Academia Nuts, cont'd
The following definitions are taken from the Mirriam-Webster College Dictionary:
Worry - a)Mental distress or agitation resulting from concern usually for something impending or anticipated: anxiety b) an instance or occurance of such distress or agitation.
think - from (L) tongere - to exercise the powers of judgment, conception or inference: reason, 2a) to have the mind engaged in reflection.
Please keep these in mind while reading the following post..
Dr. Susan Nolen-Hoeksema thinks women think too much. Now, of all the problems we are faced with in society today, the last one I would have suspected was too much thought. Dr. N-H has done a study though. In her study she found that 57% of women and 43% of men are "constantly brooding about a boss' remark, an argument with a spouse or a child's C+ in school. Overthinking can lead to an increased sense of sadness and an inability to solve problems." This quote comes from a story in the Colorado Springs newspaper which apparently takes all of this seriously. However, keeping in mind the definitions above, most of us would call this situation worry, not thinking. Worry, if one takes the dictionary definition seriously is an emotional problem, anxiety, while thought involves the use of the mind -- it involves reason. We are describing two very different situations. One of which is apparently unknown to the good doctor.
But, in modern politically correct terms, it sounds better to say that one is overthinking, rather than that one is over wrought. It sounds better to encourage someone to stop thinking than to tell them that they are likely to pop off the twig from apoplexy brought on by an anxiety attack. You see, we are afraid to call things by their right name. This is why we can call partial birth abortion "intact dilation and extraction."
Presumably, the cure for "overthinking" is "underthinking" but it seems that there is quite a bit of that going on here already and no cure in sight. I have to wonder though, if this trend continues, if we won't soon have a generation of people living in this world who are so deluded as to the real state of things that they won't be able to think at all. Perhaps then we will have a state of reverse evolution and the term "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!" might be truer than we'd like to feel, uh, think.
Thursday, May 08, 2003
Wednesday, May 07, 2003
A Thank You
I would like to issue a thanks to some folks that is long overdue.
As you may know, this writing idea came upon me suddenly about a year ago. One of the first things I did, other than just start writing stuff in a notebook, was attend the Writers Conference at Franciscan University in September last year. There, two of the speakers were especially helpful. Bert Ghezzi was very encouraging and an all around nice guy; his session was worth the price of admission. The other was fellow blogger Mike Dubriel from whom I first learned that there was such a thing as a "blog". Thanks to both of them.
Also thanks to my other fellow Catholic bloggers. So many of you have also been nothing but encouraging, Steven at Flos Carmeli, Cathy at the Minefield, The Barrister, and a number of others. I'm grateful to you and just wanted to let you know, I think we should do that once in a while.
Thank you
I would like to issue a thanks to some folks that is long overdue.
As you may know, this writing idea came upon me suddenly about a year ago. One of the first things I did, other than just start writing stuff in a notebook, was attend the Writers Conference at Franciscan University in September last year. There, two of the speakers were especially helpful. Bert Ghezzi was very encouraging and an all around nice guy; his session was worth the price of admission. The other was fellow blogger Mike Dubriel from whom I first learned that there was such a thing as a "blog". Thanks to both of them.
Also thanks to my other fellow Catholic bloggers. So many of you have also been nothing but encouraging, Steven at Flos Carmeli, Cathy at the Minefield, The Barrister, and a number of others. I'm grateful to you and just wanted to let you know, I think we should do that once in a while.
Thank you
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
Coaches Foul Out
In the last few days 2 coaches, Alabama's football coach, Mike Price and Iowa State's basketball coach Larry Eustachy were fired for "embarrassing" their schools. The acts that resulted in their respective terminations were, in Price's case hanging around strip joints, and in Eustachy's case partying in inappropriate ways with college girls.
I imagine there have been a whole range of reactions to these events in the sports press, I don't know since I'm not a big sports fan. I did read the reaction of a sports columnist in our local newspaper that I thought was perfectly stunning in its thick headedness. The column is so obtuse as to be almost funny, except the ideas presented are really quite dangerous.
The sports columnist takes exception to the firing of the coaches and gives, basically, three reasons for his position. First, he says that their actions were not illegal which he seems to assume means they should therefore not be considered immoral. Second, he says that the rules governing coaches’ behavior in these types of situations are subjective and unclear, and therefore, the coaches should not be held accountable to these vague rules. Third, he seems to be saying that the coaches, when presented with these types of temptations should not be expected to be able to control themselves. This line of reasoning is remarkably wrong headed.
Let’s consider another type of situation that was once legal in the United States -- slavery. Early in America's history slavery was legal; would our homegrown sportswriter say that such a situation was morally correct? I don't think he would. But then one must ask the question, if slavery is immoral, why do we think it is immoral? Can it be that slavery, which was once legal, was then moral and only became immoral because the laws were changed? I don't know many people who would make that argument. But then why is human slavery considered always and everywhere to be immoral?
The reason is, of course, because it denies a human person, created in the image of God, the right to live his life in a fully human way, as a free being. It denies that person the right to make moral choices and reduces him to the level of an animal. This is wrong because it violates God's law. If there is no such thing as God's law, there is no reason why human slavery should be considered immoral; such things are merely subject to the whim of the majority in society, at any time they can be changed. The weak become subject to the arbitrary exercise of the will of the powerful.
The local sports columnist says that men cannot be expected to exercise self-control when presented with, especially when presented with, sexually tempting situations. He thinks such expectations are unreasonable. But if this is true, then it is impossible to expect human beings to act as human beings, with will and intellect, rather than animals subject to only instinctive behavior. This is precisely the argument used to justify slavery -- the slaves were not human beings capable of acting in a human way. They were, it was argued, only animals who could rightly be bought and sold and who could only be trained to work like animals. Of course, this was nonsense and it is nonsense to say that supposedly mature men are incapable of controlling themselves when faced with tempting situations. These men failed to act humanly. Instead of mentoring the children to become responsible adults under their tutelage they themselves wanted to become like children.
The final argument, that the rules that determine what type of conduct is "embarrassing" are not easily understood by most adult human beings, and especially coaches, is preposterous. If they are such complete idiots that they are unable to figure them out for themselves, all they need to do is consult the 10 Commandments. Our sports columnist asks, "What laws did [these coaches] break?" The answer is that they broke God's law. These laws are not obscure, they are self-evident, and they are written on the heart of each one of us. We know in our hearts that it is wrong to enslave another human being. We know in our hearts it is wrong for adult, married men, to party with college girls and strippers. We recognize these actions as severe character defects in those who perform them. If we try to deny this, we end up denying our very humanity; we become slaves to whatever temptation happens to appear under our noses.
These men deserved to be fired.
In the last few days 2 coaches, Alabama's football coach, Mike Price and Iowa State's basketball coach Larry Eustachy were fired for "embarrassing" their schools. The acts that resulted in their respective terminations were, in Price's case hanging around strip joints, and in Eustachy's case partying in inappropriate ways with college girls.
I imagine there have been a whole range of reactions to these events in the sports press, I don't know since I'm not a big sports fan. I did read the reaction of a sports columnist in our local newspaper that I thought was perfectly stunning in its thick headedness. The column is so obtuse as to be almost funny, except the ideas presented are really quite dangerous.
The sports columnist takes exception to the firing of the coaches and gives, basically, three reasons for his position. First, he says that their actions were not illegal which he seems to assume means they should therefore not be considered immoral. Second, he says that the rules governing coaches’ behavior in these types of situations are subjective and unclear, and therefore, the coaches should not be held accountable to these vague rules. Third, he seems to be saying that the coaches, when presented with these types of temptations should not be expected to be able to control themselves. This line of reasoning is remarkably wrong headed.
Let’s consider another type of situation that was once legal in the United States -- slavery. Early in America's history slavery was legal; would our homegrown sportswriter say that such a situation was morally correct? I don't think he would. But then one must ask the question, if slavery is immoral, why do we think it is immoral? Can it be that slavery, which was once legal, was then moral and only became immoral because the laws were changed? I don't know many people who would make that argument. But then why is human slavery considered always and everywhere to be immoral?
The reason is, of course, because it denies a human person, created in the image of God, the right to live his life in a fully human way, as a free being. It denies that person the right to make moral choices and reduces him to the level of an animal. This is wrong because it violates God's law. If there is no such thing as God's law, there is no reason why human slavery should be considered immoral; such things are merely subject to the whim of the majority in society, at any time they can be changed. The weak become subject to the arbitrary exercise of the will of the powerful.
The local sports columnist says that men cannot be expected to exercise self-control when presented with, especially when presented with, sexually tempting situations. He thinks such expectations are unreasonable. But if this is true, then it is impossible to expect human beings to act as human beings, with will and intellect, rather than animals subject to only instinctive behavior. This is precisely the argument used to justify slavery -- the slaves were not human beings capable of acting in a human way. They were, it was argued, only animals who could rightly be bought and sold and who could only be trained to work like animals. Of course, this was nonsense and it is nonsense to say that supposedly mature men are incapable of controlling themselves when faced with tempting situations. These men failed to act humanly. Instead of mentoring the children to become responsible adults under their tutelage they themselves wanted to become like children.
The final argument, that the rules that determine what type of conduct is "embarrassing" are not easily understood by most adult human beings, and especially coaches, is preposterous. If they are such complete idiots that they are unable to figure them out for themselves, all they need to do is consult the 10 Commandments. Our sports columnist asks, "What laws did [these coaches] break?" The answer is that they broke God's law. These laws are not obscure, they are self-evident, and they are written on the heart of each one of us. We know in our hearts that it is wrong to enslave another human being. We know in our hearts it is wrong for adult, married men, to party with college girls and strippers. We recognize these actions as severe character defects in those who perform them. If we try to deny this, we end up denying our very humanity; we become slaves to whatever temptation happens to appear under our noses.
These men deserved to be fired.
Sunday, May 04, 2003
Belief vs. Unbelief
I had the chance to talk to my Evangelical neighbor Craig this past week and he mentioned that he had been thinking about a topic that had been occurring to me also. The way I was phrasing it was that we modern scientific Americans have lost our sense of the supernatural; Craig put it more simply – the problem facing Christians today is that of unbelief among believers.
I don’t know how many times I have run across someone whom I know to be a fairly faithful Catholic who has made a statement to the effect that they don’t believe in miracles. They put this in different ways, hardly ever directly, but the meaning is clearly there. They may say, “Oh, you know, Jesus didn’t really feed the 5,000 with just two loaves and a couple of fish, all those people had bread and fish McNuggets with them and they shared.” These kinds of statements reflect a kind of crisis in the Church today, a crisis of faith. If the miracle of the loaves and fishes cannot be believed, how can the miracle of the Resurrection be believed?
Thomas Merton wrote, in The Ascent to Truth, that to believe one must choose to believe. A person can faithfully go through all the motions of worship at Mass, day after day, year after year, but unless one makes the ultimate sacrifice of oneself, all that person is doing is going through the motions. It has no interior effect. One of the reasons for a crisis of faith today, as Merton points out, is that there is a failure to think. People will take the word of Barbara Striesand on matters of faith and morals, but never that of John Paul II. People will listen to the Dixie Chicks, never to their Bishop, unless he happens to agree with the Dixie Chicks. Because people become famous as entertainers in society today, they gain instant credibility in matters affecting the deepest issues of life. This kind of thinking shows a loss of the ability to think.
If we are unable to think clearly, we will be unable to have a real living faith. First, we will not be able to understand what it is we believe, and second, we will not consider our faith important enough to make the sacrifices that Christian faith calls for. Merton wrote “Faith means war.” He meant that to have faith is to die to ourselves and be born again as a new creation; it means giving up the trivial distractions of this life for the eternal rewards of the next. It means living, not as an independent person, reliant only on oneself, but living as a branch of the True Vine, dependent only on Christ. To live in faith means to make war on our very selves.
This is the crisis the Church faces today. It is a crisis because too many people do not know there is a battle to be fought. It is a crisis of belief vs. unbelief.
