Creation was created out of love, and it is preserved in love. Love is the foundation of all that exists. Love unites, bringing all things together, doing so, neither monistically nor dualistically, but interdependently. Love is capable of raising that which is ontologically lower to experience the life and ways of that which is higher; love can bring about the reconciliation of all, so that in the end, God can and will be all in all.
The relationship between God the Father and the Son of God normally has been conceived as the Son having been begotten of the Father outside of time, that is, the Son has been begotten of the Father in eternity. The relationship between the two is seen as analogous to human understanding of the relationship between a parent and a child, but not exactly the same[1]. The eternal begetting of the Son by the Father gives all that the Father has to the Son, so that, as the Nicene Creed states, the Son is “God from God” and “Light from Light.” Or, as the Gospel of John states, the life of the Father is given unto the Son and becomes the life of the Son, so that “…just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.”[2] In regards to the relationship of the persons of the Trinity, St. Augustine sees this as a way to understand the procession of the Spirit from the Son – that as the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, so it must be understood, that the Son also has that same procession[3].
However, if we apply the Mahayana approach of emptiness, we can see that the generation of the Son is seen to be the emptying of the Father into the Son, but we must not confuse this emptying of the Father as being temporal.[4] The glorifying of the Father, of God, of the Absolute, is the self-emptying of the Absolute into the Son, and the very glory of the Son is, in parallel, the emptying of the Son back into the Father. Read the rest of this entry »
Balthasar’s Heart of the World has some rather unique, and disturbing, examples of how we have, in history, reacted to God – after the Christ event. He states what we often leave silent. What we do is try to put God in his place, to feel secure he is there, trapped, and outside of the ordinary, daily sphere of life. God is seen as an intruder, and even the words of the Word are used by us to shut him out:
“His kingdom is not of this world. For this reason he has no business in our worldly affairs. Let him have his cathedrals and he’ll let us have our banks, our shops, our politics, our schools, the works of our culture, our country. Let him have his game preserve, the ‘national park’ of his churches. We pledge neither to fell timber nor to hunt there. Our roads will be built to curve around this protective zone, and within this area he will be allowed to raise his strange mountain animals and his amazingly gnarled dwarf stone-pipes within reach of the glaciers.”[1]
What about us? Do we find excuse after excuse to put Christ away? Do we put him in a church, trapped, all alone in the tabernacle (or behind the iconostasis)? Read the rest of this entry »
First, I would like to say, how much I disagree with many of his comments, I think Deal Hudson has shown the ability to dialogue and enage with people better than most people do on blogs (myself included) and has shown the ability to listen, to some degree, those who disagree with him. It is for this reason I wanted to make a brief comment on his newest post at InsideCatholic: In Defense of Lila Rose and Her Sacred Deception.
On the one hand, I do agree with him, I think the expose of Planned Parenthood is a good thing, and it shows the problems of the insitution itself. Hopefully many will take note what is going on and demand further investigation (as they would if it were child abuse in schools or churches).
However, I disagree with his defense. Consequentialism is not the answer to this. You cannot say, “In war, anything is permissible.” You cannot say “intrinsic evils” are acceptable because the consequences are ones you like. That’s the point of declaring something to be an intrinsic evil — it is evil despite whatever good which can be seen from its use. It is always sinful. And, according to Catholic theology, lying is intrinsically evil (I wrote a whole series on this topic, which is wrapped up with links to the rest of the series, here ). Consequences do not determine whether or not it is appropriate (one, I am sure, could find benefits in war-time to the use of abortion, especially forced abortions on captured but pregnant enemy women, but it would not be acceptable and it would be a war crime).
So, one could ask, could one do what she is doing and not commit sin? What do readers here think (if one wants to read what I think, read my series on lies!).
It is without question one of the most important things supporting Christianity in history. Indeed, without it, there probably would be no Christianity whatsoever. We need to recognize this fact, so that we can protect it, and make sure Christianity is not destroyed by our own carelessness. What is it? Read the rest of this entry »
Like the thief I confess to You: Remember me, O Lord, when You shall come into Your kingdom.
Remember me, O Master, when You shall come into Your kingdom.
Remember me, O Holy One, when You shall come into Your kingdom.
