An Update
A few weeks ago I wrote that I am now using an AlphaSmart Dana to do these blog posts. At first the change from the Palm disconcerted me a bit, perhaps that is one reason I haven't done as many posts as I had prior to making this change. One difficulty is that, since the Dana does not have a color screen, at night if the light is not really good it is very hard for me to see anything I try to type. During daylight hours this is no problem whatsoever and I find the Dana an almost perfect tool to write with -- it is light, compact, and the screen is a nice size, even if it is not a color monitor. I have now found a solution to the problem of working at night, I purchased a small, battery powered book light which gives just enough light to make night time typing possible. So, in short, the AlphaSmart is going to be around for a good long time.
+ + +
Steven over at Flos Carmeli has been doing a series of posts on Phillip Yancy's book Soul Survior, and is starting another series on another of Yancy's books. I was quite interested in this since Yancy is, I think, a Protestant. The reason I have been following Steven's posts is my own uncertainty about reading Protestant authors. I should explain.
About 6 months or so prior to my reception into the Church, I swore off reading anything Protestant, almost to include C. S. Lewis. This continued until about 3 years after my coming into the Church when I took a philosophy course through Franciscan University at Steubenville. One of the texts was Lewis' The Abolition of Man and also parts of Mere Christianity. I softened and have read some things by a few Protestant authors over the last few years. Then, this summer, the Episcopal Church went through its meltdown, and as I posted a week or two ago, I was reminded of the real problems with Protestantism and thought I should return to strictly Catholic reading and thought.
Then, along comes Steven with his Soul Survivor series. What to make of this? Much of what Steven quoted, and certainly his comments on those passages, was at least interesting, if not thought provoking. My wife made the point, which I think Steven has also made recently, that it is always appropriate to read good writing. So, I went out tonight at bought two Phillip Yancy books -- Soul Survivor and The Jesus I Never Knew. I bought these two because they were the only Yancy books that I could find at our local bookstore. I may offer some comments of my own on these as I read them, not to copy Steven nor to compete with him, but to see if, after reading them, I am convinced one way or the other about the propriety of Catholics reading books by Protestant authors.
Saturday, August 23, 2003
Friday, August 22, 2003
It’s Getting Hairy
The headline of an article, apparently supplied by the New York Times, in our local newspaper this week caught my eye, it read: “Hair: It separates us from the apes.” Of course, I found this idea immediately intriguing since I am a kind and optimistic fellow and bear a rather high view of my fellow human beings. I had not thought of hair as being one of the primary factors separating them from apes, in fact, if asked, I would have made a number of other more important distinctions. For example, I don’t know of any blogs published by monkeys. I know of no great works of art produced by apes in the last few centuries, nor have I seen any chimps driving on the Interstate to work each morning (well, maybe one or two but that is beside the point). As for science, I know of no great contributions to the field by apes other than substantial confusion.
In any case, our author very confidently asserts that it is precisely at the point at which we humans started losing our body hair that we parted company with our simian ancestors, this based on a study of the subject done by a group of professors in England. The article is remarkable on a number of different levels. First is the rather blind acceptance of the “fact” of evolution that underlies much of the nonsense in the rest of the article. I’m sure the possibility that the theory of evolution itself might be questionable never crossed the authors mind, judging by the pap found in the rest of the article, perhaps there is good reason for this – personal experience may be at work here.
In any case, it seems that the great question left unanswered by this scholarly study is why humans should have lost their hair as part of the evolutionary process. The article points out that this is “a question that long has been beyond the reach of archeology and paleontology.” Little wonder, judging by the results of this study. Among the possible reasons for hair loss is that we humans, in the process of transitioning from ape to human, went through a semi-aquatic stage (the webbing in our hands provides the evidence for this idea) and shed hair in order to improve speed under water. Have you ever seen an ape go for a swim? Another theory is that loss of hair helped our ancestors keep cool as they “ventured beyond the forest’s shade and across the hot African savannah – though naked skin absorbs more energy during the day and loses more during the night.” Lets see, we left the forest and decided to go bare so we could burn to a crisp in the hot sun and find no relief at night. Ummmm.
Another researcher poses another possible solution – we lost our body hair to free ourselves from external parasites, this trait becoming subject to sexual selection. “Among newly furless humans, bare skin would have served as a signal of fitness. The pains women take to keep their bodies free from hair may be no mere fashion statement but the latest echo of an ancient instinct.” I get it, we decided to go “furless” so we could be sexy and girls would look good in Playboy.
I guess I’d like to know just how our ancient ancestors decided to lose their hair. It seems that no other animal on earth (except for the Cornish Rex which, I believe, is the work of a deranged ape) has gone through the same transformation because there are more advantages to having fur than not having fur. Why would some fool ape have made such a decision? A more important question, though, is how we can reverse the situation. As I grow older that question becomes more critical day by day.
The headline of an article, apparently supplied by the New York Times, in our local newspaper this week caught my eye, it read: “Hair: It separates us from the apes.” Of course, I found this idea immediately intriguing since I am a kind and optimistic fellow and bear a rather high view of my fellow human beings. I had not thought of hair as being one of the primary factors separating them from apes, in fact, if asked, I would have made a number of other more important distinctions. For example, I don’t know of any blogs published by monkeys. I know of no great works of art produced by apes in the last few centuries, nor have I seen any chimps driving on the Interstate to work each morning (well, maybe one or two but that is beside the point). As for science, I know of no great contributions to the field by apes other than substantial confusion.
