Terminator
I don't know that I have ever disclosed this most momentous fact, but I have written most of my blog posts on a Palm using the Docs to Go program. I do this for several reasons. It allows me to type these things seated in a comfortable chair not hunched over a desk, a real advantage for someone with a tremendously bad back. Another reason is that I don't have to type these things directly into Blogger on the Web thereby avoiding the dangers of typing a long post and losing it all to Blogger instability. My remote posting method also provides me some time to ponder what I have written before actually posting it (yes, I do sometimes think about these things) and allows me to keep a copy of my posts in Word on my computer.
However, a new era, of sorts, has dawned. I have a new machine called an AlphaSmart Dana which runs Palm programs but has a significantly larger screen and a full sized key board. It is also all one piece, the screen and the keyboard, offering a certain structural stability previously unavailable with the Palm and its separate keyboard.
I don't know why I'm doing a post on this except to share with you my enthusiasm for novelties. Also, I thought today about the first computer I ever purchased.
It was back in the late 1970s that I shelled out a significant sum, both for then and for now, for a used IBM "Portable Computer." I was practicing as a CPA then and had a client with a turpentine processing plant who needed to keep better track of his inventory. Anyway, my "Portable Computer" was portable only in the loosest sense of the word -- it weighed at least 40 pounds and was about twice the size of the first IBM PCs. The tiny black and white screen was built into the face of the unit. I guess you could describe it as a computer only in the loosest sense of that word too. It used tape cartridges the size of a small book for storage and all programs had to be custom written -- no VisiCalc, no Windows, just good old Basic programming, sequentially accessed. My programmer owned a taco stand; he couldn't make a living just selling tacos or just doing programming, so he did both in the interests of survival.
I hated that computer. It seemed to me to have a malevolent streak. It worked at the slowest possible speed, was reluctant to part with information except under extreme duress, but required constant attention both from me and from the programmer. I would have believed, back then, that it was original the inspiration for Terminator 3. My only really happy experience with it was when I sold it, shortly before the first real PCs came out, without significant financial penalty. One of my few brushes with good timing.
Ever since then I have both owned a computer and held a deep seated, almost visceral, fear of the experience. There are evil spirits in this world, I'm convinced of it.
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Signs of the Times, II
This post is in response to the very interesting series of comments by Steven and Tom to my first "Signs of the Times" entry. Their comments show, I think, the tension all of us are subject to in trying to balance the spiritual and the corporeal realities of our lives. They also, incidentally, show the difference between the Carmelite and the Dominican spiritualities that was very evident and interesting. Each of these gentlemen is being quite true to his respective third order vocation.
First, I would like to make a clarification. When I used the term "current events" I was not saying we should try to keep up with every news story that comes across the wire. The fact that we are in an age of information overload is, itself, a "sign of the times." (Just look at nearly anyone today over the age of 10, living with headphones almost permanently grafted in place, jiggling and jumping to some silent, unimaginable tune, lost in an electronically imposed and controlled isolation; graphic evidence of the growing idolatry of self.)
What I was referring to by the term "current events" was more trends, signposts, in society today; the recent Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas being one example. I agree with Steven that it is not possible, nor desirable, to keep up with every story that comes across the wire, but there are things that, as lay Catholics, we have an obligation to be informed about and, if nothing else, pray about. I would say, contrary to what Steven seems to be saying, that the state of our culture and our spiritual welfare are very closely linked. (I wonder, Steven, if you meant to be as despairing as you sounded in your comments?)
I disagree with the statement that Steven made that "reflection on eternal things is by far the better path" if the implication is that our earthly existence is evil and our spiritual existence is good. I believe we are called to direct our earthly existence in accordance with God's purpose; we are to achieve our ultimate destiny of eternally sharing in God's life in heaven. But we must accomplish that goal here on earth trying to bring as many others with us as possible. Writing off the things of the earth, and concentrating only on our own holiness, is not, I believe, what we are put on earth to do.
I would like to offer here, in support of my contention the definition of vocation found in the latest edition of the Catechism. It reads:
Vocation-The calling or destiny we have in this life and hereafter. God has created the human person to love and serve him; the fulfillment of this vocation is eternal happiness. Christ calls the faithful to the perfection of holiness. The vocation of the laity consists in seeking the Kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will. Priestly and religious vocations are dedicated to the service of the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation."
We are to seek to live holy lives, do individual acts of charity where we can, but also maintain an active engagement with our culture, trying to direct temporal affairs according to God’s will. Again, this doesn't mean keeping up with every news story, but I think it means keeping up with the trends. I also do not believe that the "temporal affairs" referred to here means only our personal duties and responsibilities.
Tom, I believe, is correct in his comments about such things as the popularity of the Matrix movies (a denial of the uniqueness of each human person and his creation in the image of God) and the state of mainline/oldline Protestantism today. If we do not know the state of the society we live in, we will have no idea what or how to preach the Good News.
The SCOTUS decision in Lawrence v Texas is a sign we should all be familiar with and do whatever we can to oppose. I will quote from an article by David Frum in the latest National Review concerning the breakdown of the family in Canada that is the result of the similar decisions in their courts:
"Here's what didn't happen when the Canadian government announced that it would comply with orders of a high (but not supreme) court and write gay marriage into the law of the land. There were no protests from the country's religious leaders: only mild expressions of concern."
Between 1995 and 2001 the number of cohabiting couples in Canada rose by 20%; at the same time the number of married couples rose just 3%. According to Frum "Some 500,000 Canadian children now live in cohabiting households." Frum also says:
"The spread of cohabitation seems to have taught Canadians to think about family life in new ways. They are increasingly willing to think of family as a revolving-door arrangement (the average cohabitation lasts only five years), in which persons move in and out of the lives of their own and other people's children."
This all is coming about, as mentioned above, with no comment or apparent involvement from Canadian religious leaders. If we, as committed Catholics, do not do whatever we can to oppose such trends, however feeble our efforts, the US will become like Canada and Scandinavia and other parts of Europe, lost in sin and separated from God. Our efforts may indeed be feeble and we may never see whether they succeed or fail, but we are called to make them. Mother Theresa said the God does not ask us to be successful, only to be faithful.
I close with a quote from Christopher Dawson on the dangers of separating religion and culture:
"But this does not mean that religion and culture are two separate worlds with no relation to each other. The assumption of such a separation has been the great error of the Western mind during the last two centuries. First we have divided human life into two parts - the life of the individual and the life of the state - and have confined religion entirely to the former. This error was typical of bourgeois liberalism and nowhere has it been more prevalent that in the English speaking countries. But now men have gone further and reunited the divided world under the reign of impersonal material forces, so that the individual counts for nothing and religion is viewed as an illusion of the individual consciousness or a perversion of the individual craving for satisfaction."
(By the way, Tom, the SFO rule, which goes back to 1978, does not preclude going to movies or being involved in the culture. It does advocate a life of simplicity, but SFO's go "from the gospel to life, and from life to the gospel." We are to faithfully fulfill our duties proper to our circumstances of life. I know of nothing in the rule that limits SFO's to specific activities and I’m sorry there was a misunderstanding. But then, the Spirit moves where He will.)
This post is in response to the very interesting series of comments by Steven and Tom to my first "Signs of the Times" entry. Their comments show, I think, the tension all of us are subject to in trying to balance the spiritual and the corporeal realities of our lives. They also, incidentally, show the difference between the Carmelite and the Dominican spiritualities that was very evident and interesting. Each of these gentlemen is being quite true to his respective third order vocation.
First, I would like to make a clarification. When I used the term "current events" I was not saying we should try to keep up with every news story that comes across the wire. The fact that we are in an age of information overload is, itself, a "sign of the times." (Just look at nearly anyone today over the age of 10, living with headphones almost permanently grafted in place, jiggling and jumping to some silent, unimaginable tune, lost in an electronically imposed and controlled isolation; graphic evidence of the growing idolatry of self.)
What I was referring to by the term "current events" was more trends, signposts, in society today; the recent Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas being one example. I agree with Steven that it is not possible, nor desirable, to keep up with every story that comes across the wire, but there are things that, as lay Catholics, we have an obligation to be informed about and, if nothing else, pray about. I would say, contrary to what Steven seems to be saying, that the state of our culture and our spiritual welfare are very closely linked. (I wonder, Steven, if you meant to be as despairing as you sounded in your comments?)
I disagree with the statement that Steven made that "reflection on eternal things is by far the better path" if the implication is that our earthly existence is evil and our spiritual existence is good. I believe we are called to direct our earthly existence in accordance with God's purpose; we are to achieve our ultimate destiny of eternally sharing in God's life in heaven. But we must accomplish that goal here on earth trying to bring as many others with us as possible. Writing off the things of the earth, and concentrating only on our own holiness, is not, I believe, what we are put on earth to do.
I would like to offer here, in support of my contention the definition of vocation found in the latest edition of the Catechism. It reads:
Vocation-The calling or destiny we have in this life and hereafter. God has created the human person to love and serve him; the fulfillment of this vocation is eternal happiness. Christ calls the faithful to the perfection of holiness. The vocation of the laity consists in seeking the Kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will. Priestly and religious vocations are dedicated to the service of the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation."