After rejecting the way of the bad thief (Judas), we turn to the one who, by Christ’s side, proclaimed Christ and asked to be remembered by him in his eternal kingdom: St Dismas, the good thief.[1] Through Adam, we have all taken that which was not ours by right (the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil).[2] By nature, we are good; by our common sin, we are thieves. Read the rest of this entry »
“And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful” (Col 3:15). The Divine Liturgy brings the people to this peace, the peace of the kingdom of God. We start the liturgy praying for it, and throughout the celebration, it is proclaimed upon us, showing us that we are in the presence of God. To experience it, we must open ourselves up, overcoming all selfish egosism, so that we can know Christ as the Prince of Peace. Having purified our hearts and minds in this manner, we are ready to partake of the body of Christ. And in that communion, we find ourselves united, one with another, as Paul reminds us: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1Cor. 10:16-17). As when we receive any great gift, we, who recognize what we have been given, are grateful. In our worship we show that thanks. We are sinners who have consistently turned our back upon God, and yet, each time we falter, he is more than willing to forgive us and welcome us back to his presence because of his all-encompassing love. What more can we do but thank him? Indeed, this act of thanks is such an important part of our response that one name given to our celebration of communion is eucharist, that is, thanksgiving. This is what our liturgical celebration should be: an expression of our thanksgiving and praise.
Yet, communion is a great mystery – the mystery of mysteries. How can we who are sinners receive the all-holy one? Read the rest of this entry »
I don’t know what the significance of this is, though I thought it was good to hear just as we are starting the Year of the Priests: When I was at the Newman Bookstore near the CUA campus, I was told that this year they unexpectedly sold out of their “ordination cards.” It was the first for a long time. They usually have left-overs at the end of every year, but this year, they sold out quickly, and they only got their new order of cards in this morning.
Now this could mean one of two things. Either this is an extraordinary year for ordinations (which should lead us to ask why) or it is the start of a new trend. Hopefully it is the second.
Let us pray for all the new priests that they remain faithful to their service to the Lord.
PRIEST: Let us love one another, so that with one mind we may confess:
PEOPLE: The Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in substance and undivided.
These words precede the proclamation of the Nicene Creed in the Divine Liturgy, pointing out that the proper way for the Nicene Creed to be prayed is through Christian unity exemplified by love. To believe as the creed suggests is to believe in love, and to follow the path of love. The creed is a revelation of love, portraying the way love, God, is grasped by the human mind through revelation.[1] Read the rest of this entry »
In preparation for the eucharist, the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom asks its participants to remove all worldly distractions so that they can be ready for their encounter with Christ. This is manifested in the singing of the Cherubic Hymn, which goes:
Let us, who mystically represent the cherubim, and sing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-creating Trinity, now set aside all earthly cares.
[priestly interlude]
That we may welcome the King of all, invisibly escorted by angelic hosts. Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia![1]
In such few words, a great deal of theology is taking place. Moreover, a spiritual proposal is given, one which can, and should, be taken out of the liturgical context and used in our daily life. But to understand the discipline suggested by these words, one must first understand their liturgical implication. Therefore, let us look at what the text means and, as we do so, we see some of the ways in which this text can be applied to our daily walk with God (and our understanding of our place in the world). Read the rest of this entry »
Naming Infinity: A True Story of Religious Mysticism and Mathematical Creativity. By Loren Graham and Jean-Michel Kantor. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. 2009. 256 pages. Hardback. $25.95.
It is normal for one to read popular literature telling the story of the “rivalry” between science and religion. Few look to see if this is true. Positivism has convinced enough that this is how things go, that one is condemned as a cultural heretic if one denies this fact. Religion and science are rivals, and never the twain should ever meet. Just keep repeating that mantra and keep showing how those who hold to a religious faith are idiots, and you end up getting true believers in scientism.
Obviously, a thorough examination of the history of science will show this is not exactly the case. While one can find circumstances where religious leaders have hindered scientific development, one can also find examples of the reverse, where religion has helped promote the sciences, and religious ideas have inspired scientific research. Naming Infinity is a book about one such case, where a disputed, controversial form of mathematics was taken up by Russian mathematicians because their religious views allowed them to accept the philosophical ramifications of that research. Read the rest of this entry »
War, it is said, is not an intrinsic evil. What, exactly, do people think this means? Do we want to say that any act of war, no matter how horrible and vile it is, because it is an act of war, is now less evil than the act of lying (which is an intrinsic evil)? In his war efforts, could Hitler argue that he really wasn’t that bad? Could Lenin be allowed to say that the Communist Revolution in Russia was fine, because it was a civil war, and we really can’t judge the ethics of war? If one views a mother is at war with their child, does it make abortion somehow less evil?
