Romish Potpourri

Don't Be an Arrogant Fool

2012-01-22T22:19:00.000-05:00

It's one thing for a person to search out, understand the facts and arguments for various positions, and then to adopt them. That's respectable, and if someone disagrees with me after doing that, I respect them for it.

It's an entirely different thing when a person just goes along with popular sentiment (what their friends think, what the media portray, etc.) and then ignorantly pass on what they've been spoon fed--all the while being arrogant and dismissive, even hateful, about those who disagree with them.

I suspect this has always been the case--that people largely form their opinions based on these things without doing any due diligence or even having anything resembling an open mind about issues. But I can't help but be irritated by it, and that's why I'm calling it out here. To all those folks:

Just because a position is currently popular in our culture does not make it right. This sounds patently obvious, but people seem to forget it a lot. And I think it's worth belaboring the point because of that.

a) Just because Jon Stewart or Bill Maher can manage to maliciously mock others does not make them right. Just because thoughtful people who disagree with them choose to not engage in their disreputable and dishonest behavior doesn't mean that they couldn't or that there is no response to the mockery.
b) Just because your friends share your opinions doesn't make any of you right. Just because people around you don't contradict your snide, arrogant comments, doesn't mean they don't have a reply; it just means they're being polite, unlike you.
c) Just because polls show that a majority of Americans share your opinion doesn't make you right, and vice versa. Polls are a scientific way to measure popular opinions, not what's right.
d) Just because Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Brad Pitt, Rush Limbaugh, or [insert name of famous person/celebrity/newscaster/talking head here] says something doesn't make them right. There are famous, popular people who espouse all kinds of different and contradictory opinions, and most of them spend no more time than the average person understanding an issue before spouting their opinion on it.
e) Just because there's a law on the books doesn't make it right. Some laws do reflect what is right; others do not. Laws are not always made based on the right things or for right reasons.
f) Just because someone you respect thinks something doesn't make it right. If they are an expert in a subject, then it's acceptable to give weight to what they say on that subject, but that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility of looking into the subject for yourself, especially when there are other experts on the subject who disagree (and there usually are). "Most experts agree" is almost always a rhetorical bludgeon--don't get hit with it.
g) Just because someone is an academic doesn't make them right. They can be as subject to prejudice as anyone, and often their position, their livelihood, depends on fitting into current popular schools of thought, not to mention that academics tend to be trained into current schools of thought and have to be admitted to academia by current academics. Add to that their education makes them more inclined to presume they are right, and it is a sad irony that the people who should know better just don't.
h) Just because a position isn't popular doesn't make it right. There are plenty of people who prefer to be contrary and countercultural just for the sake of it/out of habit. Assuming you're right just because your position is unpopular is just as wrong as doing so because it is popular.

What's my point? Well, I hope it's obvious. If you think so, then good! But to be clear: be more reticent about expressing your opinion, especially if you haven't really explored it with an open mind. If nothing else, just bite your tongue when you feel that snide remark coming on--be polite. Don't parrot people like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck. These guys and others like them are ideologues that make their money precisely by playing to the prejudices of their audiences. Take everything famous people say with a grain of salt. If you don't have the time or expertise to understand a subject, just keep your opinion to yourself. No, all opinions are not created equal.

Avoid popular arrogance. Instead of ignorantly dismissing people who disagree with you, first try to see things from their perspective. Then if you still disagree, you can at least be informed about it. Even after you have thoroughly explored an issue, it's still safer to not be dismissive. There's always a good chance there's something you don't know.

As the popular ad said, "we all do stupid things sometimes." Ignorantly spouting off doesn't have to be one of them. It does take practice, effort, and vigilance, but it's the right thing to do. And if nothing else, you can avoid being an arrogant fool.

Yes, We Really Do Think Contraception is Immoral

2012-01-21T17:03:00.003-05:00

UPDATE (22 Jan at 8:02p): This is a scathing article by liberal Catholic (i.e., he doesn't agree with the Catholic position here), Michael Sean Winters. He sees the problem with the HHS mandate, too, and it's not because he's defending the Catholic position on contraception (neither am I here), but because he sees it for what it is--an attack on religious liberty.

---

This morning before I got up and got to shoveling snow, I came across this bulletin from the USCCB about their intent to continue fighting the contraception mandate by the HHS. I tweeted it, saying I don't get why Barack Obama hates freedom of religion, noting how he is the most anti-First Amendment president in history. I say this because this is only one case where his administration has been fighting against it. Some others, for example: here, here, here, here, and here. These are just the ones I know about, and it's not like I watch this stuff full time.

I have had a few friends first question how this impinges on religious freedom and second why it matters (or rather, they feel it's not important).

