IN MEMORIUM - STS 107
High Flight
Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth,
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds-and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of-wheeled and soared and
swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there,
I've chased the shouting wind along and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delirious burning blue
I've topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace,
Where never lark, or even eagle, flew;
And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
John Gillespie McGee
Saturday, February 01, 2003
Friday, January 31, 2003
The Bishop's Problem
Catholic World News Service reported the following today:
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan 31, 03 (CWNews.com) - A judge in Washington declined to sentence three gay activists for disrupting a meeting of the US bishops' conference last November, saying that the Church had done "tremendous violence" to them by denying them the Eucharist.
The three activists from the group Soulforce said they went to hotel in the District of Columbia where the bishops were meeting on November 12 to demand that they be given Communion and an explanation of why they were refused Communion the day before during Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. They were arrested for refusing to leave the private building.
In the nonjury trial, Judge Mildred Edwards, who identified herself as Catholic, agreed that the activists had broken the law by refusing to leave the hotel's lobby when requested by police and hotel officials. Although prosecutors had requested a sentence of time served-- the 30 hours they spend in jail-- Edwards said even that sentence was too harsh and did something she said hadn't done in 15 years on the bench: she dispensed with a sentence.
"Tremendous violence was done to you . . . when the Body of Christ was denied to you," Edwards said, referring to the contention of the three that refusal of Communion had prompted their actions. "As a member of your Church, I ask you to forgive the Church."
A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Washington said the three activists were denied the Eucharist at the November 11 Mass because they were misidentified as members of the Rainbow Sash movement, a group of gay activists who had said they were planning to receive Communion as a form of protest against the Church's teaching on homosexuality. "The Eucharist is the core of our faith and a sign of our unity," spokesman Susan Gibbs said. "It is very rare to deny Communion, but since it was publicly announced it would be a protest and not a sign of faith, the Rainbow Sash group was denied the sacrament."
All three defendants, Ken Einhaus of Arlington, Virginia, Mike Perez of Seattle, and Kara Speltz of Oakland, California, said they were emotionally shattered by the refusal of Communion at Mass and went to the hotel to "find healing among the people who caused me so much suffering," Einhaus said. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit flew into Washington to testify on their behalf.
Now there are a number of points that could be made about this action by Judge Mildred Edwards and over the next day or so I will probably end up saying them. But can anyone explain to me why a BISHOP would fly from Detroit to Washington to testify on behalf of the three offenders? How clueless can you get???
Catholic World News Service reported the following today:
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan 31, 03 (CWNews.com) - A judge in Washington declined to sentence three gay activists for disrupting a meeting of the US bishops' conference last November, saying that the Church had done "tremendous violence" to them by denying them the Eucharist.
The three activists from the group Soulforce said they went to hotel in the District of Columbia where the bishops were meeting on November 12 to demand that they be given Communion and an explanation of why they were refused Communion the day before during Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. They were arrested for refusing to leave the private building.
In the nonjury trial, Judge Mildred Edwards, who identified herself as Catholic, agreed that the activists had broken the law by refusing to leave the hotel's lobby when requested by police and hotel officials. Although prosecutors had requested a sentence of time served-- the 30 hours they spend in jail-- Edwards said even that sentence was too harsh and did something she said hadn't done in 15 years on the bench: she dispensed with a sentence.
"Tremendous violence was done to you . . . when the Body of Christ was denied to you," Edwards said, referring to the contention of the three that refusal of Communion had prompted their actions. "As a member of your Church, I ask you to forgive the Church."
A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Washington said the three activists were denied the Eucharist at the November 11 Mass because they were misidentified as members of the Rainbow Sash movement, a group of gay activists who had said they were planning to receive Communion as a form of protest against the Church's teaching on homosexuality. "The Eucharist is the core of our faith and a sign of our unity," spokesman Susan Gibbs said. "It is very rare to deny Communion, but since it was publicly announced it would be a protest and not a sign of faith, the Rainbow Sash group was denied the sacrament."
All three defendants, Ken Einhaus of Arlington, Virginia, Mike Perez of Seattle, and Kara Speltz of Oakland, California, said they were emotionally shattered by the refusal of Communion at Mass and went to the hotel to "find healing among the people who caused me so much suffering," Einhaus said. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit flew into Washington to testify on their behalf.
Now there are a number of points that could be made about this action by Judge Mildred Edwards and over the next day or so I will probably end up saying them. But can anyone explain to me why a BISHOP would fly from Detroit to Washington to testify on behalf of the three offenders? How clueless can you get???
Thursday, January 30, 2003
Deleting Blogs
A week or two ago I made a sincere attempt to delete a couple of blog postings I had just done. I deleted them twice and each time they appeared to be gone. Each time they reappeared for no reason I can determine. The reason I wanted to delete them is that they were such twaddle I was ashamed of having written them. I have since convinced myself that for some reason the Holy Spirit is working to keep those blogs in place, so they will stay. I don't necessarily, however, have to point them out and draw your attention to them. The reside in well deserved obscurity.
Karen Marie Knapp did a post a few days ago on this very topic which I thought was quite insightful. One passage I would like to quote:
But embarrassment never killed anyone; actually it liberates in the long term. It's secrets that bind and kill.
I think I would phrase this a little differently, but I wish I had written it. As you may have guessed, I am stuck on the idea that what we are missing most in our culture today is truth. Thus, I might have said that it is the truth that sets us free and lies that bind and kill us. It would have been a denial of reality, a lie, to have deleted those blogs. As Ms. Knapp said (sort of) elsewhere in her post, I wrote the damn things so I might as well live with having done so.
On my trip to Alaska I came face to face with this issue on a bit larger scale. I happened to have the opportunity to meet with a Dept of Defense photographer and, since we had some time, he took to showing me all the newest and latest gadgets that he gets to work with in the course of his labors. The gear looked somewhat familiar to me but then I realized that he was holding a digital camera and that his "film" would be processed and the shots printed on a computer. Being a mid-twentieth century kind of guy I was duly impressed and amazed. That is until he started telling me how this new fangeled gear had changed the way he works.
