Gödel's proofs (impersonal propositions and equations) make no claims on our lives as persons. They don't tell us how we are to behave. However the object of Aquinas' proofs (God) certainly does make such claims, claims that require a committed response on our part. We can choose to avoid this commitment (in this life), but it becomes unavoidable in the afterlife. (For now, I have no intention to attempt to "prove" that there is an afterlife. Let's save that for another time, shall we?)
Unfortunately, the place where we will be "committed" in eternity must be freely decided (by us) in the time we have on earth. Those people who avoid making the choice in this life (i.e., those who choose not to commit themselves to the love of God), ipso facto choose eternity without Him. That's what Christians mean by "hell"--eternity without God. God does not force Himself on us, requiring us to choose Him instead, and these are our only alternatives: God or no-God.
Of course, God cannot be "proven" logically (in a mathematical sense). He cannot be reduced to an equation, nor is He an experiment that can be viewed under a microscope. He is in no way material and cannot be analyzed by material creatures throught material means. Since He is pure spirit, in order to know Him you have to accept His invitation and open yourself up to Him spiritually.
It should be equally obvious that God's mercy and action are beyond any of us to observe, much less understand. That's why the Church is competent to declare someone to be in heaven with God, but never pronounces that anyone is in hell. Not Judas, not Hitler, not Stalin, not Mao, no one. And Christians must always resist the temptation to presume to judge the condition or status of any other soul but our own. But this in no way exempts us from the responsibility (or commission) to preach the gospel to every creature (always with our actions, sometimes with our words).
Gödel no doubt said many brilliant things about how a logical argument is technically constructed, but that, by itself, won't help me get to heaven. I feel my time would be better spent in other pursuits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)