Trust
Steven has done a wonderful post on trusting God, if you haven't seen it please take a few minutes and see what he has to say.
Paz y bien
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Sunday, June 15, 2003
Culture Wars III
That men may know wisdom and instruction, understand words of insight, receive instruction in wise dealing, righteousness, justice, and equity; that prudence may be given to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth— the wise man also may hear and increase in learning, and the man of understanding acquire skill, to understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles.—Proverbs 1:2-6 (RSV)
Peter has written a comment to my Culture Wars II post; I am grateful for his thoughts. However, while he disagrees with the post I am afraid he has shown that he is the one who misses the point.
In his comments Peter seems to be saying that all they were hoping for from the Georgetown commencement speaker was a nice, uplifting, and meaningless little speech that would send them on their way feeling good about themselves. If this is the case, they should have invited someone from the cast of Saturday Night Live, not Cardinal Arinze. By inviting the Cardinal to speak, what did they think they were going to hear? If the commencement exercises of a major Catholic university are not the time or the place to hear the truth about matters of life and death, what is?
The events of this years commencement exercises demonstrate that one thing they did not want to hear was the teachings of the Church -- Truth. It seems these events highlight serious flaws within our universities, especially within our Catholic universities, that must be corrected if we are to survive as a civilization.
The fact of the matter is Truth is never inappropriate, no matter the occasion. The real problem with the Cardinal's speech was that it is more important to the faculty and students of Georgetown U to be “inclusive and uplifting” than to hear the Truth. I contend that Cardinal Arinze's speech would not have caused the furor it did were it not for the fact that, at Georgetown University, hearing the truth was painful. I suspect that the Cardinal's speech caused many on the Georgetown campus to feel less than good about themselves.
Twenty-five years ago, in 1978, Alexander Solzhenitsyn delivered the commencement address at Harvard University. I would like to quote from his introduction:
"Harvard's motto is 'Veritas.' Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us as soon as our concentration begins to flag, all the while leaving the illusion that we are continuing to pursue it. This is the source of much discord. Also, truth is seldom sweet; it is almost invariable bitter. A measure of bitter truth is included in my speech today, but I offer it as a friend, not as an adversary."
Anyone who would offer us truth is truly our friend; one who would hide the truth from us must be considered a mortal enemy. The central problem we face as a civilization today is that we have let our concentration flag in favor of a counterfeit ideology; we prefer the anesthesia of inclusivity and diversity to the scalpel of Truth. Cardinal Arinze did not come to the Georgetown campus as a heartless repressor of good feelings but as a friend and true truth teacher.
On the other hand, barbaric behavior is never acceptable in civilized society, no matter what the occasion.
The very idea of a university is that it should be a safe place for open intellectual discourse. Our universities, however, have become places completely intolerant of ideas contrary to the prevailing ideology. When ideas contrary to the accepted party line become intolerable we are in trouble as a civilization. It is well to remind ourselves, as Russell Kirk pointed out, that the Latin roots for ideology and idiocy are the same. When we refuse to grant another person the respect due him as a fellow human being by hearing him out we have sunk into a condition of barbarity.
One theology professor at Georgetown, by getting up and walking out on a Cardinal of the Church who was presenting the most basic teachings of the Church, gave one final instruction to the graduating students of Georgetown. I suspect she was trying to reinforce four years of such instruction.
First, she taught that is perfectly appropriate for a Catholic to be in open dissent from Church teachings, hardly a desirable point of view from someone aspiring to be a Catholic theologian. Second, she demonstrated that ideas contrary to modern, secular-humanist teachings are not to be tolerated on a university campus. Her actions make it abundantly clear that “diversity and inclusivity” have strict limits on the Georgetown campus. For a member of the faculty of a so-called Catholic University to walk off the dais when a Cardinal of the Church is speaking goes beyond rude; it displays real ignorance, as in, a lack of civilized knowledge. It demonstrated, and even worse, taught barbaric behavior. As Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
The scandal of her conduct is that she is in a position to be a teacher of the truth taught otherwise. Lets not forget that her actions were in support of those who openly engage in conduct considered gravely evil by the Church.
Peter, my post was not "a blind attack" on Georgetown University, (nor is this an attack on you). I do not have to be a member of the Georgetown University "community" to understand what went on its commencement ceremonies in May. The problems involve issues deeper than the good feelings of the faculty and students of Georgetown University; they involve issues of life and death – eternal life and death. On that day in May, Georgetown demonstrated that it has failed as a Catholic university and by so doing failed us all.
That men may know wisdom and instruction, understand words of insight, receive instruction in wise dealing, righteousness, justice, and equity; that prudence may be given to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth— the wise man also may hear and increase in learning, and the man of understanding acquire skill, to understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles.—Proverbs 1:2-6 (RSV)
Peter has written a comment to my Culture Wars II post; I am grateful for his thoughts. However, while he disagrees with the post I am afraid he has shown that he is the one who misses the point.
In his comments Peter seems to be saying that all they were hoping for from the Georgetown commencement speaker was a nice, uplifting, and meaningless little speech that would send them on their way feeling good about themselves. If this is the case, they should have invited someone from the cast of Saturday Night Live, not Cardinal Arinze. By inviting the Cardinal to speak, what did they think they were going to hear? If the commencement exercises of a major Catholic university are not the time or the place to hear the truth about matters of life and death, what is?
The events of this years commencement exercises demonstrate that one thing they did not want to hear was the teachings of the Church -- Truth. It seems these events highlight serious flaws within our universities, especially within our Catholic universities, that must be corrected if we are to survive as a civilization.
The fact of the matter is Truth is never inappropriate, no matter the occasion. The real problem with the Cardinal's speech was that it is more important to the faculty and students of Georgetown U to be “inclusive and uplifting” than to hear the Truth. I contend that Cardinal Arinze's speech would not have caused the furor it did were it not for the fact that, at Georgetown University, hearing the truth was painful. I suspect that the Cardinal's speech caused many on the Georgetown campus to feel less than good about themselves.