In any case, our author very confidently asserts that it is precisely at the point at which we humans started losing our body hair that we parted company with our simian ancestors, this based on a study of the subject done by a group of professors in England. The article is remarkable on a number of different levels. First is the rather blind acceptance of the “fact” of evolution that underlies much of the nonsense in the rest of the article. I’m sure the possibility that the theory of evolution itself might be questionable never crossed the authors mind, judging by the pap found in the rest of the article, perhaps there is good reason for this – personal experience may be at work here.
In any case, it seems that the great question left unanswered by this scholarly study is why humans should have lost their hair as part of the evolutionary process. The article points out that this is “a question that long has been beyond the reach of archeology and paleontology.” Little wonder, judging by the results of this study. Among the possible reasons for hair loss is that we humans, in the process of transitioning from ape to human, went through a semi-aquatic stage (the webbing in our hands provides the evidence for this idea) and shed hair in order to improve speed under water. Have you ever seen an ape go for a swim? Another theory is that loss of hair helped our ancestors keep cool as they “ventured beyond the forest’s shade and across the hot African savannah – though naked skin absorbs more energy during the day and loses more during the night.” Lets see, we left the forest and decided to go bare so we could burn to a crisp in the hot sun and find no relief at night. Ummmm.
Another researcher poses another possible solution – we lost our body hair to free ourselves from external parasites, this trait becoming subject to sexual selection. “Among newly furless humans, bare skin would have served as a signal of fitness. The pains women take to keep their bodies free from hair may be no mere fashion statement but the latest echo of an ancient instinct.” I get it, we decided to go “furless” so we could be sexy and girls would look good in Playboy.
I guess I’d like to know just how our ancient ancestors decided to lose their hair. It seems that no other animal on earth (except for the Cornish Rex which, I believe, is the work of a deranged ape) has gone through the same transformation because there are more advantages to having fur than not having fur. Why would some fool ape have made such a decision? A more important question, though, is how we can reverse the situation. As I grow older that question becomes more critical day by day.
Saturday, August 16, 2003
Who's Right?
The following is excerpted from an Associated Press report posted on the web:
“Until very recently, all Christian branches agreed that same-sex activity was immoral because of their age-old understanding of God's will taught in the Scriptures.
Most of the world's Christian bodies maintain that belief. But in the last quarter-century, liberal scholars from some so-called "mainline" Protestant denominations in Europe and North America have argued against traditional Bible interpretations, often in books from church publishing houses. They say the Bible's overwhelming overall message is loving acceptance and justice for all people.
This has gradually influenced leadership circles in the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and United Methodist Church. Yet the new biblical theories have failed to convince legions of rank and file American churchgoers.
To go to the source of the argument, two biblical passages are crucial:
- "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, an Old Testament law repeated with the death penalty in Leviticus 20:13).
- "God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27).
Conservatives say God fixed the sexual pattern in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." Jesus repeated that teaching twice in the Gospels: Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9.
At the Episcopal convention, the Rev. Kendall Harmon of South Carolina said that the Old and New Testaments send the same message that sex is limited to a woman and a man. "There is no tension, no qualification, no development and no equivocation," he said.
Another conservative point: No biblical verse hints at approval for same-sex activity.
Liberal authors commonly say Leviticus 18 was part of a Jewish purity code that barred practices associated with paganism, including many laws Christianity eliminated, for instance the kosher rules in Leviticus 17. Conservatives reply that the gay ban is embedded alongside laws against adultery, incest, bestiality and child sacrifice that Christianity kept.
Regarding Romans 1 and other New Testament passages, liberals often say these were merely meant to oppose same-sex activity that was exploitative (using slaves or boys). A related argument: Paul thought men were heterosexual in nature and should shun homosexual acts, but some today believe people are born with a disposition toward being gay.
In the heftiest conservative book on the subject in recent years, "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" (Abingdon), Robert A. J. Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary argues in detail that all same-sex variants were well known in the ancient world - so it's obvious the Bible opposed same-sex activity across the board, not just certain types.
But the Rev. Walter Wink of New York's Auburn Theological Seminary, a United Methodist clergyman, disagrees with Presbyterian Gagnon's reading of Scripture.
"The Bible has no sex ethic," Wink says. "It only knows a communal love ethic" exemplified by Jesus' command to love your neighbor as yourself, which requires Christians to understand gays' experiences.
Societies' changing codes of sexual conduct should be assessed against that standard and in light of modern knowledge, he says.
Wink acknowledges that "a lot of churches are not going to change" for the present, but he's convinced they will eventually shed old Bible interpretations that are "life-denying and intellectually dishonest."
"In 50 years most of us will look back and say, 'Why were we so slow? Why was this so difficult?'" he said.
Bishop-elect Robinson believes biblical conservatives will "come to know that they are wrong, in this life or the next one."
Gagnon agrees that the traditional view is not popular in universities or the media. But he insists that the Bible's entire authority is under threat. If people can deny such a clear and specific scriptural teaching, he says, it raises questions about the point of adhering to the faith in the first place.
Says Gagnon: "When we reach the point where it is no longer the word of God for us in any meaningful sense, there is no more reason to be part of organized Christianity."”
