Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Real Freedom
In his encyclical letter, Fides et Ratio, John Paul II wrote:
"Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives."
The way in which we answer the basic questions concerning the meaning of our existence affects the entire direction of our lives. The answers to these questions determine how we interact with the reality of our world. They affect every decision we make, every action of our daily lives. In the United States we are free to make those decisions according to the determination of our individual consciences. This freedom is founded in the Christian heritage of Western Civilization, which recognizes the dignity of the human person -- a creature created in the image and likeness of God. This is a profoundly Christian idea, as can be seen in the pages of Fides et Ratio.
At the heart of the Christian view of life is the idea that the human person is capable, and desirous, of knowing the truth about himself and the world around him. In the universal human pursuit of truth, the human person becomes more fully human through the exercise of human freedom.
Other cultures and religions answer these questions differently. They either deny that there is any answer to the deeper questions of our being, and view the human being as simply part of nature, little different from a stone or a fish, as in the case of Eastern mysticism. Or, in the case of Islam, they deny that the individual is free to answer these questions on his own. Both of these approaches to life are reactions against human freedom.
This is where most heresies fall into error, they are reactions against something or a negation of something. John Paul II writes in Fides et Ratio:
"Put differently, freedom is not realized in decisions made against God. For how could it be an exercise of true freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality which enables our self-realization? Men and women can accomplish no more important act in their lives than the act of faith; it is here that freedom reaches the certainty of truth and chooses to live in that truth."
I think our Holy Father is saying here that freedom is not exercised as a decision against God, or really against anything, but is a decision for. Freedom is not a negative, it is a positive choice to follow the truth. Society today views freedom as license, freedom from restraint in any area of our lives. It is a denial of any absolute moral value or obligation on the part of the individual. This has lead to the virtual destruction of the family in the West, with rampant abortion, adultery, homosexuality, and drug use.
It has lead to another even more insidious failure -- an unwillingness to admit that there are truths worth struggling for. It views peace as the absence of conflict of any kind, and it views that absence as worth paying any price to obtain. The problem is that this is a seeking of a negation, a seeking not for a positive goal but a negative goal; in a sense it is seeking after nothing.
In his encyclical letter, Fides et Ratio, John Paul II wrote:
"Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives."
The way in which we answer the basic questions concerning the meaning of our existence affects the entire direction of our lives. The answers to these questions determine how we interact with the reality of our world. They affect every decision we make, every action of our daily lives. In the United States we are free to make those decisions according to the determination of our individual consciences. This freedom is founded in the Christian heritage of Western Civilization, which recognizes the dignity of the human person -- a creature created in the image and likeness of God. This is a profoundly Christian idea, as can be seen in the pages of Fides et Ratio.
At the heart of the Christian view of life is the idea that the human person is capable, and desirous, of knowing the truth about himself and the world around him. In the universal human pursuit of truth, the human person becomes more fully human through the exercise of human freedom.
Other cultures and religions answer these questions differently. They either deny that there is any answer to the deeper questions of our being, and view the human being as simply part of nature, little different from a stone or a fish, as in the case of Eastern mysticism. Or, in the case of Islam, they deny that the individual is free to answer these questions on his own. Both of these approaches to life are reactions against human freedom.
This is where most heresies fall into error, they are reactions against something or a negation of something. John Paul II writes in Fides et Ratio:
"Put differently, freedom is not realized in decisions made against God. For how could it be an exercise of true freedom to refuse to be open to the very reality which enables our self-realization? Men and women can accomplish no more important act in their lives than the act of faith; it is here that freedom reaches the certainty of truth and chooses to live in that truth."
I think our Holy Father is saying here that freedom is not exercised as a decision against God, or really against anything, but is a decision for. Freedom is not a negative, it is a positive choice to follow the truth. Society today views freedom as license, freedom from restraint in any area of our lives. It is a denial of any absolute moral value or obligation on the part of the individual. This has lead to the virtual destruction of the family in the West, with rampant abortion, adultery, homosexuality, and drug use.
It has lead to another even more insidious failure -- an unwillingness to admit that there are truths worth struggling for. It views peace as the absence of conflict of any kind, and it views that absence as worth paying any price to obtain. The problem is that this is a seeking of a negation, a seeking not for a positive goal but a negative goal; in a sense it is seeking after nothing.
Thursday, March 13, 2003
The Meaning of Lent
I am finally close to being back to my regular routine after last weekend's visit of old friends from Austin. I was able to travel around Colorado a bit during their visit since they have 11-year-old twin boys who wanted very badly to see some snow. There's lots of snow in Breckenridge (and a large snowstorm is forecast for "the Springs" early next week) if you are a ski buff.
I was reading a bit from Craig B.'s Page Fault Interrupt and, as usual, he has some interesting things to say from the perspective of one who, I think, is well on his way on the journey into the Church. I would like to offer a lengthy quote from a post in the last day or so:
"It is clear from reading the early church fathers that they viewed sacraments such as baptism and communion as ordinances prescribed by Jesus that, by their observance, deliver a measure of His grace to the participants. (In other words, they're not merely symbolic.) Now this view doesn't imply that He cannot or will not bestow grace through other means, only that He specifically sanctioned these for ordinary use. Some analogies frequently used are those of Jesus using mud to heal the blind, and Elisha ordering the Syrian leper to wash in the Jordan.
Why would this be? I don't know. I'm struggling with this question. While I don't think we can work our way into heaven, I don't think we can will our way into heaven either. Maybe the physical world is supposed to teach us something. We read in James' letter that faith without works is dead; maybe sacraments are tools to remind us of that fact."
Craig is right on several points here. First, the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are not just symbolic. I was thinking just today that we can gather some idea of the importance of the Eucharist to Jesus from the fact that he instituted the Eucharist in what was virtually the last act of his earthly ministry, just hours before his arrest. Would he have done something that he considered unimportant, or merely symbolic, at just that moment? It hardly seems likely.
The fact is, God created us and knows how we function. We do not just operate on a spiritual or intellectual level, we are incarnated souls and when we are resurrected it will be both soul and body. This is why we have the sacraments, to give us both a taste of the physical and spiritual realities of our existence and God's grace in our lives. So, in a sense, Craig is also correct when he says that God gave us the sacraments for our benefit.
Now, as to Craig's question why the Church has viewed the Sacraments as coming at Jesus direction. You see, to a Protestant, salvation is gained by faith alone, there is no need for sacraments or Tradition, or anything other than the act of the individual in professing faith in Jesus Christ. Taken to the extreme it means that the reality of sin is denied and overcome by a single individual decision to "accept Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior."
Now, accepting Jesus into our lives is something each of us must do, but there is more. It seems nearly impossible to read very deeply in Holy Scripture without understanding that what we do is important to God. The details of our daily lives are of tremendous importance to God our Father. Just read the books of Leviticus and Numbers, the history books of the Bible, Jesus Sermon on the Mount, these books are not about what we believe, they are about what we do and what we are. Jesus was asked point blank by the rich young man what he must do to be “have eternal life.” It is interesting what he did not say. He did not say, "You must accept me as your personal Lord and Savior." He did say, "Obey the Commandments", and then, "Sell all your possessions." It seems hard to deny that Jesus was concentrating on what the rich young man did throughout his life, not what he believed at one particular moment.
All of this does not mean that we earn our passage to heaven, it is equally clear from Scripture that this is not the case. But the Sacraments, the Church, the liturgical seasons, are meant to help us to repent, to "change our minds", as it says in the Greek. These things are given to us as a foretaste of what is to come and to help us, to give us the grace, to achieve it. They are all part of our preparation to spend eternity with God, as part of his family.
This is part of the reason we have the penitential season of Lent, to reinforce practices in our lives that bring us closer to God. We don't succeed or fail at this practice, this is not the objective. The objective is to change, to become something better, more pleasing and more conformed, to God. We will never know here on earth the eternal consequences, and benefits, of a Lent that we believed to be a spiritual dud. The fact is, it’s not up to us anyway, all we are supposed to do is try.
I am finally close to being back to my regular routine after last weekend's visit of old friends from Austin. I was able to travel around Colorado a bit during their visit since they have 11-year-old twin boys who wanted very badly to see some snow. There's lots of snow in Breckenridge (and a large snowstorm is forecast for "the Springs" early next week) if you are a ski buff.
I was reading a bit from Craig B.'s Page Fault Interrupt and, as usual, he has some interesting things to say from the perspective of one who, I think, is well on his way on the journey into the Church. I would like to offer a lengthy quote from a post in the last day or so:
"It is clear from reading the early church fathers that they viewed sacraments such as baptism and communion as ordinances prescribed by Jesus that, by their observance, deliver a measure of His grace to the participants. (In other words, they're not merely symbolic.) Now this view doesn't imply that He cannot or will not bestow grace through other means, only that He specifically sanctioned these for ordinary use. Some analogies frequently used are those of Jesus using mud to heal the blind, and Elisha ordering the Syrian leper to wash in the Jordan.