Twenty-five years ago, in 1978, Alexander Solzhenitsyn delivered the commencement address at Harvard University. I would like to quote from his introduction:
"Harvard's motto is 'Veritas.' Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us as soon as our concentration begins to flag, all the while leaving the illusion that we are continuing to pursue it. This is the source of much discord. Also, truth is seldom sweet; it is almost invariable bitter. A measure of bitter truth is included in my speech today, but I offer it as a friend, not as an adversary."
Anyone who would offer us truth is truly our friend; one who would hide the truth from us must be considered a mortal enemy. The central problem we face as a civilization today is that we have let our concentration flag in favor of a counterfeit ideology; we prefer the anesthesia of inclusivity and diversity to the scalpel of Truth. Cardinal Arinze did not come to the Georgetown campus as a heartless repressor of good feelings but as a friend and true truth teacher.
On the other hand, barbaric behavior is never acceptable in civilized society, no matter what the occasion.
The very idea of a university is that it should be a safe place for open intellectual discourse. Our universities, however, have become places completely intolerant of ideas contrary to the prevailing ideology. When ideas contrary to the accepted party line become intolerable we are in trouble as a civilization. It is well to remind ourselves, as Russell Kirk pointed out, that the Latin roots for ideology and idiocy are the same. When we refuse to grant another person the respect due him as a fellow human being by hearing him out we have sunk into a condition of barbarity.
One theology professor at Georgetown, by getting up and walking out on a Cardinal of the Church who was presenting the most basic teachings of the Church, gave one final instruction to the graduating students of Georgetown. I suspect she was trying to reinforce four years of such instruction.
First, she taught that is perfectly appropriate for a Catholic to be in open dissent from Church teachings, hardly a desirable point of view from someone aspiring to be a Catholic theologian. Second, she demonstrated that ideas contrary to modern, secular-humanist teachings are not to be tolerated on a university campus. Her actions make it abundantly clear that “diversity and inclusivity” have strict limits on the Georgetown campus. For a member of the faculty of a so-called Catholic University to walk off the dais when a Cardinal of the Church is speaking goes beyond rude; it displays real ignorance, as in, a lack of civilized knowledge. It demonstrated, and even worse, taught barbaric behavior. As Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
The scandal of her conduct is that she is in a position to be a teacher of the truth taught otherwise. Lets not forget that her actions were in support of those who openly engage in conduct considered gravely evil by the Church.
Peter, my post was not "a blind attack" on Georgetown University, (nor is this an attack on you). I do not have to be a member of the Georgetown University "community" to understand what went on its commencement ceremonies in May. The problems involve issues deeper than the good feelings of the faculty and students of Georgetown University; they involve issues of life and death – eternal life and death. On that day in May, Georgetown demonstrated that it has failed as a Catholic university and by so doing failed us all.
Thursday, June 12, 2003
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Why Blog
Mark Shea had a nice article in the most recent issue of Crisis on blogging, St Blogs Parish, and Catholic blogs in general. One thing that he seemed to be implying though is that blogs are primarily an alternative news source for the major media outlets. While this is true to some extent, I don't think that is the only purpose for a blog; it is not my purpose anyway.
I take my example from my father-in-law who was a life long newspaperman and writer. In the late '70s he and I (and a few other folks) started a weekly newspaper in El Paso. The idea was that in a weekly format the truth behind the headlines could be explored more deeply. The paper could at least attempt to answer the question "Why?" instead of just "who?" and "what?" While the paper was something of a critical success (I wrote only one article for it, a restaurant review, of all things, and can take no credit for that) it was hardly a financial success and finally folded. However, I think the principle is important.
Most of the major scandals today have one thing in common -- they stem from a failure to ask the question "Why?" They stem from a failure to ask why we should follow the teaching of the Catholic Church.
You could ask, for example, why is it important to understand that there is such a thing as objective truth? Just ask the now resigned editors of the New York Times. As World magazine pointed out this week, if you reject the notion of objective truth, why should you be surprised that your newspaper publishes fiction? For that matter, why should you care, what difference does it make? For the New York Times the distinction between fact and fiction became blurred, at best, and thus Jason Blair could get away for several years with plagiarism, made up stories, and who knows what, with no one the wiser. What is even more disturbing is that people about whom he wrote stories and who knew that his "facts" were made up did not protest. They simply accepted that stories in the New York Times could not be expected to be true!
Or you could ask, as the theology faculty at Georgetown University seems to wonder, why the Church teaches that homosexuality and other sexual perversions are gravely sinful. What harm could living the homosexual "lifestyle" be? Just ask certain Catholic bishops across the country. They know first hand the harm that can be done, and are still suffering the consequences.
Protestant friends have expressed their condolences to me in the past year over the situation in the Church. I don't think condolences are necessary. I think the situation that surfaced early last year is a perfect example, not of a failure in the Church, but of what happens when we fail to follow Church teachings.
You could also ask "why do we need a magisterium making authoritative pronouncements and trying to repress our God-given freedom?" Just ask the members of my former Presbyterian denomination. The Presbyterian Church USA is currently losing members at the rate of 35,000 per year over the issue of the ordination of homosexuals. Cut loose from any authoritative magisterium they are forced to determine church teaching by majority vote. This solution is one doomed to failure, since truth can never be determined by vote. It seems likely that the PCUSA (aptly named, by the way) will soon pass from the scene, the victim of an inability to accept the Magisterium of the Church.
The crucial "why?" question that hardly anyone asks these days is "why does the Church teach the things she does?" Society, and the Georgetown theology department, simply seems to assume it is because the Church is mean spirited and wishes to be "hurtful" to those who do not conform to her harsh and judgmental norms. If these folks were to ask the question and honestly try to come up with an answer, they would find out that it is because the Church wishes to protect us from harm. The Church understands that we are creatures of God created in His image; we are "designed" to operate in certain ways by our designer. When we fail to do so we can expect problems to arise, as we can see all around us.
My purpose for this blog has been to attempt on my part to understand why it is important to know what the Church teaches about us as human beings. It should be obvious that what we believe affects what we are. Too often today the secular-materialist worldview of society is unquestioningly accepted as valid; until more people ask why we should believe this, and then take action to answer the question honestly, we should not be surprised that more, and greater, scandals come to dominate our headlines.