You see, the problem is that with digital photography you can no longer be certain that what is printed out as a photograph is indeed the subject that was photographed. There are so many ways that pictures can be digitally edited and enhanced that there is no way to ensure that the photographs represent the reality of the event. This is a huge problem for our Government and they are having to institute all kinds of procedures and measures to ensure that the photograph are reliable. But he was smart enough to know that they weren't really enough. He said, "It all comes down to the integrity of the photographer."
Isn't that kind of the problem we all face these days? It is so easy to abandon reality that we are no longer sure there is any such thing as reality. If we take a picture and we don't like all the gray hair and wrinkles we just push a button and "delete" them. There we have a picture of ourselves that looks great, but we deceive ourselves if we think that we have changed the reality of our being.
In the same way, we can delete a blog post, but the reality is that our stupidity was there, at least for a while for all to see. On the other hand, maybe I'll buy a digital camera.
A week or two ago I made a sincere attempt to delete a couple of blog postings I had just done. I deleted them twice and each time they appeared to be gone. Each time they reappeared for no reason I can determine. The reason I wanted to delete them is that they were such twaddle I was ashamed of having written them. I have since convinced myself that for some reason the Holy Spirit is working to keep those blogs in place, so they will stay. I don't necessarily, however, have to point them out and draw your attention to them. The reside in well deserved obscurity.
Karen Marie Knapp did a post a few days ago on this very topic which I thought was quite insightful. One passage I would like to quote:
But embarrassment never killed anyone; actually it liberates in the long term. It's secrets that bind and kill.
I think I would phrase this a little differently, but I wish I had written it. As you may have guessed, I am stuck on the idea that what we are missing most in our culture today is truth. Thus, I might have said that it is the truth that sets us free and lies that bind and kill us. It would have been a denial of reality, a lie, to have deleted those blogs. As Ms. Knapp said (sort of) elsewhere in her post, I wrote the damn things so I might as well live with having done so.
On my trip to Alaska I came face to face with this issue on a bit larger scale. I happened to have the opportunity to meet with a Dept of Defense photographer and, since we had some time, he took to showing me all the newest and latest gadgets that he gets to work with in the course of his labors. The gear looked somewhat familiar to me but then I realized that he was holding a digital camera and that his "film" would be processed and the shots printed on a computer. Being a mid-twentieth century kind of guy I was duly impressed and amazed. That is until he started telling me how this new fangeled gear had changed the way he works.
You see, the problem is that with digital photography you can no longer be certain that what is printed out as a photograph is indeed the subject that was photographed. There are so many ways that pictures can be digitally edited and enhanced that there is no way to ensure that the photographs represent the reality of the event. This is a huge problem for our Government and they are having to institute all kinds of procedures and measures to ensure that the photograph are reliable. But he was smart enough to know that they weren't really enough. He said, "It all comes down to the integrity of the photographer."
Isn't that kind of the problem we all face these days? It is so easy to abandon reality that we are no longer sure there is any such thing as reality. If we take a picture and we don't like all the gray hair and wrinkles we just push a button and "delete" them. There we have a picture of ourselves that looks great, but we deceive ourselves if we think that we have changed the reality of our being.
In the same way, we can delete a blog post, but the reality is that our stupidity was there, at least for a while for all to see. On the other hand, maybe I'll buy a digital camera.
Dissent - Final Word
I would like to do another short post to summarize my previous two posts regarding dissent in the Church. I'm doing this because I thought that, between my two previous posts, there might be some confusion as to what I was saying. I think this will be the last one on this topic.
First, I view dissent as the willful not acceptance of Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. It is an active disregard of God's will as expressed through the constant and clearly defined dogma of the Church. (Sen John Kerry yesterday gave a perfect example of this when he said that he could not be bound by Church teaching in his political career. He reasoning is that he, as President, would represent a broad range of Americans, many of whom are not Catholic. Enough said.)
This dissent can take many forms, the most common being that which arises from ignorance of true Church teaching. Many people will openly state that they do not agree with Church teaching on abortion or adultery or contraception who have no real idea what these teachings are. The reason I call this dissent is that they make no effort, in fact, they have no interest in learning the truth, they simply persist in their ignorance year after year. This form of dissent is due, I think mainly, to poor catechesis. That is, catechesis that was insufficient either due to the ignorance of the instructor or the willful dissent of the instructors themselves.
Then there is the more active version of dissent in which the subject knows precisely what the teaching of the Church is in the areas in question and willfully refuses to accept them. Think certain prominent politicians who support issues which are inimical to Church teaching and yet continue to proclaim themselves Catholic. I sometimes think, especially in light of the recent scandals in the Church that these prominent public personalities do more to affect the teaching of the Church, and the conduct of the faithful, than the bishops do. I might point out, their teaching is not for the good of the Church.
Neither of these versions of dissent is to be confused with simple and honest misunderstanding of Church doctrine. I have been accused, in a comment below, of picking on RCIA students. Nothing could be farther from the truth and if anything I have written gives that impression I hereby withdraw it. None of us who have gone through the RCIA process could ever hold that someone new to the Church would come in knowing and accepting everything there is to know. That is simply impossible; I know it was not true in my own case. What I do say is that, whether an RCIA student or a cradle Catholic, we all have an obligation to honestly seek the truth, where ever that leads us. We are on a journey to union with God and that journey necessarily involves personal and spiritual growth. Anyone honestly engaged in this process is not in dissent from the Church.