I had the chance to talk to my Evangelical neighbor Craig this past week and he mentioned that he had been thinking about a topic that had been occurring to me also. The way I was phrasing it was that we modern scientific Americans have lost our sense of the supernatural; Craig put it more simply – the problem facing Christians today is that of unbelief among believers.
I don’t know how many times I have run across someone whom I know to be a fairly faithful Catholic who has made a statement to the effect that they don’t believe in miracles. They put this in different ways, hardly ever directly, but the meaning is clearly there. They may say, “Oh, you know, Jesus didn’t really feed the 5,000 with just two loaves and a couple of fish, all those people had bread and fish McNuggets with them and they shared.” These kinds of statements reflect a kind of crisis in the Church today, a crisis of faith. If the miracle of the loaves and fishes cannot be believed, how can the miracle of the Resurrection be believed?
Thomas Merton wrote, in The Ascent to Truth, that to believe one must choose to believe. A person can faithfully go through all the motions of worship at Mass, day after day, year after year, but unless one makes the ultimate sacrifice of oneself, all that person is doing is going through the motions. It has no interior effect. One of the reasons for a crisis of faith today, as Merton points out, is that there is a failure to think. People will take the word of Barbara Striesand on matters of faith and morals, but never that of John Paul II. People will listen to the Dixie Chicks, never to their Bishop, unless he happens to agree with the Dixie Chicks. Because people become famous as entertainers in society today, they gain instant credibility in matters affecting the deepest issues of life. This kind of thinking shows a loss of the ability to think.
If we are unable to think clearly, we will be unable to have a real living faith. First, we will not be able to understand what it is we believe, and second, we will not consider our faith important enough to make the sacrifices that Christian faith calls for. Merton wrote “Faith means war.” He meant that to have faith is to die to ourselves and be born again as a new creation; it means giving up the trivial distractions of this life for the eternal rewards of the next. It means living, not as an independent person, reliant only on oneself, but living as a branch of the True Vine, dependent only on Christ. To live in faith means to make war on our very selves.
This is the crisis the Church faces today. It is a crisis because too many people do not know there is a battle to be fought. It is a crisis of belief vs. unbelief.
Sunday, April 27, 2003
SDG
To Blog or Not to Blog
I have to admit that for some time I have been at a loss for blog topics. I have been working on an idea for a couple of magazine articles but I am told by those who know that I should not post them here -- magazines apparently like to print things that have not been previously published, even if they have only been published on the Internet. So something that is of real interest to me is, for the time being anyway, off limits.
To help with this difficulty, I have been looking over a few volumes of anthologies of essays, "the greatest essays in the history of the world" type of thing. This effort has been undertaken in the hope of mining a few topics that might be considered timeless treasures for use by a somewhat desperate blogger. In looking over these volumes a number of interesting observations came to mind.
I noticed that essays used to be a very common form of written communication and reflect the social, intellectual, and spiritual concerns of their writers and that from the 16th to the early 20th centuries these concerns did not greatly change. Essays written since the 1500s, and there are a great many of them, are generally well written, entertaining, and informative. Most of them are mini works of art and cause the reader to look at life in a new way, and with a greater appreciation for beauty and truth. These essays are universally well written and often entertaining explorations of human life. For example, in the 16th century, Sir Francis Bacon wrote an essay On Truth, in the 18th century Lord Chesterfield wrote an essay On Affectation, both topics men of every age can benefit from. In the 20th century Hillare Belloc wrote an essay On the Departure of Guests and E. B. White wrote a hilarious essay on The Death of a Pig, helping us all to share in the joys and trials experienced by a writer who wanted to try his hand at working a farm in Maine.
However, beginning in the 1940's a sea change started taking place. About this time skepticism sets in and the beauty of our existence and the possibility of good become subjects for doubt, if not rejection. Our human existence becomes something that causes despair rather than joy. Joan Didion wrote a piece, At The Dam, about the Hoover Dam, that makes one wonder why men would dream dreams and bother to make the effort to have them come true. Norman Mailer wrote a piece on Miami that is positively depressing.
It is as if these modern writers think that truth is a function of time and that we, having lived after all other people in history and having learned everything there is to learn from them, feel qualified to discard as false and mean spirited everything the ancients took to be true. This is the peculiar arrogance of the modern university dwelling intellectual.
The final thing that struck me is that after the early 1950's the number of essays deemed worthy of publication in these anthologies is greatly diminished, virtually disappearing by the 1970's. I began to wonder if, now that we have reached the 21st century, the blog has not taken the place of the essay. If this is true and we bloggers are taking the place of such writers as Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Chesterfield, Hillare Belloc, or E.B. White (might as well dream lofty dreams) then perhaps a certain obligation is imposed on us as writers. At least I feel a certain obligation to try to write only that which is informative, uplifting, or at least entertaining. This is what I will try to do in the future with this blog, whether I have anything to write about or not.
A postscript:
For what seems the longest time there has been only one comment posted to The 7 Habitus, that was Carl Olson’s taking me to task for my comments on dispensationalism and I thank him for it. However, I am becoming increasingly curious as to the possible reasons for this paucity of reader feedback. I know a few people read this every week, but I am not after numbers, the main purpose of this exercise is, after all, to gain experience as a writer worthy of being read. I am not there yet. However, I think, that most bloggers look forward to some interaction with their readers.
It has occurred to me that there are several possible reasons why no one makes a comment to what they read here. One is that, recognizing the obvious brilliance and sweeping perspective of the writer there is simply nothing left to say. I comfort myself with this idea from time to time but then reality sinks in. It could be because what I am writing is of no interest to anyone. If this is true I would appreciate hearing it, it would help both the reader and the writer for this truth to come out. It could be that the readers keep checking back to see if I have finally given up on this thing. At times I imagine some great Internet pool predicting how long I will last, with great sums, perhaps lives, at stake. Well, maybe not.
I guess there are many other reasons why no one has any comments, but I would really like to hear your reason.
To Blog or Not to Blog
I have to admit that for some time I have been at a loss for blog topics. I have been working on an idea for a couple of magazine articles but I am told by those who know that I should not post them here -- magazines apparently like to print things that have not been previously published, even if they have only been published on the Internet. So something that is of real interest to me is, for the time being anyway, off limits.
To help with this difficulty, I have been looking over a few volumes of anthologies of essays, "the greatest essays in the history of the world" type of thing. This effort has been undertaken in the hope of mining a few topics that might be considered timeless treasures for use by a somewhat desperate blogger. In looking over these volumes a number of interesting observations came to mind.
I noticed that essays used to be a very common form of written communication and reflect the social, intellectual, and spiritual concerns of their writers and that from the 16th to the early 20th centuries these concerns did not greatly change. Essays written since the 1500s, and there are a great many of them, are generally well written, entertaining, and informative. Most of them are mini works of art and cause the reader to look at life in a new way, and with a greater appreciation for beauty and truth. These essays are universally well written and often entertaining explorations of human life. For example, in the 16th century, Sir Francis Bacon wrote an essay On Truth, in the 18th century Lord Chesterfield wrote an essay On Affectation, both topics men of every age can benefit from. In the 20th century Hillare Belloc wrote an essay On the Departure of Guests and E. B. White wrote a hilarious essay on The Death of a Pig, helping us all to share in the joys and trials experienced by a writer who wanted to try his hand at working a farm in Maine.
However, beginning in the 1940's a sea change started taking place. About this time skepticism sets in and the beauty of our existence and the possibility of good become subjects for doubt, if not rejection. Our human existence becomes something that causes despair rather than joy. Joan Didion wrote a piece, At The Dam, about the Hoover Dam, that makes one wonder why men would dream dreams and bother to make the effort to have them come true. Norman Mailer wrote a piece on Miami that is positively depressing.
It is as if these modern writers think that truth is a function of time and that we, having lived after all other people in history and having learned everything there is to learn from them, feel qualified to discard as false and mean spirited everything the ancients took to be true. This is the peculiar arrogance of the modern university dwelling intellectual.
The final thing that struck me is that after the early 1950's the number of essays deemed worthy of publication in these anthologies is greatly diminished, virtually disappearing by the 1970's. I began to wonder if, now that we have reached the 21st century, the blog has not taken the place of the essay. If this is true and we bloggers are taking the place of such writers as Sir Francis Bacon, Lord Chesterfield, Hillare Belloc, or E.B. White (might as well dream lofty dreams) then perhaps a certain obligation is imposed on us as writers. At least I feel a certain obligation to try to write only that which is informative, uplifting, or at least entertaining. This is what I will try to do in the future with this blog, whether I have anything to write about or not.
A postscript:
For what seems the longest time there has been only one comment posted to The 7 Habitus, that was Carl Olson’s taking me to task for my comments on dispensationalism and I thank him for it. However, I am becoming increasingly curious as to the possible reasons for this paucity of reader feedback. I know a few people read this every week, but I am not after numbers, the main purpose of this exercise is, after all, to gain experience as a writer worthy of being read. I am not there yet. However, I think, that most bloggers look forward to some interaction with their readers.
It has occurred to me that there are several possible reasons why no one makes a comment to what they read here. One is that, recognizing the obvious brilliance and sweeping perspective of the writer there is simply nothing left to say. I comfort myself with this idea from time to time but then reality sinks in. It could be because what I am writing is of no interest to anyone. If this is true I would appreciate hearing it, it would help both the reader and the writer for this truth to come out. It could be that the readers keep checking back to see if I have finally given up on this thing. At times I imagine some great Internet pool predicting how long I will last, with great sums, perhaps lives, at stake. Well, maybe not.
I guess there are many other reasons why no one has any comments, but I would really like to hear your reason.
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
Apologetics and Dispensationalists
<b>This post represents the clarification promised in my previous post concerning my views on our Apologetics priorities. I have now received Carl Olson's book Will Catholics be Left Behind and will begin reading it tonight. I believe, based on my first observation, that the book is a proper response to the problems discussed below, ie., it is aimed at presenting the truth of these issues to Catholics who may well be innocent of them.
The Catholic Church teaches that, since her founding, coincident with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the waiting Apostles at Pentecost, she has possessed the fullness of truth. She believes that this fullness of truth is guaranteed to her by the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in her midst.
Since her founding two millennia ago the Church has faced two great challenges to the fullness of truth which she possesses. One came with the Protestant Reformation and it's elevation of the judgment of the individual over that of the Magisterium of the Church. The other finds its roots in the Enlightenment. The present day heritage of the Enlightenment is the predominantly secular-materialist worldview that we live with today.
There is a qualitative difference between these two challenges faced by the Catholic Church. The difference is that the children of the Reformation, while challenging the teaching authority and unity of the Church do not deny Christ, nor do they deny the necessity, for the most part, of obeying the two Great Commandments Jesus gave us, love of God with heart, mind and strength, and love of neighbor as one loves oneself. While they may not possess the fullness of truth they do possess elements of the truth and share in communion with the Church, albeit an imperfect one.
Those who subscribe to the predominant secular-materialist worldview of today’s society, however, deny absolutely even the possibility of the existence of not only a Supreme Being but of the existence of objective truth and the possibility of moral absolutes that govern human behavior as well. This worldview that is so evident in our universities, our media and our courts is inimical to the interests of the Church. It allows no possibility of communion with the Church and many of its proponents would be just as happy if the Church were eliminated from any presence in society.
There are numerous examples of this already occurring. For example, a student in Washington State who won a scholarship had it withdrawn when it was learned he planned to major in Pastoral studies. An abortion protester was sued under RICO statutes by pro-abortion foes when his protests began to have an effect. Christmas displays in city parks that had been set up for years have suddenly become horrible violations of the "separation of church and state" clause. (By the way, has anyone ever actually found that clause of the Constitution?) One party in the 2002 US elections attempted to portray Christians as religious bigots and/or zealots, indistinguishable from the Islamic Fundamentalists who killed 3,000 people at the World Trade Center. Many people unquestioningly accept the idea that if Christian believers are not blood-thirsty, baby-killing terrorists, in league with Al-Queda, then they are intellectual and emotion simpletons, who must be excluded from any role in society.