Mark Shea had a nice article in the most recent issue of Crisis on blogging, St Blogs Parish, and Catholic blogs in general. One thing that he seemed to be implying though is that blogs are primarily an alternative news source for the major media outlets. While this is true to some extent, I don't think that is the only purpose for a blog; it is not my purpose anyway.
I take my example from my father-in-law who was a life long newspaperman and writer. In the late '70s he and I (and a few other folks) started a weekly newspaper in El Paso. The idea was that in a weekly format the truth behind the headlines could be explored more deeply. The paper could at least attempt to answer the question "Why?" instead of just "who?" and "what?" While the paper was something of a critical success (I wrote only one article for it, a restaurant review, of all things, and can take no credit for that) it was hardly a financial success and finally folded. However, I think the principle is important.
Most of the major scandals today have one thing in common -- they stem from a failure to ask the question "Why?" They stem from a failure to ask why we should follow the teaching of the Catholic Church.
You could ask, for example, why is it important to understand that there is such a thing as objective truth? Just ask the now resigned editors of the New York Times. As World magazine pointed out this week, if you reject the notion of objective truth, why should you be surprised that your newspaper publishes fiction? For that matter, why should you care, what difference does it make? For the New York Times the distinction between fact and fiction became blurred, at best, and thus Jason Blair could get away for several years with plagiarism, made up stories, and who knows what, with no one the wiser. What is even more disturbing is that people about whom he wrote stories and who knew that his "facts" were made up did not protest. They simply accepted that stories in the New York Times could not be expected to be true!
Or you could ask, as the theology faculty at Georgetown University seems to wonder, why the Church teaches that homosexuality and other sexual perversions are gravely sinful. What harm could living the homosexual "lifestyle" be? Just ask certain Catholic bishops across the country. They know first hand the harm that can be done, and are still suffering the consequences.
Protestant friends have expressed their condolences to me in the past year over the situation in the Church. I don't think condolences are necessary. I think the situation that surfaced early last year is a perfect example, not of a failure in the Church, but of what happens when we fail to follow Church teachings.
You could also ask "why do we need a magisterium making authoritative pronouncements and trying to repress our God-given freedom?" Just ask the members of my former Presbyterian denomination. The Presbyterian Church USA is currently losing members at the rate of 35,000 per year over the issue of the ordination of homosexuals. Cut loose from any authoritative magisterium they are forced to determine church teaching by majority vote. This solution is one doomed to failure, since truth can never be determined by vote. It seems likely that the PCUSA (aptly named, by the way) will soon pass from the scene, the victim of an inability to accept the Magisterium of the Church.
The crucial "why?" question that hardly anyone asks these days is "why does the Church teach the things she does?" Society, and the Georgetown theology department, simply seems to assume it is because the Church is mean spirited and wishes to be "hurtful" to those who do not conform to her harsh and judgmental norms. If these folks were to ask the question and honestly try to come up with an answer, they would find out that it is because the Church wishes to protect us from harm. The Church understands that we are creatures of God created in His image; we are "designed" to operate in certain ways by our designer. When we fail to do so we can expect problems to arise, as we can see all around us.
My purpose for this blog has been to attempt on my part to understand why it is important to know what the Church teaches about us as human beings. It should be obvious that what we believe affects what we are. Too often today the secular-materialist worldview of society is unquestioningly accepted as valid; until more people ask why we should believe this, and then take action to answer the question honestly, we should not be surprised that more, and greater, scandals come to dominate our headlines.
Friday, June 06, 2003
Culture Wars, II
John Da Fiesole over at Disputations has done a post in response to my Culture Wars comments. In his post he asks, what practical influence the bishops have in our lives. Good question. I believe that as Catholic laity we bear a huge responsibility for the state of the culture we live in and we can't blame our failure on our bishops and priests. As is clear from the Cathechism, it is our vocation to affect the temporal affairs and bring them under God's influence. Bishops and priests cannot do this for us.
However, the fact that very often our bishops have little practical impact on our daily lives is a glaring example of a pervasive problem that exists today. There are a couple of recent incidents that highlight the problem we have with our bishops. These problems to not exist with all bishops, my any means, but they do exist.
The most important event was Cardinal Arinze's Commencement address on May 17 at Georgetown University. I will quote from the Washington Post's coverage of the story:
"The cardinal was several minutes into his speech when he said the family 'is under siege' and 'opposed by an antilife mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce.'
After the cardinal said the words 'mocked by homosexuality,' associate theology professor Theresa Sanders, who was seated on stage, walked out. A few students also left, says Mohsin Siddiqui, a 2002 graduate who was at the ceremony.
'I thought what he said was incredibly offensive,' he said. 'With all due respect for the cardinal's opinions, I don't think he should have been voicing them. This came from out of the middle of nowhere.' "
I hope it is obvious to all that the Cardinal's remarks did not "come from out of the middle of nowhere" but straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think it is also interesting that this graduate from a "Catholic" university would think that Cardinal Arinze was simply delivering his "opinion", as if this was some merely personal point of view of his which might, under different circumstances, change in the next day, or week or month. And, I must ask, what kind of a "Catholic" university would tolerate a theology professor who would be so rude as to stand up and walk out on a Cardinal of the Church expounding the official teaching of the Church?
But this is exactly the problem; this kind of thing is common, almost unexceptional, in our modern secularist society. It results from two things, one is that those in a position to teach the truth have chosen to teach untruth, lies. Second, the bishops where this kind of thing is rampant have chosen to ignore it.
In order for the laity to resist and reform the culture, they must know the truth; many of them do indeed know the truth. The next question is, what do we do with the truth we know? We can either disregard it or we can shape our lives by it. As individuals we have this freedom to make this choice. If we make the wrong choice we are not free to influence others to make the same mistake. As Jesus said:
“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”
All too often, today, we all, bishops included, ignore false teaching and just hope it will go away. It won't. Unless, that is, we take active steps against it. The lead for these kinds of active steps should be coming from our bishops. If the bishops were doing this, they would be playing a very prominent role in our daily lives by being our leaders and teachers in the faith. To the extent that this is not happening, we, the laity, are hindered in our struggle in against the culture in which we live.
The second of the two events I mentioned shows that having the courage of our convictions is truly possible.