Why would this be? I don't know. I'm struggling with this question. While I don't think we can work our way into heaven, I don't think we can will our way into heaven either. Maybe the physical world is supposed to teach us something. We read in James' letter that faith without works is dead; maybe sacraments are tools to remind us of that fact."
Craig is right on several points here. First, the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are not just symbolic. I was thinking just today that we can gather some idea of the importance of the Eucharist to Jesus from the fact that he instituted the Eucharist in what was virtually the last act of his earthly ministry, just hours before his arrest. Would he have done something that he considered unimportant, or merely symbolic, at just that moment? It hardly seems likely.
The fact is, God created us and knows how we function. We do not just operate on a spiritual or intellectual level, we are incarnated souls and when we are resurrected it will be both soul and body. This is why we have the sacraments, to give us both a taste of the physical and spiritual realities of our existence and God's grace in our lives. So, in a sense, Craig is also correct when he says that God gave us the sacraments for our benefit.
Now, as to Craig's question why the Church has viewed the Sacraments as coming at Jesus direction. You see, to a Protestant, salvation is gained by faith alone, there is no need for sacraments or Tradition, or anything other than the act of the individual in professing faith in Jesus Christ. Taken to the extreme it means that the reality of sin is denied and overcome by a single individual decision to "accept Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior."
Now, accepting Jesus into our lives is something each of us must do, but there is more. It seems nearly impossible to read very deeply in Holy Scripture without understanding that what we do is important to God. The details of our daily lives are of tremendous importance to God our Father. Just read the books of Leviticus and Numbers, the history books of the Bible, Jesus Sermon on the Mount, these books are not about what we believe, they are about what we do and what we are. Jesus was asked point blank by the rich young man what he must do to be “have eternal life.” It is interesting what he did not say. He did not say, "You must accept me as your personal Lord and Savior." He did say, "Obey the Commandments", and then, "Sell all your possessions." It seems hard to deny that Jesus was concentrating on what the rich young man did throughout his life, not what he believed at one particular moment.
All of this does not mean that we earn our passage to heaven, it is equally clear from Scripture that this is not the case. But the Sacraments, the Church, the liturgical seasons, are meant to help us to repent, to "change our minds", as it says in the Greek. These things are given to us as a foretaste of what is to come and to help us, to give us the grace, to achieve it. They are all part of our preparation to spend eternity with God, as part of his family.
This is part of the reason we have the penitential season of Lent, to reinforce practices in our lives that bring us closer to God. We don't succeed or fail at this practice, this is not the objective. The objective is to change, to become something better, more pleasing and more conformed, to God. We will never know here on earth the eternal consequences, and benefits, of a Lent that we believed to be a spiritual dud. The fact is, it’s not up to us anyway, all we are supposed to do is try.
The following is an AP story on the widow of Columbia astronaut Rick Husband and illustrates the faith of someone who has endured what might be considered the unendurable. I think this is a reminder of our total, daily, dependence on God's providence in our lives.
Widow of Shuttle Commander Supports Probe
March 13, 2003 03:52 PM EST
NEW YORK - The widow of the space shuttle Columbia's commander said Thursday that she strongly supports continued space exploration and believes investigators will find the cause of the accident.
"I think space travel is incredibly important to our country. There are certain risks and Rick accepted it, and so do I," said Evelyn Husband, wife of Rick Husband, who piloted Columbia on its final flight.
She's grateful her spouse, one of seven astronauts killed when the shuttle broke up Feb. 1, was able to fulfill the dream of being an astronaut he had harbored since age 4.
On the search for the disaster's cause, Husband said, government experts "are incredibly thorough and determined to find what went wrong...I feel strongly that it was not negligence. It's not a perfect world."
Husband, 44, a stay-at-home mother, has declined most media requests to concentrate on helping the couple's children, 12-year-old Laura and Matthew, 7, cope with the loss of their father. But she did several interviews in New York on Thursday.
She said her grief would have been unbearable the past six weeks without faith in God, along with support from friends at NASA and Houston's Grace Community Church, where the Husbands and the family of Columbia crew mate Michael Anderson attend services.
The spouses and children of the Columbia astronauts meet at least once a week to socialize and, occasionally, pray together, she said.
Husband said she doesn't follow the day-to-day developments in the investigation and hasn't watched television since the news broke, apart from fleeting glimpses while working out at a gym.
Rick Husband was a devoted father, she said, who prepared separate videos for each of his children just before the Columbia flight. The tapes had segments for each day he was away, following Bible readings and prayers in their devotional guidebooks. The Feb. 1 segment closed with a greeting that he'd be seeing them soon.
The last time Evelyn saw Rick, the night before liftoff, he led a brief devotional for the crew and spouses and recited Joshua 1:5-9 from memory. The biblical passage contains the words "I will be with you. I will not fail you or forsake you. Be strong and of good courage."
Husband said NASA saw to it that officers were posted to control crowds at the family home in Texas even before the family flew back from Florida.
Astronaut Steve Lindsey, a veteran of two space flights, was assigned full-time to help the family. A couple from her church who run a ministry offering free financial counseling, Richard and Janetta Curtis, calmly took charge of things like financial details, fielding telephone calls and poring through "buckets of mail" each day.
In the end, Husband said, her religious faith has been strengthened, not weakened, by the experience. "God is so close to me it's impossible to doubt," she said.
Widow of Shuttle Commander Supports Probe
March 13, 2003 03:52 PM EST
NEW YORK - The widow of the space shuttle Columbia's commander said Thursday that she strongly supports continued space exploration and believes investigators will find the cause of the accident.
"I think space travel is incredibly important to our country. There are certain risks and Rick accepted it, and so do I," said Evelyn Husband, wife of Rick Husband, who piloted Columbia on its final flight.
She's grateful her spouse, one of seven astronauts killed when the shuttle broke up Feb. 1, was able to fulfill the dream of being an astronaut he had harbored since age 4.
On the search for the disaster's cause, Husband said, government experts "are incredibly thorough and determined to find what went wrong...I feel strongly that it was not negligence. It's not a perfect world."
Husband, 44, a stay-at-home mother, has declined most media requests to concentrate on helping the couple's children, 12-year-old Laura and Matthew, 7, cope with the loss of their father. But she did several interviews in New York on Thursday.
She said her grief would have been unbearable the past six weeks without faith in God, along with support from friends at NASA and Houston's Grace Community Church, where the Husbands and the family of Columbia crew mate Michael Anderson attend services.
The spouses and children of the Columbia astronauts meet at least once a week to socialize and, occasionally, pray together, she said.
Husband said she doesn't follow the day-to-day developments in the investigation and hasn't watched television since the news broke, apart from fleeting glimpses while working out at a gym.
Rick Husband was a devoted father, she said, who prepared separate videos for each of his children just before the Columbia flight. The tapes had segments for each day he was away, following Bible readings and prayers in their devotional guidebooks. The Feb. 1 segment closed with a greeting that he'd be seeing them soon.
The last time Evelyn saw Rick, the night before liftoff, he led a brief devotional for the crew and spouses and recited Joshua 1:5-9 from memory. The biblical passage contains the words "I will be with you. I will not fail you or forsake you. Be strong and of good courage."
Husband said NASA saw to it that officers were posted to control crowds at the family home in Texas even before the family flew back from Florida.
Astronaut Steve Lindsey, a veteran of two space flights, was assigned full-time to help the family. A couple from her church who run a ministry offering free financial counseling, Richard and Janetta Curtis, calmly took charge of things like financial details, fielding telephone calls and poring through "buckets of mail" each day.
In the end, Husband said, her religious faith has been strengthened, not weakened, by the experience. "God is so close to me it's impossible to doubt," she said.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
[This was a post I originally prepared for Ash Wednesday. As I reviewed it, however, I came to see that it needed considerable editing and revision (perhaps still does) which I was not able to accomplish until now due to a heavy work schedule and the arrival of old friends from Austin, Texas for the weekend. I thought it might be better to post this – better late than never.]
Lenten Reflections
As a convert Ash Wednesday, and the liturgical season of Lent, is still a bit of a culture shock to me. Growing up a Protestant meant the liturgical calendar was never significant to my religious experience. The idea of fasting for Lent wasn't to be taken seriously. As you may know, most Protestants view the Lenten fast as part of an exaggerated Catholic effort to earn one's way to Heaven, and I rather unthinkingly accepted that point of view.