There are several interesting points that this story brings to mind.
First, the story points out the central problem faced by our Protestant brothers and sisters – no final teaching authority, no way to define doctrine. Here we have folks on two very different sides of an issue, and both claiming to rest their views on the authority of Scripture. It should be clear that the idea of sola scriptura is flawed. Obviously both sides to the debate on human sexual conduct can’t be right; Scripture does not contradict itself. But where can Protestants turn for a final authority? It seems that without the authority of a teaching Magisterium it is almost impossible not to slip into the fog of error.
A second point comes to mind and is found in the quote: “They say the Bible's overwhelming overall message is loving acceptance and justice for all people.” Our liberal friends seem to think that it is God’s nature to accept whatever we happen to want to do, whenever we want to do it. They appear to believe that God is just sitting around in heaven loving us and approving of everything we do. They also seem to think that God’s nature is capable of changing with the times. The problem with this idea, of course, is that is defines away the problem of sin; if whatever we do is “okay” then no mode of human conduct can be considered sinful. Of course, if there is no sin there is little need for redemption, or for God for that matter. God does love us, but as the above quote points out, God is also just. As Paul wrote in the book of Romans, he gives us what we deserve. He also measures what we deserve by an absolute standard – truth and good do not change with the times. There is nothing is Scripture that would lead us to think otherwise.
It is also interesting that it appears to be the goal of the “liberals” here to simply wait out those more orthodox Christians. It seems clear that the majority of folks in the pew do not wish to sanction “same-sex” marriage. It doesn’t matter to those leading their churches though. Their strategy is not to appeal to truth but finally to simply wear down the opposition. This has been the strategy of “liberals” for a long time. It began with the 1930s Lambeth Conference that sanctioned divorce among Christians, and continues to this day. We are allowing the erosion, perhaps the destruction, of a Christian civilization bit by bit, one brick at a time. It’s like the apocryphal frog placed in a pan of cold water on top of a stove. As the heat is turned on he is oblivious to his predicament until he is boiled alive. I believe we Catholics are called to try to oppose this effort wherever and whenever we can. It seems clear that most of the mainline Protestant denominations are being slowly dismantled from within and will not long be around to help us. I believe that, in the long run, it won’t work because the liberals are forgetting one thing, the victory against evil has already been won and there is one Church that will not be worn down. I think this is one thing that Catholics can give thanks for at all times.
The following is excerpted from an Associated Press report posted on the web:
“Until very recently, all Christian branches agreed that same-sex activity was immoral because of their age-old understanding of God's will taught in the Scriptures.
Most of the world's Christian bodies maintain that belief. But in the last quarter-century, liberal scholars from some so-called "mainline" Protestant denominations in Europe and North America have argued against traditional Bible interpretations, often in books from church publishing houses. They say the Bible's overwhelming overall message is loving acceptance and justice for all people.
This has gradually influenced leadership circles in the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and United Methodist Church. Yet the new biblical theories have failed to convince legions of rank and file American churchgoers.
To go to the source of the argument, two biblical passages are crucial:
- "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, an Old Testament law repeated with the death penalty in Leviticus 20:13).
- "God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error" (the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27).
Conservatives say God fixed the sexual pattern in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." Jesus repeated that teaching twice in the Gospels: Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9.
At the Episcopal convention, the Rev. Kendall Harmon of South Carolina said that the Old and New Testaments send the same message that sex is limited to a woman and a man. "There is no tension, no qualification, no development and no equivocation," he said.
Another conservative point: No biblical verse hints at approval for same-sex activity.
Liberal authors commonly say Leviticus 18 was part of a Jewish purity code that barred practices associated with paganism, including many laws Christianity eliminated, for instance the kosher rules in Leviticus 17. Conservatives reply that the gay ban is embedded alongside laws against adultery, incest, bestiality and child sacrifice that Christianity kept.
Regarding Romans 1 and other New Testament passages, liberals often say these were merely meant to oppose same-sex activity that was exploitative (using slaves or boys). A related argument: Paul thought men were heterosexual in nature and should shun homosexual acts, but some today believe people are born with a disposition toward being gay.
In the heftiest conservative book on the subject in recent years, "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" (Abingdon), Robert A. J. Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary argues in detail that all same-sex variants were well known in the ancient world - so it's obvious the Bible opposed same-sex activity across the board, not just certain types.
But the Rev. Walter Wink of New York's Auburn Theological Seminary, a United Methodist clergyman, disagrees with Presbyterian Gagnon's reading of Scripture.
"The Bible has no sex ethic," Wink says. "It only knows a communal love ethic" exemplified by Jesus' command to love your neighbor as yourself, which requires Christians to understand gays' experiences.
Societies' changing codes of sexual conduct should be assessed against that standard and in light of modern knowledge, he says.
Wink acknowledges that "a lot of churches are not going to change" for the present, but he's convinced they will eventually shed old Bible interpretations that are "life-denying and intellectually dishonest."
"In 50 years most of us will look back and say, 'Why were we so slow? Why was this so difficult?'" he said.
Bishop-elect Robinson believes biblical conservatives will "come to know that they are wrong, in this life or the next one."
Gagnon agrees that the traditional view is not popular in universities or the media. But he insists that the Bible's entire authority is under threat. If people can deny such a clear and specific scriptural teaching, he says, it raises questions about the point of adhering to the faith in the first place.