We are to seek to live holy lives, do individual acts of charity where we can, but also maintain an active engagement with our culture, trying to direct temporal affairs according to God’s will. Again, this doesn't mean keeping up with every news story, but I think it means keeping up with the trends. I also do not believe that the "temporal affairs" referred to here means only our personal duties and responsibilities.
Tom, I believe, is correct in his comments about such things as the popularity of the Matrix movies (a denial of the uniqueness of each human person and his creation in the image of God) and the state of mainline/oldline Protestantism today. If we do not know the state of the society we live in, we will have no idea what or how to preach the Good News.
The SCOTUS decision in Lawrence v Texas is a sign we should all be familiar with and do whatever we can to oppose. I will quote from an article by David Frum in the latest National Review concerning the breakdown of the family in Canada that is the result of the similar decisions in their courts:
"Here's what didn't happen when the Canadian government announced that it would comply with orders of a high (but not supreme) court and write gay marriage into the law of the land. There were no protests from the country's religious leaders: only mild expressions of concern."
Between 1995 and 2001 the number of cohabiting couples in Canada rose by 20%; at the same time the number of married couples rose just 3%. According to Frum "Some 500,000 Canadian children now live in cohabiting households." Frum also says:
"The spread of cohabitation seems to have taught Canadians to think about family life in new ways. They are increasingly willing to think of family as a revolving-door arrangement (the average cohabitation lasts only five years), in which persons move in and out of the lives of their own and other people's children."
This all is coming about, as mentioned above, with no comment or apparent involvement from Canadian religious leaders. If we, as committed Catholics, do not do whatever we can to oppose such trends, however feeble our efforts, the US will become like Canada and Scandinavia and other parts of Europe, lost in sin and separated from God. Our efforts may indeed be feeble and we may never see whether they succeed or fail, but we are called to make them. Mother Theresa said the God does not ask us to be successful, only to be faithful.
I close with a quote from Christopher Dawson on the dangers of separating religion and culture:
"But this does not mean that religion and culture are two separate worlds with no relation to each other. The assumption of such a separation has been the great error of the Western mind during the last two centuries. First we have divided human life into two parts - the life of the individual and the life of the state - and have confined religion entirely to the former. This error was typical of bourgeois liberalism and nowhere has it been more prevalent that in the English speaking countries. But now men have gone further and reunited the divided world under the reign of impersonal material forces, so that the individual counts for nothing and religion is viewed as an illusion of the individual consciousness or a perversion of the individual craving for satisfaction."
(By the way, Tom, the SFO rule, which goes back to 1978, does not preclude going to movies or being involved in the culture. It does advocate a life of simplicity, but SFO's go "from the gospel to life, and from life to the gospel." We are to faithfully fulfill our duties proper to our circumstances of life. I know of nothing in the rule that limits SFO's to specific activities and I’m sorry there was a misunderstanding. But then, the Spirit moves where He will.)
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Another Apology
I am lagging behind on posts lately. I mentioned a week or so ago that my wife had bunion surgery. It was on her right foot and she cannot drive, so I am driving her to work. This adds an extra two hour communte to my day and is slowing me down on other activities. At least I am doing something useful for a change.
I am working on a response to Steven's and Tom's comments to my last post, they both brought up good points and I need to make some clarifications, at least. Bear with me.
Paz y bien.
I am lagging behind on posts lately. I mentioned a week or so ago that my wife had bunion surgery. It was on her right foot and she cannot drive, so I am driving her to work. This adds an extra two hour communte to my day and is slowing me down on other activities. At least I am doing something useful for a change.
I am working on a response to Steven's and Tom's comments to my last post, they both brought up good points and I need to make some clarifications, at least. Bear with me.
Paz y bien.
Friday, July 04, 2003
Signs of the Times
I have tried to impose a rule upon myself in doing this blog: I will post nothing except that which I have spent time in prayer and meditation over. I have frequently, especially lately, broken that rule to the point that it lies in powdery ruins somewhere in the bottom of my computer.
I am not proud of the fact that I have not spent serious time in thought, prayer, and meditation over everything I have written on this blog. I know it shows, for one thing, and this alone does not bring glory to God.
In fact, one reason why I am going to spend some time over the next month or so meditation on Fides et Ratio is to try to instill something of the element of deliberation, dare I say thought, into what appears on this blog; I want to try to remove myself from reacting to current events. I also wish to establish a regular schedule that includes prayer, meditation, and writing. I hope, in the process, that the result will be, indeed, to truly bring glory to God with this blog.
However, I realized that there is an underlying, unarticulated assumption that has been in the back of my mind regarding this purpose. It is that I have assumed that writing out of the fruits of prayer necessarily means emphasizing comments on Scripture and the writings of the saints, possibly also including great literature within my purview.
But I have been wondering if that is a valid assumption?
On the one hand, it seems that, but for a very few of us, keeping up with current events is a difficult and time consuming process. The time used trying to keep up with the news could, in most cases, be better spent reading and praying, then, if we must, writing about what comes out of our prayer. I am still tempted to say this is the best course for most of us Catholic bloggers.
However, there is another way of looking at this that comes out of my personal experience, which is this: One of the ideas that brought about my adult conversion experience was the realization that God is Lord of everything we are and do. Our faith in Him must influence all aspects of our lives. I was a Protestant when I came to this realization and since then I have come to see that the Catholic idea of vocation is a most apt presentation of this truth. As lay people our vocation is to bring Christ to temporal affairs, to bring Christ's influence to bear upon the temporal world.
If we are to live our vocation, then we must be, at a minimum, fairly well informed about what is going on in the world. Further, it seems we should be able to express how our faith should, or could, influence current events; we should be able to explain to others how Catholics view the events of the day. In other words, we should be able to explain why it makes a difference being Catholic.
Conversely, the "signs of times", the social, cultural, and even spiritual climate of the society can have a profound effect on our spiritual life. How many of you have been told, in the face of barely noticeable efforts to present the Gospel to someone "Well that's what you believe, but don't try to impose your beliefs on me!" Or have you ever been told that any personal expression of religious faith might even be a violation of the law.
In our public life, how many times have we seen or heard news stories about a Nativity scene on public property, or prayer in the public schools, violating the principle of separation of church and state and being “hurtful" or, even, "offensive" to those who do not wish to acknowledge God in their lives.
The effect of these types of societal influences is profound and reaching. For example, in May, a Cardinal of the Church, speaking at a supposedly Catholic university's commencement exercises, set off an uproar when he enunciated the constant teaching of the Church concerning human sexuality and moral conduct. His remarks were deemed "hurtful" to the homosexuals in the audience. The pagan influences of society seem to be stronger than that of the Church, even within the Church. (I would submit, incidentally, that an eternity of separation from God would be infinitely more "hurtful" than hearing the truth of Church teaching from a prince of the Church.)
These are examples of a society that is becoming increasingly pagan and materialistic. While claiming the ideals of "tolerance" and "diversity" it is becoming more and more intolerant of any sort of religious belief and expression. It is a society bent on elevating man to the place of God.
The way we seek to influence our society and the way our society influences us, have a profound effect on our relationship with God; they may even determine whether or not we are able to worship freely and openly. We ignore them at our peril.
I still believe that my now shattered rule is still valid and I will try to abide by it in the future. I share, I guess, St. Francis impetuousness and that is not always a good thing. But, I do not believe there is any topic that, after careful thought, prayer, and meditation, is excluded from comment on a Catholic blog.
I have tried to impose a rule upon myself in doing this blog: I will post nothing except that which I have spent time in prayer and meditation over. I have frequently, especially lately, broken that rule to the point that it lies in powdery ruins somewhere in the bottom of my computer.
I am not proud of the fact that I have not spent serious time in thought, prayer, and meditation over everything I have written on this blog. I know it shows, for one thing, and this alone does not bring glory to God.
In fact, one reason why I am going to spend some time over the next month or so meditation on Fides et Ratio is to try to instill something of the element of deliberation, dare I say thought, into what appears on this blog; I want to try to remove myself from reacting to current events. I also wish to establish a regular schedule that includes prayer, meditation, and writing. I hope, in the process, that the result will be, indeed, to truly bring glory to God with this blog.
However, I realized that there is an underlying, unarticulated assumption that has been in the back of my mind regarding this purpose. It is that I have assumed that writing out of the fruits of prayer necessarily means emphasizing comments on Scripture and the writings of the saints, possibly also including great literature within my purview.
But I have been wondering if that is a valid assumption?
On the one hand, it seems that, but for a very few of us, keeping up with current events is a difficult and time consuming process. The time used trying to keep up with the news could, in most cases, be better spent reading and praying, then, if we must, writing about what comes out of our prayer. I am still tempted to say this is the best course for most of us Catholic bloggers.
However, there is another way of looking at this that comes out of my personal experience, which is this: One of the ideas that brought about my adult conversion experience was the realization that God is Lord of everything we are and do. Our faith in Him must influence all aspects of our lives. I was a Protestant when I came to this realization and since then I have come to see that the Catholic idea of vocation is a most apt presentation of this truth. As lay people our vocation is to bring Christ to temporal affairs, to bring Christ's influence to bear upon the temporal world.
If we are to live our vocation, then we must be, at a minimum, fairly well informed about what is going on in the world. Further, it seems we should be able to express how our faith should, or could, influence current events; we should be able to explain to others how Catholics view the events of the day. In other words, we should be able to explain why it makes a difference being Catholic.