It has taken me a few years but now I am actually beginning to develop an appreciation for the season of Lent. Fr. Steve aptly described the reason for this in his Ash Wednesday homily. He talked about the scientific principle of entropy -- the tendency of everything in the universe to become disordered. When a system move in the direction of disorder, chaos, it takes energy to restore order to it. Fr. Steve made the point that this was true in many areas of our lives. The desk in my study is a good example. It seems that as soon as I get it cleaned up and everything put away, within a day or so it's a mess. The solution is to add energy to the system in order to restore order, to clean it up. This is true for our spiritual lives, as well. We go through the Lenten season reintroducing prayer, fasting and almsgiving into our lives. However, if we don't maintain these disciplines in the weeks and months after Easter, entropy sets in and our spiritual lives tend to degenerate. We need the disciplines of another Lent to restore order to our spiritual systems. Lent is a time to restore order to our spiritual lives.
In light of this, I have been debating the effect that the season should have on this blog. My original thought was based on meditating on our Lord's words in the Ash Wednesday Gospel reading:
"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
I thought that perhaps it would be appropriate to take Jesus words literally when he suggests that, at least to the outside world, there should be no apparent difference in our countenance when we are fasting and praying. After all, we should be constantly at prayer, not just during the season of Lent. It seemed to me that if the purpose of this blog is attempt to show how our Catholic faith influences our daily lives in a practical way, then, perhaps it would be appropriate for there to be little apparent change in outward appearances here, in the days and weeks leading up to Easter.
However, on further reflection, I realize that Lent is a time for prayer, fasting, and almsgiving -- a time for recharging the spiritual batteries, so to speak, and the fact of the matter is, I feel the need to recharge those batteries. So it is likely that I will either reduce the posts here, or shift their focus, in order to allow you the reader and myself a little more time for where our focus should be right now, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.
I belatedly wish all of you a very blessed Lenten season, looking forward to the coming of the Light of the world on Easter morning.
Lenten Reflections
As a convert Ash Wednesday, and the liturgical season of Lent, is still a bit of a culture shock to me. Growing up a Protestant meant the liturgical calendar was never significant to my religious experience. The idea of fasting for Lent wasn't to be taken seriously. As you may know, most Protestants view the Lenten fast as part of an exaggerated Catholic effort to earn one's way to Heaven, and I rather unthinkingly accepted that point of view.
It has taken me a few years but now I am actually beginning to develop an appreciation for the season of Lent. Fr. Steve aptly described the reason for this in his Ash Wednesday homily. He talked about the scientific principle of entropy -- the tendency of everything in the universe to become disordered. When a system move in the direction of disorder, chaos, it takes energy to restore order to it. Fr. Steve made the point that this was true in many areas of our lives. The desk in my study is a good example. It seems that as soon as I get it cleaned up and everything put away, within a day or so it's a mess. The solution is to add energy to the system in order to restore order, to clean it up. This is true for our spiritual lives, as well. We go through the Lenten season reintroducing prayer, fasting and almsgiving into our lives. However, if we don't maintain these disciplines in the weeks and months after Easter, entropy sets in and our spiritual lives tend to degenerate. We need the disciplines of another Lent to restore order to our spiritual systems. Lent is a time to restore order to our spiritual lives.
In light of this, I have been debating the effect that the season should have on this blog. My original thought was based on meditating on our Lord's words in the Ash Wednesday Gospel reading:
"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
I thought that perhaps it would be appropriate to take Jesus words literally when he suggests that, at least to the outside world, there should be no apparent difference in our countenance when we are fasting and praying. After all, we should be constantly at prayer, not just during the season of Lent. It seemed to me that if the purpose of this blog is attempt to show how our Catholic faith influences our daily lives in a practical way, then, perhaps it would be appropriate for there to be little apparent change in outward appearances here, in the days and weeks leading up to Easter.
However, on further reflection, I realize that Lent is a time for prayer, fasting, and almsgiving -- a time for recharging the spiritual batteries, so to speak, and the fact of the matter is, I feel the need to recharge those batteries. So it is likely that I will either reduce the posts here, or shift their focus, in order to allow you the reader and myself a little more time for where our focus should be right now, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.
I belatedly wish all of you a very blessed Lenten season, looking forward to the coming of the Light of the world on Easter morning.
Friday, March 07, 2003
The Law of Posts
There seems to be some sort of law of posts working in my blogging life. For the last two or three weeks I have struggled to come up with something worthwhile to write about, and I had time to write several posts if I had been able to. Now, I have several posts I wish to write and hardly have time to do one. Bear with me, I have begun drafting several and they are on their way.
There seems to be some sort of law of posts working in my blogging life. For the last two or three weeks I have struggled to come up with something worthwhile to write about, and I had time to write several posts if I had been able to. Now, I have several posts I wish to write and hardly have time to do one. Bear with me, I have begun drafting several and they are on their way.
Tuesday, March 04, 2003
The Man with the Knife
Tom, over at Disputations, has done a post against the war with Iraq quoting Cardinal McCarrick. The argument is that it is immoral to kill a man with a knife in his pocket.
Now, it is hard to argue with this line of reasoning. A man walking down the street with a knife in his pocket has a useful tool available to him. Depending on his talents and natural proclivities he can use that knife as an implement to whittle a stick of wood. He can use it to skin a deer if he is a hunter. He can use it to trim a piece of rope or the branch of a tree. As a last resort he can use it to defend himself, or, if his intent is evil, he can use it as an offensive weapon. The reason it is immoral to kill the man carrying a knife is that, unless he does, in fact, use it as an offensive weapon, there is no reason to think that his intentions in carrying it are evil.
The analogy is a poor one, however, when used in the case of Saddam Hussein for a very simple reason. Nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons have only one use, which is to kill people. There are no peaceful, innocent uses, for these weapons; there is no reason to have them unless you either intend them to be a threat or you intend to use them for the purpose for which they were designed.
To return to the analogy of the man with the knife it might be useful to note that a man carrying a knife is generally free to carry it in his pocket wherever he goes. However, there are certain cases in which that knife becomes a threat and has been determined to be illegal, at an airport for example. If he takes that knife into an airport and refuses to either leave or surrender the knife the lawful authorities will use force, even deadly force, if it is necessary to disarm him.
In the case of Saddam Hussein, he has been ordered, by legitimate international authority, to disarm and has substantially refused to do so. Holding the weapons that he has, and given his proven history of having used them, and his threats to use them again, it is legitimate for the international authorities to use force, even deadly force, to disarm him.
Tom, over at Disputations, has done a post against the war with Iraq quoting Cardinal McCarrick. The argument is that it is immoral to kill a man with a knife in his pocket.
Now, it is hard to argue with this line of reasoning. A man walking down the street with a knife in his pocket has a useful tool available to him. Depending on his talents and natural proclivities he can use that knife as an implement to whittle a stick of wood. He can use it to skin a deer if he is a hunter. He can use it to trim a piece of rope or the branch of a tree. As a last resort he can use it to defend himself, or, if his intent is evil, he can use it as an offensive weapon. The reason it is immoral to kill the man carrying a knife is that, unless he does, in fact, use it as an offensive weapon, there is no reason to think that his intentions in carrying it are evil.
The analogy is a poor one, however, when used in the case of Saddam Hussein for a very simple reason. Nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons have only one use, which is to kill people. There are no peaceful, innocent uses, for these weapons; there is no reason to have them unless you either intend them to be a threat or you intend to use them for the purpose for which they were designed.
To return to the analogy of the man with the knife it might be useful to note that a man carrying a knife is generally free to carry it in his pocket wherever he goes. However, there are certain cases in which that knife becomes a threat and has been determined to be illegal, at an airport for example. If he takes that knife into an airport and refuses to either leave or surrender the knife the lawful authorities will use force, even deadly force, if it is necessary to disarm him.
In the case of Saddam Hussein, he has been ordered, by legitimate international authority, to disarm and has substantially refused to do so. Holding the weapons that he has, and given his proven history of having used them, and his threats to use them again, it is legitimate for the international authorities to use force, even deadly force, to disarm him.
Sunday, March 02, 2003
Sorry for the lack of posts in the past few days. I've had to work some overtime and feel like I'm trying to catch a cold.
Steven, your comment is correct and when I get back on my feet I will post a clarifying comment. I'm not discouraged about my writing at all and thanks for your encouragement.
Paz y bien to all
Steven, your comment is correct and when I get back on my feet I will post a clarifying comment. I'm not discouraged about my writing at all and thanks for your encouragement.