Obviously, the answer is no. Whether or not a thing is evil in and of itself is different from the quality of evil, once a thing is recognized as evil. Just because a war is not necessarily evil does not mean a given war is not worse, more evil, than something which is recognized as evil.
Everything, even things which are intrinsically evil, are done according to some moral scale which sees a good in place of the evil. What is it that makes people do evil? What good is it that they are trying achieve? Look for that, and address it. Transform the evil from within. That’s the way to conversion.
Any other reaction, you end up making a monster out of yourself.
Christianity has always been a religion about salvation, but, if one studies its history, early Christians were concerned about other things than soteriology. Sure, soteriology was important; Christians recognized they were sinners, and they needed grace. But their interest was more in the way they integrated themselves into the work of God than it was about questions of justification. Because of all kinds of abuses at the time, it is understandable why many in the time of the reformation, Catholic and Protestant alike, focused on the question of justification. However, it is quite clear that this has caused Christianity to be excessively focused on salvation, and ignoring the expectation God has for those who are Christian. It even changed the way people look at salvation. Exclusivism makes sense after the debates over justification; early Christians, on the other hand, never looked at the faith in such terms. They understood the Christian faith as being one of grace, and that it helped transform the Christian into the person God wanted them to be, but they didn’t use this to think that everyone else was damned (St Augustine, sadly, helped begin the diversion away from this view, and it is without surprise, he is the source for many of the debates over justification). If we look at the foundations of Christian thought, we can trace a line of thought from St Paul to St Justin Martyr (and others like him), and see how they suggested people were already following the Logos, that they were, in a way, Christian. Rahner’s anonymous Christian makes a lot of sense if one studies the way early Christians looked to non-Christians. They were not threatening non-Christians with hellfire; rather, they were showing how the natural inclinations of the human heart and the intuitions of human reason directly led one to the Christian faith and integration into the Logos.
It’s quite common for people to look back to the age of St Constantine, and view his contributions to Christianity to be entirely negative. Without a doubt, the Donation of Constantine, even though known by all to be a forgery, has had a great amount of influence in our reading of Constantine and his activities. We read Constantine as if he were a dictator, uniting church and states, messing up both in the process. While it is clear he took an active interest in his Christian faith, too much is read into it, and in reality, it is much later that we see the problems of “imperial Christianity.” In the end, we find two forms of this, Eastern (Justinian) and Western (Charlemagne), and it is without a doubt, if Constantine hadn’t converted to Christianity, imperial Christianity might not have happened. But to make it as if this is what Constantine was after, or he is to blame for what developed after his death, is equivalent of placing blame for the Holocaust to Hitler’s mother: while if she never gave birth to Hitler, his reign wouldn’t have happened, most people would find it incredulous to suggest she is the source of the Holocaust.
Respect for creation stems from respect for human life and dignity. It is on the basis of our recognition that the world is created by God that we can discern an objective moral order within which to articulate a code of environmental ethics. In this perspective, Christians and all other believers have a specific role to play in proclaiming moral values and in educating people in ecological awareness, which is none other than responsibility towards self, towards others, towards creation.
What is required is an act of repentance on our part and a renewed attempt to view ourselves, one another, and the world around us within the perspective of the divine design for creation. The problem is not simply economic and technological; it is moral and spiritual. A solution at the economic and technological level can be found only if we undergo, in the most radical way, an inner change of heart, which can lead to a change in lifestyle and of unsustainable patterns of consumption and production. A genuine conversion in Christ will enable us to change the way we think and act.
– Common Declaration of John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Bartholomew I, June 10, 2002.
I’ve posted this video before. But I think it is a good reminder of the fact that one can be against abortion for the wrong reasons, and the culture of death can be found closer to home than we would like to believe. We need to keep our words pure, our hearts pure, and our prayers constant. Let’s work to make sure the tragedy we have seen this week might not be repeated in the future, and that those working for a culture of life can and will embrace the whole Gospel of Life.
I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.