In April of this year, the editors of Touchstone magazine published an article which said, in effect, that it was impossible to, at the same time, vote Democratic and be a Christian. They characterized the Democrat party as the party of abortion and sodomy. This article apparently generated a firestorm of criticism and a great many cancelled subscriptions. What did the editors of Touchstone do? I'll quote just one paragraph from their response:
“There has been much response to Touchstone’s April issue, in which the Democratic part) was characterized as godless, and portrayed a,, If having developed in recent years into some thing no Christian can in good conscience support. Subscriptions have been angrily canceled and declaration that we will be prayed for received. More attention has been given to this issue than any other we have published. The most common criticisms are that Touchstone, a religious magazine, is now dabbling in politics, where it has no business, and that the April issue was in fact a Republican party tract in which the editors displayed their political preferences more than their Christianity. What, one suspects, some of our off put correspondents wished to see in subsequent issues is some kind of muted apology that we were in some places a bit rough and high handed, along with a good natured admission that good Christians can have varying opinions on these matters. But we don't think they can. Things have gradually but surely come to the point where we must say that to the degree Christians have been co-opted by the Democrats, they are no longer good."
Would that more of us had this kind of courage.
John Da Fiesole over at Disputations has done a post in response to my Culture Wars comments. In his post he asks, what practical influence the bishops have in our lives. Good question. I believe that as Catholic laity we bear a huge responsibility for the state of the culture we live in and we can't blame our failure on our bishops and priests. As is clear from the Cathechism, it is our vocation to affect the temporal affairs and bring them under God's influence. Bishops and priests cannot do this for us.
However, the fact that very often our bishops have little practical impact on our daily lives is a glaring example of a pervasive problem that exists today. There are a couple of recent incidents that highlight the problem we have with our bishops. These problems to not exist with all bishops, my any means, but they do exist.
The most important event was Cardinal Arinze's Commencement address on May 17 at Georgetown University. I will quote from the Washington Post's coverage of the story:
"The cardinal was several minutes into his speech when he said the family 'is under siege' and 'opposed by an antilife mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce.'
After the cardinal said the words 'mocked by homosexuality,' associate theology professor Theresa Sanders, who was seated on stage, walked out. A few students also left, says Mohsin Siddiqui, a 2002 graduate who was at the ceremony.
'I thought what he said was incredibly offensive,' he said. 'With all due respect for the cardinal's opinions, I don't think he should have been voicing them. This came from out of the middle of nowhere.' "
I hope it is obvious to all that the Cardinal's remarks did not "come from out of the middle of nowhere" but straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think it is also interesting that this graduate from a "Catholic" university would think that Cardinal Arinze was simply delivering his "opinion", as if this was some merely personal point of view of his which might, under different circumstances, change in the next day, or week or month. And, I must ask, what kind of a "Catholic" university would tolerate a theology professor who would be so rude as to stand up and walk out on a Cardinal of the Church expounding the official teaching of the Church?
But this is exactly the problem; this kind of thing is common, almost unexceptional, in our modern secularist society. It results from two things, one is that those in a position to teach the truth have chosen to teach untruth, lies. Second, the bishops where this kind of thing is rampant have chosen to ignore it.
In order for the laity to resist and reform the culture, they must know the truth; many of them do indeed know the truth. The next question is, what do we do with the truth we know? We can either disregard it or we can shape our lives by it. As individuals we have this freedom to make this choice. If we make the wrong choice we are not free to influence others to make the same mistake. As Jesus said:
“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”
All too often, today, we all, bishops included, ignore false teaching and just hope it will go away. It won't. Unless, that is, we take active steps against it. The lead for these kinds of active steps should be coming from our bishops. If the bishops were doing this, they would be playing a very prominent role in our daily lives by being our leaders and teachers in the faith. To the extent that this is not happening, we, the laity, are hindered in our struggle in against the culture in which we live.
The second of the two events I mentioned shows that having the courage of our convictions is truly possible.
In April of this year, the editors of Touchstone magazine published an article which said, in effect, that it was impossible to, at the same time, vote Democratic and be a Christian. They characterized the Democrat party as the party of abortion and sodomy. This article apparently generated a firestorm of criticism and a great many cancelled subscriptions. What did the editors of Touchstone do? I'll quote just one paragraph from their response:
“There has been much response to Touchstone’s April issue, in which the Democratic part) was characterized as godless, and portrayed a,, If having developed in recent years into some thing no Christian can in good conscience support. Subscriptions have been angrily canceled and declaration that we will be prayed for received. More attention has been given to this issue than any other we have published. The most common criticisms are that Touchstone, a religious magazine, is now dabbling in politics, where it has no business, and that the April issue was in fact a Republican party tract in which the editors displayed their political preferences more than their Christianity. What, one suspects, some of our off put correspondents wished to see in subsequent issues is some kind of muted apology that we were in some places a bit rough and high handed, along with a good natured admission that good Christians can have varying opinions on these matters. But we don't think they can. Things have gradually but surely come to the point where we must say that to the degree Christians have been co-opted by the Democrats, they are no longer good."
Would that more of us had this kind of courage.
Sunday, June 01, 2003
Culture Wars
Fr. Rob over at Thrown Back has written a couple of good posts concerning the effect of culture on our faith, and vice versa. I'm not writing this as a criticism of what he has written, but rather to point out another way of looking at the question.
Fr. Rob had someone post a comment rejecting the idea that the laity bears any responsibility for the current state of the culture we live in. Fr. Rob posted a response to these comments to the effect that both laity and clergy bear significant responsibility for the problem and this is true. However, I think he is being too nice to those of us in the laity because I would say that, indeed, the laity bears, by far, the greater portion of guilt for the sorry state of the society we live in.
I say this based on the definition, found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church of the term vocation. This definition reads:
“The calling or destiny we have in this life and hereafter. God has created the human person to love and serve him; the fulfillment of this vocation is eternal happiness. Christ calls the faithful to the perfection of holiness. The vocation of the laity consists in seeking the Kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will. Priestly and religious vocations are dedicated to the service of the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation.”
