Christianity's Challenge
In reading about
Edward Gibbon for research for an article I'd like to publish, I ran across
his most famous work on the decline of the Roman Empire and its greatest controversy, that of its clash with Christianity. A friend referred me to Gibbon once and I was dismissive of it simply because I tire of constantly defending Christians.
However, on this account, as one of the two main critiques by Gibbon that I am reading secondhand, I think Gibbon and my friend are correct. Specifically his claim is that Christians focus so much on the afterlife that they lose their own care about the present. I think another way to structure that argument would be to call it a Christian selfishness about their own salvation -- that they become so focused with their relationship with God and their entrance into heaven that they forget about God existing in the people around them right now, here on Earth. They disgrace their faith by ignoring the needs of the present. Douglas Hyde, to a degree, talks about this phenomenon as it relates to Communist organizing in "
Dedication and Leadership", that those who care about the world are so often scooped up into false doctrines because Christianity offers so few real ways to address and alleviate the problems of this world. It's too easy to become too focused on forever and not enough on the here and now.
I have felt this myself, watching priests and Bishops opine about the world and then do virtually nothing to help it. The excoriations are always upon the sheep, the loud lamentations of the shepherds that their flocks are not good enough. Moralizing Catholics, especially, are so prone to pick apart one's own faults and never tackle the most basic problems within themselves: apathy and inaction. Justifying their own wants and desires by claiming they want closeness to the Lord, they skirt the real issue which is that they want comfort from the pain of this world by the promise of peace in the next. It's not that they actually want communion with God because that will undoubtedly involve the pain of watching so many of His people suffer, of wanting to help His people but due to the constraints of creation and the love embedded within free will, unable to do so. God undoubtedly wants to help us, He wants to give us respite from our suffering, and yet the disciples he has provided on Earth are so preoccupied with their own pains that they forget to tend to that of others. Their desire to be in communion with their creator is a challenge, is their goal, it is their stated desire and never the byproduct of their virtuous life here as a human.
Are we good for ourselves, are we good for others, are we good because that's what we're told to do, or are we, hopefully, good because good acts are best, and what gives our creator glory, and what brings about our own fulfillment.
And, of course, this is far from a call for 'social justice' or of false 'equality' or redistribution, which are thievery masking as theology. No, I intend to say that our own actions, our individual choices, our daily decisions ought to be concerned less with our personal salvation and missing every crack while walking as to not offend a legalistic Lord, and rather on providing real relief, sincere compassion and opportunities for individuals to serve themselves and in so doing realize self-fulfillment and give glory to God through our acts and not our desires. The simple act of having children and raising them is the perfect realization of this, and is so crass when we in society who are so blessed fill our emotional voids with animals. Married couples living in the most prosperous nation in the history of man take their time with children and fill their fertile years with felines and canines instead of little ones. Blessed as a marriage in the church, given such opportunity, we turn to trivialities. Given a great library we read the comics, offered time-travel we would go to the first Britney Spears concert, offered genetic control over food and we make sweeter candy -- in our prosperity and given our opportunities we are almost unworthy of this world.
We justify ourselves not through our attention and focus, but from our discipline and obedience to serve despite the promises. Bravery is not the same as duty, heroism is not that which is in a job description. These traits we once admired were what we recognized as unique, commendations that we have watered down by proclaiming every janitor brave and every soldier a hero. Going out of our way to conflate Audie Murphy with Jessica Lynch, we have only degraded ourselves. We ought to act not as we expect will gain entry to heaven but in remarkable ways that exceeds the expectations. Our faith should motivate us all to be a martyr for the faith in the example of Murphy and not the quiet, calm Christian sheltered and isolated ticking off a checklist of to-dos in the pursuit of salvation. In many ways the promise of heaven seems a distraction to what we are called to do, would we serve the Lord so willfully, so powerfully and so well if we knew that there was no heaven and that we ought to be thankful enough for our simple creation, or would we fall into hedonism? What if our path to heaven depends on the degree to which we operate as though it wasn't there - that we act and serve not out of an expectation as to quid pro quo but out of a reverence, devotion and actual fealty to God.