I do believe that anyone who is thinking of coming into the Church who is not willing to study, pray about and seek Gods grace in understanding the difficult doctrines of the faith should think twice before taking the final step of accepting the sacraments of the Church. I believe that anyone in the Church, say for example, the Governor of California, should think carefully about taking Communion if they are not willing to accept the Church's teaching on such issues as abortion. It is this kind of close minded obstinence that I think is contrary to God's will for our lives.
I hope this is an adequate summary of what I have written in my two previous posts on the subject of dissent.
I would like to do another short post to summarize my previous two posts regarding dissent in the Church. I'm doing this because I thought that, between my two previous posts, there might be some confusion as to what I was saying. I think this will be the last one on this topic.
First, I view dissent as the willful not acceptance of Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. It is an active disregard of God's will as expressed through the constant and clearly defined dogma of the Church. (Sen John Kerry yesterday gave a perfect example of this when he said that he could not be bound by Church teaching in his political career. He reasoning is that he, as President, would represent a broad range of Americans, many of whom are not Catholic. Enough said.)
This dissent can take many forms, the most common being that which arises from ignorance of true Church teaching. Many people will openly state that they do not agree with Church teaching on abortion or adultery or contraception who have no real idea what these teachings are. The reason I call this dissent is that they make no effort, in fact, they have no interest in learning the truth, they simply persist in their ignorance year after year. This form of dissent is due, I think mainly, to poor catechesis. That is, catechesis that was insufficient either due to the ignorance of the instructor or the willful dissent of the instructors themselves.
Then there is the more active version of dissent in which the subject knows precisely what the teaching of the Church is in the areas in question and willfully refuses to accept them. Think certain prominent politicians who support issues which are inimical to Church teaching and yet continue to proclaim themselves Catholic. I sometimes think, especially in light of the recent scandals in the Church that these prominent public personalities do more to affect the teaching of the Church, and the conduct of the faithful, than the bishops do. I might point out, their teaching is not for the good of the Church.
Neither of these versions of dissent is to be confused with simple and honest misunderstanding of Church doctrine. I have been accused, in a comment below, of picking on RCIA students. Nothing could be farther from the truth and if anything I have written gives that impression I hereby withdraw it. None of us who have gone through the RCIA process could ever hold that someone new to the Church would come in knowing and accepting everything there is to know. That is simply impossible; I know it was not true in my own case. What I do say is that, whether an RCIA student or a cradle Catholic, we all have an obligation to honestly seek the truth, where ever that leads us. We are on a journey to union with God and that journey necessarily involves personal and spiritual growth. Anyone honestly engaged in this process is not in dissent from the Church.
I do believe that anyone who is thinking of coming into the Church who is not willing to study, pray about and seek Gods grace in understanding the difficult doctrines of the faith should think twice before taking the final step of accepting the sacraments of the Church. I believe that anyone in the Church, say for example, the Governor of California, should think carefully about taking Communion if they are not willing to accept the Church's teaching on such issues as abortion. It is this kind of close minded obstinence that I think is contrary to God's will for our lives.
I hope this is an adequate summary of what I have written in my two previous posts on the subject of dissent.
Tuesday, January 28, 2003
Dissent - II
Steven, at Flos Carmeli, has written an excellent post that describes at least one aspect of the process of adult initiation into the Church.
I think all of us who have converted and come into the Church have not come in with complete understanding and acceptance of all the Church teaches. Who of us in the Church today can claim to be in that position? I share the experience of Steven that as I came into the Church I had difficulties. However, as John Henry Newman wrote: ten thousand difficulties do not make a single doubt. But those who come into the Church honestly willing to admit our failings and willing to make the effort to understand what the Church's position is on any given issue is an honest seeking after the truth. I do not consider this to be dissent from Church teaching.
I consider dissent to be present in the case of someone who says, in effect, "I know what the Church's teaching is on this issue, I do not accept it and I never will accept it. Furthermore, I will do my best to make sure everyone I come into contact with knows how I feel on this issue." This is an attitude of rejection of the truth, a rejection of Christ. Anyone who is an adult and holds this position and is thinking of coming into the Church, in my opinion, should delay his or her reception of the sacraments. These folks are not in communion with the Church and would put their eternal destinies in serious jeopardy by accepting the Eucharist. Again, to use a more mundane example, would you join the Kiwanis Club if you rejected all or part of what the Kiwanis Club stood for? If not, then why would you join the Catholic Church under similar circumstances?
I think this is the point made so forcefully by Bishop Weigand of Sacramento last week in the case of Grey Davis. Here is a governor of a large state who holds himself out to be Catholic and yet rejects Church teachings that are central to its understanding of how we as human beings are to live. This, it seems to me, is an intolerable situation, both for the Church and for the governor. It is open, outright, dissent. And this is exactly the type of thing I am referring to when I speak of dissent.
This type of dissent is also practiced by catechists (commonly, I might add) who know well Church teaching, reject it, and teach their own view to their hapless students.
Steven describes an honest, open search for the truth, and even if he felt at the time that he was in a dissenting situation I do not believe he was. The difference is that he was willing to be lead by God's grace and the work of the Holy Spirit to the Truth. You can't ask more than that of anyone.
A final note. All of the above having been said, those who are in a position of dissent are still children of God. They must be treated in every way as a human person, worthy of respect, created in the image and likeness of God. We should pray for them, argue with them, love them. Where we see what we believe to be error we should point it out to them, forcefully if necessary, but do so as Christ would do so.
Steven, at Flos Carmeli, has written an excellent post that describes at least one aspect of the process of adult initiation into the Church.
I think all of us who have converted and come into the Church have not come in with complete understanding and acceptance of all the Church teaches. Who of us in the Church today can claim to be in that position? I share the experience of Steven that as I came into the Church I had difficulties. However, as John Henry Newman wrote: ten thousand difficulties do not make a single doubt. But those who come into the Church honestly willing to admit our failings and willing to make the effort to understand what the Church's position is on any given issue is an honest seeking after the truth. I do not consider this to be dissent from Church teaching.