Says Gagnon: "When we reach the point where it is no longer the word of God for us in any meaningful sense, there is no more reason to be part of organized Christianity."”
There are several interesting points that this story brings to mind.
First, the story points out the central problem faced by our Protestant brothers and sisters – no final teaching authority, no way to define doctrine. Here we have folks on two very different sides of an issue, and both claiming to rest their views on the authority of Scripture. It should be clear that the idea of sola scriptura is flawed. Obviously both sides to the debate on human sexual conduct can’t be right; Scripture does not contradict itself. But where can Protestants turn for a final authority? It seems that without the authority of a teaching Magisterium it is almost impossible not to slip into the fog of error.
A second point comes to mind and is found in the quote: “They say the Bible's overwhelming overall message is loving acceptance and justice for all people.” Our liberal friends seem to think that it is God’s nature to accept whatever we happen to want to do, whenever we want to do it. They appear to believe that God is just sitting around in heaven loving us and approving of everything we do. They also seem to think that God’s nature is capable of changing with the times. The problem with this idea, of course, is that is defines away the problem of sin; if whatever we do is “okay” then no mode of human conduct can be considered sinful. Of course, if there is no sin there is little need for redemption, or for God for that matter. God does love us, but as the above quote points out, God is also just. As Paul wrote in the book of Romans, he gives us what we deserve. He also measures what we deserve by an absolute standard – truth and good do not change with the times. There is nothing is Scripture that would lead us to think otherwise.
It is also interesting that it appears to be the goal of the “liberals” here to simply wait out those more orthodox Christians. It seems clear that the majority of folks in the pew do not wish to sanction “same-sex” marriage. It doesn’t matter to those leading their churches though. Their strategy is not to appeal to truth but finally to simply wear down the opposition. This has been the strategy of “liberals” for a long time. It began with the 1930s Lambeth Conference that sanctioned divorce among Christians, and continues to this day. We are allowing the erosion, perhaps the destruction, of a Christian civilization bit by bit, one brick at a time. It’s like the apocryphal frog placed in a pan of cold water on top of a stove. As the heat is turned on he is oblivious to his predicament until he is boiled alive. I believe we Catholics are called to try to oppose this effort wherever and whenever we can. It seems clear that most of the mainline Protestant denominations are being slowly dismantled from within and will not long be around to help us. I believe that, in the long run, it won’t work because the liberals are forgetting one thing, the victory against evil has already been won and there is one Church that will not be worn down. I think this is one thing that Catholics can give thanks for at all times.
Friday, August 15, 2003
The Assumption
Today is the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. We are celebrating today the fact that the Blessed Virgin was assumed into heaven, body and soul. I think the importance of today for me is that it is a reminder of what we all have to look forward to.
Today's first reading for Mass is from Revelation:
God's temple in heaven was opened,
and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple.
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun,
with the moon under her feet,
and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.
Then another sign appeared in the sky;
it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns,
and on its heads were seven diadems.
Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky
and hurled them down to the earth.
Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth,
to devour her child when she gave birth.
She gave birth to a son, a male child,
destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.
Her child was caught up to God and his throne.
The woman herself fled into the desert
where she had a place prepared by God.
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have salvation and power come,
and the Kingdom of our God
and the authority of his Anointed One."
Today is the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. We are celebrating today the fact that the Blessed Virgin was assumed into heaven, body and soul. I think the importance of today for me is that it is a reminder of what we all have to look forward to.
Today's first reading for Mass is from Revelation:
God's temple in heaven was opened,
and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple.
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun,
with the moon under her feet,
and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.
Then another sign appeared in the sky;
it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns,
and on its heads were seven diadems.
Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky
and hurled them down to the earth.
Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth,
to devour her child when she gave birth.
She gave birth to a son, a male child,
destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.
Her child was caught up to God and his throne.
The woman herself fled into the desert
where she had a place prepared by God.
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have salvation and power come,
and the Kingdom of our God
and the authority of his Anointed One."
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
A Miscellany
Since my trip to Alaska my whole routine has been disrupted and I've been reading other blogs and not getting much posted on my own. To get back into the routine I offer a few thoughts on a couple of different topics.
Luther
Christine over at Christus Victor has done a couple of posts on Luther and the difficulties one encounters when delving very deeply into both his personal life and his theology. Coming from a Protestant background Luther has been a figure of interest to me but I must confess that he remains an enigma.
Luther was an Augustinian priest - he studied and taught theology at the university level, and yet it seems he was unable to understand the most basic of the Church's teaching on justification. The source of his difficulties seem to lie more in personal and psychological problems rather than theological differences with the Church. He seems, in fact, to have been somewhat ignorant of theology. Here lies the enigma: what drove Luther to do what he did? I have never read a satisfactory explanation of Luther's motivation in tacking in 95 theses on the door. I wonder of anyone out there can "splain me, Lucy?"
Faith
We are confronted every day with those who wish us to water down our faith. The ECUSA has just elected a bishop who is living in an openly homosexual relationship and has voted to bless gay unions. A US senator, a practicing Catholic I believe, has stated publically that he thinks there are many "good" Catholics who practice contraception and support abortion. But, I believe it is intellectually and morally impossible to proclaim oneself a Christian and live a life contrary to God's expressed will.