-I am not good because of what is promised, I try to be good because it is what the father wants from me.
-I am not trying to be virtuous because of how wonderful the next life will be, but because I know that the father desires that act from me.
-I am not working to help the unborn because I expect choirs of babies to sing my praises to Peter to gain my entrance into heaven, but because to do otherwise is an affront to my creator.
-My greatest goal is to surprise my Lord through my actions, and to do them for Him and not for myself.
Labels: Catholicism, God, heaven, society, theology
Confessions
So, the Vatican is upset more people don't go to confession... Well, I don't know, perhaps if any moral issues were ever heard from the pulpit and confession was ever offered more than once a week at the most inconvenient times possible (usually Saturdays from 3:00-3:30 with priests I roll with leaving on the dot at 3:30) for half an hour, more people would go.
Labels: Catholic, Catholicism, communion
Catholic Action
This article is wholly inadequate to what is appropriate, but it at least focuses on a long-running discussion I've had with several: the necessity of Catholic action vs. faith sustaining one's self alone.
Labels: activism, Catholicism, religion, theory
Watch what's been lost: Classic Church songs on classic Church bells
At Church this past Sunday I was subjected to unfair criticisms of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, hero of Chile. But on a positive note, they actually played some decent music, one song of which was an English translation of an older song called "Mainz Gesangbuch" from 1870. Searching through google,
I ran across this version of the song on bells and thought it was neat. It reminded me of how nice it is to be in one of the few remaining Churches which uses the bells.
Labels: Catholicism, Church, music
Homilies: Parable of the Talents
Last week I was attending Mass in Lansing, Michigan at the very underwhelming house of God, St. Jude's. The gospel reading was from
Matthew 25:14-30, about the parable of the talents.
This parable always has odd interpretations that I hear. I can see and understand only one, and yet I have never heard a religious explain it to me in such a way. The way the priest last week described it, it was about the need to engage one another and to care for one another.
But I think that explanation is hopelessly imprecise. It's not just about caring for one another, or about thinking the right thoughts-- this parable is actually about action. The entire point is not conserving what we have, not being too attached to what we have: risk what we have to help one another, serve our master by taking a chance and trying to increase what we have been given. We are given a talent and we call it life, we are given a million talents and we call it time... yet at the end of days will we simply say that we have conserved what we had? That we buried it and are now giving it back?
A couple are two people, do they have more than two kids? A man spends his time in Church, has he donated more than what he has received? Even the homeless man benefits from society, will he repay his debt and can he, in whatever way possible, find a way to benefit his fellow man in a greater way?
Now, this line of thinking obviously lends itself into a heresy which puts dollar figures next to everything. Dollars are just a measurement. There's no way to measure the joy of a child, or the beauty of a truly great piece of art. They are both contributions, they are both joy, but we should be striving to justify ourselves, to work more than simply to work on our own faith, to act more than simply reordering the gifts we have been blessed with.
One last thing I've never heard a religious mention, is that Christ himself remarks about how silly it is that the third talent didn't at least invest his talent to get a return on his investment. And let us not then forget that both Judaism and early Christianity had prohibitions on usury/interest, so Christ is essentially saying it is worse that he is inactive than had he sinned through charging people interest. It's so obvious that the third talent is wasteful and lazy. The question then, how often are we like the third talent, how often are we not using the gifts we have been given to mete out something greater than the sum of its parts?
I know that I am often the third talent, and often completely unworthy of the gifts I have been given. Mine is a constant battle to better use these talents, to better use my talents, to glorify God and help others.