Paz y bien to all
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Originality
Steven posted a comment (see below) that something I had posted made points similar to that made by deCaussade in Abandonment to Divine Providence. At first I was slightly upset (only slightly) that I might have written something that could be interpreted as plagiarism. As I began to think this over, though, I realized that trying to do an orthodox Catholic blog means that nothing I write will be entirely original.
You see, trying to write from an orthodox Catholic position means that nothing I write will be original. Revelation ceased with the Apostles and it is the task of the Church only to interpret what has already been revealed. Anyone trying to write in accordance with the teaching of the Church cannot be inventive, there is nothing new to invent.
This is the problem for those who wish that the Church to be more "progressive." The notion of progress is a human idea and applies to human activity; it signifies movement toward a goal or objective. If we believe that the Church is a divine institution, the Body of Christ on earth, and if we believe that God is infinite, eternal and perfect in all his attributes, then the Church cannot be "progressive" -- there is nothing to progress towards. The Church is already what God intends it to be. To wish otherwise is an instance of both human error and human pride.
So I, and all who wish to remain in communion with the Church, have to face the fact that the work we do as writers is inevitably going to lack originality, we can do no less.
Steven posted a comment (see below) that something I had posted made points similar to that made by deCaussade in Abandonment to Divine Providence. At first I was slightly upset (only slightly) that I might have written something that could be interpreted as plagiarism. As I began to think this over, though, I realized that trying to do an orthodox Catholic blog means that nothing I write will be entirely original.
You see, trying to write from an orthodox Catholic position means that nothing I write will be original. Revelation ceased with the Apostles and it is the task of the Church only to interpret what has already been revealed. Anyone trying to write in accordance with the teaching of the Church cannot be inventive, there is nothing new to invent.
This is the problem for those who wish that the Church to be more "progressive." The notion of progress is a human idea and applies to human activity; it signifies movement toward a goal or objective. If we believe that the Church is a divine institution, the Body of Christ on earth, and if we believe that God is infinite, eternal and perfect in all his attributes, then the Church cannot be "progressive" -- there is nothing to progress towards. The Church is already what God intends it to be. To wish otherwise is an instance of both human error and human pride.
So I, and all who wish to remain in communion with the Church, have to face the fact that the work we do as writers is inevitably going to lack originality, we can do no less.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Wonderful News from Associated Press (and the Supreme Court)
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal racketeering law was improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, a major victory for people who regularly block clinic doors.
The court's 8-1 ruling applies to protests of all sorts, not just at clinics.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said that when protesters do not "obtain" property, they cannot be punished for civil disobedience with the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, an anti-racketeering law.
The court's ruling is a victory for Operation Rescue, anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others who were ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics and barred from interfering with their businesses for 10 years.
Rehnquist said that their political activity did not qualify as extortion.
That outcome had been sought by activists like actor Martin Sheen, animal rights groups and even some organizations that support abortion rights. They argued that protesters of all types could face harsher penalties for demonstrating, if the court ruled otherwise.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a federal racketeering law was improperly used to punish aggressive anti-abortion protesters, a major victory for people who regularly block clinic doors.
The court's 8-1 ruling applies to protests of all sorts, not just at clinics.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, said that when protesters do not "obtain" property, they cannot be punished for civil disobedience with the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, an anti-racketeering law.
The court's ruling is a victory for Operation Rescue, anti-abortion leader Joseph Scheidler and others who were ordered to pay damages to abortion clinics and barred from interfering with their businesses for 10 years.
Rehnquist said that their political activity did not qualify as extortion.
That outcome had been sought by activists like actor Martin Sheen, animal rights groups and even some organizations that support abortion rights. They argued that protesters of all types could face harsher penalties for demonstrating, if the court ruled otherwise.
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Time Management
Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Fides et Ratio wrote:
"God's Revelation is therefore immersed in time and history. Jesus Christ took flesh in the “fullness of time” (Gal 4:4); and two thousand years later, I feel bound to restate forcefully “in Christianity time has a fundamental importance”. It is within time that the whole work of creation and salvation comes to light; and it emerges clearly above all that, with the Incarnation of the Son of God, our life is even now a foretaste of the fulfillment of time which is to come (cf. Heb 1:2)."
The phrase “in Christianity time has a fundamental importance” struck me as a remarkable statement. We human beings live in time, we are obsessed with time, we try to manage time, and we worry about wasting time. God, on the other hand is eternal. God does not exist in time even though he created time, God does not have to worry about the passage of time. However, God entered time when Jesus Christ came to live among men, thus, he became a historical figure; we can fix in history, at least within a couple of years, when he was born and when he died. We have the records made by other human beings of the events of his life and his death. We know what happened on earth as a result of his death -- the Church came into existence and spread throughout the world. For a brief period here on earth, eternity and time were commingled.
If time is that important to God, then perhaps we might want to learn how God used time here on earth. We can get some idea from a passage in chapter 5 of the Gospel of Mark:
And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about him; and he was beside the sea. Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja'irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet, and besought him, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live." And he went with him. (Mark 5:21-24) (RSV)
Now, I don't know about you, but my reaction to Jairus, if I had been in Jesus place, would have been different. I probably would have said something like, "Gee, Jairus, I know your daughter is sick, but can you wait an hour or so. See, I've got this huge crowd here waiting for me to speak and I've got this important lesson I've prepared to teach them. This stuff is going into Scripture, you know. Just give me an hour or so and I'll see what I can do." Or else, I might have said, "Okay Jairus, just go home, I'm busy here, you're daughter is healed. Now, buzz off." That is not what Jesus did in response to Jairus request though, Mark says "And he went with him." That simple. Jesus left the crowd and went with Jairus. Why? We don't know why, we can only assume that somehow this was part of the Father's plan and worked to his glory. That is the way Jesus wanted to use his time here on earth -- to bring glory to his Father. You might say that since Jesus was God that he would naturally use his time differently than any of us regular human beings. But Jesus was human and if there was anyone on earth who had a right to feel pressed for time it was Jesus. He had only three years in which to complete his earthly ministry. And yet there is no hint in Scripture that Jesus ever felt hurried. He is never bothered by interruptions. Jesus lived in time as if it were eternity.
I, on the other hand, seem to be constantly preoccupied with efficiency and planning in order to achieve the best use of my time. And I hate others to interrupt me and spoil my plans. Perhaps there is a better way. Our Lord did not have interruptions, he simply did the next thing that was at hand and he did it for his Father's greater glory. In Matthew 6:34 Jesus said, “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. (RSV) Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day.” I think this is the heart of Jesus’ teaching on time management.
Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Fides et Ratio wrote:
"God's Revelation is therefore immersed in time and history. Jesus Christ took flesh in the “fullness of time” (Gal 4:4); and two thousand years later, I feel bound to restate forcefully “in Christianity time has a fundamental importance”. It is within time that the whole work of creation and salvation comes to light; and it emerges clearly above all that, with the Incarnation of the Son of God, our life is even now a foretaste of the fulfillment of time which is to come (cf. Heb 1:2)."
The phrase “in Christianity time has a fundamental importance” struck me as a remarkable statement. We human beings live in time, we are obsessed with time, we try to manage time, and we worry about wasting time. God, on the other hand is eternal. God does not exist in time even though he created time, God does not have to worry about the passage of time. However, God entered time when Jesus Christ came to live among men, thus, he became a historical figure; we can fix in history, at least within a couple of years, when he was born and when he died. We have the records made by other human beings of the events of his life and his death. We know what happened on earth as a result of his death -- the Church came into existence and spread throughout the world. For a brief period here on earth, eternity and time were commingled.
If time is that important to God, then perhaps we might want to learn how God used time here on earth. We can get some idea from a passage in chapter 5 of the Gospel of Mark:
And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about him; and he was beside the sea. Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja'irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet, and besought him, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live." And he went with him. (Mark 5:21-24) (RSV)
Now, I don't know about you, but my reaction to Jairus, if I had been in Jesus place, would have been different. I probably would have said something like, "Gee, Jairus, I know your daughter is sick, but can you wait an hour or so. See, I've got this huge crowd here waiting for me to speak and I've got this important lesson I've prepared to teach them. This stuff is going into Scripture, you know. Just give me an hour or so and I'll see what I can do." Or else, I might have said, "Okay Jairus, just go home, I'm busy here, you're daughter is healed. Now, buzz off." That is not what Jesus did in response to Jairus request though, Mark says "And he went with him." That simple. Jesus left the crowd and went with Jairus. Why? We don't know why, we can only assume that somehow this was part of the Father's plan and worked to his glory. That is the way Jesus wanted to use his time here on earth -- to bring glory to his Father. You might say that since Jesus was God that he would naturally use his time differently than any of us regular human beings. But Jesus was human and if there was anyone on earth who had a right to feel pressed for time it was Jesus. He had only three years in which to complete his earthly ministry. And yet there is no hint in Scripture that Jesus ever felt hurried. He is never bothered by interruptions. Jesus lived in time as if it were eternity.