I consider dissent to be present in the case of someone who says, in effect, "I know what the Church's teaching is on this issue, I do not accept it and I never will accept it. Furthermore, I will do my best to make sure everyone I come into contact with knows how I feel on this issue." This is an attitude of rejection of the truth, a rejection of Christ. Anyone who is an adult and holds this position and is thinking of coming into the Church, in my opinion, should delay his or her reception of the sacraments. These folks are not in communion with the Church and would put their eternal destinies in serious jeopardy by accepting the Eucharist. Again, to use a more mundane example, would you join the Kiwanis Club if you rejected all or part of what the Kiwanis Club stood for? If not, then why would you join the Catholic Church under similar circumstances?
I think this is the point made so forcefully by Bishop Weigand of Sacramento last week in the case of Grey Davis. Here is a governor of a large state who holds himself out to be Catholic and yet rejects Church teachings that are central to its understanding of how we as human beings are to live. This, it seems to me, is an intolerable situation, both for the Church and for the governor. It is open, outright, dissent. And this is exactly the type of thing I am referring to when I speak of dissent.
This type of dissent is also practiced by catechists (commonly, I might add) who know well Church teaching, reject it, and teach their own view to their hapless students.
Steven describes an honest, open search for the truth, and even if he felt at the time that he was in a dissenting situation I do not believe he was. The difference is that he was willing to be lead by God's grace and the work of the Holy Spirit to the Truth. You can't ask more than that of anyone.
A final note. All of the above having been said, those who are in a position of dissent are still children of God. They must be treated in every way as a human person, worthy of respect, created in the image and likeness of God. We should pray for them, argue with them, love them. Where we see what we believe to be error we should point it out to them, forcefully if necessary, but do so as Christ would do so.
Monday, January 27, 2003
Dissent
Steven over at Flos Carmeli has posted a comment on a post by Tom at Disputations and I feel the need to put in my two cents worth.
Steven is correct when he says that we should always treat those who proclaim themselves to be in dissent with civility, in short we should treat all with charity. These folks are not our enemies and very often they are operating out of sincere, but confused, motives. Yet there is a problem that is common among most of those who proclaim themselves in disagreement with Church teachings. That is a lack of real understanding of not only what those teachings are but why there are what they are. They simply have not been taught what the Church believes.
Since coming into the Church nearly 8 years ago I have noticed the almost incredibly poor quality of catechesis available to most Catholics. As a result, most people in the pews simply do not understand their faith. It's little wonder that they don't believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist; they don't believe the Church's teaching on abortion and contraception, and so on. For most of them it is not their fault, they have been taught that there is little, if anything, of any substance to understand and believe.
But, in the case of some of these folks their ignorance is intentional, they want things to be as they want them and nothing will change that. The young lady at Not for Sheep has more or less stated this outright. This is a serious error. It usually results from a willful decision not to teach the true teaching of the Church but to teach one’s own view of what they want that teaching to be. I know that I sat in classes during and shortly after my journey into the Church in which this was the case. This is, at best, a serious disservice to the Catechumen; it deprives them of the opportunity to truly understand what they are committing themselves to by becoming Catholic.
I think all of us, to the extent that we are able, have a duty to explore the depths of our faith. After all, every Sunday we profess our faith and acceptance of all that the Church teaches. To come to Communion while not accepting Church teaching is a serious problem.
We also have an obligation, in love and with respect, where we think we see others either in dissent from or confused about Church teaching to point out the difficulty and try to suggest the correct teaching. We should always try to do this with honey but there may be times when a 2x4 is required. Their eternal destiny may be at stake.
Steven over at Flos Carmeli has posted a comment on a post by Tom at Disputations and I feel the need to put in my two cents worth.
Steven is correct when he says that we should always treat those who proclaim themselves to be in dissent with civility, in short we should treat all with charity. These folks are not our enemies and very often they are operating out of sincere, but confused, motives. Yet there is a problem that is common among most of those who proclaim themselves in disagreement with Church teachings. That is a lack of real understanding of not only what those teachings are but why there are what they are. They simply have not been taught what the Church believes.
Since coming into the Church nearly 8 years ago I have noticed the almost incredibly poor quality of catechesis available to most Catholics. As a result, most people in the pews simply do not understand their faith. It's little wonder that they don't believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist; they don't believe the Church's teaching on abortion and contraception, and so on. For most of them it is not their fault, they have been taught that there is little, if anything, of any substance to understand and believe.
But, in the case of some of these folks their ignorance is intentional, they want things to be as they want them and nothing will change that. The young lady at Not for Sheep has more or less stated this outright. This is a serious error. It usually results from a willful decision not to teach the true teaching of the Church but to teach one’s own view of what they want that teaching to be. I know that I sat in classes during and shortly after my journey into the Church in which this was the case. This is, at best, a serious disservice to the Catechumen; it deprives them of the opportunity to truly understand what they are committing themselves to by becoming Catholic.
I think all of us, to the extent that we are able, have a duty to explore the depths of our faith. After all, every Sunday we profess our faith and acceptance of all that the Church teaches. To come to Communion while not accepting Church teaching is a serious problem.
We also have an obligation, in love and with respect, where we think we see others either in dissent from or confused about Church teaching to point out the difficulty and try to suggest the correct teaching. We should always try to do this with honey but there may be times when a 2x4 is required. Their eternal destiny may be at stake.
Sunday, January 26, 2003
Doubts
When I taught RCIA I faced a common question. The question typically came from folks who were coming into the Church but were either new to Christian belief or had not been seriously committed to the faith in the past. The question they had arose generally after a period of spiritual growth and after they had developed a desire to go more deeply into their new found faith. They were troubled because they had assumed that as they become more "religious" doubts or questions about their faith would disappear. Of course, it didn't. I would point out to them that if their belief in Jesus Christ amounted to an absolute certainty it would not be faith, it would be knowledge.