Conversely, the "signs of times", the social, cultural, and even spiritual climate of the society can have a profound effect on our spiritual life. How many of you have been told, in the face of barely noticeable efforts to present the Gospel to someone "Well that's what you believe, but don't try to impose your beliefs on me!" Or have you ever been told that any personal expression of religious faith might even be a violation of the law.
In our public life, how many times have we seen or heard news stories about a Nativity scene on public property, or prayer in the public schools, violating the principle of separation of church and state and being “hurtful" or, even, "offensive" to those who do not wish to acknowledge God in their lives.
The effect of these types of societal influences is profound and reaching. For example, in May, a Cardinal of the Church, speaking at a supposedly Catholic university's commencement exercises, set off an uproar when he enunciated the constant teaching of the Church concerning human sexuality and moral conduct. His remarks were deemed "hurtful" to the homosexuals in the audience. The pagan influences of society seem to be stronger than that of the Church, even within the Church. (I would submit, incidentally, that an eternity of separation from God would be infinitely more "hurtful" than hearing the truth of Church teaching from a prince of the Church.)
These are examples of a society that is becoming increasingly pagan and materialistic. While claiming the ideals of "tolerance" and "diversity" it is becoming more and more intolerant of any sort of religious belief and expression. It is a society bent on elevating man to the place of God.
The way we seek to influence our society and the way our society influences us, have a profound effect on our relationship with God; they may even determine whether or not we are able to worship freely and openly. We ignore them at our peril.
I still believe that my now shattered rule is still valid and I will try to abide by it in the future. I share, I guess, St. Francis impetuousness and that is not always a good thing. But, I do not believe there is any topic that, after careful thought, prayer, and meditation, is excluded from comment on a Catholic blog.
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Fides et Ratio
I am going to begin the long planned (if not anticipated) series of posts on John Paul II's Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio. This is the first in the series and is a short backgrounder on why I would attempt to do such a thing.
I have held off mostly due to a sense of fear and trembling at appearing to be qualified to offer comments on one of our Holy Father's Encyclicals; I am not so qualified. Unless, that is, I make clear that I am doing this not as a scholar, especially not a scholar in philosophy, but rather as a Catholic layman who has benefited from reading this document. Church documents are valuable sources, for us laymen who are willing to make the effort to work our way through them, of providing answers to the questions: What does the Church really teach and Why does the Church teach the way she does? What can we learn from her that will improve our lives by bringing us closer to Christ?
I don't know that I can explicate the answers to these questions. Perhaps I can at least stimulate your interest to read the document itself, just to keep me honest
.
I am going to begin the long planned (if not anticipated) series of posts on John Paul II's Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio. This is the first in the series and is a short backgrounder on why I would attempt to do such a thing.
I have held off mostly due to a sense of fear and trembling at appearing to be qualified to offer comments on one of our Holy Father's Encyclicals; I am not so qualified. Unless, that is, I make clear that I am doing this not as a scholar, especially not a scholar in philosophy, but rather as a Catholic layman who has benefited from reading this document. Church documents are valuable sources, for us laymen who are willing to make the effort to work our way through them, of providing answers to the questions: What does the Church really teach and Why does the Church teach the way she does? What can we learn from her that will improve our lives by bringing us closer to Christ?
I don't know that I can explicate the answers to these questions. Perhaps I can at least stimulate your interest to read the document itself, just to keep me honest
.
Sunday, June 29, 2003
The Best Laid Plans . . .
I was looking forward to a leisurely week, free to write and read unimpeded by work, a week off with nothing to do and no travel plans. My wife had surgery to correct a bunion on the 20th and, since then, has been off her feet. I took the week off to be of what assistance I could; the first extended time off I have had in a while. I have been at sixes and sevens all week, perhaps you can tell from by blog posts.
I had great plans to get a lot of writing done during the week, what with all the free time, and reading too. I did get a lot of writing done - none of it what I had planned to work on. As I said in a previous post, I did get my "virtues" project done, the one I had worked on for a year or so, but I had not planned to work on it at all. Now that I have what seems like a good first draft, I have been wondering if I shouldn't throw it in the trash.
I got some reading done too, similarly, nothing of what I had planned to read, and I'm almost sorry I read what I read.
I have more luck getting specific projects done when I am working and seem pressed for time than when I am unimpeded by having to maintain a schedule and have the leisure to do as I please. I seem better able to accomplish goals when there appears to be insurmountable obstacles in the way.
Last night at Mass was the one regular part of my weekly schedule that I adhered too. It was wonderful; I was back in my normal routine. It dawned on me that routine, order, in our lives is vital. What would we do with unlimited leisure? This is the fallacy of those social engineers who think that, simply by creating the proper institutions and providing the right Governmental assistance, they can make life perfect. They can't. I know now that living in a world without worries would drive me nuts.
I'll be glad to get back to work.
I was looking forward to a leisurely week, free to write and read unimpeded by work, a week off with nothing to do and no travel plans. My wife had surgery to correct a bunion on the 20th and, since then, has been off her feet. I took the week off to be of what assistance I could; the first extended time off I have had in a while. I have been at sixes and sevens all week, perhaps you can tell from by blog posts.
I had great plans to get a lot of writing done during the week, what with all the free time, and reading too. I did get a lot of writing done - none of it what I had planned to work on. As I said in a previous post, I did get my "virtues" project done, the one I had worked on for a year or so, but I had not planned to work on it at all. Now that I have what seems like a good first draft, I have been wondering if I shouldn't throw it in the trash.
I got some reading done too, similarly, nothing of what I had planned to read, and I'm almost sorry I read what I read.
I have more luck getting specific projects done when I am working and seem pressed for time than when I am unimpeded by having to maintain a schedule and have the leisure to do as I please. I seem better able to accomplish goals when there appears to be insurmountable obstacles in the way.
Last night at Mass was the one regular part of my weekly schedule that I adhered too. It was wonderful; I was back in my normal routine. It dawned on me that routine, order, in our lives is vital. What would we do with unlimited leisure? This is the fallacy of those social engineers who think that, simply by creating the proper institutions and providing the right Governmental assistance, they can make life perfect. They can't. I know now that living in a world without worries would drive me nuts.
I'll be glad to get back to work.
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Men Without Feet, II
Yesterday’s SCOTUS decision in Lawrence v Texas is appalling for several reasons. One, it virtually guarantees that future Court decision will be based more on the desired social outcomes than on social precedent. Justice Kennedy has made it clear that any future case that comes before the Supreme Court can be decided on the theory of “substantive due process” – the same theory used in the Roe v Wade Case. It also likely ended the right of states, any state, to regulate not only sodomy but homosexual marriage and any other item on the so-called “gay rights” agenda within its borders.
Russell Kirk summarized the beliefs of Edmund Burke on the nature of government in 3 major points:
1. "The temporal order is only part of a transcendent order; and the foundation of social tranquility is reverence. Veneration lacking, life becomes no more than an interminable battle between usurpation and rebellion. . . . He is emphatic that the first rule of society is obedience - obedience to God and the dispensations of Providence, which work through natural processes."
2. "After the order of God . . . comes an order of spiritual and intellectual values. All values are not the same, nor all impulses, nor all men."
3. "Physical and moral anarchy is prevented by general acquiescence in social distinctions of duty and privilege. If a natural aristocracy is not recognized among men, the sycophant and the brute exercise its abandoned functions in the name of a faceless 'people.'"
It seems to me the SCOTUS decision in Lawrence comes close to the abandonment of these three degrees of order in favor of chaos. It abandons reverence and obedience - the order of God; it abandons the order of spiritual and intellectual values, and it abandons the order of social distinctions. It is the fruit of the great "leveling" project that has been going on in the West for nearly 100 years. We are being "leveled" to the existence of brutes. Our moral understanding and judgment, one of the things that raises us above the level of animals, is being eradicated from society. This in the name of a spurious notion of "diversity," by which is meant a very carefully defined, rigid pattern of thought, deviation from which cannot be tolerated. It goes without saying that this pattern of "acceptable" thought is hostile to both God and man.
May God help us.
Yesterday’s SCOTUS decision in Lawrence v Texas is appalling for several reasons. One, it virtually guarantees that future Court decision will be based more on the desired social outcomes than on social precedent. Justice Kennedy has made it clear that any future case that comes before the Supreme Court can be decided on the theory of “substantive due process” – the same theory used in the Roe v Wade Case. It also likely ended the right of states, any state, to regulate not only sodomy but homosexual marriage and any other item on the so-called “gay rights” agenda within its borders.
Russell Kirk summarized the beliefs of Edmund Burke on the nature of government in 3 major points:
1. "The temporal order is only part of a transcendent order; and the foundation of social tranquility is reverence. Veneration lacking, life becomes no more than an interminable battle between usurpation and rebellion. . . . He is emphatic that the first rule of society is obedience - obedience to God and the dispensations of Providence, which work through natural processes."
2. "After the order of God . . . comes an order of spiritual and intellectual values. All values are not the same, nor all impulses, nor all men."
3. "Physical and moral anarchy is prevented by general acquiescence in social distinctions of duty and privilege. If a natural aristocracy is not recognized among men, the sycophant and the brute exercise its abandoned functions in the name of a faceless 'people.'"