According to the Catechism, it is the laity that has the vocation to bring the Kingdom of God to the world. We are the ones charged with making the society we live in Christian, not the clergy. The duty of the clergy is in service of the Church -- to support our efforts in bringing Christ to the marketplace. I would also say that, based on this definition, we the laity have failed miserably.
It should be evident to all that, rather than converting our culture, instead of transforming society, we are the ones who have been transformed.
It may be true that in the last 30 years or so we have not had the greatest support from our priests and bishops, but I would agree with Fr. Rob that this is more our fault than theirs. To paraphrase Barzun, perhaps we have the bishops we deserve.
We are not victims. We, as laity have failed our vocation because we have allowed the culture to overwhelm us. I don't think many of us could say that our lives look any different than those of our pagan neighbors, that we actively and unabashedly live our faith.
While it is true that many of the bishops we have are a somewhat sorry lot, we have no business whining and complaining about them -- our track record is no better. The priests and bishops of the Church cannot live out our vocation for us, they cannot do what we have the responsibility to do.
The solution to the problem, I think, is for us laity to admit there is a problem. There are a great many things we can do, once we have taken this fundamental step. We can begin taking our faith seriously and living as if it really mattered in our lives. We can spend more time in prayer and adoration of the Holy Eucharist, we can pray for our bishops and our priests, we can engage our neighbors in a loving way about the truth of the Church and Jesus Christ. We can, quite simply, be active witnesses to our faith. Who knows, doing this might be a positive influence on our priests and bishops and encourage them to change their ways. It might be the indication they need that there are indeed Catholics who are willing to truly be Catholic.
Until we can say we are doing all we can to live out our vocation faithfully we should not be complaining about what someone else is not doing.
Fr. Rob over at Thrown Back has written a couple of good posts concerning the effect of culture on our faith, and vice versa. I'm not writing this as a criticism of what he has written, but rather to point out another way of looking at the question.
Fr. Rob had someone post a comment rejecting the idea that the laity bears any responsibility for the current state of the culture we live in. Fr. Rob posted a response to these comments to the effect that both laity and clergy bear significant responsibility for the problem and this is true. However, I think he is being too nice to those of us in the laity because I would say that, indeed, the laity bears, by far, the greater portion of guilt for the sorry state of the society we live in.
I say this based on the definition, found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church of the term vocation. This definition reads:
“The calling or destiny we have in this life and hereafter. God has created the human person to love and serve him; the fulfillment of this vocation is eternal happiness. Christ calls the faithful to the perfection of holiness. The vocation of the laity consists in seeking the Kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will. Priestly and religious vocations are dedicated to the service of the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation.”
According to the Catechism, it is the laity that has the vocation to bring the Kingdom of God to the world. We are the ones charged with making the society we live in Christian, not the clergy. The duty of the clergy is in service of the Church -- to support our efforts in bringing Christ to the marketplace. I would also say that, based on this definition, we the laity have failed miserably.
It should be evident to all that, rather than converting our culture, instead of transforming society, we are the ones who have been transformed.
It may be true that in the last 30 years or so we have not had the greatest support from our priests and bishops, but I would agree with Fr. Rob that this is more our fault than theirs. To paraphrase Barzun, perhaps we have the bishops we deserve.
We are not victims. We, as laity have failed our vocation because we have allowed the culture to overwhelm us. I don't think many of us could say that our lives look any different than those of our pagan neighbors, that we actively and unabashedly live our faith.
While it is true that many of the bishops we have are a somewhat sorry lot, we have no business whining and complaining about them -- our track record is no better. The priests and bishops of the Church cannot live out our vocation for us, they cannot do what we have the responsibility to do.
The solution to the problem, I think, is for us laity to admit there is a problem. There are a great many things we can do, once we have taken this fundamental step. We can begin taking our faith seriously and living as if it really mattered in our lives. We can spend more time in prayer and adoration of the Holy Eucharist, we can pray for our bishops and our priests, we can engage our neighbors in a loving way about the truth of the Church and Jesus Christ. We can, quite simply, be active witnesses to our faith. Who knows, doing this might be a positive influence on our priests and bishops and encourage them to change their ways. It might be the indication they need that there are indeed Catholics who are willing to truly be Catholic.
Until we can say we are doing all we can to live out our vocation faithfully we should not be complaining about what someone else is not doing.
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Academia Nuts, cont'd
Scientists in England have conducted an experiment involving monkeys and computers and proved that monkeys are really smarter than we think they are.
The experiment consisted of placing a computer in a cage with a bunch of monkeys. I suspect the motivation for this springs from a Darwinist belief that if you gave a monkey enough time with a keyboard he (or she) would end up writing out the complete works of William Shakespeare. In the event, that didn't happen, but something more interesting did occur.
To understand why I say this, you need to know how the monkeys reacted to the computer. It seems that at first they simply ignored it. You don't know how many times I've wished that I had done the same thing when someone first introduced a computer into my space. So far, so good for the monkeys. Their next reaction was to hit the computer with a rock. This is where I usually end up after a particularly frustrating session with a computer; sometimes I use a hammer, sometimes a chair, but the idea is the same. The only difference is that this is where the monkeys started, not where they ended up. They cut out the frustrating part and proceed to the ideal final end of most computers -- I detect signs of intelligence here. Finally, they apparently engaged in episodes of throwing monkey poop at the thing. Although I think the rock is better, I can certainly understand the sentiment.
After passing through these distinct stages in their relationship with the computer they finally began typing on it. And what did they type? Pages and pages of little more than the letter S with a few As and Ls thrown in for good measure. No Shakespeare, but at least they had arrived at the, shall we say human, reactions that almost inevitably occur in any endeavor with a computer and they didn't have to worry about getting anything done. You know the old saying "S... happens!"
The truth of the matter is that monkeys, no matter how much time is involved do not produce anything like literature, much less like William Shakespeare. That is the difference that our politically correct intelligentsia wish so hard would go away. Monkeys are not created in the image of God, men are, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Scientists in England have conducted an experiment involving monkeys and computers and proved that monkeys are really smarter than we think they are.
The experiment consisted of placing a computer in a cage with a bunch of monkeys. I suspect the motivation for this springs from a Darwinist belief that if you gave a monkey enough time with a keyboard he (or she) would end up writing out the complete works of William Shakespeare. In the event, that didn't happen, but something more interesting did occur.