Cardinal Ratzinger points out in his Introduction to Christianity that these doubts are common among believers in moments of temptation. He also points out that similar doubts are also common among unbelievers. He writes:
". . . the non-believer is troubled by doubts about his unbelief, about the real totality of the world he has made up his mind to explain as a self-contained whole.. He can never be absolutely certain of the autonomy of what he has seen and interpreted as a whole, he remains threatened by the question whether belief is not after all the reality which it claims to be."
I have a license plate from on my truck that reads: "If you're living like there is no God, you'd better be right." Faith is a gamble, there is no such thing as certainty concerning the ultimate questions. Christians know that applies to them and they take up the challenge daily. I think they sometimes forget it doesn't apply only to them.
When I taught RCIA I faced a common question. The question typically came from folks who were coming into the Church but were either new to Christian belief or had not been seriously committed to the faith in the past. The question they had arose generally after a period of spiritual growth and after they had developed a desire to go more deeply into their new found faith. They were troubled because they had assumed that as they become more "religious" doubts or questions about their faith would disappear. Of course, it didn't. I would point out to them that if their belief in Jesus Christ amounted to an absolute certainty it would not be faith, it would be knowledge.
Cardinal Ratzinger points out in his Introduction to Christianity that these doubts are common among believers in moments of temptation. He also points out that similar doubts are also common among unbelievers. He writes:
". . . the non-believer is troubled by doubts about his unbelief, about the real totality of the world he has made up his mind to explain as a self-contained whole.. He can never be absolutely certain of the autonomy of what he has seen and interpreted as a whole, he remains threatened by the question whether belief is not after all the reality which it claims to be."
I have a license plate from on my truck that reads: "If you're living like there is no God, you'd better be right." Faith is a gamble, there is no such thing as certainty concerning the ultimate questions. Christians know that applies to them and they take up the challenge daily. I think they sometimes forget it doesn't apply only to them.
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
The Case of the Running Partridge
I have learned something in the process of trying to become a writer. I have learned that I can always find a ready source of inspiration for my musings. All I have to do is simply check on the activities of some of our prominent university professors.
Take for example Dr. Kenneth P. Dial. Dr. Dial is head of a biological flight laboratory at the University of Montana. Dr. Dial has spent a great deal of time and money, as reported by Newsweek magazine, studying the activities of young birds, members of the partridge, turkey, and quail family to be exact. The fruit of this effort is that Dr. Dial has learned that within days after hatching, these young birds, will use their tiny wings to assist them to climb steep slopes and trees to escape from predators. In essence, they use their wings to give them traction. Once these young birds have done this, it appears that they are not far from developing the ability to fly. So far, so good. We now know one mechanism used by young birds to escape predators and, at the same time, learn to fly. (By the way, pity the poor birds born in Kansas; Thanksgiving dinner for them.)
However, from this study, Dr. Dial has concluded that this is the same mechanism used by “feathered” dinosaurs to learn to fly (and by implication) in the process develop the evolutionary traits that lead to the modern birds we know and love. Dr. Dial draws his conclusion in very carefully phrased language, but it is there nonetheless.
I guess I’m one of the duller members of society. Can anyone tell me how the study of the process used by turkeys to escape predators and thereby learn to fly tells us anything about where the stupid turkey came from in the first place? How does Dr. Dial have any hope of establishing, in a truly scientific manner, that so called “feathered” dinosaurs did exactly the same thing. Even better, can anyone explain to me how learning to fly influenced the genetic makeup of their turkey off spring? I learned to fly and I hope and pray that none of my progeny will ever develop feathers and live in nests as a result.
My question to Dr. Dial concerning his dinosaur theory would be: “You were there?” Short of that, there is no hope of establishing any of this as fact; it is only another dose of modern scientific-materialist theology.
The sad thing is, that this study and these conclusions have been reported in a major national magazine as another bit of “scientific” proof for the theory of evolution. Even sadder, many people reading it will accept it as fact. The only thing I see here is wishful thinking. As G.K. Chesterton said, “The only thing we know for sure about the missing link, is that it is still missing.”
I have learned something in the process of trying to become a writer. I have learned that I can always find a ready source of inspiration for my musings. All I have to do is simply check on the activities of some of our prominent university professors.
Take for example Dr. Kenneth P. Dial. Dr. Dial is head of a biological flight laboratory at the University of Montana. Dr. Dial has spent a great deal of time and money, as reported by Newsweek magazine, studying the activities of young birds, members of the partridge, turkey, and quail family to be exact. The fruit of this effort is that Dr. Dial has learned that within days after hatching, these young birds, will use their tiny wings to assist them to climb steep slopes and trees to escape from predators. In essence, they use their wings to give them traction. Once these young birds have done this, it appears that they are not far from developing the ability to fly. So far, so good. We now know one mechanism used by young birds to escape predators and, at the same time, learn to fly. (By the way, pity the poor birds born in Kansas; Thanksgiving dinner for them.)
However, from this study, Dr. Dial has concluded that this is the same mechanism used by “feathered” dinosaurs to learn to fly (and by implication) in the process develop the evolutionary traits that lead to the modern birds we know and love. Dr. Dial draws his conclusion in very carefully phrased language, but it is there nonetheless.
I guess I’m one of the duller members of society. Can anyone tell me how the study of the process used by turkeys to escape predators and thereby learn to fly tells us anything about where the stupid turkey came from in the first place? How does Dr. Dial have any hope of establishing, in a truly scientific manner, that so called “feathered” dinosaurs did exactly the same thing. Even better, can anyone explain to me how learning to fly influenced the genetic makeup of their turkey off spring? I learned to fly and I hope and pray that none of my progeny will ever develop feathers and live in nests as a result.