It seems to me the SCOTUS decision in Lawrence comes close to the abandonment of these three degrees of order in favor of chaos. It abandons reverence and obedience - the order of God; it abandons the order of spiritual and intellectual values, and it abandons the order of social distinctions. It is the fruit of the great "leveling" project that has been going on in the West for nearly 100 years. We are being "leveled" to the existence of brutes. Our moral understanding and judgment, one of the things that raises us above the level of animals, is being eradicated from society. This in the name of a spurious notion of "diversity," by which is meant a very carefully defined, rigid pattern of thought, deviation from which cannot be tolerated. It goes without saying that this pattern of "acceptable" thought is hostile to both God and man.
May God help us.
Friday, June 27, 2003
Comments
Aging can be a good thing. With maturity, one grows in perspective on the difficulties, trials and tribulations of life. One also grows in gratitude for each new day and the miracle of a wildflower or a bluebird, or a new fawn in the backyard, busily eating the plants in the garden. There are, however, difficulties to be overcome. One of these is failing eyesight.
It seems with this new version of Blogger (there is good reason for the old adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it) my comments box has shrunk to the size of a postage stamp. I just realized, after trying to do a reply to Steven's last comment, that I have no idea what I wrote, I couldn't see it.
So, in the future, I will reply to comments by a post, at least until the situation on the screen is remedied.
Note to Blogger/enetation/whoever or whatever is responsible for my disappearing comments window: Not all who do blogs are teenagers!
Aging can be a good thing. With maturity, one grows in perspective on the difficulties, trials and tribulations of life. One also grows in gratitude for each new day and the miracle of a wildflower or a bluebird, or a new fawn in the backyard, busily eating the plants in the garden. There are, however, difficulties to be overcome. One of these is failing eyesight.
It seems with this new version of Blogger (there is good reason for the old adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it) my comments box has shrunk to the size of a postage stamp. I just realized, after trying to do a reply to Steven's last comment, that I have no idea what I wrote, I couldn't see it.
So, in the future, I will reply to comments by a post, at least until the situation on the screen is remedied.
Note to Blogger/enetation/whoever or whatever is responsible for my disappearing comments window: Not all who do blogs are teenagers!
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Lawrence v. Texas
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law. As I understand the decision, the Court declared that the state has no right regulating the private conduct of individuals.
It so happens, that I have been reading Russell Kirk's book, The Conservative Mind, which deals with the history of conservative political thought since the time of Edmund Burke. I would like to provide a quote from Burke cited in Kirk's book:
"'Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants', says Burke.’Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among those wants is to be reckoned the want, out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individual, the inclinations of men should be frequently thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can be done only by a power out of themselves; and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights.'"
C.S. Lewis wrote about "men without chests." What we have become is men without feet, we have lost track of the foundational ideas upon which our civilization and our culture are founded. We have nothing left to stand on but the stilt-like stumps of our cut off legs.
What we have forgotten is that government is a gift of God's loving providence to us, intended to elevate us above the level of mere animals. As Kirk puts it, its purpose is to govern those who cannot govern themselves. Our Christian civilization has always viewed Government as one of the implements of our salvation, protecting us from the moral collapse caused by the surrender of society to the uncontrolled passions of the individual. This Supreme Court decision is another step in the elevation of the passions of the individual over society; another nail in the coffin of Christian civilization as we know it.
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a Texas anti-sodomy law. As I understand the decision, the Court declared that the state has no right regulating the private conduct of individuals.
It so happens, that I have been reading Russell Kirk's book, The Conservative Mind, which deals with the history of conservative political thought since the time of Edmund Burke. I would like to provide a quote from Burke cited in Kirk's book:
"'Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants', says Burke.’Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among those wants is to be reckoned the want, out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individual, the inclinations of men should be frequently thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can be done only by a power out of themselves; and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights.'"
C.S. Lewis wrote about "men without chests." What we have become is men without feet, we have lost track of the foundational ideas upon which our civilization and our culture are founded. We have nothing left to stand on but the stilt-like stumps of our cut off legs.
What we have forgotten is that government is a gift of God's loving providence to us, intended to elevate us above the level of mere animals. As Kirk puts it, its purpose is to govern those who cannot govern themselves. Our Christian civilization has always viewed Government as one of the implements of our salvation, protecting us from the moral collapse caused by the surrender of society to the uncontrolled passions of the individual. This Supreme Court decision is another step in the elevation of the passions of the individual over society; another nail in the coffin of Christian civilization as we know it.
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Apology
I have not been very consistent in the last week or ten days in doing posts here, but there is a reason.
About a year ago I became inspired to try to become a writer, or at least to try to learn to write in order to help further the Kingdom. Part of that inspiration was an idea for a book that came to me in a moment. I thought that in order to get the idea on paper I should try to write a sysopsis, perhaps an article covering the main points of idea. Until last weekend I found the task impossible, and I have electronic copies of the 10-12 false starts to prove it. I prayed about this and believed that either 1) I was mistaken and was not intended to be a writer or, (2) was badly mistaken about the inspiration of my subject. I even began working on a mystery novel. Anyway, Monday morning, (I think this idea was gestating over the weekend) with some time off, I sat down and had the article complete after about 6 hours work; it just came all at once.
Anyway, I have been working on a mystery and polishing my article which is now on a shelf where it will sit for a week or so.
I have also been doing some heavy reading in works by Russell Kirk, Christopher Dawson, and Edmund Burke and hope to concentrate on doing some posts about this reading while I am on vacation between now and Monday. I am also going to attempt a book review which I do with great trepidation; I do not believe I am truly a critic.
Paz y bien
I have not been very consistent in the last week or ten days in doing posts here, but there is a reason.
About a year ago I became inspired to try to become a writer, or at least to try to learn to write in order to help further the Kingdom. Part of that inspiration was an idea for a book that came to me in a moment. I thought that in order to get the idea on paper I should try to write a sysopsis, perhaps an article covering the main points of idea. Until last weekend I found the task impossible, and I have electronic copies of the 10-12 false starts to prove it. I prayed about this and believed that either 1) I was mistaken and was not intended to be a writer or, (2) was badly mistaken about the inspiration of my subject. I even began working on a mystery novel. Anyway, Monday morning, (I think this idea was gestating over the weekend) with some time off, I sat down and had the article complete after about 6 hours work; it just came all at once.
Anyway, I have been working on a mystery and polishing my article which is now on a shelf where it will sit for a week or so.
I have also been doing some heavy reading in works by Russell Kirk, Christopher Dawson, and Edmund Burke and hope to concentrate on doing some posts about this reading while I am on vacation between now and Monday. I am also going to attempt a book review which I do with great trepidation; I do not believe I am truly a critic.
Paz y bien
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
Metaphysicians
Edmund Burke once wrote:
"Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thoroughbred metaphysician. It comes nearer to the cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passion of a man. It is like that of the principle of evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil."
I guess Burke didn't like theorists.
I suspect the reason for this is that he understood, as so few people do these days, that theories, unless they have a positive effect on practice, unless they are based on tried and proven practice, are useless.
I think Burke understood that if we profess to believe in something, that belief should have some positive effect on the way we act; if we profess to be Catholic we should appear to the world to be Catholic.
I bring this up apropos of a post done in the last day or two by Kathy over at the Gospel Minefield. It seems that she had a friend who apparently did not believe that Kathy, because of some books she had for her children and other nefarious actions could not believe that Kathy was Catholic enough and has cooled the friendship.
First, let me say that I hope this situation reverses itself. The loss of a friend, for whatever reason, is a real loss. I pray that this friendship will be recovered.
But, Kathy's post reminded me that this is a fairly common situation. I can think of a person in a parish I once attended who made a very formidable show of being completely disdainful of everyone else at Mass. I can also think of those who troop into Mass at the last minute and suffer through the liturgy with a certain grim determination which turns to very evident anger when the priest deviates in the least from the published rubrics, and then leave immediately upon receiving Communion. These stories are legion. I pray for all such who are trapped in the net of super-Orthodoxy. They have become what Burke might call "thoroughbred metaphysicians." The rules, for many of them, have become more important than living the kind of life which the rules are intended to bring about. I don't believe this is a happy situation for anyone, but it surely exists.
I guess I write this to remind myself of these dangers; it is important to know the faith and accept as true what God has revealed of himself to us through both Scripture and Tradition. But unless we are able to make the truths of the faith real in our lives, to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and love others as ourselves, the teachings of the Church are useless to us. They become idols and will lead us away from God instead of to Him.
Edmund Burke once wrote:
"Nothing can be conceived more hard than the heart of a thoroughbred metaphysician. It comes nearer to the cold malignity of a wicked spirit than to the frailty and passion of a man. It is like that of the principle of evil himself, incorporeal, pure, unmixed, dephlegmated, defecated evil."
I guess Burke didn't like theorists.
I suspect the reason for this is that he understood, as so few people do these days, that theories, unless they have a positive effect on practice, unless they are based on tried and proven practice, are useless.
I think Burke understood that if we profess to believe in something, that belief should have some positive effect on the way we act; if we profess to be Catholic we should appear to the world to be Catholic.
I bring this up apropos of a post done in the last day or two by Kathy over at the Gospel Minefield. It seems that she had a friend who apparently did not believe that Kathy, because of some books she had for her children and other nefarious actions could not believe that Kathy was Catholic enough and has cooled the friendship.