This hostility is not, however, directed only against Catholic Christians. It is directed against Christians of every stripe; there is no particular discrimination between Catholics and Protestants. It results in the situation we have in society today where abortion has become a "right" and moral limits on personal conduct are denied.
I would say that all Christians share a common bond because they all understand that God created us as human beings for a purpose, there is a supreme goal set for each of our lives. The goal is to spend eternity with God in heaven. Anything that keeps us from reaching that goal must be overcome; there is nothing more important in our lives. Outright rejection of Christ and God’s law written in our hearts will keep us from reaching that goal. I believe the modern, secular-materialist worldview present in society today represents, with its rejection of both God and his Commandments, a huge threat to our ability to practice and profess our Christian faith and achieve our final destiny. Failing to resist it may well mean eternal separation from God.
While we wish to bring our separated brothers and sisters in Christ to the fullness of truth, it is just as important to present the truth of Christ to society in general. Our Protestant brothers and sisters, however lacking in the fullness of truth they may be, remain, nevertheless, brothers and sisters in Christ -- separation is not divorce and estrangement.
My original post questioned the fact that so many Catholics seem to spend a lot of time getting worked up over the very visible presence of Dispensationalist theology in the literary market place today. It seems to me that dispensationalists, while they may be in error in regards to the truth as we understand it are still Christians. They do not deny Christ. They may even be anti-Catholic, but they do not represent the danger to Catholics that the secular-materialist worldview so prevalent in society today does.
It may also be that views about society and culture that come out of dispensationalist theology may be questionable, or even goofy. I don't know about this and will have to read Carl Olson's book to gain some insight into this question. Where they are in error they should be confronted with the truth. But judging from the Doctrinal Statement published by one of the preeminent dispensationalist seminaries in the country, I don't see a completely anti-Christian worldview contained therein. It seems not greatly different from that of many Protestant statements of faith.
The point of my post, then, is that it seems, in terms of our apologetics effort, we should consider our priorities.
Christopher Dawson writes that the problem facing Catholics today is not that of being a minority in a predominately Christian culture, the problem facing Catholics is confronting an increasingly secular-materialistic culture. The culture today has made great headway in divorcing religion from nearly all other aspects of human life. One of the reasons this is so is that many Catholics are so poorly catechized in the truth of the faith that they easily fall prey to the pressures of society all around them. They have no way to resist because they don’t even realize there is anything to resist. Their lives are virtually indistinguishable from those of their pagan neighbors, when they should be quite different. They may also be falling prey to the overtures of Evangelicals or Fundamentalists, again from ignorance of the differences in Christian belief between Protestants and Catholics. However, I believe this is our fault, not theirs.
It seems to me all of this places a very high priority on teaching Catholics the basics of the faith so as to more effectively challenge the secular-materialist worldview of society. A second priority is presenting the fullness of truth to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. I think at times these priorities are reversed. We find it easier to argue with our Protestant brothers and sisters for the very reason that we speak different dialects of the same language. But the generally accepted attitude present in society today is that religion is to be removed from every corner of society; unless this view is challenged and a return made to the Christian traditions of Western society, it will make little difference whether we agree with our Protestant brothers and sisters or not. As Benjamin Franklin said, we should all hang together or we may well all hang separately.
We may well be fiddling while Rome burns.
<b>This post represents the clarification promised in my previous post concerning my views on our Apologetics priorities. I have now received Carl Olson's book Will Catholics be Left Behind and will begin reading it tonight. I believe, based on my first observation, that the book is a proper response to the problems discussed below, ie., it is aimed at presenting the truth of these issues to Catholics who may well be innocent of them.
The Catholic Church teaches that, since her founding, coincident with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the waiting Apostles at Pentecost, she has possessed the fullness of truth. She believes that this fullness of truth is guaranteed to her by the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in her midst.
Since her founding two millennia ago the Church has faced two great challenges to the fullness of truth which she possesses. One came with the Protestant Reformation and it's elevation of the judgment of the individual over that of the Magisterium of the Church. The other finds its roots in the Enlightenment. The present day heritage of the Enlightenment is the predominantly secular-materialist worldview that we live with today.
There is a qualitative difference between these two challenges faced by the Catholic Church. The difference is that the children of the Reformation, while challenging the teaching authority and unity of the Church do not deny Christ, nor do they deny the necessity, for the most part, of obeying the two Great Commandments Jesus gave us, love of God with heart, mind and strength, and love of neighbor as one loves oneself. While they may not possess the fullness of truth they do possess elements of the truth and share in communion with the Church, albeit an imperfect one.
Those who subscribe to the predominant secular-materialist worldview of today’s society, however, deny absolutely even the possibility of the existence of not only a Supreme Being but of the existence of objective truth and the possibility of moral absolutes that govern human behavior as well. This worldview that is so evident in our universities, our media and our courts is inimical to the interests of the Church. It allows no possibility of communion with the Church and many of its proponents would be just as happy if the Church were eliminated from any presence in society.
There are numerous examples of this already occurring. For example, a student in Washington State who won a scholarship had it withdrawn when it was learned he planned to major in Pastoral studies. An abortion protester was sued under RICO statutes by pro-abortion foes when his protests began to have an effect. Christmas displays in city parks that had been set up for years have suddenly become horrible violations of the "separation of church and state" clause. (By the way, has anyone ever actually found that clause of the Constitution?) One party in the 2002 US elections attempted to portray Christians as religious bigots and/or zealots, indistinguishable from the Islamic Fundamentalists who killed 3,000 people at the World Trade Center. Many people unquestioningly accept the idea that if Christian believers are not blood-thirsty, baby-killing terrorists, in league with Al-Queda, then they are intellectual and emotion simpletons, who must be excluded from any role in society.
This hostility is not, however, directed only against Catholic Christians. It is directed against Christians of every stripe; there is no particular discrimination between Catholics and Protestants. It results in the situation we have in society today where abortion has become a "right" and moral limits on personal conduct are denied.
I would say that all Christians share a common bond because they all understand that God created us as human beings for a purpose, there is a supreme goal set for each of our lives. The goal is to spend eternity with God in heaven. Anything that keeps us from reaching that goal must be overcome; there is nothing more important in our lives. Outright rejection of Christ and God’s law written in our hearts will keep us from reaching that goal. I believe the modern, secular-materialist worldview present in society today represents, with its rejection of both God and his Commandments, a huge threat to our ability to practice and profess our Christian faith and achieve our final destiny. Failing to resist it may well mean eternal separation from God.
While we wish to bring our separated brothers and sisters in Christ to the fullness of truth, it is just as important to present the truth of Christ to society in general. Our Protestant brothers and sisters, however lacking in the fullness of truth they may be, remain, nevertheless, brothers and sisters in Christ -- separation is not divorce and estrangement.
My original post questioned the fact that so many Catholics seem to spend a lot of time getting worked up over the very visible presence of Dispensationalist theology in the literary market place today. It seems to me that dispensationalists, while they may be in error in regards to the truth as we understand it are still Christians. They do not deny Christ. They may even be anti-Catholic, but they do not represent the danger to Catholics that the secular-materialist worldview so prevalent in society today does.
It may also be that views about society and culture that come out of dispensationalist theology may be questionable, or even goofy. I don't know about this and will have to read Carl Olson's book to gain some insight into this question. Where they are in error they should be confronted with the truth. But judging from the Doctrinal Statement published by one of the preeminent dispensationalist seminaries in the country, I don't see a completely anti-Christian worldview contained therein. It seems not greatly different from that of many Protestant statements of faith.
The point of my post, then, is that it seems, in terms of our apologetics effort, we should consider our priorities.
Christopher Dawson writes that the problem facing Catholics today is not that of being a minority in a predominately Christian culture, the problem facing Catholics is confronting an increasingly secular-materialistic culture. The culture today has made great headway in divorcing religion from nearly all other aspects of human life. One of the reasons this is so is that many Catholics are so poorly catechized in the truth of the faith that they easily fall prey to the pressures of society all around them. They have no way to resist because they don’t even realize there is anything to resist. Their lives are virtually indistinguishable from those of their pagan neighbors, when they should be quite different. They may also be falling prey to the overtures of Evangelicals or Fundamentalists, again from ignorance of the differences in Christian belief between Protestants and Catholics. However, I believe this is our fault, not theirs.
It seems to me all of this places a very high priority on teaching Catholics the basics of the faith so as to more effectively challenge the secular-materialist worldview of society. A second priority is presenting the fullness of truth to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. I think at times these priorities are reversed. We find it easier to argue with our Protestant brothers and sisters for the very reason that we speak different dialects of the same language. But the generally accepted attitude present in society today is that religion is to be removed from every corner of society; unless this view is challenged and a return made to the Christian traditions of Western society, it will make little difference whether we agree with our Protestant brothers and sisters or not. As Benjamin Franklin said, we should all hang together or we may well all hang separately.
We may well be fiddling while Rome burns.
Saturday, April 19, 2003
Left Behind
I would like to post an email I received from Carl Olson in response to an email I sent him in response to his comment on my Left Behind post. I thnk he misunderstands my intent in the post and I will do a further explanation by early next week.
I have ordered his book and hope that you all will too, as I think it should be an interesting discussion of trends in society that he sees resulting from the dispensationalist movement.
I hope you all have a blessed Easter.
Paz y bien
Dear Ron,
Thanks for the response and for the additional explanation. I'm glad you contacted me, for it gives me a chance to apologize and to explain myself a bit better. I apologize first because my note was rather brusque and even a bit antagonistic. I did not take your post to be critical, but I did overreact a bit to it, and I apologize for my harshness.
My book was written not to merely critique the Left Behind series, but to provide a thorough explanation and refutation of premillennial dispensationalism, especially (and I emphasize this) in the context of history and Catholic teaching. In addition, my book provides a great deal of catechetical material. In fact, it is meant to be very catechetical. As a former parish catechist, one of my lifelong goals is to catechize and teach the Catholic Faith as best I can.
The main reason for the catechetical content of my book is because the vital issue in all of this is NOT end times events as much as Christology and ecclesiology. The real disagreement between dispensationalists and other Christians, especially Catholics, is not over the identity of the Antichrist or the place of America in end times events, but rather the nature and mission of the Church and her relationship to the Kingdom. To that end, I don't spend time tracing all of the various dispensationalist ideas regarding Iraq, China, the U.S., Russia, etc. (however, you can read my article on that topic here: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=200)
I think you'll agree that the topics of the Church and the Kingdom are very significant, and not to be taken lightly. In my book, I actually spend very little time talking about the Left Behind stories, but show how those books are simply another form of propagating a view of history, God, Christ, the Church, the Kingdom, and the Bible that is seriously flawed, but incredibly influential. The dispensationalist method of reading the Bible has influenced Americans, including Catholics, in ways most people cannot even fathom. It's not a matter of conspiracy, but simply the power of this belief system and how it appears to interpret Scripture. Many of it's individual tenets have been adopted, often unwittingly, by many folks, skewing their perspective on issues as varied as the Middle East, the Bible, salvation, the Catholic Church, and so much more.
Paul Boyer, a non-Catholic historian and author of the excellent book, When Time Shall Be No More, has written the following:
"I advance two related arguments: first, that prophecy belief is far more central in American thought than intellectual and cultural historians have recognized, and second, that in the years since World War II the popularizers of a specific belief systemdispensational premillennialismhave played an important role in shaping public attitudes on a wide range of topics from the Soviet Union, the Common Market, and the Mideast to the computer and the environmental crisis" (When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. ix.)