My question to Dr. Dial concerning his dinosaur theory would be: “You were there?” Short of that, there is no hope of establishing any of this as fact; it is only another dose of modern scientific-materialist theology.
The sad thing is, that this study and these conclusions have been reported in a major national magazine as another bit of “scientific” proof for the theory of evolution. Even sadder, many people reading it will accept it as fact. The only thing I see here is wishful thinking. As G.K. Chesterton said, “The only thing we know for sure about the missing link, is that it is still missing.”
Monday, January 20, 2003
A Prayer of St. Francis
"Almighty, eternal, just, and merciful God, give to us wretches to do for you what we know you to will, and to will always that which is pleasing to you; so that inwardly purified, inwardly illumined and kindled by the flame of the Holy Spirit, we may be able to follow in the footsteps of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and by your grace alone come to you the Most High, who in perfect Trinity and simple Unity lives and reigns and glories God Almighty forever and ever. Amen."
This is one of my favorite prayers of St. Francis. This, to me, is St. Francis speaking, it is so simply stated. He knows who God is – Almighty, eternal, just and merciful. He also knows who we are -- “wretches”. I think when St. Francis says that though, he is speaking in true humility. He is acknowledging the simple truth of the matter, before God we are, indeed, wretches. But I think he also knows that we are destined to become God’s children, members of his adopted family. In light of this, his prayer is simply to do God’s will and to do it gladly and lovingly.
I will be praying and meditating on this prayer this week while I’m gone.
"Almighty, eternal, just, and merciful God, give to us wretches to do for you what we know you to will, and to will always that which is pleasing to you; so that inwardly purified, inwardly illumined and kindled by the flame of the Holy Spirit, we may be able to follow in the footsteps of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and by your grace alone come to you the Most High, who in perfect Trinity and simple Unity lives and reigns and glories God Almighty forever and ever. Amen."
This is one of my favorite prayers of St. Francis. This, to me, is St. Francis speaking, it is so simply stated. He knows who God is – Almighty, eternal, just and merciful. He also knows who we are -- “wretches”. I think when St. Francis says that though, he is speaking in true humility. He is acknowledging the simple truth of the matter, before God we are, indeed, wretches. But I think he also knows that we are destined to become God’s children, members of his adopted family. In light of this, his prayer is simply to do God’s will and to do it gladly and lovingly.
I will be praying and meditating on this prayer this week while I’m gone.
North to Alaska
I'll be heading north to Alaska tomorrow and won't be back til late Friday night. I ask you if you would pray for me on this trip. It will be difficult since I have to cover a lot of territory in a short time. I would greatly appreciate your prayers.
I am trying to get a post done to "time release" while I'm gone since I do not anticipate that I will have access to a computer, much less the internet during the trip. If this doesn't work my next post will likely be on the weekend.
In Christ
I'll be heading north to Alaska tomorrow and won't be back til late Friday night. I ask you if you would pray for me on this trip. It will be difficult since I have to cover a lot of territory in a short time. I would greatly appreciate your prayers.
I am trying to get a post done to "time release" while I'm gone since I do not anticipate that I will have access to a computer, much less the internet during the trip. If this doesn't work my next post will likely be on the weekend.
In Christ
Sunday, January 19, 2003
Stacey Question – Part II
I think the comment made to Stacey by her friend is telling in that it assumes that fiction will not be as good, as worthwhile to read, as non-fiction. I think we come to accept this idea almost out of hand these days because there is such a dearth of good fiction being written. This is true, I think, of both Catholic and non-Catholic writers. But, why should we make that assumption? Why should fiction be any less important to us, or of any less quality, than any other form of literature? Why should we expect any less of fiction writers than others?
Human beings have always told stories, either to convey their history, to entertain, to inform. Think of the Iliad, the Odyssey, the book of Genesis, the great poetry and literature of the last two or three thousand years. These are not factual, footnoted, research papers, -- they are art. All of this is very much a part of our cultural heritage. Where would we be without them?
Society today exalts our own knowledge, we only value what we can measure or quantify or verify in some way. I think this is a distorted view of the world. As Josef Pieper points out, if the only valid knowledge or learning is that which we acquire by our own effort then there is no such thing as objective truth, truth is limited to that knowledge which we acquire by our own effort. It eliminates the possibility of revelation, and cuts us off from a facet of our human existence.
The result is, I think, that we are not producing great works of art. This is true of literature, art and sculpture, all phases of creative effort. I can’t think of one really good writer of fiction working today. I think this is at least partly attributable to the scientific-materialistic bent of the culture in which we live.
One of the goals I have set for myself this year is to read more fiction and poetry because in recent years I too have fallen into the trap of reading only non-fiction. I will be taking a business trip this week and hope to read two books while traveling; one is Ron Hansen’s Mariette in Ecstacy, (sp??) the other is Joel Rosenburg’s The Last Jihad. I’ll let you know how it goes. I wonder if anyone would like to suggest other books that have been written, say, in the last 40-50 years (fiction or poetry) that they consider worthwhile reading?
I think the comment made to Stacey by her friend is telling in that it assumes that fiction will not be as good, as worthwhile to read, as non-fiction. I think we come to accept this idea almost out of hand these days because there is such a dearth of good fiction being written. This is true, I think, of both Catholic and non-Catholic writers. But, why should we make that assumption? Why should fiction be any less important to us, or of any less quality, than any other form of literature? Why should we expect any less of fiction writers than others?
Human beings have always told stories, either to convey their history, to entertain, to inform. Think of the Iliad, the Odyssey, the book of Genesis, the great poetry and literature of the last two or three thousand years. These are not factual, footnoted, research papers, -- they are art. All of this is very much a part of our cultural heritage. Where would we be without them?