I, on the other hand, seem to be constantly preoccupied with efficiency and planning in order to achieve the best use of my time. And I hate others to interrupt me and spoil my plans. Perhaps there is a better way. Our Lord did not have interruptions, he simply did the next thing that was at hand and he did it for his Father's greater glory. In Matthew 6:34 Jesus said, “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. (RSV) Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day.” I think this is the heart of Jesus’ teaching on time management.
Saturday, February 22, 2003
Today is The Chair of St. Peter
The Authority of Peter
"What can your piety decree that is more commendable, more religious, than that in the future no one be permitted to attack decrees established not so much through human as through divine decisions? Otherwise, those who dared to have doubts about God's truth may really deserve to lose so great a gift of God.
The universal Church has become rock through the erection of that original rock, and the first of the apostles, the most blessed Peter, heard the voice of the Lord saying: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Hence, who would dare beat against this impregnable solidarity, except either antichrist or the devil? It is he who, persevering unconverted in his malice, seeks to plant lies, using instruments suited to his wrath and falseness, while under the false label of carefulness he feigns to be seeking the truth. His unrestrained fury and blind impiety have deservedly marked out for themselves a reputation to be despised and shunned...
I use the freedom of the Catholic faith and without fear exhort you to be on the side of the apostles and prophets."
Pope St. Leo the Great
This was written eleven hundred years before the Protestant Reformation.
The Authority of Peter
"What can your piety decree that is more commendable, more religious, than that in the future no one be permitted to attack decrees established not so much through human as through divine decisions? Otherwise, those who dared to have doubts about God's truth may really deserve to lose so great a gift of God.
The universal Church has become rock through the erection of that original rock, and the first of the apostles, the most blessed Peter, heard the voice of the Lord saying: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Hence, who would dare beat against this impregnable solidarity, except either antichrist or the devil? It is he who, persevering unconverted in his malice, seeks to plant lies, using instruments suited to his wrath and falseness, while under the false label of carefulness he feigns to be seeking the truth. His unrestrained fury and blind impiety have deservedly marked out for themselves a reputation to be despised and shunned...
I use the freedom of the Catholic faith and without fear exhort you to be on the side of the apostles and prophets."
Pope St. Leo the Great
This was written eleven hundred years before the Protestant Reformation.
Thursday, February 20, 2003
Academia nuts, cont'd
This morning while I was sitting in my phrontistery I came upon an interesting, almost incredible, article by Joe Klein on the Time website. The article is on George Bush's confident approach to the coming war with Iraq.
I find the article interesting because it clearly proves something that many of us have long suspected: those in the "intellectual elite" in this country have no clue what religious faith is about. In this article Klein shows that he thinks that religious faith is little more than an emotional security blanket. To Klein faith is perhaps comforting to some folks but not real, not "scientific" and therefore, not to be taken seriously by intelligent, mature folks. This is bad enough, but Klein goes on to further silliness.
"There are religious traditions — the Jesuits, the Jews, the Shi'ites, certain suffering segments of Protestantism — for which grace is a constant anguish, a goal never quite attained but approached through learning or good works. "The Evangelicals take their marching orders from Paul, who said you have to 'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,'" Martin E. Marty, the University of Chicago theologian, told me last week. "The implication is that once you've worked it out, once you've been born again, you don't have to be fearful or tremble so much anymore."
To Klein faith should, apparently, lead those who hold to it to doubt, to an ever-present emotional angst. When we come to accept Christian faith we become neurotics, it makes us more thoughtful. Piffle. I would like to present here a description of faith from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives." ‘Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.’ "
"Faith is certain." As I have written in another post, faith differs from knowledge but that does not mean it is not certain. After all, we believe that having faith involves accepting God's word as truth. It seems to me that any Christian who is in a "constant anguish" over grace is not living in faith; he or she has not accepted God at his word. Faith should lead us to a quiet confidence in God's providence in our lives and in his mercy when our days on earth are over, it should not lead us to become emotional wrecks.
I do not mean to say that because President Bush is a Christian that plays any part in his absolute certainty about the war. I do say that the President's faith should inform his decision-making decisions about the war. I would say that if President Bush is not confident that he is taking the right approach to the Iraq situation, then the country is in deep trouble. However, his confidence should not come about because of his faith in God but because of his confidence that he has a clear understanding of the situation and that what he is doing is right. In times like this we do not want a neurotic, angst-ridden President, no matter what his religious belief.
This morning while I was sitting in my phrontistery I came upon an interesting, almost incredible, article by Joe Klein on the Time website. The article is on George Bush's confident approach to the coming war with Iraq.
I find the article interesting because it clearly proves something that many of us have long suspected: those in the "intellectual elite" in this country have no clue what religious faith is about. In this article Klein shows that he thinks that religious faith is little more than an emotional security blanket. To Klein faith is perhaps comforting to some folks but not real, not "scientific" and therefore, not to be taken seriously by intelligent, mature folks. This is bad enough, but Klein goes on to further silliness.
"There are religious traditions — the Jesuits, the Jews, the Shi'ites, certain suffering segments of Protestantism — for which grace is a constant anguish, a goal never quite attained but approached through learning or good works. "The Evangelicals take their marching orders from Paul, who said you have to 'work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,'" Martin E. Marty, the University of Chicago theologian, told me last week. "The implication is that once you've worked it out, once you've been born again, you don't have to be fearful or tremble so much anymore."
To Klein faith should, apparently, lead those who hold to it to doubt, to an ever-present emotional angst. When we come to accept Christian faith we become neurotics, it makes us more thoughtful. Piffle. I would like to present here a description of faith from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives." ‘Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.’ "
"Faith is certain." As I have written in another post, faith differs from knowledge but that does not mean it is not certain. After all, we believe that having faith involves accepting God's word as truth. It seems to me that any Christian who is in a "constant anguish" over grace is not living in faith; he or she has not accepted God at his word. Faith should lead us to a quiet confidence in God's providence in our lives and in his mercy when our days on earth are over, it should not lead us to become emotional wrecks.
I do not mean to say that because President Bush is a Christian that plays any part in his absolute certainty about the war. I do say that the President's faith should inform his decision-making decisions about the war. I would say that if President Bush is not confident that he is taking the right approach to the Iraq situation, then the country is in deep trouble. However, his confidence should not come about because of his faith in God but because of his confidence that he has a clear understanding of the situation and that what he is doing is right. In times like this we do not want a neurotic, angst-ridden President, no matter what his religious belief.
Monday, February 17, 2003
Lord, Liar, Lunatic
There appears to be some discussion going on around blogdom concerning the argument advanced in proof of Jesus's divinity: "If Jesus was not who he claimed to be, he was either a liar or lunatic of the first order." As far as I know this argument has been advanced by many apologists including C. S. Lewis.
On thinking about this line of reasoning it appears to me that it is equivalent to those statements made by many modern, sophisticated, and educated Catholics who are troubled by the idea of miracles. In their concern they make great efforts to explain them away. You have all heard the statement: "Well, when Jesus fed the 5,000, you know, really, they all had fish sandwichs with them (all having just stopped at McDonalds' before the rally.), he didn't really multiply the loaves as it says there."
We desperately want to explain things, to reduce them to terms we can understand.
In Fides et Ratio #9, our Holy Father tells us where the fallacy of this thinking lies:
The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”. Based upon God's testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, faith is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone. Philosophy and the sciences function within the order of natural reason; while faith, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the “fullness of grace and truth” (cf. Jn 1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 5:9; Jn 5:31-32)."
As human beings we have the ability to reason and to love -- to make choices. There are, however, things that cannot be known by human reason. God through Scripture and Tradition has revealed these things to us. To try to conflate the two types of reason, or to try to deny one or the other type, is to reduce our humanity. There comes a point at which we must agree with the sentiment expressed on the old bumper sticker: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." We have to choose to believe or not to believe.
When we give a very practical explanation as "proof" of something in Scripture we are, in effect, denying the necessity of faith. There are some things that we cannot explain or make sense of. All of Christianity hinges on one miracle, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Try to explain that one in nice, neat, scientific terms. And if we try to deny the "lesser" miracles, how can we accept the "greatest" miracle?
Also, if we say that something in Scripture is not true, say that Jesus did not multiply the loaves and fishes but the crowd brought all that stuff with them, what do we finally accept as true? The Bible says Jesus performed a miracle, it does not say the crowed brought the groceries. The Bible says that Jesus suffered, died, and was buried and that he rose on the third day. Do we question that?