I have found, in my personal experience, that many Catholics are being sucked into dispensationalist ideas and tendencies, often without knowing it. My book seeks to provide them with sound Church teaching, backed by the Catechism, numerous Church documents, and the writings of sound theologians. The table of contents to be my book is as follows:
Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"? An Introduction
PART ONE: The Story of the Rapture . . . and So Much More
1. The Parousia, the Rapture, and the End Times
2. Catholics and the Left Behind Phenomenon
3. Book of Confusion or Revelation?
4. The Millennium: How Long is a Thousand Years?
5. Millenarianism: Early Church to John Nelson Darby
6. Dispensationalism and the Rapture in America
PART TWO: A Catholic Critique of Dispensationalism
7. The Kingdom, the Church, and Israel
8. "Bible Prophecy" and Interpreting Scripture
9. Unwrapping the Rapture
CONCLUSION
10. The Catholic Vision
List of Key Terms
List of Key Persons
Selected Bibliography
---------
As you can see, I do "fry" many big fish. :-) I spend an entire chapter examining the book of Revelation; another address the issue of the millennium. Another is devoted to the Church, the Kingdom, and Israel. An entire chapter, the final one, provides readers with a Catholic vision of history, salvation, and end times events.
My book should not only help Catholics, but provides the thoughtful dispensationalist with a great deal of material that will be hard to refute or ignore. It also presents the Catholic Church and her beliefs in a way that I think it is compelling, educational, and even inspiring. In short (and I am running long), this is the book I wish I could have read about ten years ago.
Anyhow, I hope this explanation is helpful. Thank you for your interest in my book. I would welcome your comments once you have read it. And you are free to pass along this info to anyone you know, or post it on your blog. Thank you and God bless!
Pax Christi,
Carl Olson
Editor, Envoy
carl@envoymagazine.com
I would like to post an email I received from Carl Olson in response to an email I sent him in response to his comment on my Left Behind post. I thnk he misunderstands my intent in the post and I will do a further explanation by early next week.
I have ordered his book and hope that you all will too, as I think it should be an interesting discussion of trends in society that he sees resulting from the dispensationalist movement.
I hope you all have a blessed Easter.
Paz y bien
Dear Ron,
Thanks for the response and for the additional explanation. I'm glad you contacted me, for it gives me a chance to apologize and to explain myself a bit better. I apologize first because my note was rather brusque and even a bit antagonistic. I did not take your post to be critical, but I did overreact a bit to it, and I apologize for my harshness.
My book was written not to merely critique the Left Behind series, but to provide a thorough explanation and refutation of premillennial dispensationalism, especially (and I emphasize this) in the context of history and Catholic teaching. In addition, my book provides a great deal of catechetical material. In fact, it is meant to be very catechetical. As a former parish catechist, one of my lifelong goals is to catechize and teach the Catholic Faith as best I can.
The main reason for the catechetical content of my book is because the vital issue in all of this is NOT end times events as much as Christology and ecclesiology. The real disagreement between dispensationalists and other Christians, especially Catholics, is not over the identity of the Antichrist or the place of America in end times events, but rather the nature and mission of the Church and her relationship to the Kingdom. To that end, I don't spend time tracing all of the various dispensationalist ideas regarding Iraq, China, the U.S., Russia, etc. (however, you can read my article on that topic here: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=200)
I think you'll agree that the topics of the Church and the Kingdom are very significant, and not to be taken lightly. In my book, I actually spend very little time talking about the Left Behind stories, but show how those books are simply another form of propagating a view of history, God, Christ, the Church, the Kingdom, and the Bible that is seriously flawed, but incredibly influential. The dispensationalist method of reading the Bible has influenced Americans, including Catholics, in ways most people cannot even fathom. It's not a matter of conspiracy, but simply the power of this belief system and how it appears to interpret Scripture. Many of it's individual tenets have been adopted, often unwittingly, by many folks, skewing their perspective on issues as varied as the Middle East, the Bible, salvation, the Catholic Church, and so much more.
Paul Boyer, a non-Catholic historian and author of the excellent book, When Time Shall Be No More, has written the following:
"I advance two related arguments: first, that prophecy belief is far more central in American thought than intellectual and cultural historians have recognized, and second, that in the years since World War II the popularizers of a specific belief systemdispensational premillennialismhave played an important role in shaping public attitudes on a wide range of topics from the Soviet Union, the Common Market, and the Mideast to the computer and the environmental crisis" (When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. ix.)
I have found, in my personal experience, that many Catholics are being sucked into dispensationalist ideas and tendencies, often without knowing it. My book seeks to provide them with sound Church teaching, backed by the Catechism, numerous Church documents, and the writings of sound theologians. The table of contents to be my book is as follows:
Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"? An Introduction
PART ONE: The Story of the Rapture . . . and So Much More
1. The Parousia, the Rapture, and the End Times
2. Catholics and the Left Behind Phenomenon
3. Book of Confusion or Revelation?
4. The Millennium: How Long is a Thousand Years?
5. Millenarianism: Early Church to John Nelson Darby
6. Dispensationalism and the Rapture in America
PART TWO: A Catholic Critique of Dispensationalism
7. The Kingdom, the Church, and Israel
8. "Bible Prophecy" and Interpreting Scripture
9. Unwrapping the Rapture
CONCLUSION
10. The Catholic Vision
List of Key Terms
List of Key Persons
Selected Bibliography
---------
As you can see, I do "fry" many big fish. :-) I spend an entire chapter examining the book of Revelation; another address the issue of the millennium. Another is devoted to the Church, the Kingdom, and Israel. An entire chapter, the final one, provides readers with a Catholic vision of history, salvation, and end times events.
My book should not only help Catholics, but provides the thoughtful dispensationalist with a great deal of material that will be hard to refute or ignore. It also presents the Catholic Church and her beliefs in a way that I think it is compelling, educational, and even inspiring. In short (and I am running long), this is the book I wish I could have read about ten years ago.
Anyhow, I hope this explanation is helpful. Thank you for your interest in my book. I would welcome your comments once you have read it. And you are free to pass along this info to anyone you know, or post it on your blog. Thank you and God bless!
Pax Christi,
Carl Olson
Editor, Envoy
carl@envoymagazine.com
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Cowboys
I've had a thought crossing my mind in the last few days and had even done a first draft of this post when, low and behold, President Bush echoed something of the same theme in his speech in St. Louis today. So, since it appears that great minds do indeed think alike, it is time to do another post.
I began thinking about the topic for this post after buying the first Country & Western album I have ever acquired. The album is Toby Keith's Unleashed with his song The Angry American. I couldn't resist. I began to wonder why I bought it when it occurred to me the reason is that it portrays something of America that we haven't seen much of since the Viet Nam war. The song is by an American who is not ashamed to be an American. It is a song about a proud nation that is willing to stand and fight for its principles. The guy who wrote it is pretty clear what those basic principles are, too. He believes in honesty, fairness, justice and truth. This is what America has been about since the day the Pilgrims landed in the east coast of this continent. The country has been about sincerely and honestly following one's well-formed conscience and doing the right thing, loving God and neighbor, defending the weak and seeing that everyone is treated fairly. We have lost sight of this in the last several years in an orgy of self-indulgence, but perhaps times are changing.
We haven't always done a perfect job of living up to our ideals, but the ideals have been there none the less. These ideals are the reasons that immigrants from other countries, my father and mother included, have come here and been proud to be Americans, forsaking their own nationalities and heritage.
There is a unique aspect of the American character that has been on display for all the world to see in the last month or so. This unique characteristic comes, clearly, from America's Christian heritage and it is as beautiful as it is simple. President Bush today described it when he talked about American soldiers who, one minute were engaged in fierce combat with their enemies and the next were caring for and treating enemy wounded and burying enemy dead.
On a larger scale, I believe it is nearly unique in the history of man that a nation would invade another nation with no intention of colonization or conquest. America engaged in the war in Iraq for two purposes, one was self-defense, the other was ridding Iraq country of an evil, abusive government. When this adventure is over it is the sincere hope of the United States Government and its people that Iraq stands as a free, self-governing nation. This may be idealistic, but it is typically American. I think there is a good chance that this idealistic enterprise will succeed. Iraqis are already protesting in the street and that is a remarkable thing; it shows that they feel safe to do so with Americans temporarily in control of the country.
The reason I say this comes from our Christian heritage is that it displays an inherent recognition that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". When an American soldier treats the wounds of a man who was, only minutes before trying to kill him, is that not forgiveness acted out seventy times seven? The former enemy has the same right to be treated with dignity and respect as any American soldier; Americans would not brutalize an enemy soldier just for the sake of seeing him suffer.
President Bush has been called a "cowboy" by some of our erstwhile European allies. When I was growing up this was not a label for someone who was wild and uncontrolled, but someone who was capable, reverent, hard working, independent, and confident. I think it is not a bad thing to be a "cowboy", because a cowboy is the proto-typical American. To refresh our memories of exactly what a "cowboy" has stood for in this country I quote below "The Lone Ranger Creed".
The Lone Ranger Creed!
By: Fran Striker
"I believe that to have a friend,
a man must be one.
That all men are created equal
and that everyone has within himself
the power to make this a better world.
That God put the firewood there
but that every man
must gather and light it himself.
In being prepared
physically, mentally, and morally
to fight when necessary
for that which is right.
That a man should make the most
of what equipment he has.
That 'This government,
of the people, by the people
and for the people'
shall live always.
That men should live by
the rule of what is best
for the greatest number.
That sooner or later...
somewhere...somehow...
we must settle with the world
and make payment for what we have taken.
That all things change but truth, and that truth alone, lives on forever. In my Creator, my country, my fellow man."
Not too bad, for a cowboy.
I've had a thought crossing my mind in the last few days and had even done a first draft of this post when, low and behold, President Bush echoed something of the same theme in his speech in St. Louis today. So, since it appears that great minds do indeed think alike, it is time to do another post.
I began thinking about the topic for this post after buying the first Country & Western album I have ever acquired. The album is Toby Keith's Unleashed with his song The Angry American. I couldn't resist. I began to wonder why I bought it when it occurred to me the reason is that it portrays something of America that we haven't seen much of since the Viet Nam war. The song is by an American who is not ashamed to be an American. It is a song about a proud nation that is willing to stand and fight for its principles. The guy who wrote it is pretty clear what those basic principles are, too. He believes in honesty, fairness, justice and truth. This is what America has been about since the day the Pilgrims landed in the east coast of this continent. The country has been about sincerely and honestly following one's well-formed conscience and doing the right thing, loving God and neighbor, defending the weak and seeing that everyone is treated fairly. We have lost sight of this in the last several years in an orgy of self-indulgence, but perhaps times are changing.
We haven't always done a perfect job of living up to our ideals, but the ideals have been there none the less. These ideals are the reasons that immigrants from other countries, my father and mother included, have come here and been proud to be Americans, forsaking their own nationalities and heritage.
There is a unique aspect of the American character that has been on display for all the world to see in the last month or so. This unique characteristic comes, clearly, from America's Christian heritage and it is as beautiful as it is simple. President Bush today described it when he talked about American soldiers who, one minute were engaged in fierce combat with their enemies and the next were caring for and treating enemy wounded and burying enemy dead.
On a larger scale, I believe it is nearly unique in the history of man that a nation would invade another nation with no intention of colonization or conquest. America engaged in the war in Iraq for two purposes, one was self-defense, the other was ridding Iraq country of an evil, abusive government. When this adventure is over it is the sincere hope of the United States Government and its people that Iraq stands as a free, self-governing nation. This may be idealistic, but it is typically American. I think there is a good chance that this idealistic enterprise will succeed. Iraqis are already protesting in the street and that is a remarkable thing; it shows that they feel safe to do so with Americans temporarily in control of the country.
The reason I say this comes from our Christian heritage is that it displays an inherent recognition that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". When an American soldier treats the wounds of a man who was, only minutes before trying to kill him, is that not forgiveness acted out seventy times seven? The former enemy has the same right to be treated with dignity and respect as any American soldier; Americans would not brutalize an enemy soldier just for the sake of seeing him suffer.