Society today exalts our own knowledge, we only value what we can measure or quantify or verify in some way. I think this is a distorted view of the world. As Josef Pieper points out, if the only valid knowledge or learning is that which we acquire by our own effort then there is no such thing as objective truth, truth is limited to that knowledge which we acquire by our own effort. It eliminates the possibility of revelation, and cuts us off from a facet of our human existence.
The result is, I think, that we are not producing great works of art. This is true of literature, art and sculpture, all phases of creative effort. I can’t think of one really good writer of fiction working today. I think this is at least partly attributable to the scientific-materialistic bent of the culture in which we live.
One of the goals I have set for myself this year is to read more fiction and poetry because in recent years I too have fallen into the trap of reading only non-fiction. I will be taking a business trip this week and hope to read two books while traveling; one is Ron Hansen’s Mariette in Ecstacy, (sp??) the other is Joel Rosenburg’s The Last Jihad. I’ll let you know how it goes. I wonder if anyone would like to suggest other books that have been written, say, in the last 40-50 years (fiction or poetry) that they consider worthwhile reading?
Stacey posted a question in the Catholic Writers Association chat group which reads as follows:
“I recently read a book. The author is a Catholic, who, based on credentials, I would assume to be reasonably orthodox in belief. (Yes, I'm being deliberately vague.) Frankly, I disliked the book very much, but I'm wondering how other writers feel about a few issues that were raised in my mind regarding the book. It is a work of fiction (and one of my friends informed me that "that's what you get when you read fiction" and perhaps she's right), so it's not like I would have the same expectations of it as I would of a non-fiction book, but having read a fair amount of Catholic fiction, I was surprised at this book. Ordinarily, I quite enjoy good Catholic fiction. The Red Hat, for example, I thought was a wonderful book, and I've thoroughly enjoyed all of Michael O'Brien's books, so I was really looking forward to this particular book and was terribly disappointed.
One concern that I had would be over "colorful" language. I'm sure that the author felt that it was "in character," but I found the taking of the Lord's name in vain to be disturbing. I would have been bothered much less by other sorts of vulgarities, which were much less frequent.
The other concern was the conclusion that was arrived at by the protagonist of the story. That character decided, at the end of the story, that Jesus matters because His message causes us to live good lives, but that if the story of the Resurrection is somewhat mythologized, that doesn't matter.
Obviously, such a conclusion is totally at odds with the truths of our faith, but I'm wondering if I am being naive in expecting an author who is represented as a faithful Catholic to have the characters of the book end up defending truth rather than giving a defense of heresy. Should I expect such a thing and be surprised when it doesn't happen, or is my friend correct in her "that's what you get when you read fiction"?”
Frank Sheed wrote that most Catholics go about their daily routine with no noticeable difference between their activities and those of their pagan neighbors. Their Christianity and Catholicism is nothing more than a patch on the same suit worn by all of their contemporaries. I think Stacey’s question highlights the problem in the world of modern literature. It sounds like the book that Stacey read is no different from so much popular fiction that is being written today. And from that perspective I don’t think that such a book can be called “Catholic”.
It seems to me that if a writer is writing from a Catholic-Christian perspective, that perspective will inform his or her writing. It will not, in the name of art, take the name of God in vain, since that is a violation of the 2nd commandment and at least borders on mortal sin. I also don’t think that it is Christian by any stretch of the imagination to portray Jesus as nothing more than a “nice guy” and the truth of his resurrection is anything more than a myth. This is New Age skepticism, not Christian faith and teaching.
As in any other area of life, if we proclaim ourselves to be Christians and Catholics and yet in our actions, or work or our art, do nothing that conforms to our beliefs, we are living a hopeless contradiction that we would tolerate in no other area of our lives. If we proclaimed ourselves to be Rock Ribbed Republicans and yet voted only for Democrat or Libertarian candidates and issues we would quickly see the inconsistency. If we claimed to be opposed to abortion and yet contributed large sums of money to Planned Parenthood I would hope that we would recognize the hypocrisy. How then, can a writer claim to be Catholic and not have his or her writing informed by her faith? Why do we accept the nonsensical in the area of our religious belief when we would accept it in no other area of our lives?
I don’t mean that a writer, or any artist, has to hit the reader over the head with his religion. J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis, among others, demonstrated beautifully that writing can be “Catholic” or “Christian” and still be quality literature. To be Catholic, I think, it should first of all be good. I think there is precious little being written today that qualifies. I think Stacey’s friend’s comment highlights this point as another aspect of the problem. I will continue this in another posting.
“I recently read a book. The author is a Catholic, who, based on credentials, I would assume to be reasonably orthodox in belief. (Yes, I'm being deliberately vague.) Frankly, I disliked the book very much, but I'm wondering how other writers feel about a few issues that were raised in my mind regarding the book. It is a work of fiction (and one of my friends informed me that "that's what you get when you read fiction" and perhaps she's right), so it's not like I would have the same expectations of it as I would of a non-fiction book, but having read a fair amount of Catholic fiction, I was surprised at this book. Ordinarily, I quite enjoy good Catholic fiction. The Red Hat, for example, I thought was a wonderful book, and I've thoroughly enjoyed all of Michael O'Brien's books, so I was really looking forward to this particular book and was terribly disappointed.
One concern that I had would be over "colorful" language. I'm sure that the author felt that it was "in character," but I found the taking of the Lord's name in vain to be disturbing. I would have been bothered much less by other sorts of vulgarities, which were much less frequent.
The other concern was the conclusion that was arrived at by the protagonist of the story. That character decided, at the end of the story, that Jesus matters because His message causes us to live good lives, but that if the story of the Resurrection is somewhat mythologized, that doesn't matter.
Obviously, such a conclusion is totally at odds with the truths of our faith, but I'm wondering if I am being naive in expecting an author who is represented as a faithful Catholic to have the characters of the book end up defending truth rather than giving a defense of heresy. Should I expect such a thing and be surprised when it doesn't happen, or is my friend correct in her "that's what you get when you read fiction"?”