One of the things I’ve discovered over the years is that Catholics, lay and clergy alike, tend to be rather confused when they address ethical questions. While many try to engage the rich moral tradition that the Catholic faith has developed through the last two thousand years, they often do so to support a presupposed position (prejudging the moral inquiry) and end up perverting the technical issues moral theology addresses in order to support an ideological goal. Material and formal cooperation with evil are often brought up, but mixed up and confused, so that the two end up being used as if they were the same thing (which they are not). Remote material cooperation with evil sometimes becomes equated with direct, formal cooperation with evil, which, if the equation was valid, would end up creating a moral quandary which no one can overcome (not even God). While the basic program of Western ethical inquiry is important and should not be rejected, it is obvious that it is misunderstood, and, without proper training, easily leads to ideological ends more than it helps people deal with real ethical dilemmas. There is hardly any room left for prudence. Read the rest of this entry »
As has been reported all over the Catholic blogosphere, Miguel H. Díaz was selected by President Obama for the position of ambassador to the Vatican. I’ve not studied his works, so I cannot really discuss his theology. The problem is, most people commenting on him have not studied his works either, but they are willing to criticize him for being “liberal” and “unfaithful” without knowing who he is or what he stands for. Yes, it’s a given that he voted for President Obama. Yes, he supported President Obama during the campaign. Neither of those makes one unfaithful. There is currently no political litmus test for Catholicism. One can ask why he supported Obama, why he thought Obama was the best choice, and what he thinks of those issues which Obama does not agree with the Church. But one shouldn’t presume answers, and put words in his mouth, especially if one does not know who he is, what he has said and written before. It seems the way people have already found reason to question him is because of his associations; but we need to remember, guilt by association is a fallacy, and the associations are the ones one would expect for someone chosen by Obama — i.e., an Obama supporter, which goes back to what was said above, that alone doesn’t determine whether or not one is a faithful Catholic or not (though it seems people are already thinking it does, and are all ready to attack L’Osservatore Romano of all things, because it isn’t “politically correct” — the irony of it all!) Read the rest of this entry »
While Nicholas of Cusa was known in his time as one of the great defenders of Pope Eugene IV,[1] it is clear that this is not all that he was, and it is for his other, more speculative work, that he is now considered by many as one of the greatest thinkers of all time. Although we cannot say he fits perfectly with the modern world, his works still have much to offer which could interest and inspire us today. Indeed, his was very far reaching in his ideas, and for some of them, we might not have got to a time when they can be fully appreciated.[2] His brilliance can be seen from many perspectives, such as his interest in the science and mathematics, where he was able to speculate upon the universe in a rather unique way (suggesting for example, that the earth is not the center of the universe,[3] and the universe is filled with other life forms).[4] Even more remarkable than his scientific theories, especially for his time, are his inter-religious theories; while he agreed with Pope Eugene IV (and that includes the role the Church has in salvation), he was able to look beyond the Christian faith, and to see other religious traditions as being representations of the same basic religious truth, with each religion pointing in various ways to the one truth known and possessed by Christians.[5] This is not to say each religion is of equal value or worth; he believed that the founders of world religions were inspired by God, but the human equation got in the way, and led to various imperfections which need to be purified in order for the members of those religions to see how their faith and tradition ultimately points to what is found in the Christian faith. While he could be said to be an inclusivist, this is not exactly the best way to describe him. He believed that world religions had elements of value within them which could be brought into the Church itself (he believed world religions could become the foundations for many different religious rites within the Church, allowing the people of those different rites to develop their own ways of praise and worship, as friendly rivals, each trying to outdo each other in their devotion to God).[6]Read the rest of this entry »
There has been concern that in the near future, either under President Obama, or some future President, health care workers might lose their right to object to performing abortions (or other medical procedures which they consider to go against their consciences). While we are not there yet, it is wrong to assume this could not happen. There are certainly many voices who are trying to consider abortion or euthanasia not just to be choices, but a rights, and rights to be enforced by the rule of law.
We should work in all our capacity to make sure this does not happen. We must make sure we make our point properly — that is, in charity through truth. If the words we say end up to be false, if we claim something to be which is not the case, that will only hurt our case.
One place which is trying to work on this is Freedom2Care, which you can go to here: http://www.freedom2care.org/ . Look into it, see if it is something you would like to work with. It’s an important issue. Obviously when working with each other, we must recognize the fact that our approach will be different from time to time. I think some elements of the website tend to be sensationalistic and fearmongering in attitude — but I also think, despite that, it is a good effort to work with. But let’s not make it the only way to address these issues. Let it become one of many such projects.
St. Thomas Aquinas famously suggested that governments should allow “certain kinds of evil,” because by allowing them, either some greater good is possible to come out of it, or some greater evil is prevented. He bases his position, in part, upon the words of St. Augustine, whom he uses as an authority to demonstrate that his teaching is within the spectrum of respectable Christian thought. “Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): ‘If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.’”[1] On first glance, this understanding appears to be consequentialist. Was St Thomas Aquinas advocating evil for the sake of a greater good? Obviously, if that is what he is suggesting, one could use this to question his moral theology. But that is not what we find here.