President Bush has been called a "cowboy" by some of our erstwhile European allies. When I was growing up this was not a label for someone who was wild and uncontrolled, but someone who was capable, reverent, hard working, independent, and confident. I think it is not a bad thing to be a "cowboy", because a cowboy is the proto-typical American. To refresh our memories of exactly what a "cowboy" has stood for in this country I quote below "The Lone Ranger Creed".
The Lone Ranger Creed!
By: Fran Striker
"I believe that to have a friend,
a man must be one.
That all men are created equal
and that everyone has within himself
the power to make this a better world.
That God put the firewood there
but that every man
must gather and light it himself.
In being prepared
physically, mentally, and morally
to fight when necessary
for that which is right.
That a man should make the most
of what equipment he has.
That 'This government,
of the people, by the people
and for the people'
shall live always.
That men should live by
the rule of what is best
for the greatest number.
That sooner or later...
somewhere...somehow...
we must settle with the world
and make payment for what we have taken.
That all things change but truth, and that truth alone, lives on forever. In my Creator, my country, my fellow man."
Not too bad, for a cowboy.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
Truth
Mark, at Minute Particulars, (commenting on a post by Steven at Flos Carmeli) makes two statements that I would like to take at least minor exeception to.
The first is a statement that he actually (properly) refutes in the rest of his post. The only reason I call attention to the statement is that I make a plea for care in the use of terms, especially the word truth. The reason I am concerned about this is that I think we are all affected by the perception abroad in the world today that truth is relative, the "your truth is not my truth" syndrome. The part of his post that I take exception to is as follows:
"But even if his suggestion really does boil down to a double-truth claim: a truth revealed by faith contradicting a truth from reason alone, or vice versa. . ."
I hope it is evident to everyone that truth 1) cannot be "double-truth", and 2) cannot be contradicted. If something is true, it is true. A truth revealed by faith may not seem to correspond to anything we know by reason or science, but if it is true it will never be contradicted by reason or science, it is true.
The second statement is as follows:
"When folks say that they will continue to believe in something that reason has demonstrated to be impossible, they are being foolish, or rather, they aren't really saying anything intelligible because they are in essence saying "A is A and A is not A at the same time in the same respect." They might as well say 'blambo forstine inblims abadaba.'"
Here is another case in which some care might be exercised. It seems to me that if I say I believe in the Resurrection I am saying I believe in something that my reason tells me is certainly out of the ordinary, if not impossible. If I say that I believe that Jesus ascended physically into Heaven, I am saying I believe in something my reason tells me no one could ever do. If I say I believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity, I am saying that I believe in something that my reason tells me is impossible. My reason has demonstrated to me that a person who was crucified 2,000 years ago could not possibly be entirely present in every Host in every Tabernacle in every Church everywhere in the world, at the same time no less.
We do believe in things that our reason tells us are impossible, but not unreasonable, and these things are called miracles.
I guess my point is that our reason, being finite, does not serve as the ultimate arbiter of what is true or not true, what we are to believe or not believe, at least not when it is used in the scientific way. In fact, I might go so far as to say that it would be very hard for us to know any truth solely by reason due to the fact that our minds are so finite when faced with the reality of God.
Back to the main point of Mark's post, which, by the way, is covered in an excellent way in our Holy Father's encyclical Fides et Ratio, truth revealed by faith may be known by us in a different way than one revealed through reason, but it is no less true.
Mark, at Minute Particulars, (commenting on a post by Steven at Flos Carmeli) makes two statements that I would like to take at least minor exeception to.
The first is a statement that he actually (properly) refutes in the rest of his post. The only reason I call attention to the statement is that I make a plea for care in the use of terms, especially the word truth. The reason I am concerned about this is that I think we are all affected by the perception abroad in the world today that truth is relative, the "your truth is not my truth" syndrome. The part of his post that I take exception to is as follows:
"But even if his suggestion really does boil down to a double-truth claim: a truth revealed by faith contradicting a truth from reason alone, or vice versa. . ."
I hope it is evident to everyone that truth 1) cannot be "double-truth", and 2) cannot be contradicted. If something is true, it is true. A truth revealed by faith may not seem to correspond to anything we know by reason or science, but if it is true it will never be contradicted by reason or science, it is true.
The second statement is as follows:
"When folks say that they will continue to believe in something that reason has demonstrated to be impossible, they are being foolish, or rather, they aren't really saying anything intelligible because they are in essence saying "A is A and A is not A at the same time in the same respect." They might as well say 'blambo forstine inblims abadaba.'"
Here is another case in which some care might be exercised. It seems to me that if I say I believe in the Resurrection I am saying I believe in something that my reason tells me is certainly out of the ordinary, if not impossible. If I say that I believe that Jesus ascended physically into Heaven, I am saying I believe in something my reason tells me no one could ever do. If I say I believe that Jesus is present in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul and divinity, I am saying that I believe in something that my reason tells me is impossible. My reason has demonstrated to me that a person who was crucified 2,000 years ago could not possibly be entirely present in every Host in every Tabernacle in every Church everywhere in the world, at the same time no less.
We do believe in things that our reason tells us are impossible, but not unreasonable, and these things are called miracles.
I guess my point is that our reason, being finite, does not serve as the ultimate arbiter of what is true or not true, what we are to believe or not believe, at least not when it is used in the scientific way. In fact, I might go so far as to say that it would be very hard for us to know any truth solely by reason due to the fact that our minds are so finite when faced with the reality of God.
Back to the main point of Mark's post, which, by the way, is covered in an excellent way in our Holy Father's encyclical Fides et Ratio, truth revealed by faith may be known by us in a different way than one revealed through reason, but it is no less true.
Saturday, April 05, 2003
Pacifism
Steven at Flos Carmelli has done another post that got me thinking. I had not planned to write anymore about either the war itself or the justification for it but Steven's post has made me overcome this reticence.
He asks the question, "Is pacifism justified?" When I began to write this post my answer was "perhaps". Having thought through the issue a bit I think it is possible to say simply “no, it is not".
First it might be helpful to define the word pacifism. Pacifism could be defined as a refusal to bear arms or resort to violence to settle disputes (on moral grounds). It means that the person who declares himself a pacifist believes that it is never legitimate to use violence to deter others who are, say, pursuing a morally unacceptable, even lethal, course of action.
I believe that, although those who claim to be pacifists generally seem to think they are taking the high moral ground, they are in fact indulging in a serious moral failure. To understand this we need only to consider the origins and outcome of World War II, i.e., the responsibility of national governments to protect their citizens from external threat.
When national leaders fail in their responsibility we have a situation such as that faced by the Western Allies prior to World War II. In the decade leading up to the war, the 1930’s, the leaders of Britain and France decided to appease Adolph Hitler in order to obtain a short-term peace. The result was that millions of people were killed in a war that could easily have been averted had the leaders of the Allies been willing to demonstrate to Hitler that his aggressive inclinations would not be tolerated. Hitler, as he himself later admitted, would have been easily stopped and probably destroyed by Allied action in 1933 or '34. The Allied leaders did not oppose Hitler when it would have been easy and instead plunged their nations, and the United States into a World War that saw, among other atrocities 6 million Jews go to their deaths. The fact of the matter is appeasement never works.
I believe that the present conflict in Iraq closely follows the parallel with Hitler and World War II. Many people will say that Saddam Hussein is a mere tinhorn dictator who has no capability to inflict harm on "our side." That is exactly what was said of Hitler in the early 1930's. We would do well to remember that the tinhorn dictator Saddam Hussein has already killed over 2 million people; there is little reason to believe that he would stop there.
It should be clear that I believe the primary reason the war in Iraq is being fought is to defend the citizens of the United States from the external threat of terrorism and from the even greater overall threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. It would be a truly wonderful thing if, in addition to achieving this goal, we also achieve the goal of bringing peace, democracy, and freedom from oppression by a cruel tyrant, to the people of Iraq, but that is not the main goal we should be seeking.
I believe this is a war to protect our most cherished freedoms. We should all be mindful of the tendency for Islam to equate religion with the state and to believe that the only way to evangelize was at the point of the sword. The ideas of the dignity of the human person, human free will, and a loving, personal, merciful God are foreign to Islam. We have seen, up close and personal, the practical effects of this "worldview" and its implications at the World Trade Center in New York City. Those who are afraid that the war in Iraq will bring a wave of terrorism to the United States have very short memories; it has been here since September 11, 2001.
In the end it seems to me that pacifism is a kind of withdrawal from the responsibility to choose good and avoid evil. It is a kind of nihilism that says nothing is any more important than anything else and we should all just "live and let live." As I have said before, if there is nothing worth dying for, there is nothing much worth living for. There are plenty of people in the world who are more than willing for us to die for their beliefs.
In contrast to this attitude, I am reminded of God's instructions to the Israelites as they were about to enter into the Promised Land. In certain towns they were told to destroy every living thing in the town, every man, woman and child -- nothing should be left alive. The reason for this apparently cruel and arbitrary instruction is too often missed. It was not that the enemies of Israel could not be converted, it was the threat posed to the Israelites of being converted to the paganism of their enemies. That danger was so great and the Israelites were so spiritually weak, that the presence of their enemies could not be tolerated; they had to be destroyed. We in the West are in the same or greater spiritual danger today -- we live in a society that is rapidly becoming more pagan than Christian. We should be willing, if necessary, to oppose those who would destroy us with whatever force is necessary to stop them, it is a matter of life and death, both physical and spiritual. We should not tolerate anything that separates us from God.
I do not say that war is good, only that at times it is necessary. It is not something to be sought and it can have terrible consequences for those involved in it, but there are times when the cost of avoiding it is even greater. The United States has fought wars that were not in defense of our national interests, Viet Nam comes immediately to mind, and these must be avoided. But when it becomes necessary to fight a war we should be prepared militarily, psychologically, morally and spiritually, trusting in God that his will be done. As the preacher says:
“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to rrefrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.”
Steven at Flos Carmelli has done another post that got me thinking. I had not planned to write anymore about either the war itself or the justification for it but Steven's post has made me overcome this reticence.
He asks the question, "Is pacifism justified?" When I began to write this post my answer was "perhaps". Having thought through the issue a bit I think it is possible to say simply “no, it is not".
First it might be helpful to define the word pacifism. Pacifism could be defined as a refusal to bear arms or resort to violence to settle disputes (on moral grounds). It means that the person who declares himself a pacifist believes that it is never legitimate to use violence to deter others who are, say, pursuing a morally unacceptable, even lethal, course of action.
I believe that, although those who claim to be pacifists generally seem to think they are taking the high moral ground, they are in fact indulging in a serious moral failure. To understand this we need only to consider the origins and outcome of World War II, i.e., the responsibility of national governments to protect their citizens from external threat.
When national leaders fail in their responsibility we have a situation such as that faced by the Western Allies prior to World War II. In the decade leading up to the war, the 1930’s, the leaders of Britain and France decided to appease Adolph Hitler in order to obtain a short-term peace. The result was that millions of people were killed in a war that could easily have been averted had the leaders of the Allies been willing to demonstrate to Hitler that his aggressive inclinations would not be tolerated. Hitler, as he himself later admitted, would have been easily stopped and probably destroyed by Allied action in 1933 or '34. The Allied leaders did not oppose Hitler when it would have been easy and instead plunged their nations, and the United States into a World War that saw, among other atrocities 6 million Jews go to their deaths. The fact of the matter is appeasement never works.
I believe that the present conflict in Iraq closely follows the parallel with Hitler and World War II. Many people will say that Saddam Hussein is a mere tinhorn dictator who has no capability to inflict harm on "our side." That is exactly what was said of Hitler in the early 1930's. We would do well to remember that the tinhorn dictator Saddam Hussein has already killed over 2 million people; there is little reason to believe that he would stop there.
It should be clear that I believe the primary reason the war in Iraq is being fought is to defend the citizens of the United States from the external threat of terrorism and from the even greater overall threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. It would be a truly wonderful thing if, in addition to achieving this goal, we also achieve the goal of bringing peace, democracy, and freedom from oppression by a cruel tyrant, to the people of Iraq, but that is not the main goal we should be seeking.