Frank Sheed wrote that most Catholics go about their daily routine with no noticeable difference between their activities and those of their pagan neighbors. Their Christianity and Catholicism is nothing more than a patch on the same suit worn by all of their contemporaries. I think Stacey’s question highlights the problem in the world of modern literature. It sounds like the book that Stacey read is no different from so much popular fiction that is being written today. And from that perspective I don’t think that such a book can be called “Catholic”.
It seems to me that if a writer is writing from a Catholic-Christian perspective, that perspective will inform his or her writing. It will not, in the name of art, take the name of God in vain, since that is a violation of the 2nd commandment and at least borders on mortal sin. I also don’t think that it is Christian by any stretch of the imagination to portray Jesus as nothing more than a “nice guy” and the truth of his resurrection is anything more than a myth. This is New Age skepticism, not Christian faith and teaching.
As in any other area of life, if we proclaim ourselves to be Christians and Catholics and yet in our actions, or work or our art, do nothing that conforms to our beliefs, we are living a hopeless contradiction that we would tolerate in no other area of our lives. If we proclaimed ourselves to be Rock Ribbed Republicans and yet voted only for Democrat or Libertarian candidates and issues we would quickly see the inconsistency. If we claimed to be opposed to abortion and yet contributed large sums of money to Planned Parenthood I would hope that we would recognize the hypocrisy. How then, can a writer claim to be Catholic and not have his or her writing informed by her faith? Why do we accept the nonsensical in the area of our religious belief when we would accept it in no other area of our lives?
I don’t mean that a writer, or any artist, has to hit the reader over the head with his religion. J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis, among others, demonstrated beautifully that writing can be “Catholic” or “Christian” and still be quality literature. To be Catholic, I think, it should first of all be good. I think there is precious little being written today that qualifies. I think Stacey’s friend’s comment highlights this point as another aspect of the problem. I will continue this in another posting.
Friday, January 17, 2003
I have had a lapse in posts due to a suddenly overwhelming work schedule. Being an accountant and it being January, I guess I should have expected it.
I am reading two or three books at the moment, they are:
John Paul II - Fides et Ratio
Willa Cather - Death Comes for the Archbishop (This for variety in my reading and out of love of the Southwest)
Josef Pieper - Leisure the Basis of Culture (Fides et Ratio led me to this, indirectly anyway)
And in the midst of all of this I feel a rant and rave coming on, this on the basis of an article in Newseek on the web. Hope you'll stay tuned.
Paz y bien
I am reading two or three books at the moment, they are:
John Paul II - Fides et Ratio
Willa Cather - Death Comes for the Archbishop (This for variety in my reading and out of love of the Southwest)
Josef Pieper - Leisure the Basis of Culture (Fides et Ratio led me to this, indirectly anyway)
And in the midst of all of this I feel a rant and rave coming on, this on the basis of an article in Newseek on the web. Hope you'll stay tuned.
Paz y bien
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
Circulating on the Internet - With all the sadness and trauma going on in the world at the moment, it is worth reflecting on the death of a very important person that lmost went un-noticed last week. Larry La Prise, the man who wrote "The Hokey Pokey" died peacefully at age 93. The most traumatic part for his family was getting him into the coffin. They put his left leg in... and then the trouble started.
Beauty - For the past week or so there has been a lively discussion taking place on the pages of Flos Carmeli and Disputations on the nature of beauty. I have wanted to take part in this but, to be honest, did not believe I could contribute much, if anything to the discussion. I feel the topic is over my head, at least a bit. I'm sure the rest of this post will prove my point.
I do believe that there is such a thing as objective beauty. Things that bring us joy and uplift us can, I think, be called objectively beautiful. Beauty is joyful, true and enduring whether expressed in words, letters, paint or sculpture. The classics in literature are classics because they have endured, they have had something to say to many generations of men. The Old Masters are enduring, not because they are old but because they have something to tell all people something about themselves. Beauty brings joy because it tells us something true about ourselves. I think we sense this instinctively when we struggle to understand a difficult concept, say a math problem. After we have struggled long and hard and we finally "get-it" we get a little rush of excitement and satisfaction. I think that is one example of the type of joy that truth, and beauty, bring us.
So much of what is called "art" today is not meant to be true, or uplifting but merely shocking. It is created for no other reason and, a fearless prediction, it will not endure.
The problem I have is that there are elements of ourselves that treat beauty subjectively. I know that I certainly experience this. I like rock and roll music and especially the Beatles. But I don't believe that rock and roll can be considered objectively beautiful. Yet, I get some of the same rush listening to it as I get looking at a Rembrandt painting. I don't understand it.
In any case, this is only meant to be my own musings on the nature of beauty.
I do believe that there is such a thing as objective beauty. Things that bring us joy and uplift us can, I think, be called objectively beautiful. Beauty is joyful, true and enduring whether expressed in words, letters, paint or sculpture. The classics in literature are classics because they have endured, they have had something to say to many generations of men. The Old Masters are enduring, not because they are old but because they have something to tell all people something about themselves. Beauty brings joy because it tells us something true about ourselves. I think we sense this instinctively when we struggle to understand a difficult concept, say a math problem. After we have struggled long and hard and we finally "get-it" we get a little rush of excitement and satisfaction. I think that is one example of the type of joy that truth, and beauty, bring us.
So much of what is called "art" today is not meant to be true, or uplifting but merely shocking. It is created for no other reason and, a fearless prediction, it will not endure.
The problem I have is that there are elements of ourselves that treat beauty subjectively. I know that I certainly experience this. I like rock and roll music and especially the Beatles. But I don't believe that rock and roll can be considered objectively beautiful. Yet, I get some of the same rush listening to it as I get looking at a Rembrandt painting. I don't understand it.
In any case, this is only meant to be my own musings on the nature of beauty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)