First, let me say that I hope this situation reverses itself. The loss of a friend, for whatever reason, is a real loss. I pray that this friendship will be recovered.
But, Kathy's post reminded me that this is a fairly common situation. I can think of a person in a parish I once attended who made a very formidable show of being completely disdainful of everyone else at Mass. I can also think of those who troop into Mass at the last minute and suffer through the liturgy with a certain grim determination which turns to very evident anger when the priest deviates in the least from the published rubrics, and then leave immediately upon receiving Communion. These stories are legion. I pray for all such who are trapped in the net of super-Orthodoxy. They have become what Burke might call "thoroughbred metaphysicians." The rules, for many of them, have become more important than living the kind of life which the rules are intended to bring about. I don't believe this is a happy situation for anyone, but it surely exists.
I guess I write this to remind myself of these dangers; it is important to know the faith and accept as true what God has revealed of himself to us through both Scripture and Tradition. But unless we are able to make the truths of the faith real in our lives, to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and love others as ourselves, the teachings of the Church are useless to us. They become idols and will lead us away from God instead of to Him.
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Trust
Steven has done a wonderful post on trusting God, if you haven't seen it please take a few minutes and see what he has to say.
Paz y bien
Steven has done a wonderful post on trusting God, if you haven't seen it please take a few minutes and see what he has to say.
Paz y bien
Sunday, June 15, 2003
Culture Wars III
That men may know wisdom and instruction, understand words of insight, receive instruction in wise dealing, righteousness, justice, and equity; that prudence may be given to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth— the wise man also may hear and increase in learning, and the man of understanding acquire skill, to understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles.—Proverbs 1:2-6 (RSV)
Peter has written a comment to my Culture Wars II post; I am grateful for his thoughts. However, while he disagrees with the post I am afraid he has shown that he is the one who misses the point.
In his comments Peter seems to be saying that all they were hoping for from the Georgetown commencement speaker was a nice, uplifting, and meaningless little speech that would send them on their way feeling good about themselves. If this is the case, they should have invited someone from the cast of Saturday Night Live, not Cardinal Arinze. By inviting the Cardinal to speak, what did they think they were going to hear? If the commencement exercises of a major Catholic university are not the time or the place to hear the truth about matters of life and death, what is?
The events of this years commencement exercises demonstrate that one thing they did not want to hear was the teachings of the Church -- Truth. It seems these events highlight serious flaws within our universities, especially within our Catholic universities, that must be corrected if we are to survive as a civilization.
The fact of the matter is Truth is never inappropriate, no matter the occasion. The real problem with the Cardinal's speech was that it is more important to the faculty and students of Georgetown U to be “inclusive and uplifting” than to hear the Truth. I contend that Cardinal Arinze's speech would not have caused the furor it did were it not for the fact that, at Georgetown University, hearing the truth was painful. I suspect that the Cardinal's speech caused many on the Georgetown campus to feel less than good about themselves.
Twenty-five years ago, in 1978, Alexander Solzhenitsyn delivered the commencement address at Harvard University. I would like to quote from his introduction:
"Harvard's motto is 'Veritas.' Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us as soon as our concentration begins to flag, all the while leaving the illusion that we are continuing to pursue it. This is the source of much discord. Also, truth is seldom sweet; it is almost invariable bitter. A measure of bitter truth is included in my speech today, but I offer it as a friend, not as an adversary."
Anyone who would offer us truth is truly our friend; one who would hide the truth from us must be considered a mortal enemy. The central problem we face as a civilization today is that we have let our concentration flag in favor of a counterfeit ideology; we prefer the anesthesia of inclusivity and diversity to the scalpel of Truth. Cardinal Arinze did not come to the Georgetown campus as a heartless repressor of good feelings but as a friend and true truth teacher.
On the other hand, barbaric behavior is never acceptable in civilized society, no matter what the occasion.
The very idea of a university is that it should be a safe place for open intellectual discourse. Our universities, however, have become places completely intolerant of ideas contrary to the prevailing ideology. When ideas contrary to the accepted party line become intolerable we are in trouble as a civilization. It is well to remind ourselves, as Russell Kirk pointed out, that the Latin roots for ideology and idiocy are the same. When we refuse to grant another person the respect due him as a fellow human being by hearing him out we have sunk into a condition of barbarity.
One theology professor at Georgetown, by getting up and walking out on a Cardinal of the Church who was presenting the most basic teachings of the Church, gave one final instruction to the graduating students of Georgetown. I suspect she was trying to reinforce four years of such instruction.
First, she taught that is perfectly appropriate for a Catholic to be in open dissent from Church teachings, hardly a desirable point of view from someone aspiring to be a Catholic theologian. Second, she demonstrated that ideas contrary to modern, secular-humanist teachings are not to be tolerated on a university campus. Her actions make it abundantly clear that “diversity and inclusivity” have strict limits on the Georgetown campus. For a member of the faculty of a so-called Catholic University to walk off the dais when a Cardinal of the Church is speaking goes beyond rude; it displays real ignorance, as in, a lack of civilized knowledge. It demonstrated, and even worse, taught barbaric behavior. As Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
The scandal of her conduct is that she is in a position to be a teacher of the truth taught otherwise. Lets not forget that her actions were in support of those who openly engage in conduct considered gravely evil by the Church.
Peter, my post was not "a blind attack" on Georgetown University, (nor is this an attack on you). I do not have to be a member of the Georgetown University "community" to understand what went on its commencement ceremonies in May. The problems involve issues deeper than the good feelings of the faculty and students of Georgetown University; they involve issues of life and death – eternal life and death. On that day in May, Georgetown demonstrated that it has failed as a Catholic university and by so doing failed us all.
That men may know wisdom and instruction, understand words of insight, receive instruction in wise dealing, righteousness, justice, and equity; that prudence may be given to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth— the wise man also may hear and increase in learning, and the man of understanding acquire skill, to understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles.—Proverbs 1:2-6 (RSV)
Peter has written a comment to my Culture Wars II post; I am grateful for his thoughts. However, while he disagrees with the post I am afraid he has shown that he is the one who misses the point.
In his comments Peter seems to be saying that all they were hoping for from the Georgetown commencement speaker was a nice, uplifting, and meaningless little speech that would send them on their way feeling good about themselves. If this is the case, they should have invited someone from the cast of Saturday Night Live, not Cardinal Arinze. By inviting the Cardinal to speak, what did they think they were going to hear? If the commencement exercises of a major Catholic university are not the time or the place to hear the truth about matters of life and death, what is?
The events of this years commencement exercises demonstrate that one thing they did not want to hear was the teachings of the Church -- Truth. It seems these events highlight serious flaws within our universities, especially within our Catholic universities, that must be corrected if we are to survive as a civilization.
The fact of the matter is Truth is never inappropriate, no matter the occasion. The real problem with the Cardinal's speech was that it is more important to the faculty and students of Georgetown U to be “inclusive and uplifting” than to hear the Truth. I contend that Cardinal Arinze's speech would not have caused the furor it did were it not for the fact that, at Georgetown University, hearing the truth was painful. I suspect that the Cardinal's speech caused many on the Georgetown campus to feel less than good about themselves.
Twenty-five years ago, in 1978, Alexander Solzhenitsyn delivered the commencement address at Harvard University. I would like to quote from his introduction:
"Harvard's motto is 'Veritas.' Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us as soon as our concentration begins to flag, all the while leaving the illusion that we are continuing to pursue it. This is the source of much discord. Also, truth is seldom sweet; it is almost invariable bitter. A measure of bitter truth is included in my speech today, but I offer it as a friend, not as an adversary."
Anyone who would offer us truth is truly our friend; one who would hide the truth from us must be considered a mortal enemy. The central problem we face as a civilization today is that we have let our concentration flag in favor of a counterfeit ideology; we prefer the anesthesia of inclusivity and diversity to the scalpel of Truth. Cardinal Arinze did not come to the Georgetown campus as a heartless repressor of good feelings but as a friend and true truth teacher.
On the other hand, barbaric behavior is never acceptable in civilized society, no matter what the occasion.
The very idea of a university is that it should be a safe place for open intellectual discourse. Our universities, however, have become places completely intolerant of ideas contrary to the prevailing ideology. When ideas contrary to the accepted party line become intolerable we are in trouble as a civilization. It is well to remind ourselves, as Russell Kirk pointed out, that the Latin roots for ideology and idiocy are the same. When we refuse to grant another person the respect due him as a fellow human being by hearing him out we have sunk into a condition of barbarity.
One theology professor at Georgetown, by getting up and walking out on a Cardinal of the Church who was presenting the most basic teachings of the Church, gave one final instruction to the graduating students of Georgetown. I suspect she was trying to reinforce four years of such instruction.
First, she taught that is perfectly appropriate for a Catholic to be in open dissent from Church teachings, hardly a desirable point of view from someone aspiring to be a Catholic theologian. Second, she demonstrated that ideas contrary to modern, secular-humanist teachings are not to be tolerated on a university campus. Her actions make it abundantly clear that “diversity and inclusivity” have strict limits on the Georgetown campus. For a member of the faculty of a so-called Catholic University to walk off the dais when a Cardinal of the Church is speaking goes beyond rude; it displays real ignorance, as in, a lack of civilized knowledge. It demonstrated, and even worse, taught barbaric behavior. As Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew:
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
The scandal of her conduct is that she is in a position to be a teacher of the truth taught otherwise. Lets not forget that her actions were in support of those who openly engage in conduct considered gravely evil by the Church.