As we know, the more we explore our universe, the more we find ourselves able to do things which once were thought to be impossible. There are still things which appear to be impossible such as time travel.
But what if time travel is not impossible? There are scientific theories which suggest it to be possible. Indeed, the more we explore the universe, the more things such as time appear to be constructs of the human mind, and the reality is far more diverse than the construct would allow (this, for example, has been shown through Einstein’s theory of relativity).
If time travel is possible (and we can even change the way time has gone), would it affect our moral obligations at all? Would we be required to change history (or to try to do so)? For example, if we are to work for the prevention of abortion, would that prevention also include abortions which took place in the past, once we can get to the past? Why or why not? What about other great evils, such as the holocaust? Would we be obliged to find a way to support Hitler’s artistic career so as not to have it happen? Of course, one could argue the consequences of such changes could be disastrous, and indeed, they could be (things could end up worse from our interference), but, would that really be a valid response?
Thanks to the force-feedback control glove (DataGlove) and, especially, to the DataSuit, everything is ruled by lightning, and the coup de foudre of disunited lovers suddenly becomes a coup de grace. From erotic entertainment we then move on to sexual diversion and shortly to a fatal divergence – that of the reactor that set off nuclear fission.
It’s a very thin line between ecstasy and distaste for, in future, it is at the speed of electromagnetic radiation that cybernetic orgasm will occur.
In effect, if distancing brings (interactive) lovers together to the point where they manage to love those far-off as they do themselves, the gap between the wedding and the divorce will have been closed off once and for all.
By way of a provisional conclusion, let us review the early ethical reactions to this telematic mutation in sexuality. Read the rest of this entry »
In the Phaedrus, Plato points out that writing is an often abused memory aid. He finds it troubling that once something is written down, we do not feel the need to remember it. If we want to know what was said, we look it up. This is shown, for example, when Socrates discusses a story about Theuth (Thoth) and Thamus, wherein Theuth, who believes his invention of writing is of tremendous importance, is told by Thamus of its danger. While books might appear to do one thing (support memory), they do the opposite: “If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be burden to their flows.”[1] Certainly we can point out how ironic it was for Plato to write these words downs, to point out the limits of writing through writing. But this is the kind of irony which philosophy is used to. Indeed, it is central for us to realize the limits of reason, and to find out that reason can be used to show them: reason can never validate its own premises. That is, reason must, in this fashion, be seen as “unreasonable.”
Plato was not only concerned with the fact that books leave our memory undeveloped, but also with the reality that relying upon them tends to leave our ability to think underdeveloped as well. Read the rest of this entry »
How do you reboot Star Trek? Look to what they did in Doctor Who and repeat. That at least is what the new Star Trek movie felt like.
Before going further in my review, I will state that I did not, and still do not, think there was a need for a “reboot.” I will also point out there will be a couple “spoilers” contained in what follows.
The good news: J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún is a very good book. Very, very good. The bad news: you might not appreciate how good it is. This depends upon what one is looking for in the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Are you a fan of his hobbit tales, but not The Silmarillion? Are you looking for another hobbit-like tale? Then this book is not for you. If you are a fan of The Silmarillion, you might appreciate The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún, but then again, you might not – it depends upon what you liked about The Silmarillion. But if you, like Tolkien, like Lewis, like Morris, and like myself, are interested in Northern myths, if you like dark tales of betrayal and woe, and if you can appreciate the way such tales are properly told, then you will be fascinated by this new volume of writings from Tolkien. You will be able to enjoy his creative interpretation and retelling of stories from the Sagas, where he engages philological and historical debates and uses his answers to them to provide his own take on the stories surrounding Sigurd and Gudrún. Central to the book are two connected tales, The Lay of the Völsungs and The Lay of Gudrún. But there is far more to this book than these tales (important as they will be for Tolkien scholarship in the future). For in it, not only do we get Tolkien’s tales, we get: an introduction to the Sagas based upon a lecture Tolkien gave, Christopher’s comprehensive and helpful commentaries to his father’s stories, and a few surprising gems at the end (the Prophecy of the Sibyl and the Fragments of a Heroic Poem of Atilla in Old English).