To proclaim that one is a Christian and yet deny central teachings of the Christian faith is to proclaim a contradiction, it's nonsense. This is the issue that brought about my conversion to the Church. The pastor of my church was preaching something totally contradictory to what I understood Scripture to be clearly saying. I knew we couldn't both be right while at the same time basing our understanding only on Scripture. There are many who support homosexual clergy who would also say sucth things as, for example, that we shouldn't take Jesus' miracles quite so seriously. Many people today seem to accept it as truth when someone says "Well, you know, when Jesus fed the 5,000 he didn't do a miracle, everyone had fish sandwiches with them and he just encouraged them to bring them out and share." It never occurs to them that, one, if that were indeed what happened, it would hardly be remarkable and no one writing of the event later would have even bother to write down a brief description, much less the detailed account of the event we find in Scripture. They also seem to have little idea what damage they are doing to their faith. Fr. Thomas DuBay writes:
". . . we need to bear in mind that the virtue of faith is total. According to St. Thomas the person who embraces heresy regarding one article of faith has regarding the other articles not faith but only 'an opinion according to his own will.'" What is going on with the Episcopal bishops and the U.S. senator is an acceptance of personal opinion regarding human sexuality, not traditional Christian teaching and practice. For a Catholic this is morally impossible - you can't have just a piece of the pie, the one you like, you have to have the whole pie. To say one part is wrong is to say the whole thing is false.
Steven (at Flos Carmeli) has been writing about seeking the truth lately and I agree with him on the importance of doing so. Without truth we are lost in a fog of unreality - we are insane. The problem our ECUSA friends have is that they have become accustomed, even sought, to live without a teaching authority, a Magisterium. They deny the very validity of such a thing. It seems the only refuge for those who wish to sincerely seek the truth is Rome.
Since my trip to Alaska my whole routine has been disrupted and I've been reading other blogs and not getting much posted on my own. To get back into the routine I offer a few thoughts on a couple of different topics.
Luther
Christine over at Christus Victor has done a couple of posts on Luther and the difficulties one encounters when delving very deeply into both his personal life and his theology. Coming from a Protestant background Luther has been a figure of interest to me but I must confess that he remains an enigma.
Luther was an Augustinian priest - he studied and taught theology at the university level, and yet it seems he was unable to understand the most basic of the Church's teaching on justification. The source of his difficulties seem to lie more in personal and psychological problems rather than theological differences with the Church. He seems, in fact, to have been somewhat ignorant of theology. Here lies the enigma: what drove Luther to do what he did? I have never read a satisfactory explanation of Luther's motivation in tacking in 95 theses on the door. I wonder of anyone out there can "splain me, Lucy?"
Faith
We are confronted every day with those who wish us to water down our faith. The ECUSA has just elected a bishop who is living in an openly homosexual relationship and has voted to bless gay unions. A US senator, a practicing Catholic I believe, has stated publically that he thinks there are many "good" Catholics who practice contraception and support abortion. But, I believe it is intellectually and morally impossible to proclaim oneself a Christian and live a life contrary to God's expressed will.
To proclaim that one is a Christian and yet deny central teachings of the Christian faith is to proclaim a contradiction, it's nonsense. This is the issue that brought about my conversion to the Church. The pastor of my church was preaching something totally contradictory to what I understood Scripture to be clearly saying. I knew we couldn't both be right while at the same time basing our understanding only on Scripture. There are many who support homosexual clergy who would also say sucth things as, for example, that we shouldn't take Jesus' miracles quite so seriously. Many people today seem to accept it as truth when someone says "Well, you know, when Jesus fed the 5,000 he didn't do a miracle, everyone had fish sandwiches with them and he just encouraged them to bring them out and share." It never occurs to them that, one, if that were indeed what happened, it would hardly be remarkable and no one writing of the event later would have even bother to write down a brief description, much less the detailed account of the event we find in Scripture. They also seem to have little idea what damage they are doing to their faith. Fr. Thomas DuBay writes:
". . . we need to bear in mind that the virtue of faith is total. According to St. Thomas the person who embraces heresy regarding one article of faith has regarding the other articles not faith but only 'an opinion according to his own will.'" What is going on with the Episcopal bishops and the U.S. senator is an acceptance of personal opinion regarding human sexuality, not traditional Christian teaching and practice. For a Catholic this is morally impossible - you can't have just a piece of the pie, the one you like, you have to have the whole pie. To say one part is wrong is to say the whole thing is false.
Steven (at Flos Carmeli) has been writing about seeking the truth lately and I agree with him on the importance of doing so. Without truth we are lost in a fog of unreality - we are insane. The problem our ECUSA friends have is that they have become accustomed, even sought, to live without a teaching authority, a Magisterium. They deny the very validity of such a thing. It seems the only refuge for those who wish to sincerely seek the truth is Rome.
Friday, August 08, 2003
Error
On Tuesday of this week, our Episcopal brothers and sisters in Christ did a remarkable thing: they appointed a bishop of their church someone whose life is a repudiation of what a Christian life is supposed to be. Not only is the new bishop an openly practicing homosexual, he is a man who some years back abandoned his wife and children in order to pursue his willful lifestyle. It is indeed remarkable that such a man should be considered fit to serve as a Christian bishop of any denomination.