Peter, my post was not "a blind attack" on Georgetown University, (nor is this an attack on you). I do not have to be a member of the Georgetown University "community" to understand what went on its commencement ceremonies in May. The problems involve issues deeper than the good feelings of the faculty and students of Georgetown University; they involve issues of life and death – eternal life and death. On that day in May, Georgetown demonstrated that it has failed as a Catholic university and by so doing failed us all.
Thursday, June 12, 2003
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Why Blog
Mark Shea had a nice article in the most recent issue of Crisis on blogging, St Blogs Parish, and Catholic blogs in general. One thing that he seemed to be implying though is that blogs are primarily an alternative news source for the major media outlets. While this is true to some extent, I don't think that is the only purpose for a blog; it is not my purpose anyway.
I take my example from my father-in-law who was a life long newspaperman and writer. In the late '70s he and I (and a few other folks) started a weekly newspaper in El Paso. The idea was that in a weekly format the truth behind the headlines could be explored more deeply. The paper could at least attempt to answer the question "Why?" instead of just "who?" and "what?" While the paper was something of a critical success (I wrote only one article for it, a restaurant review, of all things, and can take no credit for that) it was hardly a financial success and finally folded. However, I think the principle is important.
Most of the major scandals today have one thing in common -- they stem from a failure to ask the question "Why?" They stem from a failure to ask why we should follow the teaching of the Catholic Church.
You could ask, for example, why is it important to understand that there is such a thing as objective truth? Just ask the now resigned editors of the New York Times. As World magazine pointed out this week, if you reject the notion of objective truth, why should you be surprised that your newspaper publishes fiction? For that matter, why should you care, what difference does it make? For the New York Times the distinction between fact and fiction became blurred, at best, and thus Jason Blair could get away for several years with plagiarism, made up stories, and who knows what, with no one the wiser. What is even more disturbing is that people about whom he wrote stories and who knew that his "facts" were made up did not protest. They simply accepted that stories in the New York Times could not be expected to be true!
Or you could ask, as the theology faculty at Georgetown University seems to wonder, why the Church teaches that homosexuality and other sexual perversions are gravely sinful. What harm could living the homosexual "lifestyle" be? Just ask certain Catholic bishops across the country. They know first hand the harm that can be done, and are still suffering the consequences.
Protestant friends have expressed their condolences to me in the past year over the situation in the Church. I don't think condolences are necessary. I think the situation that surfaced early last year is a perfect example, not of a failure in the Church, but of what happens when we fail to follow Church teachings.
You could also ask "why do we need a magisterium making authoritative pronouncements and trying to repress our God-given freedom?" Just ask the members of my former Presbyterian denomination. The Presbyterian Church USA is currently losing members at the rate of 35,000 per year over the issue of the ordination of homosexuals. Cut loose from any authoritative magisterium they are forced to determine church teaching by majority vote. This solution is one doomed to failure, since truth can never be determined by vote. It seems likely that the PCUSA (aptly named, by the way) will soon pass from the scene, the victim of an inability to accept the Magisterium of the Church.
The crucial "why?" question that hardly anyone asks these days is "why does the Church teach the things she does?" Society, and the Georgetown theology department, simply seems to assume it is because the Church is mean spirited and wishes to be "hurtful" to those who do not conform to her harsh and judgmental norms. If these folks were to ask the question and honestly try to come up with an answer, they would find out that it is because the Church wishes to protect us from harm. The Church understands that we are creatures of God created in His image; we are "designed" to operate in certain ways by our designer. When we fail to do so we can expect problems to arise, as we can see all around us.
My purpose for this blog has been to attempt on my part to understand why it is important to know what the Church teaches about us as human beings. It should be obvious that what we believe affects what we are. Too often today the secular-materialist worldview of society is unquestioningly accepted as valid; until more people ask why we should believe this, and then take action to answer the question honestly, we should not be surprised that more, and greater, scandals come to dominate our headlines.
Mark Shea had a nice article in the most recent issue of Crisis on blogging, St Blogs Parish, and Catholic blogs in general. One thing that he seemed to be implying though is that blogs are primarily an alternative news source for the major media outlets. While this is true to some extent, I don't think that is the only purpose for a blog; it is not my purpose anyway.
I take my example from my father-in-law who was a life long newspaperman and writer. In the late '70s he and I (and a few other folks) started a weekly newspaper in El Paso. The idea was that in a weekly format the truth behind the headlines could be explored more deeply. The paper could at least attempt to answer the question "Why?" instead of just "who?" and "what?" While the paper was something of a critical success (I wrote only one article for it, a restaurant review, of all things, and can take no credit for that) it was hardly a financial success and finally folded. However, I think the principle is important.
Most of the major scandals today have one thing in common -- they stem from a failure to ask the question "Why?" They stem from a failure to ask why we should follow the teaching of the Catholic Church.
You could ask, for example, why is it important to understand that there is such a thing as objective truth? Just ask the now resigned editors of the New York Times. As World magazine pointed out this week, if you reject the notion of objective truth, why should you be surprised that your newspaper publishes fiction? For that matter, why should you care, what difference does it make? For the New York Times the distinction between fact and fiction became blurred, at best, and thus Jason Blair could get away for several years with plagiarism, made up stories, and who knows what, with no one the wiser. What is even more disturbing is that people about whom he wrote stories and who knew that his "facts" were made up did not protest. They simply accepted that stories in the New York Times could not be expected to be true!
Or you could ask, as the theology faculty at Georgetown University seems to wonder, why the Church teaches that homosexuality and other sexual perversions are gravely sinful. What harm could living the homosexual "lifestyle" be? Just ask certain Catholic bishops across the country. They know first hand the harm that can be done, and are still suffering the consequences.
Protestant friends have expressed their condolences to me in the past year over the situation in the Church. I don't think condolences are necessary. I think the situation that surfaced early last year is a perfect example, not of a failure in the Church, but of what happens when we fail to follow Church teachings.
You could also ask "why do we need a magisterium making authoritative pronouncements and trying to repress our God-given freedom?" Just ask the members of my former Presbyterian denomination. The Presbyterian Church USA is currently losing members at the rate of 35,000 per year over the issue of the ordination of homosexuals. Cut loose from any authoritative magisterium they are forced to determine church teaching by majority vote. This solution is one doomed to failure, since truth can never be determined by vote. It seems likely that the PCUSA (aptly named, by the way) will soon pass from the scene, the victim of an inability to accept the Magisterium of the Church.
The crucial "why?" question that hardly anyone asks these days is "why does the Church teach the things she does?" Society, and the Georgetown theology department, simply seems to assume it is because the Church is mean spirited and wishes to be "hurtful" to those who do not conform to her harsh and judgmental norms. If these folks were to ask the question and honestly try to come up with an answer, they would find out that it is because the Church wishes to protect us from harm. The Church understands that we are creatures of God created in His image; we are "designed" to operate in certain ways by our designer. When we fail to do so we can expect problems to arise, as we can see all around us.
My purpose for this blog has been to attempt on my part to understand why it is important to know what the Church teaches about us as human beings. It should be obvious that what we believe affects what we are. Too often today the secular-materialist worldview of society is unquestioningly accepted as valid; until more people ask why we should believe this, and then take action to answer the question honestly, we should not be surprised that more, and greater, scandals come to dominate our headlines.
Friday, June 06, 2003
Culture Wars, II
John Da Fiesole over at Disputations has done a post in response to my Culture Wars comments. In his post he asks, what practical influence the bishops have in our lives. Good question. I believe that as Catholic laity we bear a huge responsibility for the state of the culture we live in and we can't blame our failure on our bishops and priests. As is clear from the Cathechism, it is our vocation to affect the temporal affairs and bring them under God's influence. Bishops and priests cannot do this for us.
However, the fact that very often our bishops have little practical impact on our daily lives is a glaring example of a pervasive problem that exists today. There are a couple of recent incidents that highlight the problem we have with our bishops. These problems to not exist with all bishops, my any means, but they do exist.
The most important event was Cardinal Arinze's Commencement address on May 17 at Georgetown University. I will quote from the Washington Post's coverage of the story:
"The cardinal was several minutes into his speech when he said the family 'is under siege' and 'opposed by an antilife mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce.'
After the cardinal said the words 'mocked by homosexuality,' associate theology professor Theresa Sanders, who was seated on stage, walked out. A few students also left, says Mohsin Siddiqui, a 2002 graduate who was at the ceremony.
'I thought what he said was incredibly offensive,' he said. 'With all due respect for the cardinal's opinions, I don't think he should have been voicing them. This came from out of the middle of nowhere.' "
I hope it is obvious to all that the Cardinal's remarks did not "come from out of the middle of nowhere" but straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think it is also interesting that this graduate from a "Catholic" university would think that Cardinal Arinze was simply delivering his "opinion", as if this was some merely personal point of view of his which might, under different circumstances, change in the next day, or week or month. And, I must ask, what kind of a "Catholic" university would tolerate a theology professor who would be so rude as to stand up and walk out on a Cardinal of the Church expounding the official teaching of the Church?