In Dostoevsky’s masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov, we find one of his most important character studies, that of Ivan Karamazov. Here we have a man who wants to prove to one and all that he is an intellectual, and he does this by putting himself in radical opposition to God. There is a sense of anger in his revolt. Humanity has suffered at the notion of God, and so it is suggested that only by the radical denial of God, only by embracing the nihilism of the present age, can humanity find itself free from a tyrant who has dominated its destiny throughout history. With God, there is no freedom – there is only a cold dictator who denies humanity its rightful place in the universe. God demands too much from us. God’s laws limit who we are and what we can do. On the other hand, without God, everything is lawful, everything is permissible. For without God, there is no moral force left in the universe to deny us anything we would want to do. Humanity must grow up and deny its childish adherence to God.
We behold the condition of Europe. For many years past peace has been rather an appearance than a realty. Possessed with mutual suspicions, almost all the nations are vying with one another in equipping themselves with military armaments. Inexperienced youths are removed from paternal direction and control, to be thrown amid the dangers of the soldier’s life; robust young men are taken from agriculture or ennobling studies or trade of the arts to be put under arms. Hence the treasures of States are exhausted by the enormous expenditure, the national resources are frittered away, and private fortunes impaired; and this, as it were, armed peace, which now prevails, cannot last much longer. Can this be the normal condition of human society? Yet we cannot escape from this situation, and obtain True Peace, except by the aid of Jesus Christ. For to repress ambition and covetousness and envy–the chief instigators of war–nothing is more fitted than the Christian Virtues and, in particular, the Virtue of Justice; for, by its exercise, both the law of nations and the faith of treaties may be maintained inviolate, and the bonds of brotherhood continue unbroken, if men are but convinced that Justice exalteth a nation.
District 9 is a movie produced by Peter Jackson, based upon the short, Alive in Joburg. I’m sure I am not the only one who has not seen this short. The theme addressed in it, however, is one Catholics should appreciate, for it is about human rights and how they are lost when xenophobia sets in — through the allegory of an alien landing in South Africa.
Catholics need to find a way to work better with each other. That’s one of the things I’ve learned through my time using the internet. There is a tendency, and it is one I have as much as many others, to disregard others once we find we do not entirely agree with each other on a specific issue. Even if we are in the right, we often are not right in our interaction with others. Even if we are right, we end up proving ourselves to be in the wrong. Once we prove ourselves to be doctrinally correct, it is easy to fee that all those who disagree with us must, by their nature, be morally reprehensible, and the kind of person we should label with some sort of nasty name, before disengaging ourselves from them, never to work with them again. But it is quite difficult, and takes much time and energy, to really understand doctrine; we should be patient with those who have not engaged a specific doctrine as we have, who find the doctrine itself is new to them. They will have questions. We must be willing to engage them the best we can. Of course, they must also work to make sure the questions are not engaged as a way to excuse themselves from the doctrine, but to understand it better.
Deal Hudson has been writing a series of posts on InsideCatholic about Israel, and they are quite good. They present many of the factors involving the Holy Land which have often been neglected by Americans. In his most recent post, based upon a talk he had with Rev. Stephen Sizer, he points out how American policy has been affected in part by a poor theological position, dispensationalism, held by some (but not all) evangelicals. In it, he explains:
Dispensationalism comes in various forms, but the common thread is a division of biblical history into discreet “dispensations,” culminating in a final dispensation through which God will deal directly with the Jews when Israel has been reestablished. The Church, in other words, is distinguished from Israel, which is responding to a distinctive set of God’s promises. Reverend Sizer summarized it this way: “God has a separate plan for the Jews — there are two covenants, two people, and two faiths.”
Since Christ will not come to earth to establish His kingdom, and the Jews cannot be saved, Israel must be allowed to settle on the land given to the Jews by God. According to Reverend Sizer, this is the reason Evangelicals not only support the settlements on the West Bank but also help to finance them. Reverend Sizer thinks part of the reason President Carter lost the support of Evangelicals was because he began to vacillate on the settlements.
He is right, and the sooner Catholics realize this, the sooner we can all work together to change the horrible situation found within the Holy Land.