As an apologist it is tempting to try to explain, and reduce, the faith for the uninitiated. We fall into the trap of thinking that we have to tie it up for our brother or sister into a nice neat package and say, "See, it all really makes sense after all." To do this, though, is simply to do a disservice to the one being evangelized. At some point the unexplainable must be faced, the leap of faith must be made, otherwise there will never be faith. Christianity, in that case, becomes another intellectual adventure, pablum for the mind.
There appears to be some discussion going on around blogdom concerning the argument advanced in proof of Jesus's divinity: "If Jesus was not who he claimed to be, he was either a liar or lunatic of the first order." As far as I know this argument has been advanced by many apologists including C. S. Lewis.
On thinking about this line of reasoning it appears to me that it is equivalent to those statements made by many modern, sophisticated, and educated Catholics who are troubled by the idea of miracles. In their concern they make great efforts to explain them away. You have all heard the statement: "Well, when Jesus fed the 5,000, you know, really, they all had fish sandwichs with them (all having just stopped at McDonalds' before the rally.), he didn't really multiply the loaves as it says there."
We desperately want to explain things, to reduce them to terms we can understand.
In Fides et Ratio #9, our Holy Father tells us where the fallacy of this thinking lies:
The First Vatican Council teaches, then, that the truth attained by philosophy and the truth of Revelation are neither identical nor mutually exclusive: “There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith. With regard to the object, because besides those things which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, cannot be known”. Based upon God's testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, faith is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone. Philosophy and the sciences function within the order of natural reason; while faith, enlightened and guided by the Spirit, recognizes in the message of salvation the “fullness of grace and truth” (cf. Jn 1:14) which God has willed to reveal in history and definitively through his Son, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Jn 5:9; Jn 5:31-32)."
As human beings we have the ability to reason and to love -- to make choices. There are, however, things that cannot be known by human reason. God through Scripture and Tradition has revealed these things to us. To try to conflate the two types of reason, or to try to deny one or the other type, is to reduce our humanity. There comes a point at which we must agree with the sentiment expressed on the old bumper sticker: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." We have to choose to believe or not to believe.
When we give a very practical explanation as "proof" of something in Scripture we are, in effect, denying the necessity of faith. There are some things that we cannot explain or make sense of. All of Christianity hinges on one miracle, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Try to explain that one in nice, neat, scientific terms. And if we try to deny the "lesser" miracles, how can we accept the "greatest" miracle?
Also, if we say that something in Scripture is not true, say that Jesus did not multiply the loaves and fishes but the crowd brought all that stuff with them, what do we finally accept as true? The Bible says Jesus performed a miracle, it does not say the crowed brought the groceries. The Bible says that Jesus suffered, died, and was buried and that he rose on the third day. Do we question that?
As an apologist it is tempting to try to explain, and reduce, the faith for the uninitiated. We fall into the trap of thinking that we have to tie it up for our brother or sister into a nice neat package and say, "See, it all really makes sense after all." To do this, though, is simply to do a disservice to the one being evangelized. At some point the unexplainable must be faced, the leap of faith must be made, otherwise there will never be faith. Christianity, in that case, becomes another intellectual adventure, pablum for the mind.
Just War
Tom, over at Disputations, has posted a quote from Peter Nixon's blog which reads as follows:
"That we can even speak seriously of the concept of a "just war" should remind us that we are the reason that Christ was crucified. Ever bullet, every bomb, every death is one more nail in His hand, one more spear in His side, one more thorn on His brow. If a Christian has a duty to pick up the sword, then let it be a grim duty, and when it is done let us clothe ourselves in sackcloth and ashes and repent of what we have made of the world God has given us."
In response I would like to post the following quotes from a couple of our Islamic brothers:
"If one allows the infidels to continue playing their role of corrupters on earth, their eventual moral punishment will be all the stronger. Thus, if we kill the infidels in order to put a stop to their activities, we have indeed done them a service.... To kill them is a surgical operation commanded by Allah the Creator... Those who follow the rules of the Koran are aware that we have to apply the laws of retribution and that we have to kill.... War is a blessing for the world and for every nation. It is Allah himself who commands men to wage war and to kill. The Koran commands: "Wage war until all corruption and all disobedience are wiped out!"
Ayatolla Khomeni
"What worries me is this: One would have thought that the rapidity with which the FBI cracked the World Trade Center bombing case would have sent a powerful message to terrorists that the United States is a tough place to operate in. Rather, it has done the opposite. The people arrested last week used it as an excuse to carry an even more audacious terrorist campaign. They have gone from killing a handful of people at the World Trade Center to contemplating mass wanton murder, such as the destruction of two tunnels. One can only shudder to think what the next group is going to contemplate."
Interview with Bruce Hoffman Director of Strategy,
Rand Institute
International Herald Tribune June 28, 1993
"We must reject democracy in favor of Islam, which is the unique political system worked out by the Almighty ... Our march has just begun and Islam will end up conquering Europe and America.... For Islam is the only salvation left for this world in despair."
Sheikb Saeed Shaban Leader of the Sunni majority in Tripoli, Lebanon
We American Christians seem to have arrived at the conclusion that to fight for what we believe is somehow sinful. We seem to think that if we are challenged it is automatically against God’s will that we respond to the challenge. We want to be nice. The rest of the world has the advantage over us in this regard -- they are not afraid to fight and kill for what they believe in. They know full well that if there is nothing worth dying for, there is nothing much worth living for. I agree that we must make even this response out of love, as C.S. Lewis said it may be necessary to pray for your enemy while you are killing him. But it seems clear that the response must be made – unless, of course, we are all willing to convert to Islam at the point of the sword.
Tom, over at Disputations, has posted a quote from Peter Nixon's blog which reads as follows:
"That we can even speak seriously of the concept of a "just war" should remind us that we are the reason that Christ was crucified. Ever bullet, every bomb, every death is one more nail in His hand, one more spear in His side, one more thorn on His brow. If a Christian has a duty to pick up the sword, then let it be a grim duty, and when it is done let us clothe ourselves in sackcloth and ashes and repent of what we have made of the world God has given us."
In response I would like to post the following quotes from a couple of our Islamic brothers:
"If one allows the infidels to continue playing their role of corrupters on earth, their eventual moral punishment will be all the stronger. Thus, if we kill the infidels in order to put a stop to their activities, we have indeed done them a service.... To kill them is a surgical operation commanded by Allah the Creator... Those who follow the rules of the Koran are aware that we have to apply the laws of retribution and that we have to kill.... War is a blessing for the world and for every nation. It is Allah himself who commands men to wage war and to kill. The Koran commands: "Wage war until all corruption and all disobedience are wiped out!"
Ayatolla Khomeni
"What worries me is this: One would have thought that the rapidity with which the FBI cracked the World Trade Center bombing case would have sent a powerful message to terrorists that the United States is a tough place to operate in. Rather, it has done the opposite. The people arrested last week used it as an excuse to carry an even more audacious terrorist campaign. They have gone from killing a handful of people at the World Trade Center to contemplating mass wanton murder, such as the destruction of two tunnels. One can only shudder to think what the next group is going to contemplate."
Interview with Bruce Hoffman Director of Strategy,
Rand Institute
International Herald Tribune June 28, 1993
"We must reject democracy in favor of Islam, which is the unique political system worked out by the Almighty ... Our march has just begun and Islam will end up conquering Europe and America.... For Islam is the only salvation left for this world in despair."
Sheikb Saeed Shaban Leader of the Sunni majority in Tripoli, Lebanon
We American Christians seem to have arrived at the conclusion that to fight for what we believe is somehow sinful. We seem to think that if we are challenged it is automatically against God’s will that we respond to the challenge. We want to be nice. The rest of the world has the advantage over us in this regard -- they are not afraid to fight and kill for what they believe in. They know full well that if there is nothing worth dying for, there is nothing much worth living for. I agree that we must make even this response out of love, as C.S. Lewis said it may be necessary to pray for your enemy while you are killing him. But it seems clear that the response must be made – unless, of course, we are all willing to convert to Islam at the point of the sword.
Thursday, February 13, 2003
Blogdom
I wonder if there is an epidemic in blogdom. Steven at Flos Carmeli and then
Robert at Classic Catholic have both remarked about the lack of comments they are receiving. The same thought has crossed my mind. Are we experiencing the general "malaise" Jimmy Carter once spoke about?
I wonder if there is an epidemic in blogdom. Steven at Flos Carmeli and then
Robert at Classic Catholic have both remarked about the lack of comments they are receiving. The same thought has crossed my mind. Are we experiencing the general "malaise" Jimmy Carter once spoke about?