I believe this is a war to protect our most cherished freedoms. We should all be mindful of the tendency for Islam to equate religion with the state and to believe that the only way to evangelize was at the point of the sword. The ideas of the dignity of the human person, human free will, and a loving, personal, merciful God are foreign to Islam. We have seen, up close and personal, the practical effects of this "worldview" and its implications at the World Trade Center in New York City. Those who are afraid that the war in Iraq will bring a wave of terrorism to the United States have very short memories; it has been here since September 11, 2001.
In the end it seems to me that pacifism is a kind of withdrawal from the responsibility to choose good and avoid evil. It is a kind of nihilism that says nothing is any more important than anything else and we should all just "live and let live." As I have said before, if there is nothing worth dying for, there is nothing much worth living for. There are plenty of people in the world who are more than willing for us to die for their beliefs.
In contrast to this attitude, I am reminded of God's instructions to the Israelites as they were about to enter into the Promised Land. In certain towns they were told to destroy every living thing in the town, every man, woman and child -- nothing should be left alive. The reason for this apparently cruel and arbitrary instruction is too often missed. It was not that the enemies of Israel could not be converted, it was the threat posed to the Israelites of being converted to the paganism of their enemies. That danger was so great and the Israelites were so spiritually weak, that the presence of their enemies could not be tolerated; they had to be destroyed. We in the West are in the same or greater spiritual danger today -- we live in a society that is rapidly becoming more pagan than Christian. We should be willing, if necessary, to oppose those who would destroy us with whatever force is necessary to stop them, it is a matter of life and death, both physical and spiritual. We should not tolerate anything that separates us from God.
I do not say that war is good, only that at times it is necessary. It is not something to be sought and it can have terrible consequences for those involved in it, but there are times when the cost of avoiding it is even greater. The United States has fought wars that were not in defense of our national interests, Viet Nam comes immediately to mind, and these must be avoided. But when it becomes necessary to fight a war we should be prepared militarily, psychologically, morally and spiritually, trusting in God that his will be done. As the preacher says:
“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to rrefrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.”
Sunday, March 30, 2003
The Rapture
Carl Olsen, over at Envoy Encore, has just published a book that looks very interesting. The title is Will Catholics be Left Behind? He has also challenged Tim LaHaye, author of the Left Behind series to a duel, well actually a debate, on the issues raised in LaHaye’s dispensationalist theology. There are many Catholic apologists who are up in arms about the Left Behind series and a great deal of ink has been spilled concerning these books. To be honest, while I do wish to read the book, the arguments over the theology are, I think, much ado about nothing.
First of all, the dispensationalist movement is hardly a major part of Protestant theology even after the success of the Left Behind books. It seems to me this set of ideas, the rapture, and the tribulation, all of that, while becoming more prominent, is not really a major theme in mainstream Protestantism. The fundamentalist and charismatic movements are more prominent these days. When I was still a Presbyterian I had hardly ever heard of these ideas, they were certainly considered a fringe movement. The books have created quite a sensation, but I believe this is much broader than it is deep.
Second, the problem with both the theology behind the books and the drastic, even overblown, response to them, especially from Catholic apologists is that no one, “not even the angels in heaven”, to quote Jesus, really knows what will happen at the end times. Only the Father knows for sure what will happen and when. Furthermore, we are not to be concerned about such things. Jesus says we are to “Watch”. Arguing, debating, writing books, arguing Protestant dispensationalist theology is much like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. How can we ever arrive at a satisfactory conclusion? We can’t.
We should be spending our time in the more profitable activities of growing in personal holiness and spreading God’s Kingdom on earth. There is a great deal of profitable work that can be done here and we take time from them to argue impossible questions. Our concern should be the here and now, on things we can influence, not on something we are specifically told by Jesus not to be concerned with. We know that Jesus will come at a time of the Father's choosing, and we are to be prepared, that's all we can know.
As for the Left Behind books themselves, I think there is a least one thing that can be said for them: they are well written, suspense filled stories. The sheer volume of their sales leads us to conclude these good stories are being read by, not just Christians but many people in society who have never given serious thoughts to what will happen to them at the end of their lives. This is not bad. It may lead many non-believers into a Protestant church, fundamentalist or dispensationalist or whatever, but for all we know that may be the first step for many on their journey into the true Church. To see Catholic apologists attacking the ideas leading these people to belief on the basis of esoteric theological notions can’t be helpful.
I know these Catholic apologists are afraid the books will lead many poorly catechized Catholics out of the Church. The response to this fear is not to attack the books but to improve Catholic catechesis. There is much more productive work to be done here. In fact, for most people in the pews to understand why the Left Behind books are faulty, for them to understand what the Catholic apologists are even talking about, a great deal of catechesis needs to be done. Otherwise the arguments are futile.
I hope to read Carl Olsen’s book, I believe it would be helpful to understand this theology and I’m sure the book will make a contribution towards this goal. But let’s keep things in perspective and concentrate on what needs to be done here and now. Let’s figure out what’s important and concentrate our efforts there, not on subjects we can never present a real answer to.
Carl Olsen, over at Envoy Encore, has just published a book that looks very interesting. The title is Will Catholics be Left Behind? He has also challenged Tim LaHaye, author of the Left Behind series to a duel, well actually a debate, on the issues raised in LaHaye’s dispensationalist theology. There are many Catholic apologists who are up in arms about the Left Behind series and a great deal of ink has been spilled concerning these books. To be honest, while I do wish to read the book, the arguments over the theology are, I think, much ado about nothing.
First of all, the dispensationalist movement is hardly a major part of Protestant theology even after the success of the Left Behind books. It seems to me this set of ideas, the rapture, and the tribulation, all of that, while becoming more prominent, is not really a major theme in mainstream Protestantism. The fundamentalist and charismatic movements are more prominent these days. When I was still a Presbyterian I had hardly ever heard of these ideas, they were certainly considered a fringe movement. The books have created quite a sensation, but I believe this is much broader than it is deep.
Second, the problem with both the theology behind the books and the drastic, even overblown, response to them, especially from Catholic apologists is that no one, “not even the angels in heaven”, to quote Jesus, really knows what will happen at the end times. Only the Father knows for sure what will happen and when. Furthermore, we are not to be concerned about such things. Jesus says we are to “Watch”. Arguing, debating, writing books, arguing Protestant dispensationalist theology is much like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. How can we ever arrive at a satisfactory conclusion? We can’t.
We should be spending our time in the more profitable activities of growing in personal holiness and spreading God’s Kingdom on earth. There is a great deal of profitable work that can be done here and we take time from them to argue impossible questions. Our concern should be the here and now, on things we can influence, not on something we are specifically told by Jesus not to be concerned with. We know that Jesus will come at a time of the Father's choosing, and we are to be prepared, that's all we can know.
As for the Left Behind books themselves, I think there is a least one thing that can be said for them: they are well written, suspense filled stories. The sheer volume of their sales leads us to conclude these good stories are being read by, not just Christians but many people in society who have never given serious thoughts to what will happen to them at the end of their lives. This is not bad. It may lead many non-believers into a Protestant church, fundamentalist or dispensationalist or whatever, but for all we know that may be the first step for many on their journey into the true Church. To see Catholic apologists attacking the ideas leading these people to belief on the basis of esoteric theological notions can’t be helpful.
I know these Catholic apologists are afraid the books will lead many poorly catechized Catholics out of the Church. The response to this fear is not to attack the books but to improve Catholic catechesis. There is much more productive work to be done here. In fact, for most people in the pews to understand why the Left Behind books are faulty, for them to understand what the Catholic apologists are even talking about, a great deal of catechesis needs to be done. Otherwise the arguments are futile.
I hope to read Carl Olsen’s book, I believe it would be helpful to understand this theology and I’m sure the book will make a contribution towards this goal. But let’s keep things in perspective and concentrate on what needs to be done here and now. Let’s figure out what’s important and concentrate our efforts there, not on subjects we can never present a real answer to.
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Real Freedom
In his encyclical letter, Fides et Ratio, John Paul II wrote:
"Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives."
The way in which we answer the basic questions concerning the meaning of our existence affects the entire direction of our lives. The answers to these questions determine how we interact with the reality of our world. They affect every decision we make, every action of our daily lives. In the United States we are free to make those decisions according to the determination of our individual consciences. This freedom is founded in the Christian heritage of Western Civilization, which recognizes the dignity of the human person -- a creature created in the image and likeness of God. This is a profoundly Christian idea, as can be seen in the pages of Fides et Ratio.
At the heart of the Christian view of life is the idea that the human person is capable, and desirous, of knowing the truth about himself and the world around him. In the universal human pursuit of truth, the human person becomes more fully human through the exercise of human freedom.
Other cultures and religions answer these questions differently. They either deny that there is any answer to the deeper questions of our being, and view the human being as simply part of nature, little different from a stone or a fish, as in the case of Eastern mysticism. Or, in the case of Islam, they deny that the individual is free to answer these questions on his own. Both of these approaches to life are reactions against human freedom.
This is where most heresies fall into error, they are reactions against something or a negation of something. John Paul II writes in Fides et Ratio:
"Put differently, freedom is not realized in decisions made against God. For how could it be an exercise of true freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality which enables our self-realization? Men and women can accomplish no more important act in their lives than the act of faith; it is here that freedom reaches the certainty of truth and chooses to live in that truth."
I think our Holy Father is saying here that freedom is not exercised as a decision against God, or really against anything, but is a decision for. Freedom is not a negative, it is a positive choice to follow the truth. Society today views freedom as license, freedom from restraint in any area of our lives. It is a denial of any absolute moral value or obligation on the part of the individual. This has lead to the virtual destruction of the family in the West, with rampant abortion, adultery, homosexuality, and drug use.
It has lead to another even more insidious failure -- an unwillingness to admit that there are truths worth struggling for. It views peace as the absence of conflict of any kind, and it views that absence as worth paying any price to obtain. The problem is that this is a seeking of a negation, a seeking not for a positive goal but a negative goal; in a sense it is seeking after nothing.
In his encyclical letter, Fides et Ratio, John Paul II wrote:
"Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives."
The way in which we answer the basic questions concerning the meaning of our existence affects the entire direction of our lives. The answers to these questions determine how we interact with the reality of our world. They affect every decision we make, every action of our daily lives. In the United States we are free to make those decisions according to the determination of our individual consciences. This freedom is founded in the Christian heritage of Western Civilization, which recognizes the dignity of the human person -- a creature created in the image and likeness of God. This is a profoundly Christian idea, as can be seen in the pages of Fides et Ratio.
At the heart of the Christian view of life is the idea that the human person is capable, and desirous, of knowing the truth about himself and the world around him. In the universal human pursuit of truth, the human person becomes more fully human through the exercise of human freedom.
Other cultures and religions answer these questions differently. They either deny that there is any answer to the deeper questions of our being, and view the human being as simply part of nature, little different from a stone or a fish, as in the case of Eastern mysticism. Or, in the case of Islam, they deny that the individual is free to answer these questions on his own. Both of these approaches to life are reactions against human freedom.
This is where most heresies fall into error, they are reactions against something or a negation of something. John Paul II writes in Fides et Ratio:
"Put differently, freedom is not realized in decisions made against God. For how could it be an exercise of true freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality which enables our self-realization? Men and women can accomplish no more important act in their lives than the act of faith; it is here that freedom reaches the certainty of truth and chooses to live in that truth."
I think our Holy Father is saying here that freedom is not exercised as a decision against God, or really against anything, but is a decision for. Freedom is not a negative, it is a positive choice to follow the truth. Society today views freedom as license, freedom from restraint in any area of our lives. It is a denial of any absolute moral value or obligation on the part of the individual. This has lead to the virtual destruction of the family in the West, with rampant abortion, adultery, homosexuality, and drug use.