CNS News reports on a news article printed in L’Osservatore Romano about the first 100 days of President Obama. Interestingly enough, Obama is not seen as an extremist, unlike what many on the Catholic blogosphere suggest:
On ethical questions, too — which from the time of the electoral campaign have been the subject of strong worries by the Catholic bishops — Obama does not seem to have confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed,
Indeed, the article addresses the issue of ESCR and sees it in a light quite different from so many in America:
(The guidelines) do not allow the creation of new embryos for research or therapeutic purposes, for cloning or for reproductive ends, and federal funds may be used only for experimentation with excess embryos
Of course, as the article points out, this does not mean concern is unjustified, but the concern must be based upon what is, and not the unjust intepretations of Obama’s actions. After all, one doesn’t have to be an extremist for one to be wrong; but if Obama isn’t, perhaps Catholics shouldn’t act as if he is in order to make him become one.
“I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John” (Lk 7:28a). Anyone know if he ever spoke against abortion? Infanticide? Euthanasia? Any “pro-life” issue at all?
Exodus 20:13 is a very short text, and yet there is no end to the disputes one can find over its interpretation. This is because it is a difficult passage to interpret, and it’s even more difficult to translate. The text traditionally has been read as “Do not kill,” though some people argue that it really means, “Do not murder.”[1] Both translations, to be sure, have some legitimate claim to them, but neither do justice to the text itself. For the Christian, such legalistic debate over the letter of the law is unnecessary, since they are to live by the higher law of Christ, which is the law of love.[2] And if this broader dictate is used to translate the text, then it is understandable why a translation of “do not kill” is the best option. Nonetheless, many translators use “do not murder” because the original command did not prohibit all kinds of killing.[3] But the word murder is problematic here; in English it has a specific meaning which is not equal to the Hebrew. In English, murder means, “The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.”[4] Since it is described as a crime, this means it is a legal term. Even though something should be seen as murder, if the law does not declare the action as a crime, it would not be murder. If we would limit the kind of killing to only those kinds which a positive law has prohibited, then many things, such as abortion, which have been traditionally seen as prohibited by this text, would no longer be so. This is not the only problem with using the word murder to translate the text. The Hebrew word does not imply that there has to be “malice aforethought.” When we look at the use of the word in Scripture, we find its meaning is much broader than murder. The word in question is “tirtzach,” and it is used elsewhere, and when we find it used, it is easy to see how it does not simply mean “murder” but has a much broader semantic range.[5] The original text would be better understood as “do not do unjustified killing,” showing the vagueness of the original, and why it needed further clarification. What exactly is “unjustified”?
And not in the material punishment for its violation is the fundamental, invincible sanction of the law, but in the conscience of men, rebuking his iniquity. Material punishment he may flee, the imperfection of human justice may cast it on the innocent, but from this internal chastisement he can in no way be delivered.
This deep significance of the law is entirely overlooked in the new theories and new practices of legislators. For them the law has but one significance, as the regulation of external action, the preserver of mechanical equilibrium of the diverse operations of human activity in their juridical relations. In the preparation of the law great labour is expended on analysis and technicality. The importance of technicality and analysis cannot be gainsaid; but is it wise in providing for these to forget the essential significance of the law? Yet this significance is often not only forgotten, but actually abjured.
Thus we encumber beyond measure the immense edifice of the law, and live incessantly devising rules and forms and formulas of every kind. In the name of freedom and the rights of men we do this, yet we have gone so far that no man can move in freedom from the network of rules and ordinances extending everywhere, threatening everyone — all in the name of freedom.
– Konstantin P. Pobedonostsev, Reflections of a Russian Statesman. trans. Robert Crozier Long (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1973), 85-6.