Labels: Catholicism, family, homily, religion
Catholic Reparations
Since the mainstream media is trying to program me into believing that our next president will be B. Hussein Obama, I decided to get a jump start on what will be probably be job one in his first month in office: reparations. And it occurs to me that two countries in particular owe quite a debt to the Church, that is the one true Church established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that of England and France. The many confiscations of wealth, art, land, property and Churches ought to be returned to the dominion of Roman Catholicism. As well, there were a variety of wrongs to right in Maryland that were levied against Catholics. While we're at it, someone ought to tell those Turkish heathens that they need to return the Haig Sophia while we're at it. If we're going to assert the rights of every silly group in existence in our foreign policy when we deal with foreign countries, why not try to get the return of the greatest Church in the world?
Labels: Catholicism, history
Logical Progression into Christianity
About a year ago, a colleague and I sat in a hotel room dreaming up the logical proofs one needed to accept, in what order, to accept the Christian God. Atheists always attack one and never the progression, the logic and rational thought behind it. Having never seen it drawn out like this, I can't say how good or accurate my listing is, but I suppose it's a start. If you disagree or see room for improvement, please let me know.
Logical procession into Christianity
-2. There is nothing
-1. What is seen is not real
0. There is nothing more than what can be seen
1. There is more than what can be seen.
2. There is a spiritual world
3. There are spiritual beings
4. These beings are not bound by the rules of the universe
5. These beings are more powerful than man
6. These beings are beyond time and thus, know everything
7. There is one being who is more powerful than the others
8. This one spiritual being cannot be half one thing and half another, it must be all one thing or all another.
9. This one omnipotent being is good
10. This omnipotent being who exists beyond time existed before man
11. This omnipotent being who exists beyond time and before man had some power over the creation of man
12. Having had power over the creation of man, man's creation was according to its will.
13. Man's life is owed to either the action of the omnipotent being or its inaction.
14. This omnipotent being has the power to destroy man, but does not and had the power to stop his creation, but did not
15. This omnipotent being beyond time who is good has the ability to communicate with all men at any moment, but does not, does so in ways that isn't obvious or scientifically measurable, or does so very rarely.
16. This decision to not contact man in a direct way must have a reason which is good because the being itself is good.
17. The being has three choices in any given situation: direct action, indirect or circuitous action, or inaction. Every action or indirect action must be a good because the being is wholly good.
18. The creation of man was not a natural occurrence.
19. By its unnatural occurrence, as well as man's ability to perceive and communicate with the spiritual, the being must have created man.
20. Because the being is good, and man is its creation, the being seeks the good for each man, though it may not intervene in order to always give the good.
21. Because man can perceive the spiritual, there must be a purpose to his creation.
22. This purpose is hidden or obscured from man for some reason. This purpose, however, exists and is communicated in indirect ways.
23. This superior being communicates to man in indirect ways.
24. This superior being would communicate with man in a way to distinguish its will from man's will.
25. The will of this superior being would, if it desired not to be obvious, have to be carried out by men.
26. Most men are not capable of separating their interest from a separate altruistic interest.
27. This superior being would not be able to depend solely on all men to enact its will as long as it used indirect communication because men cannot separate their interest from altruistic interest.
28. If this superior being cannot use all men, then it must use some men. There must be some system of authority to determine which men to use and which ones do not have such authority.
Conclusion so far: God exists, God is good, God created us, God wants the best for us.
Labels: Catholicism, Christianity, God, philosophy, religion
God warns the apathetic: Ezekiel 33: 7-9
The reading this week was important.
EWTN has it here if you missed or overlooked it. God not only hates the coward, despises the meek, but actively punishes those who are apathetic. There is no middle ground and no room for those who seek creature comforts in both materialism and within social acceptance. No, I think quite clearly, our Lord desires more John the Baptists than that he wants more monastic lives. No issue speaks louder in our current age than that, on this issue, of abortion.
"7 "So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me.
8 If I say to the wicked, O wicked man, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.
9 But if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way; he shall die in his iniquity, but you will have saved your life."