But this is exactly the problem; this kind of thing is common, almost unexceptional, in our modern secularist society. It results from two things, one is that those in a position to teach the truth have chosen to teach untruth, lies. Second, the bishops where this kind of thing is rampant have chosen to ignore it.
In order for the laity to resist and reform the culture, they must know the truth; many of them do indeed know the truth. The next question is, what do we do with the truth we know? We can either disregard it or we can shape our lives by it. As individuals we have this freedom to make this choice. If we make the wrong choice we are not free to influence others to make the same mistake. As Jesus said:
“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”
All too often, today, we all, bishops included, ignore false teaching and just hope it will go away. It won't. Unless, that is, we take active steps against it. The lead for these kinds of active steps should be coming from our bishops. If the bishops were doing this, they would be playing a very prominent role in our daily lives by being our leaders and teachers in the faith. To the extent that this is not happening, we, the laity, are hindered in our struggle in against the culture in which we live.
The second of the two events I mentioned shows that having the courage of our convictions is truly possible.
In April of this year, the editors of Touchstone magazine published an article which said, in effect, that it was impossible to, at the same time, vote Democratic and be a Christian. They characterized the Democrat party as the party of abortion and sodomy. This article apparently generated a firestorm of criticism and a great many cancelled subscriptions. What did the editors of Touchstone do? I'll quote just one paragraph from their response:
“There has been much response to Touchstone’s April issue, in which the Democratic part) was characterized as godless, and portrayed a,, If having developed in recent years into some thing no Christian can in good conscience support. Subscriptions have been angrily canceled and declaration that we will be prayed for received. More attention has been given to this issue than any other we have published. The most common criticisms are that Touchstone, a religious magazine, is now dabbling in politics, where it has no business, and that the April issue was in fact a Republican party tract in which the editors displayed their political preferences more than their Christianity. What, one suspects, some of our off put correspondents wished to see in subsequent issues is some kind of muted apology that we were in some places a bit rough and high handed, along with a good natured admission that good Christians can have varying opinions on these matters. But we don't think they can. Things have gradually but surely come to the point where we must say that to the degree Christians have been co-opted by the Democrats, they are no longer good."
Would that more of us had this kind of courage.
John Da Fiesole over at Disputations has done a post in response to my Culture Wars comments. In his post he asks, what practical influence the bishops have in our lives. Good question. I believe that as Catholic laity we bear a huge responsibility for the state of the culture we live in and we can't blame our failure on our bishops and priests. As is clear from the Cathechism, it is our vocation to affect the temporal affairs and bring them under God's influence. Bishops and priests cannot do this for us.
However, the fact that very often our bishops have little practical impact on our daily lives is a glaring example of a pervasive problem that exists today. There are a couple of recent incidents that highlight the problem we have with our bishops. These problems to not exist with all bishops, my any means, but they do exist.
The most important event was Cardinal Arinze's Commencement address on May 17 at Georgetown University. I will quote from the Washington Post's coverage of the story:
"The cardinal was several minutes into his speech when he said the family 'is under siege' and 'opposed by an antilife mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized by pornography, desecrated by fornication and adultery, mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut in two by divorce.'
After the cardinal said the words 'mocked by homosexuality,' associate theology professor Theresa Sanders, who was seated on stage, walked out. A few students also left, says Mohsin Siddiqui, a 2002 graduate who was at the ceremony.
'I thought what he said was incredibly offensive,' he said. 'With all due respect for the cardinal's opinions, I don't think he should have been voicing them. This came from out of the middle of nowhere.' "
I hope it is obvious to all that the Cardinal's remarks did not "come from out of the middle of nowhere" but straight out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I think it is also interesting that this graduate from a "Catholic" university would think that Cardinal Arinze was simply delivering his "opinion", as if this was some merely personal point of view of his which might, under different circumstances, change in the next day, or week or month. And, I must ask, what kind of a "Catholic" university would tolerate a theology professor who would be so rude as to stand up and walk out on a Cardinal of the Church expounding the official teaching of the Church?
But this is exactly the problem; this kind of thing is common, almost unexceptional, in our modern secularist society. It results from two things, one is that those in a position to teach the truth have chosen to teach untruth, lies. Second, the bishops where this kind of thing is rampant have chosen to ignore it.
In order for the laity to resist and reform the culture, they must know the truth; many of them do indeed know the truth. The next question is, what do we do with the truth we know? We can either disregard it or we can shape our lives by it. As individuals we have this freedom to make this choice. If we make the wrong choice we are not free to influence others to make the same mistake. As Jesus said:
“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”
All too often, today, we all, bishops included, ignore false teaching and just hope it will go away. It won't. Unless, that is, we take active steps against it. The lead for these kinds of active steps should be coming from our bishops. If the bishops were doing this, they would be playing a very prominent role in our daily lives by being our leaders and teachers in the faith. To the extent that this is not happening, we, the laity, are hindered in our struggle in against the culture in which we live.
The second of the two events I mentioned shows that having the courage of our convictions is truly possible.
In April of this year, the editors of Touchstone magazine published an article which said, in effect, that it was impossible to, at the same time, vote Democratic and be a Christian. They characterized the Democrat party as the party of abortion and sodomy. This article apparently generated a firestorm of criticism and a great many cancelled subscriptions. What did the editors of Touchstone do? I'll quote just one paragraph from their response:
“There has been much response to Touchstone’s April issue, in which the Democratic part) was characterized as godless, and portrayed a,, If having developed in recent years into some thing no Christian can in good conscience support. Subscriptions have been angrily canceled and declaration that we will be prayed for received. More attention has been given to this issue than any other we have published. The most common criticisms are that Touchstone, a religious magazine, is now dabbling in politics, where it has no business, and that the April issue was in fact a Republican party tract in which the editors displayed their political preferences more than their Christianity. What, one suspects, some of our off put correspondents wished to see in subsequent issues is some kind of muted apology that we were in some places a bit rough and high handed, along with a good natured admission that good Christians can have varying opinions on these matters. But we don't think they can. Things have gradually but surely come to the point where we must say that to the degree Christians have been co-opted by the Democrats, they are no longer good."
Would that more of us had this kind of courage.
Sunday, June 01, 2003
Culture Wars
Fr. Rob over at Thrown Back has written a couple of good posts concerning the effect of culture on our faith, and vice versa. I'm not writing this as a criticism of what he has written, but rather to point out another way of looking at the question.
Fr. Rob had someone post a comment rejecting the idea that the laity bears any responsibility for the current state of the culture we live in. Fr. Rob posted a response to these comments to the effect that both laity and clergy bear significant responsibility for the problem and this is true. However, I think he is being too nice to those of us in the laity because I would say that, indeed, the laity bears, by far, the greater portion of guilt for the sorry state of the society we live in.
I say this based on the definition, found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church of the term vocation. This definition reads:
“The calling or destiny we have in this life and hereafter. God has created the human person to love and serve him; the fulfillment of this vocation is eternal happiness. Christ calls the faithful to the perfection of holiness. The vocation of the laity consists in seeking the Kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will. Priestly and religious vocations are dedicated to the service of the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation.”
According to the Catechism, it is the laity that has the vocation to bring the Kingdom of God to the world. We are the ones charged with making the society we live in Christian, not the clergy. The duty of the clergy is in service of the Church -- to support our efforts in bringing Christ to the marketplace. I would also say that, based on this definition, we the laity have failed miserably.
It should be evident to all that, rather than converting our culture, instead of transforming society, we are the ones who have been transformed.
It may be true that in the last 30 years or so we have not had the greatest support from our priests and bishops, but I would agree with Fr. Rob that this is more our fault than theirs. To paraphrase Barzun, perhaps we have the bishops we deserve.
We are not victims. We, as laity have failed our vocation because we have allowed the culture to overwhelm us. I don't think many of us could say that our lives look any different than those of our pagan neighbors, that we actively and unabashedly live our faith.
While it is true that many of the bishops we have are a somewhat sorry lot, we have no business whining and complaining about them -- our track record is no better. The priests and bishops of the Church cannot live out our vocation for us, they cannot do what we have the responsibility to do.
The solution to the problem, I think, is for us laity to admit there is a problem. There are a great many things we can do, once we have taken this fundamental step. We can begin taking our faith seriously and living as if it really mattered in our lives. We can spend more time in prayer and adoration of the Holy Eucharist, we can pray for our bishops and our priests, we can engage our neighbors in a loving way about the truth of the Church and Jesus Christ. We can, quite simply, be active witnesses to our faith. Who knows, doing this might be a positive influence on our priests and bishops and encourage them to change their ways. It might be the indication they need that there are indeed Catholics who are willing to truly be Catholic.
Until we can say we are doing all we can to live out our vocation faithfully we should not be complaining about what someone else is not doing.
Fr. Rob over at Thrown Back has written a couple of good posts concerning the effect of culture on our faith, and vice versa. I'm not writing this as a criticism of what he has written, but rather to point out another way of looking at the question.
Fr. Rob had someone post a comment rejecting the idea that the laity bears any responsibility for the current state of the culture we live in. Fr. Rob posted a response to these comments to the effect that both laity and clergy bear significant responsibility for the problem and this is true. However, I think he is being too nice to those of us in the laity because I would say that, indeed, the laity bears, by far, the greater portion of guilt for the sorry state of the society we live in.