To understand why I say this, you need to know how the monkeys reacted to the computer. It seems that at first they simply ignored it. You don't know how many times I've wished that I had done the same thing when someone first introduced a computer into my space. So far, so good for the monkeys. Their next reaction was to hit the computer with a rock. This is where I usually end up after a particularly frustrating session with a computer; sometimes I use a hammer, sometimes a chair, but the idea is the same. The only difference is that this is where the monkeys started, not where they ended up. They cut out the frustrating part and proceed to the ideal final end of most computers -- I detect signs of intelligence here. Finally, they apparently engaged in episodes of throwing monkey poop at the thing. Although I think the rock is better, I can certainly understand the sentiment.
After passing through these distinct stages in their relationship with the computer they finally began typing on it. And what did they type? Pages and pages of little more than the letter S with a few As and Ls thrown in for good measure. No Shakespeare, but at least they had arrived at the, shall we say human, reactions that almost inevitably occur in any endeavor with a computer and they didn't have to worry about getting anything done. You know the old saying "S... happens!"
The truth of the matter is that monkeys, no matter how much time is involved do not produce anything like literature, much less like William Shakespeare. That is the difference that our politically correct intelligentsia wish so hard would go away. Monkeys are not created in the image of God, men are, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Friday, May 16, 2003
The Journey
Thomas Merton wrote that faith means action. We do not understand God and then commit ourselves in faith to Him, we make the commit first, then we act. He writes:
"We do not see first, then act, we act then see. It is only by the free submission of our judgment in dark faith that we can advance in the light of understanding: credo ut intelligam. And that is why the man who waits to see clearly, before he will believe, never starts on the journey."
In the New Testament blindness is taken as a symbol for lack of faith. The blind man is never able to see and thus never able to undertake the journey which we must all make in the solitude of our souls. He cannot commit to any journey because he cannot see the road ahead. Those who can see, while not knowing where the road will lead them, nevertheless can see the road itself and take the first steps along it.
Seldom do we know where the road will lead. It is as if we begin our journey on a dark, moonless night, seeing its outlines only dimly, as if by nothing more than candlelight. We undertake the journey in faith, not knowing but trusting.
It is only as we progress on the journey that dawn begins to break in the light of faith. We must all, each of us in his own way, make the initial commitment, and take the first step, on the journey of faith. Then understanding comes.
I think we are called, once we have begun the journey, to keep moving on the road. That is the most difficult part. There are many crossroads. Often times, having chosen a particular path on the journey, it is only in looking back that I understand how God was leading me, giving me directions and sustenance on the journey. Sometimes it seemed that the path I chose lead to great difficulty and trial, but looking back I was able to see from the "map" of my life, that God was working then to make the rest of the journey more fruitful, leading me closer to the final goal.
It is clear to me that faith involves commitment which means that it is not, as popularly believed today, an emotional balm or a crutch for those unable to face the reality of life. It is not an escape because it must affect the very depths of our being; otherwise undertaking the journey can never be done. Moving out, changing the focus of our lives, is not something that anyone would do only as an escape. Beginning the journey itself means throwing away the crutches, standing up and taking the first step on the journey of a lifetime.
Thomas Merton wrote that faith means action. We do not understand God and then commit ourselves in faith to Him, we make the commit first, then we act. He writes:
"We do not see first, then act, we act then see. It is only by the free submission of our judgment in dark faith that we can advance in the light of understanding: credo ut intelligam. And that is why the man who waits to see clearly, before he will believe, never starts on the journey."
In the New Testament blindness is taken as a symbol for lack of faith. The blind man is never able to see and thus never able to undertake the journey which we must all make in the solitude of our souls. He cannot commit to any journey because he cannot see the road ahead. Those who can see, while not knowing where the road will lead them, nevertheless can see the road itself and take the first steps along it.
Seldom do we know where the road will lead. It is as if we begin our journey on a dark, moonless night, seeing its outlines only dimly, as if by nothing more than candlelight. We undertake the journey in faith, not knowing but trusting.
It is only as we progress on the journey that dawn begins to break in the light of faith. We must all, each of us in his own way, make the initial commitment, and take the first step, on the journey of faith. Then understanding comes.
I think we are called, once we have begun the journey, to keep moving on the road. That is the most difficult part. There are many crossroads. Often times, having chosen a particular path on the journey, it is only in looking back that I understand how God was leading me, giving me directions and sustenance on the journey. Sometimes it seemed that the path I chose lead to great difficulty and trial, but looking back I was able to see from the "map" of my life, that God was working then to make the rest of the journey more fruitful, leading me closer to the final goal.
It is clear to me that faith involves commitment which means that it is not, as popularly believed today, an emotional balm or a crutch for those unable to face the reality of life. It is not an escape because it must affect the very depths of our being; otherwise undertaking the journey can never be done. Moving out, changing the focus of our lives, is not something that anyone would do only as an escape. Beginning the journey itself means throwing away the crutches, standing up and taking the first step on the journey of a lifetime.
Thursday, May 15, 2003
Mall Monks Interview
Every once in a while someone comes up with a new approach to an age old problem. Francis did this in his time by taking those in religious life out of the cloisters and putting them with the people; asking nothing but promising the way to eternal life. Bishop Richard Hanifen the recently retired bishop of Colorado Springs had such an idea when he suggested to a group of Franciscan Friars that they take the Gospel to the people. So, on the 23rd of November 2001, the Mid-American Province of the Capuchin-Franciscans, took a bold step to bring the Gospel to the people in Colorado Springs. On that day they opened a small storefront chapel in the Citadel Mall in Colorado Springs. The storefront had space for three small rooms, one served as an office for the friars and two rooms which served as “confessionals” to offer the Sacrament of Reconciliation. There was also room for a small chapel, seating approximately 15 people in which to celebrate Mass at noon each day. Since that time the apostolate has grown and now seats at least 65 people for the celebration of Mass twice daily and once on Saturday. In the 12 months ending in April, 2003 over 9,500 people have attended Mass at the Catholic Center. A local Catholic bookstore has moved next door to the Catholic Center.