Josef Pieper wrote that man is a creature capable of self-destruction by failing to control excess in his life. He also noted that these self-destructive excesses typically are found to be of a sexual nature. Here we have an instance of an entire Protestant denomination engaging is self-destruction by embracing the self-indulgent excess of one individual. The Episcopal church has abandoned truth in the name of diversity. It really does not matter if further schism takes place as a result of the election of "Bishop" Robinson; the ECUSA has left the Body of Christ.
In the last couple of years I have, perhaps in reaction to experiencing the excessive zeal of a convert, tried to find an intellectually honest way of relating to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. Recognizing the critical importance of keeping alive a dying Christian culture, I have looked for things that we share rather than things that separate us.
There is a major stumbling block to my ecumenical desires, however. It seems that, cut loose from the anchor of truth, our Protestant brothers and sisters are cutting themselves off from the heart of Christianity. The problems in the ECUSA are a graphic example of this occurring; it shows what can happen when truth is denied and placed second to human self-centeredness and sinfulness.
In a way, though, our separated brothers and sisters can do nothing else. Without a teaching Magisterium it is in the nature of Protestantism to drift in skepticism and relativism. To be Protestant is to believe that there is no final authority on matters of faith and morals but the self. This is clearly demonstrated by the actions of the ECUSA, they are simply ignoring whatever authority Scripture may possess in this matter in favor of their own agendas. The Bible has clearly been rejected in favor of a majority vote and this, without the authority of a teaching Magisterium, is almost to be expected. Truth can never be made subject to a vote. Yet, as I said, our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, having rejected the teaching authority of the Church, are almost destined to this kind of error. This makes them, as allies in the struggle against an increasingly pagan and hostile culture to Christianity weak and wounded allies at best, if not opponents. By elevating self above the authority of the Body, they have already met the culture half-way.
I know there are many sincere Protestants who love Christ and are willing to make any sacrifice for Him. But until they are ready to sacrifice their own authority for His, they can never fully succeed. There is little to prevent them from following their own desires wherever it may lead them; even to the embrace of a sinful, self-destructive lifestyle.
On Tuesday of this week, our Episcopal brothers and sisters in Christ did a remarkable thing: they appointed a bishop of their church someone whose life is a repudiation of what a Christian life is supposed to be. Not only is the new bishop an openly practicing homosexual, he is a man who some years back abandoned his wife and children in order to pursue his willful lifestyle. It is indeed remarkable that such a man should be considered fit to serve as a Christian bishop of any denomination.
Josef Pieper wrote that man is a creature capable of self-destruction by failing to control excess in his life. He also noted that these self-destructive excesses typically are found to be of a sexual nature. Here we have an instance of an entire Protestant denomination engaging is self-destruction by embracing the self-indulgent excess of one individual. The Episcopal church has abandoned truth in the name of diversity. It really does not matter if further schism takes place as a result of the election of "Bishop" Robinson; the ECUSA has left the Body of Christ.
In the last couple of years I have, perhaps in reaction to experiencing the excessive zeal of a convert, tried to find an intellectually honest way of relating to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. Recognizing the critical importance of keeping alive a dying Christian culture, I have looked for things that we share rather than things that separate us.
There is a major stumbling block to my ecumenical desires, however. It seems that, cut loose from the anchor of truth, our Protestant brothers and sisters are cutting themselves off from the heart of Christianity. The problems in the ECUSA are a graphic example of this occurring; it shows what can happen when truth is denied and placed second to human self-centeredness and sinfulness.
In a way, though, our separated brothers and sisters can do nothing else. Without a teaching Magisterium it is in the nature of Protestantism to drift in skepticism and relativism. To be Protestant is to believe that there is no final authority on matters of faith and morals but the self. This is clearly demonstrated by the actions of the ECUSA, they are simply ignoring whatever authority Scripture may possess in this matter in favor of their own agendas. The Bible has clearly been rejected in favor of a majority vote and this, without the authority of a teaching Magisterium, is almost to be expected. Truth can never be made subject to a vote. Yet, as I said, our separated brothers and sisters in Christ, having rejected the teaching authority of the Church, are almost destined to this kind of error. This makes them, as allies in the struggle against an increasingly pagan and hostile culture to Christianity weak and wounded allies at best, if not opponents. By elevating self above the authority of the Body, they have already met the culture half-way.
I know there are many sincere Protestants who love Christ and are willing to make any sacrifice for Him. But until they are ready to sacrifice their own authority for His, they can never fully succeed. There is little to prevent them from following their own desires wherever it may lead them; even to the embrace of a sinful, self-destructive lifestyle.
Monday, August 04, 2003
Saturday, August 02, 2003
Old Books
I have come to like old books. If I have a choice between ordering a new edition of a book and combing the used book websites, its Alibris every time. I have acquired this strange matter of taste since coming into the Church in 1995; there are many classics of Catholic spiritual literature that are out of print and cannot be obtained except through web sites like Alibris. After I ordered the first couple of these books I noticed something that made me a fanatic for these books -- there is almost always something about the book, either what the author wrote or some indication in the physical appearance of the book, that reminds me that 30 years ago or more there was such a thing as a Catholic culture.