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
On the Journey - II
Craig has posted a comment about his journey and made a couple of good points. I am a little surprised at his description of the “worship experience” at one or more Catholic parish he has attended, but still good comments.
He writes:
"My visits to Catholic parishes (aside from touristing in famous European cathedrals) have been a trip into kum-ba-yah land, with sixties-modern architecture, folkie music, and lots of Euro-leftist "social justice" talk from the pulpit that frankly inspires nausea in a conservative like myself. As far as I can tell, they aren't teaching heresies from the Catholic faith, but what I hear there doesn't inspire me to reverence. On the theory that "by their fruits ye shall know them", all this tends to make me doubt."
Except for the architecture, I didn't know there was much of this silliness left in the land and it saddens me to hear that there may be. Craig is right to be put off by it. My conversion to Catholicism was instigated by a preacher who had lost sight of God in favor of 'sixties 'feel-good" religion. The question my wife asked after one of these sermons was "Would we be willing to die for this kind of faith?" The answer was no. I think if our first experience at Mass had been as Craig described we would never have gone any further in our conversion process. That too would not be worth dying for. But then again, it would not be Catholic. Craig, or any one of us, would be right to reject it out of hand. However, I do believe (or hope) these parishes in which the focus is not on Jesus Christ and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but rather on the "community" are becoming fewer and farther between. I encourage Craig to try to find an orthodox Catholic parish before making a final judgment about the Church.
I said in my last post on this topic, that Protestantism tends toward emotionalism. Craig correctly points out that there is considerable intellectual activity, at times perhaps too much, that is also part of Protestantism. The point I was trying to make is that there is an emphasis on feelings that tends to be part of the typical Protestant worship experience. There is a different spirituality here than in the Church and this is not all bad. Catholics tend to go to the opposite extreme and try to avoid all emotion; in fact they tend to distrust emotion at worship or at prayer. It would be good to have the two extremes meet somewhere in the middle.
Craig also says that he doesn't feel called to the Church because he sees no sign, “intellectual or emotional, that the Church possesses the fullness of truth”. Of course, in the end there is nothing that I am aware of that can guarantee us that the Church does indeed possess the fullness of truth. If there were such a thing our trust in the Church as the Body of Christ would be a matter of knowledge, not of faith.
Unless, that is, there is some basis to believe the Church is right when she proclaims that she has the fullness of truth. This was a central issue for me in my conversion and the way I approached it was to follow the famous maxim of Sherlock Holmes. Holmes said that if there were several theories of the “crime” in order to solve it one had to eliminate those theories that were impossible and the truth was likely to be whatever was left. My conversion process began when I realized there was a flaw in Protestant Christianity, which is that there is no magisterium, no central teaching authority. It is possible to say definitively what the Church teaches on any particular aspect of the Christian faith, just look in the Catechism. This is impossible on the Protestant side. To see what the Protestant view is on any particular aspect of the Christian faith you must ask each church, sometimes each Protestant. Sometimes congregations within the same denomination will not believe the same thing on any given subject. There is no single Protestant teaching on, say, baptism, communion, even salvation; the field is terribly fractured. Even the long-established, main line, Protestant denominations have abandoned their traditional Confessions of Faith in favor of the latest social fetishes, including homosexual ordination, the results of which are plaguing the Church right now. Truth is subject to a vote and, I believe, to act as if it were, is a logical impossibility. Truth is neither a function of time or of public opinion. Jesus is the Truth and he cannot be divided, there is One Truth. That leaves us with a few possibilities, the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Muslims or other eastern religions, or the Catholic Church.
As I write all of this it comes to me that perhaps one possible “sign” that the Church has the fullness of truth is the Catechism. There is nothing comparable on the Protestant side and if there were it would not be binding. Individual Catholic parishes may go off in their own direction but when they do they are no longer Catholic; their actions do nothing to change the teaching of the Church. These activities are merely symptoms of the individual failings of sinful individuals. When Protestants do that they do influence the belief of the individual congregation, there is no safeguard of truth to which anyone can appeal, nothing like the Catechism exists for Protestants.
Craig has posted a comment about his journey and made a couple of good points. I am a little surprised at his description of the “worship experience” at one or more Catholic parish he has attended, but still good comments.
He writes:
"My visits to Catholic parishes (aside from touristing in famous European cathedrals) have been a trip into kum-ba-yah land, with sixties-modern architecture, folkie music, and lots of Euro-leftist "social justice" talk from the pulpit that frankly inspires nausea in a conservative like myself. As far as I can tell, they aren't teaching heresies from the Catholic faith, but what I hear there doesn't inspire me to reverence. On the theory that "by their fruits ye shall know them", all this tends to make me doubt."
Except for the architecture, I didn't know there was much of this silliness left in the land and it saddens me to hear that there may be. Craig is right to be put off by it. My conversion to Catholicism was instigated by a preacher who had lost sight of God in favor of 'sixties 'feel-good" religion. The question my wife asked after one of these sermons was "Would we be willing to die for this kind of faith?" The answer was no. I think if our first experience at Mass had been as Craig described we would never have gone any further in our conversion process. That too would not be worth dying for. But then again, it would not be Catholic. Craig, or any one of us, would be right to reject it out of hand. However, I do believe (or hope) these parishes in which the focus is not on Jesus Christ and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass but rather on the "community" are becoming fewer and farther between. I encourage Craig to try to find an orthodox Catholic parish before making a final judgment about the Church.
I said in my last post on this topic, that Protestantism tends toward emotionalism. Craig correctly points out that there is considerable intellectual activity, at times perhaps too much, that is also part of Protestantism. The point I was trying to make is that there is an emphasis on feelings that tends to be part of the typical Protestant worship experience. There is a different spirituality here than in the Church and this is not all bad. Catholics tend to go to the opposite extreme and try to avoid all emotion; in fact they tend to distrust emotion at worship or at prayer. It would be good to have the two extremes meet somewhere in the middle.
Craig also says that he doesn't feel called to the Church because he sees no sign, “intellectual or emotional, that the Church possesses the fullness of truth”. Of course, in the end there is nothing that I am aware of that can guarantee us that the Church does indeed possess the fullness of truth. If there were such a thing our trust in the Church as the Body of Christ would be a matter of knowledge, not of faith.
Unless, that is, there is some basis to believe the Church is right when she proclaims that she has the fullness of truth. This was a central issue for me in my conversion and the way I approached it was to follow the famous maxim of Sherlock Holmes. Holmes said that if there were several theories of the “crime” in order to solve it one had to eliminate those theories that were impossible and the truth was likely to be whatever was left. My conversion process began when I realized there was a flaw in Protestant Christianity, which is that there is no magisterium, no central teaching authority. It is possible to say definitively what the Church teaches on any particular aspect of the Christian faith, just look in the Catechism. This is impossible on the Protestant side. To see what the Protestant view is on any particular aspect of the Christian faith you must ask each church, sometimes each Protestant. Sometimes congregations within the same denomination will not believe the same thing on any given subject. There is no single Protestant teaching on, say, baptism, communion, even salvation; the field is terribly fractured. Even the long-established, main line, Protestant denominations have abandoned their traditional Confessions of Faith in favor of the latest social fetishes, including homosexual ordination, the results of which are plaguing the Church right now. Truth is subject to a vote and, I believe, to act as if it were, is a logical impossibility. Truth is neither a function of time or of public opinion. Jesus is the Truth and he cannot be divided, there is One Truth. That leaves us with a few possibilities, the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Muslims or other eastern religions, or the Catholic Church.
As I write all of this it comes to me that perhaps one possible “sign” that the Church has the fullness of truth is the Catechism. There is nothing comparable on the Protestant side and if there were it would not be binding. Individual Catholic parishes may go off in their own direction but when they do they are no longer Catholic; their actions do nothing to change the teaching of the Church. These activities are merely symptoms of the individual failings of sinful individuals. When Protestants do that they do influence the belief of the individual congregation, there is no safeguard of truth to which anyone can appeal, nothing like the Catechism exists for Protestants.
Sunday, February 09, 2003
Nihil Obstat
I have received my first notice on the site of the official St. Blog’s proofreader - Nihil Obstat. Said blogger has pointed out "5 Hiccups on the 7 Habitus" which, with one possible exception constitute silly spelling and/or typographical errors made by yours truly.
I have made it clear here that my primary purpose in doing this blog is to learn to write and to do so by regularly doing posts for this blog. The idea is that this effort will help me discipline myself to write regularly and will constitute a sort of writing practice. I think I have become more enthralled with the practice than with the writing.