Five friars now work under the direction of Fr. Eugene Emrisek with over 60 volunteers also helping each week. The “Mall Monks”, as they are now popularly known, operate The Catholic Center entirely on donations from those who visit the Chapel.
The Statement of Purpose published by "the Mall Monks" on their web site reads as follows:
In the spirit of St. Francis of Assisi, the Capuchin Franciscans at the Citadel strive to provide a spiritual resource center that offers peace, reconciliation, and guidance to those who may feel a spiritual emptiness in their lives. Just as St. Francis tried to meet the needs of all who came to him, the Capuchins hope to assist Catholics and non Catholics alike. The Capuchins at the Citadel will:
• Provide a spiritual presence "in the marketplace"
• Offer Mass at specified times for those in need of a location to attend services
• Provide extended hours for the sacrament of reconciliation
• Work to spread the Word of God to populations that would not regularly attend a local church
•Attempt to answer spiritual questions and inquiries and assist individuals with answers or solutions if available
•Provide a source of guidance for those in need of referrals to other Catholic or non denominational agencies in the Colorado Springs area
•Provide vocation discernment
Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with Father Curtis Carlson OFM Cap., and ask him about The Catholic Center in the Citadel Mall.
1) The Capuchin Friars operate a Catholic Chapel, complete with worship space and “confessionals” in the Citadel Mall in Colorado Springs. This is really "takin' it to the streets." Whose idea was it to open a Catholic Chapel in the Citadel Mall?
Fr. Curtis - In the Spring 0f 2001, our Capuchin province leadership, with the support of the friars, felt they wanted to try a new type of ministry in a new place and so they spoke to two bishops in Kansas and Bishop Richard Hanifen here in Colorado Springs. The response from Bishop Hanifen was to open a chapel in a mall or to take this parish or another parish. Taking a parish wasn’t something new but the idea of opening a chapel in a mall was new and innovative and the new form of ministry we were looking for.
2) In your Statement of Purpose you state that you intend to "provide a spiritual presence in the marketplace" which you are doing quite literally. What effect do you see this very visible presence having in the marketplace?
Fr. Curtis - We do get various kinds of reactions. We are different enough, we are not just another store, and having the Church in the mall and having religious in brown habits is very noticeable. Sometimes people find us a curiosity, something to smile about or inquire about. Others are grateful to literally have everything under one roof; they are able to do some shopping, get a bite to eat and still make daily Mass and go to confession in one trip. During Mass we can still hear the comments of people passing by and they often express surprise that this is going on here. We also have helped bring customers to the mall; people have told us that they did not come very often to shop here but now that we are here they come to see us and stay to do some shopping also.
3) You state that you are available to be of service to non-Catholics. Have you had many people who are not Catholics visit the Chapel?
Fr. Curtis - Yes we have. It is convenient for practicing Catholics who want to come to daily Mass and go to confession regularly, and there are those Catholics who maybe have not been very active who find this a safer and easier way to come back to the Church. A parish office is not open as long during the day and the priest may not be there or he may be busy. They know there is a priest is available here 11 hours every day. The hall way is sort of neutral territory and all they have to do is step across the threshold. We always have a volunteer at the front desk so that if we are in private with someone or celebrating Mass, there is always someone to greet them. We have had many non-Catholic Christians who just like to stop and talk or ask a few questions, and many non-Churched people who have no one to go to, who apparently recognize us as someone who is compassionate and helpful and who will be good to them. I have had one gentleman who was quite aggressive and had a poor understanding of the Catholic faith and I was able to talk to him for a while and clear up his misconceptions.
4) Have you been able to assist anyone seeking a priestly or religious vocation?
Fr. Curtis - Yes. Of the friars I am the one designated as the vocation contact person and so there are actually several men and women who have come by in the last two years. Some have come in one time and others have come in more often. In two cases, one man and one woman have pursued a religious vocation.
5) Have you seen many people who have, for whatever reason, been away from the Church for a while, perhaps even years and who now wish to return? Has the chapel provided many people an easy way back to the Church?
Fr. Curtis - Yes, because they have been away they are not part of a parish they don’t know anyone and don’t know a priest. They don’t know us either but because we are here it is easy for them to come back. Some have just stopped by to talk while working up the courage and determination to go to confession and renew their connection to the Church. But yes, we have had people who have been away as long as 20 or 30 years.
6) Finally Father, St. Francis saw his vocation as both embracing poverty and preaching the "good news". The Citadel Mall is, I think, fairly described as an "upscale" shopping mall. There is not much poverty in evidence here. How do you see the mall ministry fitting in with your Franciscan vocation?
Fr. Curtis - Francis himself often preached in the plaza in medieval Italy. Each village had a central plaza area where there were merchants and often the Church and government buildings in the same area. The early friars would go to the central plaza area where there was commerce going around where the people were. A crowd could easily gather if they were interested in hearing them. The mall is where people gather, children and adults of all ages, they come to buy things, they come to the food court, they come to just hang around. So there is a very real comparison between what St. Francis did and what we are doing, people come to the modern day plaza and people can come to us. As far as poverty, we don’t sell anything and so we are not part of the consumer mentality in terms of being a business wanting to make money. The things we provide are spiritually beneficial to people. We don’t really participate in the consumer aspect of the larger establishment here; we don’t knock it but we are not part of it here. We provide religious services and have a very definite outreach which many malls might not allow.
7) Thank you, Fr. Curtis
If any of you feel called to help in this effort toward the “new Evangelization” I sure the “Mall Monks” wouldn’t mind.
The Catholic Center
The Citadel Mall #3046
750 Citadel Drive East
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Every once in a while someone comes up with a new approach to an age old problem. Francis did this in his time by taking those in religious life out of the cloisters and putting them with the people; asking nothing but promising the way to eternal life. Bishop Richard Hanifen the recently retired bishop of Colorado Springs had such an idea when he suggested to a group of Franciscan Friars that they take the Gospel to the people. So, on the 23rd of November 2001, the Mid-American Province of the Capuchin-Franciscans, took a bold step to bring the Gospel to the people in Colorado Springs. On that day they opened a small storefront chapel in the Citadel Mall in Colorado Springs. The storefront had space for three small rooms, one served as an office for the friars and two rooms which served as “confessionals” to offer the Sacrament of Reconciliation. There was also room for a small chapel, seating approximately 15 people in which to celebrate Mass at noon each day. Since that time the apostolate has grown and now seats at least 65 people for the celebration of Mass twice daily and once on Saturday. In the 12 months ending in April, 2003 over 9,500 people have attended Mass at the Catholic Center. A local Catholic bookstore has moved next door to the Catholic Center.