First, as I said, I am a convert; I did not grow up as a Catholic. I did grow up in a neighborhood with many Catholic families, not a few of whom I was friends with. I remember going out with these friends in high school and having to accommodate their meatless Friday observance. I remember their desire to eat out late on Saturday night and rise early for Mass on Sunday morning, to observe the rule that one ate nothing after midnight on Saturday night until one had attended Mass sometime on Sunday. It behooved one to go to Mass early. I remember all of that but was not a part of it. I say this because I may be mistaken in what follows and if I am, I ask forgiveness and understanding for my ignorance.
My friends took their religion seriously. They would not think of not going to Mass on Sunday, of having anything to eat before Mass, of not eating fish on Friday -- it just wasn't done. Their faith made a difference in their lives. For me, growing up Presbyterian, there was no such visible difference made in my life by my so-called faith; there were no rules of religious practice that had any effect on my day to day existence. That is the difference I noticed in the old books by Catholic spiritual writers -- they were Catholic and took it as a matter of course that Catholic readers spoke their language. It set one a bit apart to be Catholic and their Catholicism shows through in their writings. Just one minor example, one writer invokes St. Benedict and St. Bruno without bothering to explain who St. Bruno is; he takes it for granted that everyone knows who St. Bruno is. I've never heard of St. Bruno. Most of these authors refer to saints, as well as, customs and practices that were obviously familiar to any Catholic living 50 or 100 years ago that are now perhaps practiced by Catholics but not commonly written about. They talk about a person making regular acts of faith, acts of sorrow and resignation, acts of the will, etc. How often are these things spoken of today as if they were common practice in the spiritual life of most Catholics?
The difference also often shows in the things the former owners of these books did to the books. For example, one of the books I bought was from the library of Mary Manse College in Toledo. Inside the front cover there is a book plate with the library catalog information on it. The book plate is a black and white engraving of a nun holding a book in her hands surrounded by three or four young ladies, wearing what appears to be something akin to togas, sitting at her feet, on the floor, in rapt attention. One girl is sewing something, the others, if I remember correctly, are holding books or note books and are obviously enthralled with what the nun is saying. The library catalog info was handwritten on this book plate, in a nice lady's hand, with a fountain pen. Today we would think this kind of thing hokey, in fact, totally unsophisticated. Yet, there must have been a time when people took something like this seriously, or at least did not think it laughable. The book I am referring to was published in 1969, not that long ago.
I don't know if our times are better than those of, say, the 1950s or even late '60's, but they are different. Today, the lives of most Catholics are indistinguishable from those of their pagan neighbors; they often do not observe the Friday fast, seldom go to Confession, may have something to eat right before and/or right after Mass (sometimes something provided by the parish!), and may have no idea what an act of the will is. Josef Pieper, in the 1970s could write "Every child knows that in the list of the cardinal virtues fortitude comes third." Can we so easily toss off that kind of statement today? The loss of a Catholic culture means, I think, a loss of faith. I wish we could recover both.
In the mean time, I will continue to order old books.
I have come to like old books. If I have a choice between ordering a new edition of a book and combing the used book websites, its Alibris every time. I have acquired this strange matter of taste since coming into the Church in 1995; there are many classics of Catholic spiritual literature that are out of print and cannot be obtained except through web sites like Alibris. After I ordered the first couple of these books I noticed something that made me a fanatic for these books -- there is almost always something about the book, either what the author wrote or some indication in the physical appearance of the book, that reminds me that 30 years ago or more there was such a thing as a Catholic culture.
First, as I said, I am a convert; I did not grow up as a Catholic. I did grow up in a neighborhood with many Catholic families, not a few of whom I was friends with. I remember going out with these friends in high school and having to accommodate their meatless Friday observance. I remember their desire to eat out late on Saturday night and rise early for Mass on Sunday morning, to observe the rule that one ate nothing after midnight on Saturday night until one had attended Mass sometime on Sunday. It behooved one to go to Mass early. I remember all of that but was not a part of it. I say this because I may be mistaken in what follows and if I am, I ask forgiveness and understanding for my ignorance.
My friends took their religion seriously. They would not think of not going to Mass on Sunday, of having anything to eat before Mass, of not eating fish on Friday -- it just wasn't done. Their faith made a difference in their lives. For me, growing up Presbyterian, there was no such visible difference made in my life by my so-called faith; there were no rules of religious practice that had any effect on my day to day existence. That is the difference I noticed in the old books by Catholic spiritual writers -- they were Catholic and took it as a matter of course that Catholic readers spoke their language. It set one a bit apart to be Catholic and their Catholicism shows through in their writings. Just one minor example, one writer invokes St. Benedict and St. Bruno without bothering to explain who St. Bruno is; he takes it for granted that everyone knows who St. Bruno is. I've never heard of St. Bruno. Most of these authors refer to saints, as well as, customs and practices that were obviously familiar to any Catholic living 50 or 100 years ago that are now perhaps practiced by Catholics but not commonly written about. They talk about a person making regular acts of faith, acts of sorrow and resignation, acts of the will, etc. How often are these things spoken of today as if they were common practice in the spiritual life of most Catholics?