Labels: Catholicism, Church, religion
Open Confession vs. the Confessional
So when I went for 3pm confession today, I ended up being the only one to receive the sacrament. Seeing that the priest already knew who I was, and I was about to tell him my sins anyway, I decided to go for a face-to-face encounter. It was a completely different experience, and I think, much better. I'm certainly one to usually err on the side of tradition, but the screen and the hushed silence is so different from confronting someone else with your misdeeds, explaining them, and taking responsibility for them. I thought it would be harder to confess to a priest in person, but now I see that it actually was much easier. The redemption found is priceless, and always quite a weight lifted from one's chest.
Labels: Catholicism
Article: Faith Over Troubled Waters
Faith Over Troubled Waters
Our little faith, our great God
Thoughts on the Aug. 10, 2008 Catholic Church readings
What is the point of our action, what is our master plan, and what is the result of our work?
The gospel this past weekend was a great one, and, like many I've heard recently, spoke directly to me. Too often, I find myself distracted during the readings, perhaps as a product of the age we live in that promotes short attention spans. Also, though, I think the focus away from projection, diction and enunciation, while I'm sure there's some great Catholic rationalization for how it avoids the temptations of rhetoric and lets the words speak for themselves, ultimately makes the perfect the enemy of the good in that the consequence is a flock unable to keep up with the readings since they are communicated so poorly. And yet, despite those problems, the message can be so clear when seen in the missal. The words are there, they have been preserved, prepared and delivered to us, and the question is what we do with it.
Massachusetts is an interesting corollary to this thought: there are churches everywhere. And, playing to my love of fine architecture, they are magnificent churches. And like those in Europe, they are fabulous ones that no one attends. Outwardly, Christ is everywhere, and yet he is not motivating his sheep to their shepherd. And this confusion, this mystery, is part of the reading this week. For, of course Christ is everywhere, he is in all that is good, he assures us, and his plan is mysterious.
In the first reading we see the Old Testament explaining that God is in all that is good, and does not do harm to his people. Yet it's clear, even from the second reading, that his plan is not known or straightforward. He does not deliver riches to the pious and poverty to the non-believers. Just as Paul was frustrated by the obstinacy of the Israelites, we, too, can find frustration that our actions are met with mixed results or outright failure. And yet, I suspect, this is perhaps a more timely statement on society than anything else.
Traditionalist Catholics I meet fall into the same intellectual problems as Protestants fall into when they say that their faith and works are rewarded with prosperity. And while, yes, all good things come from God in that he created everything, and gave us the life to do it, what comes as a result of divine intervention, chance or the work of our own hands? Often one hears a singer thank God for giving them a Grammy, or an athlete thank God for his victory, but are those things truly from God? And I think it hints at a level of pride to expect that God is our errand boy giving us that which we need or deserve. Certainly there were many more deserving men during many wars who were not given victory, and not given deliverance from their suffering and pain.
And though it's a common topic for discussion and reflection, we ought to consider what is the proper understanding of God's involvement in this world. Non-believers love to cite the fact that God doesn't heal amputees, or point to the suffering in the world. And yet, God has healed many people, and alleviated much suffering in the world. He is not an absentee landlord, but he is certainly far from involved in everyday life. He is present everywhere through the Holy Spirit, but does not guide our hands when we sin. What if a man were to give food to the poor in his left hand but shoot a man with his right? Would we claim that the spirit was only active in the left and not the right? At what point do we accept our actions, and accept the unpredictable nature of our actions on this world.
We try to discern what he wants from us, but the message rarely comes with clarity. We try so hard to find out what 'plans' are in store for us, as though God is a concierge service giving us a schedule for the weekend. We reverse the roles, we expect him to give us answers when we should be giving him answers for ourselves, for our own salvation, for the justification that we will need when the days end. We ought to act, and act within our conscience, helping other people and helping them most with their spirituality and faith - with their relationship to God. We show our love for him by wishing to bring other people to him, and share in the warmth that faith can solely provide.