Five friars now work under the direction of Fr. Eugene Emrisek with over 60 volunteers also helping each week. The “Mall Monks”, as they are now popularly known, operate The Catholic Center entirely on donations from those who visit the Chapel.
The Statement of Purpose published by "the Mall Monks" on their web site reads as follows:
In the spirit of St. Francis of Assisi, the Capuchin Franciscans at the Citadel strive to provide a spiritual resource center that offers peace, reconciliation, and guidance to those who may feel a spiritual emptiness in their lives. Just as St. Francis tried to meet the needs of all who came to him, the Capuchins hope to assist Catholics and non Catholics alike. The Capuchins at the Citadel will:
• Provide a spiritual presence "in the marketplace"
• Offer Mass at specified times for those in need of a location to attend services
• Provide extended hours for the sacrament of reconciliation
• Work to spread the Word of God to populations that would not regularly attend a local church
•Attempt to answer spiritual questions and inquiries and assist individuals with answers or solutions if available
•Provide a source of guidance for those in need of referrals to other Catholic or non denominational agencies in the Colorado Springs area
•Provide vocation discernment
Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with Father Curtis Carlson OFM Cap., and ask him about The Catholic Center in the Citadel Mall.
1) The Capuchin Friars operate a Catholic Chapel, complete with worship space and “confessionals” in the Citadel Mall in Colorado Springs. This is really "takin' it to the streets." Whose idea was it to open a Catholic Chapel in the Citadel Mall?
Fr. Curtis - In the Spring 0f 2001, our Capuchin province leadership, with the support of the friars, felt they wanted to try a new type of ministry in a new place and so they spoke to two bishops in Kansas and Bishop Richard Hanifen here in Colorado Springs. The response from Bishop Hanifen was to open a chapel in a mall or to take this parish or another parish. Taking a parish wasn’t something new but the idea of opening a chapel in a mall was new and innovative and the new form of ministry we were looking for.
2) In your Statement of Purpose you state that you intend to "provide a spiritual presence in the marketplace" which you are doing quite literally. What effect do you see this very visible presence having in the marketplace?
Fr. Curtis - We do get various kinds of reactions. We are different enough, we are not just another store, and having the Church in the mall and having religious in brown habits is very noticeable. Sometimes people find us a curiosity, something to smile about or inquire about. Others are grateful to literally have everything under one roof; they are able to do some shopping, get a bite to eat and still make daily Mass and go to confession in one trip. During Mass we can still hear the comments of people passing by and they often express surprise that this is going on here. We also have helped bring customers to the mall; people have told us that they did not come very often to shop here but now that we are here they come to see us and stay to do some shopping also.
3) You state that you are available to be of service to non-Catholics. Have you had many people who are not Catholics visit the Chapel?
Fr. Curtis - Yes we have. It is convenient for practicing Catholics who want to come to daily Mass and go to confession regularly, and there are those Catholics who maybe have not been very active who find this a safer and easier way to come back to the Church. A parish office is not open as long during the day and the priest may not be there or he may be busy. They know there is a priest is available here 11 hours every day. The hall way is sort of neutral territory and all they have to do is step across the threshold. We always have a volunteer at the front desk so that if we are in private with someone or celebrating Mass, there is always someone to greet them. We have had many non-Catholic Christians who just like to stop and talk or ask a few questions, and many non-Churched people who have no one to go to, who apparently recognize us as someone who is compassionate and helpful and who will be good to them. I have had one gentleman who was quite aggressive and had a poor understanding of the Catholic faith and I was able to talk to him for a while and clear up his misconceptions.
4) Have you been able to assist anyone seeking a priestly or religious vocation?
Fr. Curtis - Yes. Of the friars I am the one designated as the vocation contact person and so there are actually several men and women who have come by in the last two years. Some have come in one time and others have come in more often. In two cases, one man and one woman have pursued a religious vocation.
5) Have you seen many people who have, for whatever reason, been away from the Church for a while, perhaps even years and who now wish to return? Has the chapel provided many people an easy way back to the Church?
Fr. Curtis - Yes, because they have been away they are not part of a parish they don’t know anyone and don’t know a priest. They don’t know us either but because we are here it is easy for them to come back. Some have just stopped by to talk while working up the courage and determination to go to confession and renew their connection to the Church. But yes, we have had people who have been away as long as 20 or 30 years.
6) Finally Father, St. Francis saw his vocation as both embracing poverty and preaching the "good news". The Citadel Mall is, I think, fairly described as an "upscale" shopping mall. There is not much poverty in evidence here. How do you see the mall ministry fitting in with your Franciscan vocation?
Fr. Curtis - Francis himself often preached in the plaza in medieval Italy. Each village had a central plaza area where there were merchants and often the Church and government buildings in the same area. The early friars would go to the central plaza area where there was commerce going around where the people were. A crowd could easily gather if they were interested in hearing them. The mall is where people gather, children and adults of all ages, they come to buy things, they come to the food court, they come to just hang around. So there is a very real comparison between what St. Francis did and what we are doing, people come to the modern day plaza and people can come to us. As far as poverty, we don’t sell anything and so we are not part of the consumer mentality in terms of being a business wanting to make money. The things we provide are spiritually beneficial to people. We don’t really participate in the consumer aspect of the larger establishment here; we don’t knock it but we are not part of it here. We provide religious services and have a very definite outreach which many malls might not allow.
7) Thank you, Fr. Curtis
If any of you feel called to help in this effort toward the “new Evangelization” I sure the “Mall Monks” wouldn’t mind.
The Catholic Center
The Citadel Mall #3046
750 Citadel Drive East
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Thursday, May 08, 2003
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.
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.
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)