The difference also often shows in the things the former owners of these books did to the books. For example, one of the books I bought was from the library of Mary Manse College in Toledo. Inside the front cover there is a book plate with the library catalog information on it. The book plate is a black and white engraving of a nun holding a book in her hands surrounded by three or four young ladies, wearing what appears to be something akin to togas, sitting at her feet, on the floor, in rapt attention. One girl is sewing something, the others, if I remember correctly, are holding books or note books and are obviously enthralled with what the nun is saying. The library catalog info was handwritten on this book plate, in a nice lady's hand, with a fountain pen. Today we would think this kind of thing hokey, in fact, totally unsophisticated. Yet, there must have been a time when people took something like this seriously, or at least did not think it laughable. The book I am referring to was published in 1969, not that long ago.
I don't know if our times are better than those of, say, the 1950s or even late '60's, but they are different. Today, the lives of most Catholics are indistinguishable from those of their pagan neighbors; they often do not observe the Friday fast, seldom go to Confession, may have something to eat right before and/or right after Mass (sometimes something provided by the parish!), and may have no idea what an act of the will is. Josef Pieper, in the 1970s could write "Every child knows that in the list of the cardinal virtues fortitude comes third." Can we so easily toss off that kind of statement today? The loss of a Catholic culture means, I think, a loss of faith. I wish we could recover both.
In the mean time, I will continue to order old books.
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Academia Nuts, cont'd
You may have noticed that I have been missing in action for a couple of weeks now. The simple truth is I didn’t think I had much to say. I was also thought that, while people often need to be reminded of the truth, they don't necessarily need to be reminded by me. I was struggling with the fact that posting sometimes not really well thought out ideas on the world wide web for all, or at least a few, to read, smacks of a certain self-confidence, if not arrogance. Steven's post of yesterday was a great help in that regard.
And there is something to say, at last.
As you have probably have heard, the American Psychological Association has studied those of us who hold to conservative principles and determined that we are, in a word, nuts. My first reaction was, "Well, it takes one to know one." I soon realized, however, that this reaction might need to be fleshed out a bit, that you, my reader, might wish for some further elaboration.
This study comes out of Berkeley, you know, the place of which Dorothy Parker once said, "There is no 'there' there." There still isn't.
This Berkeley study is the product of so-called "scholarly" psychological research; I place it at the scholarly level of a fourth grader who is barely squeaking by. These scholars don't know that there is a difference between, on the one hand Hitler and Mussolini, and on the other Ronald Reagan. They seem not to realize that Hitler and Mussolini were not only not conservatives, they were leftists, National Socialists to be exact. It seems to me this error displays a rather abysmal knowledge of history, if not psychology. To put the difference in practical terms, Reagan would have laughed at these "scholars", Hitler would have shot them.
The study does conclude with the point that although conservatives are less "integratively complex" than liberals "it doesn't mean they are simple-minded." No, but these scholars are.
Yet, there is a caution that the appearance of this study raises in my mind -- for the word "conservative" substitute "Christian" and think of the gulags. For the first time, there is an attempt, a laughable attempt, but an attempt nevertheless, to classify a set of political and social beliefs as a mental illness. I have a feeling there will be more such attempts, and once society has acquiesced to the idea that conservatism is a mental illness, the next set of beliefs to be attacked will be religious. Who, ten years ago, would think that anyone would consider a political viewpoint to be subject to the study of psychologists? Who, today, is willing to take seriously the idea that ten years from now, Christian faith will be the subject of study of a bunch of Berkeley psychologists?
You may have noticed that I have been missing in action for a couple of weeks now. The simple truth is I didn’t think I had much to say. I was also thought that, while people often need to be reminded of the truth, they don't necessarily need to be reminded by me. I was struggling with the fact that posting sometimes not really well thought out ideas on the world wide web for all, or at least a few, to read, smacks of a certain self-confidence, if not arrogance. Steven's post of yesterday was a great help in that regard.
And there is something to say, at last.
As you have probably have heard, the American Psychological Association has studied those of us who hold to conservative principles and determined that we are, in a word, nuts. My first reaction was, "Well, it takes one to know one." I soon realized, however, that this reaction might need to be fleshed out a bit, that you, my reader, might wish for some further elaboration.
This study comes out of Berkeley, you know, the place of which Dorothy Parker once said, "There is no 'there' there." There still isn't.
This Berkeley study is the product of so-called "scholarly" psychological research; I place it at the scholarly level of a fourth grader who is barely squeaking by. These scholars don't know that there is a difference between, on the one hand Hitler and Mussolini, and on the other Ronald Reagan. They seem not to realize that Hitler and Mussolini were not only not conservatives, they were leftists, National Socialists to be exact. It seems to me this error displays a rather abysmal knowledge of history, if not psychology. To put the difference in practical terms, Reagan would have laughed at these "scholars", Hitler would have shot them.
The study does conclude with the point that although conservatives are less "integratively complex" than liberals "it doesn't mean they are simple-minded." No, but these scholars are.
Yet, there is a caution that the appearance of this study raises in my mind -- for the word "conservative" substitute "Christian" and think of the gulags. For the first time, there is an attempt, a laughable attempt, but an attempt nevertheless, to classify a set of political and social beliefs as a mental illness. I have a feeling there will be more such attempts, and once society has acquiesced to the idea that conservatism is a mental illness, the next set of beliefs to be attacked will be religious. Who, ten years ago, would think that anyone would consider a political viewpoint to be subject to the study of psychologists? Who, today, is willing to take seriously the idea that ten years from now, Christian faith will be the subject of study of a bunch of Berkeley psychologists?
Thursday, July 17, 2003
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)