One cannot know what his plan is, and one cannot expect to have our prayers answered. We exist, we intuitively know only that we were created. To try and discern our ''plan'' or purpose as some sort of elaborate voyage meant only for us is vanity. We exist to serve, we exist to act, we exist to be as close to God as we can manage given our tendencies towards sin, and our imperfection caused by that sin. We are given guidance to handle individual situations, and to help direct us in the right direction, not given a strict prescription on what our choices will be for the next few years.
The Gospel gives more insight to this idea, and to our very conflicted nature. Peter, first among apostles, walks out to Christ walking on the water. And as he's involved with a supernatural feat, he starts to doubt. Christ saves him, but gently admonishes him as ''...you of little faith, why did you doubt?'' And that is the perfect question: how could Peter, who knew that Christ was the Lord, and knew that he was perfect and all-powerful, how could he have doubted over such a silly thing as walking on water?
And the answer is that Peter was still a man, he was still a product of his experience. That doubt and that sin within him prevented him from having his faith be full and unquestioned. He was limited, and his doubt is what kept him from walking with Christ. The lesson for us is not to try harder than Peter to have faith, but to keep enriching our faith in spite of our weaknesses and faults. The clichéd ''spiritual growth'' speaks to a truth: that the vibrant faith develops and evolves, and deals with an intellectual problem by engaging it, and looking for the answers, and not giving up.
We are all saddled with sin on our souls, and materially we are all dust and dirt that will someday be decomposing. We are wonderful in those actions that help other people realize their worth before God, the worth of their souls. Our faith is not only what sustains us, it is all that we are - we can tease out a bit of postmodernism and nihilism to realize that, yes, this world has no meaning. The physics of entropy should show us that whatever rewards this life has to offer will be undone, perpetually falling apart no matter how much we try to hold it together. And if this world has no meaning, then it can only lead in two directions: wrongly to the conclusion that life has no meaning, or correctly that there is meaning beyond what we can measure and see.
And in the end, all we'll have is our faith. Our works will have helped justify us, and our service to others will hopefully have also brought them closer to the Lord, but even final salvation is not guaranteed. We hope, pray and work to redeem ourselves and become as worthy as we can to be saved and brought into heaven.
Keeping that focus on heaven, and on the divine makes me think of Johnny Cash's cover of Trent Reznor's ''Hurt'' with the line, ''And you could have it all. My empire of dirt. I will let you down, I will make you hurt.'' In the reinterpretation given by Cash of the song, I think it speaks to the salvation we seek and how transient our lives, work and worth here on earth has become. We'd be well to remember the example of St. Therese the little flower, who by her intense virtue at a very young age, and early death, gave a powerful testimony of faith and love of God.
Therese's example was to give a thousand little flowers to God, in everything that she did. She realized great works were beyond her, but she did what she could. She didn't need a plan, and rejoiced in the small things she could do for faith. Even her suffering and death were examples to others, and helped further the faith.
Oh we, we of little faith. Why do we doubt? Why do we not know that our actions are fleeting, our work here is temporary and our reward is eternal. We question why our brothers don't convert, as Paul questioned. We walk on the water and still frighten, like Peter. And we forget that no matter what, we can bring joy and happiness to our lives and the lives of others as in the example of the Little Flower.
First Reading1 Kings
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1kings/1kings19.htmSecond ReadingRomans 9
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans9.htmGospelMatthew 14
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew14.htmLabels: Catholic, Catholicism, homily
Humanae Vitae's Prophecies: Everyone's Unhappy
I've been reading
this fabulous article about
Humanae Vitae's proven prophecies by
Mary Eberstadt in the latest issue of
First Things, kindly mailed to me by local pro-life warrior Charles Coudert. The article well summarizes the many ridiculous arguments thrown against Humanae Vitae when it was released in 1968, and shows how the many predictions involving the breakdown of the family through infidelity, single-parenting and the degradation of women has led us to this point in society where the family is under constant attack. Fundamentally changing the relationship of men and women, and the sexual relationship, has wide societal impacts that few are willing to admit, this article is stunning in its claims and impacts.