It has lead to another even more insidious failure -- an unwillingness to admit that there are truths worth struggling for. It views peace as the absence of conflict of any kind, and it views that absence as worth paying any price to obtain. The problem is that this is a seeking of a negation, a seeking not for a positive goal but a negative goal; in a sense it is seeking after nothing.
Thursday, March 13, 2003
The Meaning of Lent
I am finally close to being back to my regular routine after last weekend's visit of old friends from Austin. I was able to travel around Colorado a bit during their visit since they have 11-year-old twin boys who wanted very badly to see some snow. There's lots of snow in Breckenridge (and a large snowstorm is forecast for "the Springs" early next week) if you are a ski buff.
I was reading a bit from Craig B.'s Page Fault Interrupt and, as usual, he has some interesting things to say from the perspective of one who, I think, is well on his way on the journey into the Church. I would like to offer a lengthy quote from a post in the last day or so:
"It is clear from reading the early church fathers that they viewed sacraments such as baptism and communion as ordinances prescribed by Jesus that, by their observance, deliver a measure of His grace to the participants. (In other words, they're not merely symbolic.) Now this view doesn't imply that He cannot or will not bestow grace through other means, only that He specifically sanctioned these for ordinary use. Some analogies frequently used are those of Jesus using mud to heal the blind, and Elisha ordering the Syrian leper to wash in the Jordan.
Why would this be? I don't know. I'm struggling with this question. While I don't think we can work our way into heaven, I don't think we can will our way into heaven either. Maybe the physical world is supposed to teach us something. We read in James' letter that faith without works is dead; maybe sacraments are tools to remind us of that fact."
Craig is right on several points here. First, the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are not just symbolic. I was thinking just today that we can gather some idea of the importance of the Eucharist to Jesus from the fact that he instituted the Eucharist in what was virtually the last act of his earthly ministry, just hours before his arrest. Would he have done something that he considered unimportant, or merely symbolic, at just that moment? It hardly seems likely.
The fact is, God created us and knows how we function. We do not just operate on a spiritual or intellectual level, we are incarnated souls and when we are resurrected it will be both soul and body. This is why we have the sacraments, to give us both a taste of the physical and spiritual realities of our existence and God's grace in our lives. So, in a sense, Craig is also correct when he says that God gave us the sacraments for our benefit.
Now, as to Craig's question why the Church has viewed the Sacraments as coming at Jesus direction. You see, to a Protestant, salvation is gained by faith alone, there is no need for sacraments or Tradition, or anything other than the act of the individual in professing faith in Jesus Christ. Taken to the extreme it means that the reality of sin is denied and overcome by a single individual decision to "accept Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior."
Now, accepting Jesus into our lives is something each of us must do, but there is more. It seems nearly impossible to read very deeply in Holy Scripture without understanding that what we do is important to God. The details of our daily lives are of tremendous importance to God our Father. Just read the books of Leviticus and Numbers, the history books of the Bible, Jesus Sermon on the Mount, these books are not about what we believe, they are about what we do and what we are. Jesus was asked point blank by the rich young man what he must do to be “have eternal life.” It is interesting what he did not say. He did not say, "You must accept me as your personal Lord and Savior." He did say, "Obey the Commandments", and then, "Sell all your possessions." It seems hard to deny that Jesus was concentrating on what the rich young man did throughout his life, not what he believed at one particular moment.
All of this does not mean that we earn our passage to heaven, it is equally clear from Scripture that this is not the case. But the Sacraments, the Church, the liturgical seasons, are meant to help us to repent, to "change our minds", as it says in the Greek. These things are given to us as a foretaste of what is to come and to help us, to give us the grace, to achieve it. They are all part of our preparation to spend eternity with God, as part of his family.
This is part of the reason we have the penitential season of Lent, to reinforce practices in our lives that bring us closer to God. We don't succeed or fail at this practice, this is not the objective. The objective is to change, to become something better, more pleasing and more conformed, to God. We will never know here on earth the eternal consequences, and benefits, of a Lent that we believed to be a spiritual dud. The fact is, it’s not up to us anyway, all we are supposed to do is try.
I am finally close to being back to my regular routine after last weekend's visit of old friends from Austin. I was able to travel around Colorado a bit during their visit since they have 11-year-old twin boys who wanted very badly to see some snow. There's lots of snow in Breckenridge (and a large snowstorm is forecast for "the Springs" early next week) if you are a ski buff.
I was reading a bit from Craig B.'s Page Fault Interrupt and, as usual, he has some interesting things to say from the perspective of one who, I think, is well on his way on the journey into the Church. I would like to offer a lengthy quote from a post in the last day or so:
"It is clear from reading the early church fathers that they viewed sacraments such as baptism and communion as ordinances prescribed by Jesus that, by their observance, deliver a measure of His grace to the participants. (In other words, they're not merely symbolic.) Now this view doesn't imply that He cannot or will not bestow grace through other means, only that He specifically sanctioned these for ordinary use. Some analogies frequently used are those of Jesus using mud to heal the blind, and Elisha ordering the Syrian leper to wash in the Jordan.
Why would this be? I don't know. I'm struggling with this question. While I don't think we can work our way into heaven, I don't think we can will our way into heaven either. Maybe the physical world is supposed to teach us something. We read in James' letter that faith without works is dead; maybe sacraments are tools to remind us of that fact."
Craig is right on several points here. First, the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are not just symbolic. I was thinking just today that we can gather some idea of the importance of the Eucharist to Jesus from the fact that he instituted the Eucharist in what was virtually the last act of his earthly ministry, just hours before his arrest. Would he have done something that he considered unimportant, or merely symbolic, at just that moment? It hardly seems likely.
The fact is, God created us and knows how we function. We do not just operate on a spiritual or intellectual level, we are incarnated souls and when we are resurrected it will be both soul and body. This is why we have the sacraments, to give us both a taste of the physical and spiritual realities of our existence and God's grace in our lives. So, in a sense, Craig is also correct when he says that God gave us the sacraments for our benefit.
Now, as to Craig's question why the Church has viewed the Sacraments as coming at Jesus direction. You see, to a Protestant, salvation is gained by faith alone, there is no need for sacraments or Tradition, or anything other than the act of the individual in professing faith in Jesus Christ. Taken to the extreme it means that the reality of sin is denied and overcome by a single individual decision to "accept Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior."
Now, accepting Jesus into our lives is something each of us must do, but there is more. It seems nearly impossible to read very deeply in Holy Scripture without understanding that what we do is important to God. The details of our daily lives are of tremendous importance to God our Father. Just read the books of Leviticus and Numbers, the history books of the Bible, Jesus Sermon on the Mount, these books are not about what we believe, they are about what we do and what we are. Jesus was asked point blank by the rich young man what he must do to be “have eternal life.” It is interesting what he did not say. He did not say, "You must accept me as your personal Lord and Savior." He did say, "Obey the Commandments", and then, "Sell all your possessions." It seems hard to deny that Jesus was concentrating on what the rich young man did throughout his life, not what he believed at one particular moment.
All of this does not mean that we earn our passage to heaven, it is equally clear from Scripture that this is not the case. But the Sacraments, the Church, the liturgical seasons, are meant to help us to repent, to "change our minds", as it says in the Greek. These things are given to us as a foretaste of what is to come and to help us, to give us the grace, to achieve it. They are all part of our preparation to spend eternity with God, as part of his family.
This is part of the reason we have the penitential season of Lent, to reinforce practices in our lives that bring us closer to God. We don't succeed or fail at this practice, this is not the objective. The objective is to change, to become something better, more pleasing and more conformed, to God. We will never know here on earth the eternal consequences, and benefits, of a Lent that we believed to be a spiritual dud. The fact is, it’s not up to us anyway, all we are supposed to do is try.
The following is an AP story on the widow of Columbia astronaut Rick Husband and illustrates the faith of someone who has endured what might be considered the unendurable. I think this is a reminder of our total, daily, dependence on God's providence in our lives.
Widow of Shuttle Commander Supports Probe
March 13, 2003 03:52 PM EST
NEW YORK - The widow of the space shuttle Columbia's commander said Thursday that she strongly supports continued space exploration and believes investigators will find the cause of the accident.
"I think space travel is incredibly important to our country. There are certain risks and Rick accepted it, and so do I," said Evelyn Husband, wife of Rick Husband, who piloted Columbia on its final flight.
She's grateful her spouse, one of seven astronauts killed when the shuttle broke up Feb. 1, was able to fulfill the dream of being an astronaut he had harbored since age 4.
On the search for the disaster's cause, Husband said, government experts "are incredibly thorough and determined to find what went wrong...I feel strongly that it was not negligence. It's not a perfect world."
Husband, 44, a stay-at-home mother, has declined most media requests to concentrate on helping the couple's children, 12-year-old Laura and Matthew, 7, cope with the loss of their father. But she did several interviews in New York on Thursday.
She said her grief would have been unbearable the past six weeks without faith in God, along with support from friends at NASA and Houston's Grace Community Church, where the Husbands and the family of Columbia crew mate Michael Anderson attend services.
The spouses and children of the Columbia astronauts meet at least once a week to socialize and, occasionally, pray together, she said.
Husband said she doesn't follow the day-to-day developments in the investigation and hasn't watched television since the news broke, apart from fleeting glimpses while working out at a gym.
Rick Husband was a devoted father, she said, who prepared separate videos for each of his children just before the Columbia flight. The tapes had segments for each day he was away, following Bible readings and prayers in their devotional guidebooks. The Feb. 1 segment closed with a greeting that he'd be seeing them soon.
The last time Evelyn saw Rick, the night before liftoff, he led a brief devotional for the crew and spouses and recited Joshua 1:5-9 from memory. The biblical passage contains the words "I will be with you. I will not fail you or forsake you. Be strong and of good courage."
Husband said NASA saw to it that officers were posted to control crowds at the family home in Texas even before the family flew back from Florida.
Astronaut Steve Lindsey, a veteran of two space flights, was assigned full-time to help the family. A couple from her church who run a ministry offering free financial counseling, Richard and Janetta Curtis, calmly took charge of things like financial details, fielding telephone calls and poring through "buckets of mail" each day.
In the end, Husband said, her religious faith has been strengthened, not weakened, by the experience. "God is so close to me it's impossible to doubt," she said.
Widow of Shuttle Commander Supports Probe
March 13, 2003 03:52 PM EST
NEW YORK - The widow of the space shuttle Columbia's commander said Thursday that she strongly supports continued space exploration and believes investigators will find the cause of the accident.
"I think space travel is incredibly important to our country. There are certain risks and Rick accepted it, and so do I," said Evelyn Husband, wife of Rick Husband, who piloted Columbia on its final flight.
She's grateful her spouse, one of seven astronauts killed when the shuttle broke up Feb. 1, was able to fulfill the dream of being an astronaut he had harbored since age 4.
On the search for the disaster's cause, Husband said, government experts "are incredibly thorough and determined to find what went wrong...I feel strongly that it was not negligence. It's not a perfect world."
Husband, 44, a stay-at-home mother, has declined most media requests to concentrate on helping the couple's children, 12-year-old Laura and Matthew, 7, cope with the loss of their father. But she did several interviews in New York on Thursday.
She said her grief would have been unbearable the past six weeks without faith in God, along with support from friends at NASA and Houston's Grace Community Church, where the Husbands and the family of Columbia crew mate Michael Anderson attend services.
The spouses and children of the Columbia astronauts meet at least once a week to socialize and, occasionally, pray together, she said.
Husband said she doesn't follow the day-to-day developments in the investigation and hasn't watched television since the news broke, apart from fleeting glimpses while working out at a gym.
Rick Husband was a devoted father, she said, who prepared separate videos for each of his children just before the Columbia flight. The tapes had segments for each day he was away, following Bible readings and prayers in their devotional guidebooks. The Feb. 1 segment closed with a greeting that he'd be seeing them soon.
The last time Evelyn saw Rick, the night before liftoff, he led a brief devotional for the crew and spouses and recited Joshua 1:5-9 from memory. The biblical passage contains the words "I will be with you. I will not fail you or forsake you. Be strong and of good courage."