I say this based on the definition, found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church of the term vocation. This definition reads:
“The calling or destiny we have in this life and hereafter. God has created the human person to love and serve him; the fulfillment of this vocation is eternal happiness. Christ calls the faithful to the perfection of holiness. The vocation of the laity consists in seeking the Kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will. Priestly and religious vocations are dedicated to the service of the Church as the universal sacrament of salvation.”
According to the Catechism, it is the laity that has the vocation to bring the Kingdom of God to the world. We are the ones charged with making the society we live in Christian, not the clergy. The duty of the clergy is in service of the Church -- to support our efforts in bringing Christ to the marketplace. I would also say that, based on this definition, we the laity have failed miserably.
It should be evident to all that, rather than converting our culture, instead of transforming society, we are the ones who have been transformed.
It may be true that in the last 30 years or so we have not had the greatest support from our priests and bishops, but I would agree with Fr. Rob that this is more our fault than theirs. To paraphrase Barzun, perhaps we have the bishops we deserve.
We are not victims. We, as laity have failed our vocation because we have allowed the culture to overwhelm us. I don't think many of us could say that our lives look any different than those of our pagan neighbors, that we actively and unabashedly live our faith.
While it is true that many of the bishops we have are a somewhat sorry lot, we have no business whining and complaining about them -- our track record is no better. The priests and bishops of the Church cannot live out our vocation for us, they cannot do what we have the responsibility to do.
The solution to the problem, I think, is for us laity to admit there is a problem. There are a great many things we can do, once we have taken this fundamental step. We can begin taking our faith seriously and living as if it really mattered in our lives. We can spend more time in prayer and adoration of the Holy Eucharist, we can pray for our bishops and our priests, we can engage our neighbors in a loving way about the truth of the Church and Jesus Christ. We can, quite simply, be active witnesses to our faith. Who knows, doing this might be a positive influence on our priests and bishops and encourage them to change their ways. It might be the indication they need that there are indeed Catholics who are willing to truly be Catholic.
Until we can say we are doing all we can to live out our vocation faithfully we should not be complaining about what someone else is not doing.
Tuesday, May 27, 2003
Tuesday, May 20, 2003
Academia Nuts, cont'd
Scientists in England have conducted an experiment involving monkeys and computers and proved that monkeys are really smarter than we think they are.
The experiment consisted of placing a computer in a cage with a bunch of monkeys. I suspect the motivation for this springs from a Darwinist belief that if you gave a monkey enough time with a keyboard he (or she) would end up writing out the complete works of William Shakespeare. In the event, that didn't happen, but something more interesting did occur.
To understand why I say this, you need to know how the monkeys reacted to the computer. It seems that at first they simply ignored it. You don't know how many times I've wished that I had done the same thing when someone first introduced a computer into my space. So far, so good for the monkeys. Their next reaction was to hit the computer with a rock. This is where I usually end up after a particularly frustrating session with a computer; sometimes I use a hammer, sometimes a chair, but the idea is the same. The only difference is that this is where the monkeys started, not where they ended up. They cut out the frustrating part and proceed to the ideal final end of most computers -- I detect signs of intelligence here. Finally, they apparently engaged in episodes of throwing monkey poop at the thing. Although I think the rock is better, I can certainly understand the sentiment.
After passing through these distinct stages in their relationship with the computer they finally began typing on it. And what did they type? Pages and pages of little more than the letter S with a few As and Ls thrown in for good measure. No Shakespeare, but at least they had arrived at the, shall we say human, reactions that almost inevitably occur in any endeavor with a computer and they didn't have to worry about getting anything done. You know the old saying "S... happens!"
The truth of the matter is that monkeys, no matter how much time is involved do not produce anything like literature, much less like William Shakespeare. That is the difference that our politically correct intelligentsia wish so hard would go away. Monkeys are not created in the image of God, men are, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Scientists in England have conducted an experiment involving monkeys and computers and proved that monkeys are really smarter than we think they are.
The experiment consisted of placing a computer in a cage with a bunch of monkeys. I suspect the motivation for this springs from a Darwinist belief that if you gave a monkey enough time with a keyboard he (or she) would end up writing out the complete works of William Shakespeare. In the event, that didn't happen, but something more interesting did occur.
To understand why I say this, you need to know how the monkeys reacted to the computer. It seems that at first they simply ignored it. You don't know how many times I've wished that I had done the same thing when someone first introduced a computer into my space. So far, so good for the monkeys. Their next reaction was to hit the computer with a rock. This is where I usually end up after a particularly frustrating session with a computer; sometimes I use a hammer, sometimes a chair, but the idea is the same. The only difference is that this is where the monkeys started, not where they ended up. They cut out the frustrating part and proceed to the ideal final end of most computers -- I detect signs of intelligence here. Finally, they apparently engaged in episodes of throwing monkey poop at the thing. Although I think the rock is better, I can certainly understand the sentiment.
After passing through these distinct stages in their relationship with the computer they finally began typing on it. And what did they type? Pages and pages of little more than the letter S with a few As and Ls thrown in for good measure. No Shakespeare, but at least they had arrived at the, shall we say human, reactions that almost inevitably occur in any endeavor with a computer and they didn't have to worry about getting anything done. You know the old saying "S... happens!"
The truth of the matter is that monkeys, no matter how much time is involved do not produce anything like literature, much less like William Shakespeare. That is the difference that our politically correct intelligentsia wish so hard would go away. Monkeys are not created in the image of God, men are, and that makes all the difference in the world.
Friday, May 16, 2003
The Journey
Thomas Merton wrote that faith means action. We do not understand God and then commit ourselves in faith to Him, we make the commit first, then we act. He writes:
"We do not see first, then act, we act then see. It is only by the free submission of our judgment in dark faith that we can advance in the light of understanding: credo ut intelligam. And that is why the man who waits to see clearly, before he will believe, never starts on the journey."
In the New Testament blindness is taken as a symbol for lack of faith. The blind man is never able to see and thus never able to undertake the journey which we must all make in the solitude of our souls. He cannot commit to any journey because he cannot see the road ahead. Those who can see, while not knowing where the road will lead them, nevertheless can see the road itself and take the first steps along it.
Seldom do we know where the road will lead. It is as if we begin our journey on a dark, moonless night, seeing its outlines only dimly, as if by nothing more than candlelight. We undertake the journey in faith, not knowing but trusting.
It is only as we progress on the journey that dawn begins to break in the light of faith. We must all, each of us in his own way, make the initial commitment, and take the first step, on the journey of faith. Then understanding comes.
I think we are called, once we have begun the journey, to keep moving on the road. That is the most difficult part. There are many crossroads. Often times, having chosen a particular path on the journey, it is only in looking back that I understand how God was leading me, giving me directions and sustenance on the journey. Sometimes it seemed that the path I chose lead to great difficulty and trial, but looking back I was able to see from the "map" of my life, that God was working then to make the rest of the journey more fruitful, leading me closer to the final goal.
It is clear to me that faith involves commitment which means that it is not, as popularly believed today, an emotional balm or a crutch for those unable to face the reality of life. It is not an escape because it must affect the very depths of our being; otherwise undertaking the journey can never be done. Moving out, changing the focus of our lives, is not something that anyone would do only as an escape. Beginning the journey itself means throwing away the crutches, standing up and taking the first step on the journey of a lifetime.
Thomas Merton wrote that faith means action. We do not understand God and then commit ourselves in faith to Him, we make the commit first, then we act. He writes:
"We do not see first, then act, we act then see. It is only by the free submission of our judgment in dark faith that we can advance in the light of understanding: credo ut intelligam. And that is why the man who waits to see clearly, before he will believe, never starts on the journey."
In the New Testament blindness is taken as a symbol for lack of faith. The blind man is never able to see and thus never able to undertake the journey which we must all make in the solitude of our souls. He cannot commit to any journey because he cannot see the road ahead. Those who can see, while not knowing where the road will lead them, nevertheless can see the road itself and take the first steps along it.
Seldom do we know where the road will lead. It is as if we begin our journey on a dark, moonless night, seeing its outlines only dimly, as if by nothing more than candlelight. We undertake the journey in faith, not knowing but trusting.
It is only as we progress on the journey that dawn begins to break in the light of faith. We must all, each of us in his own way, make the initial commitment, and take the first step, on the journey of faith. Then understanding comes.
I think we are called, once we have begun the journey, to keep moving on the road. That is the most difficult part. There are many crossroads. Often times, having chosen a particular path on the journey, it is only in looking back that I understand how God was leading me, giving me directions and sustenance on the journey. Sometimes it seemed that the path I chose lead to great difficulty and trial, but looking back I was able to see from the "map" of my life, that God was working then to make the rest of the journey more fruitful, leading me closer to the final goal.
It is clear to me that faith involves commitment which means that it is not, as popularly believed today, an emotional balm or a crutch for those unable to face the reality of life. It is not an escape because it must affect the very depths of our being; otherwise undertaking the journey can never be done. Moving out, changing the focus of our lives, is not something that anyone would do only as an escape. Beginning the journey itself means throwing away the crutches, standing up and taking the first step on the journey of a lifetime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)