Eberstadt references an article by Lori Gottlieb in
the Atlantic called "
Marry Him!", which I'm printing out and about to read. Look at this paragraph by Eberstadt in regards to the Gottlieb article:
Gottlieb writes as one who played by all the feminist rules, only to realize too late that she’d been had. Beneath the zippy language, the article runs on an engine of mourning. Admitting how much she covets the husbands of her friends, if only for the wistful relief of having someone else help with the childcare, Gottlieb advises: “Those of us who choose not to settle in hopes of finding a soul mate later are almost like teenagers who believe they’re invulnerable to dying in a drunk-driving accident. We lose sight of our mortality. We forget that we, too, will age and become less alluring. And even if some men do find us engaging, and they’re ready to have a family, they’ll likely decide to marry someone younger with whom they can have their own biological children. Which is all the more reason to settle before settling is no longer an option.”
Yikes! The mental and psychological issues going on are downright scary. How did we get to this point, where everyone's unhappy? We see a simple little pill as liberating us to live in the moment, not realizing that we have an entire life of unhappiness, loneliness and emptiness awaiting us if we don't fully live with one another, full love into one another, and save sex for a marriage where the two flesh become one.
Labels: Catholicism, contraception, family, pro-life
The new ways that hide the beautiful old ways
Somewhat in keeping with my traditionalist bent, I wanted to offer some links from my wonderful friend Amanda. They are the older versions of the Baptism,
here and
here. Little did I know that the modern changes within the Church were greater and more drastic than the tambourine and the drum sets. It makes me recall the statement of a liberal Catholic during the days I worked at
NCEA who pointedly asked "why these young people long for a Church they never lived in" to which he received no answer. Even though I worked in the Secondary Schools (high schools) department, the topic of choice was the
Franciscan University of Steubenville, and why it was growing and attracting so many young people. They could not understand the fascination with the restoration of the old Church. These were people intent on changing the Church, and modifying it to fit their ideological preferences.
Labels: Catholicism, history, traditions
Liturgical Design Oppression
We ought to end the Protestant Occupation of our sacred Catholic places, namely in the design and architecture of our churches. Michael Rose wrote a wonderful book called "
Ugly as Sin" which I would highly recommend to anyone. It seems as though the constant theme is that Vatican II misinterpretations have given rise to liturgical anarchy.
This quote was very telling, from a liturgical design consultant Fr. Vosko, part of
this article from
Catholic Culture which is actually taken from
the Wanderer.
During his lecture, Fr. Vosko expressed his preference for the church-in-the-round model, saying circles — citing Stonehenge, Indian tepees, and mandalas as examples — are powerful symbols, as is the labyrinth. He also defended Corpus Christi Chapel's movable bare wooden cross, which he described as a "powerful totem that puts us in touch with that which can be."
He told his audience that when he is retained as a consultant for a parish renovation, that "sometimes you have to strip away things ... that get in the way, things that are just habits."
That which is being stripped away, obviously, is any tradition or Catholicism. And I was also somewhat shocked to see that Michael Rose was offering no exaggeration in his "Ugly as Sin" book that many of the Catholic design consultants are really Protestant ones as well. You can see that for yourself
here, and even the ones that tend to be more "Catholic" are still
falling short of the majesty of the house of God. The tendency to make them meeting places rather than sacred spaces seems too tempting for the designers.
I'd like to further flesh out Rose's thesis, compare some local churches which are both good and bad, and really define what I'm referring to here. Perhaps in some small way the way to a beautiful future is through future beautiful churches. And as Lauren Conner once quoted to me, "beauty will save the world."
Labels: architecture, beauty, Catholicism, Church, design, truth