Consequentialistic ethics, although used by people who truly intend to create a “better world,” are unacceptable. But it is only the reaction to the consequences of production which is used to determine if and when something is permissible by an entirely free market system. This indicates the inherent flaw within capitalism: it judges by results, ignoring the process by which they come about. Ethical considerations will tell us that even when we continue to produce more and more goods and create more and more wealth, if at the expense of human life, we must stop and find another way to act. We can not let the free market determine what is acceptable. We must reject life-destroying embryonic stem cell research and soul-destroying sweat shops alike, even though the free-market would accept both. “Any economic system which leaves millions of people dying in appalling conditions is a system of death, whatever intentions it may have for promoting greater justice.”[1] Capitalism is just as much a system of death as socialism. Both are forms of economic materialism cut off from the spiritual foundations necessary for a just and personable society. Capitalism just as easily as socialism can destroy the soul or the body. “Anyone who studies our poisonous drugs, our denatured food, our deathtrap automobiles and houses, our lung-rotting cities, must conclude that we accept a good deal of murder as inevitable simply because it is done to make us save money.”[2] Unregulated capitalism with its free market ideal, when made as the basis of society, generates a culture of death. “We, the rich countries, have drawn to ourselves for our profit the life of the whole world. This is why we are perhaps already dead, because we are in the process of losing our soul.”[3]
“I’ve seen things that should never be seen,
Too sick to mention, if you know what I mean.”[1]
“Liberal-capitalistic cultures inevitably give birth to ills which undermine their own values.”[2]
Anyone who turns on a television can easily find examples of the moral rot which underlies our culture. Perhaps no better example of this is “reality” television, with some of the worst of it being talk shows with guests who air our their complaints with one another to the public.[3] While there is an artificial disconnect between the audience and the panelist, so that the audience will feel “superior” to the guests, many of the shows, such as the Jerry Springer Show, encourage the audience to participate in the nonsense, demonstrating that the difference between the two is more often than not artificial.[4] Even shows, such as the Jerry Springer spin-off, the Steve Wilkos Show, where the host represents an aggregate moral synthesis of the audience giving criticism to those on stage, the panelists affect the audience and taints them as they watch. To verify this, all one needs to do is see how the audience cheers Steve Wilkos on as he crudely interacts with his guests, showing how united the two really are.[5] Connected as the audience is with the shows they watch, possibly more now than ever before, it is not surprising that societies change and undergo moral decay parallel to what is found on the shows they watch. Societies do not want to watch “reality shows” which demonstrate to them their immorality, they want to see something worse in order to feel they aren’t not really so bad after all. This means networks produce more sensationalistic shows in order to keep up with the demand. Such is as to be expected when television is produced merely to reflect the desires of the viewing audience (which, of course, is how the free market works).
This is an old song (circa 1991), which should explain the band’s look on the CD cover. Back when I was an undergraduate and a Baptist, I was into CCM, including Christian Metal. While many of the groups I liked back then I no longer listen to, there are a few artists which I remain impressed with (even if I do not agree with all their theological positions). Bride is one because of songs like this. I appreciated how they challenged their listeners. It’s a good song about social justice. Now, for many of our readers, I am sure they will find other reasons to find this song as being a challenge. But for the rest, I hope you enjoy this musical interlude.
The reason why so many people leave the Catholic Church is not because they lost their faith, but because they never had it in the first place. They are not raised to have any faith. They are trained to think of Catholicism as a set of rational propositions combined with a set of rules which one must follow. They think doctrines can be reasoned out by anyone, and should be reasoned out, just as one reasons out a mathematical proof (and so if they can’t do it themselves, they give up on the doctrine). What is left, then, is a set of rules that one has to live out one’s life. And isn’t that what we see with so many people – all they offer to others are rules, rules, and more rules. “Don’t do this, don’t do that”? No positive, holistic approach can be found in how they deal with their faith, for, in the end, there is no faith. Because of them, and how often they tend to be among the most vocal of Catholics, is there any wonder that people think this is what Catholicism (and religion) is about? Flannery O’Connor met with a young woman who left the Church because of this:
The other thing concerns a girl I am writing to who is a lapsed Catholic. She says she found that instead of ‘make straight the way,’ it was ‘make tight the straight jacket,’ and that her family was very strict about trifles and treated the negroes terrible, etc., etc. A typical Catholic family, I gather. Anyway, apparently the straw that broke the camel’s back with her was when a priest told her that it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. She is real confused and I am trying to give her suggestions about reading some people like Maritain as she obviously never read anything but the Do-Nots. – Flannery O’Connor, Letter To Father James H. McCown, Dec 29, 1957 in O’Connor: Collected Works. Ed. Sally Fitzgerald (New York: Library of America, 1988), 1058.
The sad thing is that the Do-Nots continue to be quite vocal and continue to confuse many a young person, male or female, about what Catholicism is about. Talk to the lapsed, see what it is they think Catholicism is about, and what Flannery O’Connor described will be a common occurrence. If you met someone like this girl, and they are interested in what you have to say to their experience, what would you tell them? How would you go about explaining Catholicism?
You are currently browsing the archives for the Henry Karlson category.
Vox Nova
"In their patriotism and in their fidelity to their civic duties Catholics will feel themselves bound to promote the true common good; they will make the weight of their convictions so influential that as a result civil authority will be justly exercised and laws will accord with moral precepts and the common good."
Second Vatican Council, Apostolicam actuositatem 14
Posted by Henry Karlson 
Posted by Henry Karlson 
Posted by Henry Karlson 