So I think Nihil Obstat performs a valuable service both for those of us who are regular bloggers and for you the reader. One of the things I have already learned here is that writing is hard work and the technicalities involved are somewhat intimidating to me. It's not all glamour, fame and fortune. But you, the reader of this blog, deserve the best I can give you. Due to certain deficiencies in character and mental ability that may not always be up to the level of a high school sophomore, but you at least deserve to have me make the effort. So that means posts should be proofread for correct spelling and proper grammar. It means they should make at least some sense and be on topics of at least some importance and interest to you, the reader. It means they should be as in accordance with Truth and Church teaching as I can make them. And we can all be thankful that when I fail there is Nihil Obstat looking over my shoulder.
I have received my first notice on the site of the official St. Blog’s proofreader - Nihil Obstat. Said blogger has pointed out "5 Hiccups on the 7 Habitus" which, with one possible exception constitute silly spelling and/or typographical errors made by yours truly.
I have made it clear here that my primary purpose in doing this blog is to learn to write and to do so by regularly doing posts for this blog. The idea is that this effort will help me discipline myself to write regularly and will constitute a sort of writing practice. I think I have become more enthralled with the practice than with the writing.
So I think Nihil Obstat performs a valuable service both for those of us who are regular bloggers and for you the reader. One of the things I have already learned here is that writing is hard work and the technicalities involved are somewhat intimidating to me. It's not all glamour, fame and fortune. But you, the reader of this blog, deserve the best I can give you. Due to certain deficiencies in character and mental ability that may not always be up to the level of a high school sophomore, but you at least deserve to have me make the effort. So that means posts should be proofread for correct spelling and proper grammar. It means they should make at least some sense and be on topics of at least some importance and interest to you, the reader. It means they should be as in accordance with Truth and Church teaching as I can make them. And we can all be thankful that when I fail there is Nihil Obstat looking over my shoulder.
Nunc Dimitis
I have promised myself that I would not delete a blog once it is posted here. This promise has created a problem for me because there are already a few posts that I would like to revise and/or correct. It seems that re-posting the revisions could easily become quite cumbersome, even confusing, after a while. The solution I have hit upon is to create a "back up" blog to which I could post the revised posts from this site. Thus Nunc Dimitis is born. There is no need to regularly visit Nunc Dimitis unless you are overcome by curiosity as to what I might be revising or correcting from this site. If you do feel such a need it is there.
I have promised myself that I would not delete a blog once it is posted here. This promise has created a problem for me because there are already a few posts that I would like to revise and/or correct. It seems that re-posting the revisions could easily become quite cumbersome, even confusing, after a while. The solution I have hit upon is to create a "back up" blog to which I could post the revised posts from this site. Thus Nunc Dimitis is born. There is no need to regularly visit Nunc Dimitis unless you are overcome by curiosity as to what I might be revising or correcting from this site. If you do feel such a need it is there.
Purpose
One of the reasons I thought to begin this blog was to work out certain ideas I had concerning the practical application of the virtues. To date I have hardly approached the topic so this is a first, feeble attempt to do so.
Virtue is an idea that has practically disappeared from our lives these days. Yet, many very popular books, best sellers, especially in the area of "time-management" rely heavily on what might be termed the practical application of the virtues. They will explicitly deny any religious foundation to what they teach and yet their ideas would certainly be familiar to St. Thomas Aquinas and many others prominent in Christian Tradition. I would suggest, though, that because of their secular orientation that these books are flawed.
I would suggest that these books fail because their emphasis is focused on helping the individual achieve worldly success. Success seems, to most of these folks, to be defined in terms of the person achieving his worldly goals and objectives: successful career, lots of toys, and eternal youth. To the Catholic mind this is putting the focus on matters of secondary importance.
The two facts that have been lost today are that 1) everything that exists exists because God created it and, 2) God created everyone and everything for a purpose. God acted with purpose and created us to do so also. The central purpose God has for our life is that when we shuffle off this mortal coil we spend the rest of our eternal life with him in heaven. He intends each of us to enjoy eternal beatitude with Him. Any attempt to define success as anything other than achieving this goal is futile, at best. This is so because it involves building our lives on the wrong premise. The focus found in the "success" books is on the human person, not the human person's creator. God is not required.
Religious faith, of almost any kind but certainly of the Christian variety has been almost eliminated from the public mind. It is no longer the central, defining theme of many, if not most American's lives. It is not even considered a subject for polite discussion in many circles. Yet, I think it fairly obvious to the Catholics among us that Christian teaching on the nature of man and God's creative action is the only possible source of real meaning and purpose for our lives. We don't define our own purposes, but we do define how we work out God's purpose for our lives. The focus on planners and calendars and PDAs to help us achieve our own selfish goals will never lead to personal "success". Only orienting our lives to achieve God's purpose will lead us to true human success. This certainly involves planning and consideration on our part, but If we do not keep in mind that our purpose is to fulfill God's will for our lives our planning and goal setting will be futile.
One question that I think most Modern, scientific materialist Americans would ask at this point is, "what makes you think this is true?" Many of the most educated Americans would say that human beings are the product of an evolutionary accident, that there is no real purpose in life other than obtaining the greatest degree of "personal fulfillment" and that when we die that is the end of the joyride (if you doubt this, please review this week's Publisher's Weekly Top 10 hardcover non-fiction best sellers listing). But there is a contradiction to be found here; they will say this and yet spend all kinds of money and effort to set themselves goals and define the purpose of their lives. We humans intuitively know that without purpose and direction we become frustrated, even neurotic, but we deceive ourselves as to where that purpose can be found. We are too proud to submit ourselves to God's will. This is why St. Francis was able to say that the second death is easy, the first, dying to self, is the hardest.
So, you are asking, where does the concept of virtue fit into all of this? That will be discussed in posts to follow. So, we have the famous "To be continued."
© 2003 Ronald L. Moffat
One of the reasons I thought to begin this blog was to work out certain ideas I had concerning the practical application of the virtues. To date I have hardly approached the topic so this is a first, feeble attempt to do so.
Virtue is an idea that has practically disappeared from our lives these days. Yet, many very popular books, best sellers, especially in the area of "time-management" rely heavily on what might be termed the practical application of the virtues. They will explicitly deny any religious foundation to what they teach and yet their ideas would certainly be familiar to St. Thomas Aquinas and many others prominent in Christian Tradition. I would suggest, though, that because of their secular orientation that these books are flawed.
I would suggest that these books fail because their emphasis is focused on helping the individual achieve worldly success. Success seems, to most of these folks, to be defined in terms of the person achieving his worldly goals and objectives: successful career, lots of toys, and eternal youth. To the Catholic mind this is putting the focus on matters of secondary importance.
The two facts that have been lost today are that 1) everything that exists exists because God created it and, 2) God created everyone and everything for a purpose. God acted with purpose and created us to do so also. The central purpose God has for our life is that when we shuffle off this mortal coil we spend the rest of our eternal life with him in heaven. He intends each of us to enjoy eternal beatitude with Him. Any attempt to define success as anything other than achieving this goal is futile, at best. This is so because it involves building our lives on the wrong premise. The focus found in the "success" books is on the human person, not the human person's creator. God is not required.
Religious faith, of almost any kind but certainly of the Christian variety has been almost eliminated from the public mind. It is no longer the central, defining theme of many, if not most American's lives. It is not even considered a subject for polite discussion in many circles. Yet, I think it fairly obvious to the Catholics among us that Christian teaching on the nature of man and God's creative action is the only possible source of real meaning and purpose for our lives. We don't define our own purposes, but we do define how we work out God's purpose for our lives. The focus on planners and calendars and PDAs to help us achieve our own selfish goals will never lead to personal "success". Only orienting our lives to achieve God's purpose will lead us to true human success. This certainly involves planning and consideration on our part, but If we do not keep in mind that our purpose is to fulfill God's will for our lives our planning and goal setting will be futile.
One question that I think most Modern, scientific materialist Americans would ask at this point is, "what makes you think this is true?" Many of the most educated Americans would say that human beings are the product of an evolutionary accident, that there is no real purpose in life other than obtaining the greatest degree of "personal fulfillment" and that when we die that is the end of the joyride (if you doubt this, please review this week's Publisher's Weekly Top 10 hardcover non-fiction best sellers listing). But there is a contradiction to be found here; they will say this and yet spend all kinds of money and effort to set themselves goals and define the purpose of their lives. We humans intuitively know that without purpose and direction we become frustrated, even neurotic, but we deceive ourselves as to where that purpose can be found. We are too proud to submit ourselves to God's will. This is why St. Francis was able to say that the second death is easy, the first, dying to self, is the hardest.
So, you are asking, where does the concept of virtue fit into all of this? That will be discussed in posts to follow. So, we have the famous "To be continued."
© 2003 Ronald L. Moffat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)