Husband said NASA saw to it that officers were posted to control crowds at the family home in Texas even before the family flew back from Florida.
Astronaut Steve Lindsey, a veteran of two space flights, was assigned full-time to help the family. A couple from her church who run a ministry offering free financial counseling, Richard and Janetta Curtis, calmly took charge of things like financial details, fielding telephone calls and poring through "buckets of mail" each day.
In the end, Husband said, her religious faith has been strengthened, not weakened, by the experience. "God is so close to me it's impossible to doubt," she said.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
[This was a post I originally prepared for Ash Wednesday. As I reviewed it, however, I came to see that it needed considerable editing and revision (perhaps still does) which I was not able to accomplish until now due to a heavy work schedule and the arrival of old friends from Austin, Texas for the weekend. I thought it might be better to post this – better late than never.]
Lenten Reflections
As a convert Ash Wednesday, and the liturgical season of Lent, is still a bit of a culture shock to me. Growing up a Protestant meant the liturgical calendar was never significant to my religious experience. The idea of fasting for Lent wasn't to be taken seriously. As you may know, most Protestants view the Lenten fast as part of an exaggerated Catholic effort to earn one's way to Heaven, and I rather unthinkingly accepted that point of view.
It has taken me a few years but now I am actually beginning to develop an appreciation for the season of Lent. Fr. Steve aptly described the reason for this in his Ash Wednesday homily. He talked about the scientific principle of entropy -- the tendency of everything in the universe to become disordered. When a system move in the direction of disorder, chaos, it takes energy to restore order to it. Fr. Steve made the point that this was true in many areas of our lives. The desk in my study is a good example. It seems that as soon as I get it cleaned up and everything put away, within a day or so it's a mess. The solution is to add energy to the system in order to restore order, to clean it up. This is true for our spiritual lives, as well. We go through the Lenten season reintroducing prayer, fasting and almsgiving into our lives. However, if we don't maintain these disciplines in the weeks and months after Easter, entropy sets in and our spiritual lives tend to degenerate. We need the disciplines of another Lent to restore order to our spiritual systems. Lent is a time to restore order to our spiritual lives.
In light of this, I have been debating the effect that the season should have on this blog. My original thought was based on meditating on our Lord's words in the Ash Wednesday Gospel reading:
"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
I thought that perhaps it would be appropriate to take Jesus words literally when he suggests that, at least to the outside world, there should be no apparent difference in our countenance when we are fasting and praying. After all, we should be constantly at prayer, not just during the season of Lent. It seemed to me that if the purpose of this blog is attempt to show how our Catholic faith influences our daily lives in a practical way, then, perhaps it would be appropriate for there to be little apparent change in outward appearances here, in the days and weeks leading up to Easter.
However, on further reflection, I realize that Lent is a time for prayer, fasting, and almsgiving -- a time for recharging the spiritual batteries, so to speak, and the fact of the matter is, I feel the need to recharge those batteries. So it is likely that I will either reduce the posts here, or shift their focus, in order to allow you the reader and myself a little more time for where our focus should be right now, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.
I belatedly wish all of you a very blessed Lenten season, looking forward to the coming of the Light of the world on Easter morning.
Lenten Reflections
As a convert Ash Wednesday, and the liturgical season of Lent, is still a bit of a culture shock to me. Growing up a Protestant meant the liturgical calendar was never significant to my religious experience. The idea of fasting for Lent wasn't to be taken seriously. As you may know, most Protestants view the Lenten fast as part of an exaggerated Catholic effort to earn one's way to Heaven, and I rather unthinkingly accepted that point of view.
It has taken me a few years but now I am actually beginning to develop an appreciation for the season of Lent. Fr. Steve aptly described the reason for this in his Ash Wednesday homily. He talked about the scientific principle of entropy -- the tendency of everything in the universe to become disordered. When a system move in the direction of disorder, chaos, it takes energy to restore order to it. Fr. Steve made the point that this was true in many areas of our lives. The desk in my study is a good example. It seems that as soon as I get it cleaned up and everything put away, within a day or so it's a mess. The solution is to add energy to the system in order to restore order, to clean it up. This is true for our spiritual lives, as well. We go through the Lenten season reintroducing prayer, fasting and almsgiving into our lives. However, if we don't maintain these disciplines in the weeks and months after Easter, entropy sets in and our spiritual lives tend to degenerate. We need the disciplines of another Lent to restore order to our spiritual systems. Lent is a time to restore order to our spiritual lives.
In light of this, I have been debating the effect that the season should have on this blog. My original thought was based on meditating on our Lord's words in the Ash Wednesday Gospel reading:
"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
I thought that perhaps it would be appropriate to take Jesus words literally when he suggests that, at least to the outside world, there should be no apparent difference in our countenance when we are fasting and praying. After all, we should be constantly at prayer, not just during the season of Lent. It seemed to me that if the purpose of this blog is attempt to show how our Catholic faith influences our daily lives in a practical way, then, perhaps it would be appropriate for there to be little apparent change in outward appearances here, in the days and weeks leading up to Easter.
However, on further reflection, I realize that Lent is a time for prayer, fasting, and almsgiving -- a time for recharging the spiritual batteries, so to speak, and the fact of the matter is, I feel the need to recharge those batteries. So it is likely that I will either reduce the posts here, or shift their focus, in order to allow you the reader and myself a little more time for where our focus should be right now, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.
I belatedly wish all of you a very blessed Lenten season, looking forward to the coming of the Light of the world on Easter morning.
Friday, March 07, 2003
The Law of Posts
There seems to be some sort of law of posts working in my blogging life. For the last two or three weeks I have struggled to come up with something worthwhile to write about, and I had time to write several posts if I had been able to. Now, I have several posts I wish to write and hardly have time to do one. Bear with me, I have begun drafting several and they are on their way.
There seems to be some sort of law of posts working in my blogging life. For the last two or three weeks I have struggled to come up with something worthwhile to write about, and I had time to write several posts if I had been able to. Now, I have several posts I wish to write and hardly have time to do one. Bear with me, I have begun drafting several and they are on their way.
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
The Man with the Knife
Tom, over at Disputations, has done a post against the war with Iraq quoting Cardinal McCarrick. The argument is that it is immoral to kill a man with a knife in his pocket.
Now, it is hard to argue with this line of reasoning. A man walking down the street with a knife in his pocket has a useful tool available to him. Depending on his talents and natural proclivities he can use that knife as an implement to whittle a stick of wood. He can use it to skin a deer if he is a hunter. He can use it to trim a piece of rope or the branch of a tree. As a last resort he can use it to defend himself, or, if his intent is evil, he can use it as an offensive weapon. The reason it is immoral to kill the man carrying a knife is that, unless he does, in fact, use it as an offensive weapon, there is no reason to think that his intentions in carrying it are evil.
The analogy is a poor one, however, when used in the case of Saddam Hussein for a very simple reason. Nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons have only one use, which is to kill people. There are no peaceful, innocent uses, for these weapons; there is no reason to have them unless you either intend them to be a threat or you intend to use them for the purpose for which they were designed.
To return to the analogy of the man with the knife it might be useful to note that a man carrying a knife is generally free to carry it in his pocket wherever he goes. However, there are certain cases in which that knife becomes a threat and has been determined to be illegal, at an airport for example. If he takes that knife into an airport and refuses to either leave or surrender the knife the lawful authorities will use force, even deadly force, if it is necessary to disarm him.
In the case of Saddam Hussein, he has been ordered, by legitimate international authority, to disarm and has substantially refused to do so. Holding the weapons that he has, and given his proven history of having used them, and his threats to use them again, it is legitimate for the international authorities to use force, even deadly force, to disarm him.
Tom, over at Disputations, has done a post against the war with Iraq quoting Cardinal McCarrick. The argument is that it is immoral to kill a man with a knife in his pocket.
Now, it is hard to argue with this line of reasoning. A man walking down the street with a knife in his pocket has a useful tool available to him. Depending on his talents and natural proclivities he can use that knife as an implement to whittle a stick of wood. He can use it to skin a deer if he is a hunter. He can use it to trim a piece of rope or the branch of a tree. As a last resort he can use it to defend himself, or, if his intent is evil, he can use it as an offensive weapon. The reason it is immoral to kill the man carrying a knife is that, unless he does, in fact, use it as an offensive weapon, there is no reason to think that his intentions in carrying it are evil.
The analogy is a poor one, however, when used in the case of Saddam Hussein for a very simple reason. Nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons have only one use, which is to kill people. There are no peaceful, innocent uses, for these weapons; there is no reason to have them unless you either intend them to be a threat or you intend to use them for the purpose for which they were designed.
To return to the analogy of the man with the knife it might be useful to note that a man carrying a knife is generally free to carry it in his pocket wherever he goes. However, there are certain cases in which that knife becomes a threat and has been determined to be illegal, at an airport for example. If he takes that knife into an airport and refuses to either leave or surrender the knife the lawful authorities will use force, even deadly force, if it is necessary to disarm him.
In the case of Saddam Hussein, he has been ordered, by legitimate international authority, to disarm and has substantially refused to do so. Holding the weapons that he has, and given his proven history of having used them, and his threats to use them again, it is legitimate for the international authorities to use force, even deadly force, to disarm him.
Sunday, March 02, 2003
Sorry for the lack of posts in the past few days. I've had to work some overtime and feel like I'm trying to catch a cold.
Steven, your comment is correct and when I get back on my feet I will post a clarifying comment. I'm not discouraged about my writing at all and thanks for your encouragement.
Paz y bien to all
Steven, your comment is correct and when I get back on my feet I will post a clarifying comment. I'm not discouraged about my writing at all and thanks for your encouragement.
Paz y bien to all
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Originality
Steven posted a comment (see below) that something I had posted made points similar to that made by deCaussade in Abandonment to Divine Providence. At first I was slightly upset (only slightly) that I might have written something that could be interpreted as plagiarism. As I began to think this over, though, I realized that trying to do an orthodox Catholic blog means that nothing I write will be entirely original.
You see, trying to write from an orthodox Catholic position means that nothing I write will be original. Revelation ceased with the Apostles and it is the task of the Church only to interpret what has already been revealed. Anyone trying to write in accordance with the teaching of the Church cannot be inventive, there is nothing new to invent.
This is the problem for those who wish that the Church to be more "progressive." The notion of progress is a human idea and applies to human activity; it signifies movement toward a goal or objective. If we believe that the Church is a divine institution, the Body of Christ on earth, and if we believe that God is infinite, eternal and perfect in all his attributes, then the Church cannot be "progressive" -- there is nothing to progress towards. The Church is already what God intends it to be. To wish otherwise is an instance of both human error and human pride.
So I, and all who wish to remain in communion with the Church, have to face the fact that the work we do as writers is inevitably going to lack originality, we can do no less.
Steven posted a comment (see below) that something I had posted made points similar to that made by deCaussade in Abandonment to Divine Providence. At first I was slightly upset (only slightly) that I might have written something that could be interpreted as plagiarism. As I began to think this over, though, I realized that trying to do an orthodox Catholic blog means that nothing I write will be entirely original.
You see, trying to write from an orthodox Catholic position means that nothing I write will be original. Revelation ceased with the Apostles and it is the task of the Church only to interpret what has already been revealed. Anyone trying to write in accordance with the teaching of the Church cannot be inventive, there is nothing new to invent.
This is the problem for those who wish that the Church to be more "progressive." The notion of progress is a human idea and applies to human activity; it signifies movement toward a goal or objective. If we believe that the Church is a divine institution, the Body of Christ on earth, and if we believe that God is infinite, eternal and perfect in all his attributes, then the Church cannot be "progressive" -- there is nothing to progress towards. The Church is already what God intends it to be. To wish otherwise is an instance of both human error and human pride.
So I, and all who wish to remain in communion with the Church, have to face the fact that the work we do as writers is inevitably going to lack originality, we can do no less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)