1) First, whether or not you agree with us on the morality of contraception (we can set that discussion aside for now), let's at least acknowledge that the settled--by Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, confirmed in the Church's universal catechism (2366-72), by Pope John Paul II in his great encyclical Evangelium Vitae, and reiterated innumerable times by our own bishops--Catholic position on the matter is that the use of artificial contraception is immoral. In other words, our religion clearly and unequivocally teaches that artificial contraception is immoral. (And add to this that some of the regulated contraception is known to be abortifacient, so this is also about abortion, another thing clearly immoral in Catholic doctrine.)

2) Now let us also agree that the new regulation says that Catholic organizations must provide artificial contraception in their health plans.

3) Given 1 and 2, what this boils down to is the government forcing a religious organization to fund something that is directly opposed to its own belief system. This is patently unconstitutional, a clear violation of the free exercise of religion. Free exercise includes not being forced to do things that your religion says are immoral. This article also deals with some of the finer points involved.

The violation of free exercise is pretty clear to me. The only thing I can figure is that those who don't see the mandate as a problem can't believe that we really think artificial contraception is a moral evil. I understand why this is hard to believe in our culture, but hopefully if you glance at some of the links above, you'll see that, yes, we really do think contraception is immoral, notwithstanding the fact that many Catholics choose to ignore this clear doctrine.

For my wife and I, as converts, this was a difficult one to come around to, and it was in part a reason we shied away initially from becoming Catholic, even though we were pretty convinced we should. You see, we think that if we profess to believe something, we should act accordingly, even when it is difficult, and so we knew that if we were going to become Catholic that not using artificial birth control is part of it. (Of course, that puts it negatively--the reasons artificial contraception is not to be used are derived from a much more positive, holistic, and healthy view of sexuality than what our contemporary culture offers.) It was in fact Evangelium Vitae that helped me to come around--because it situates this question in the broader Catholic understanding of the dignity of life.

But I digress, the point is that whether or not you agree with the Catholic religion's position on artificial contraception, it is a real moral, religious doctrine, just as much as that which says "thou shalt not kill." And forcing Catholics--including Catholic organizations who help non-Catholics--to participate in something we believe to be immoral precludes our free exercise of our religion. It's as simple as that.

A while back, I was pointing out other infringements on religious liberty, ones that are forcing overwhelmingly good social services out of business (e.g., here and here--same has been happening in the UK). The defense of this kind of stuff says, basically, it's not a violation of free exercise--we can always just, essentially, not help people. What kind of a choice is that? Not to mention, our religion also explicitly teaches us to care for the poor, the orphan, and others--so we are in effect being prevented from doing that in these cases. How many unfortunates are we putting at risk due to these ideologically motivated attacks on religious freedom? A lot--Catholic charitable organizations serve more people than any other in the world.

This is also important because it goes to the core of who we are as a country. You may not see this particular issue as important to yourself, but it is one among other increasing impingements on this first American liberty. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. All Americans should be concerned about this. Today it's artificial contraception. What will it be tomorrow? How many times must our freedoms be denied before you take action? Will it be too late then?

My Recent Exchange with Congressman Holt on Abortion

2011-12-02T20:21:00.001-05:00

Below is an email exchange today between my Congressman, Rush Holt, and me about abortion. I wonder if he'll reply again.

----

Dear Congressman Holt,

Of course you realize how ludicrous it would be to say that the "choice of whether or not to have an abortion should be left up to a woman, her doctor, her family and her religion, not the federal government," if abortion means killing a human being, right?

I ask you, how can you determine when a conceived child becomes a human whose basic right to life should be protected by the government? At birth? Why--what change in its nature occurs at that point to make a human worth protecting at that point? Some time before? Why? Explain at what objective point, based on science, a conceived child becomes a human being.

The only consistent, rational answer is to say that as soon as the child gets its full genetic makeup that makes it its own unique being. And that is at conception. It's a scientific fact, not a belief, not a religious issue.

I am 100% for supporting women's choice, but choice is never an absolute. I should not be allowed to choose to beat my wife, and my wife--or any other woman--should certainly not be allowed to choose to kill her unborn child. What we need to do is give women real choices, choices that are moral--helping them to raise the child or, at worst, facilitating them putting the child up for adoption.

Sincerely,

Mr. J. Ambrose Little, O.P.

An American Citizen and Your Constituent

P.S. If the existing law does what you say it does and makes the proposed law unnecessary, why is it being proposed?

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:06 PM, wrote:

Dear Mr. Little:

Thank you for contacting me about health care. I appreciate hearing from you and I apologize for the delay in my reply.

As your voice in the U.S. House of Representatives, I always strive to represent my constituents' concerns and interests and provide personal service to them. I truly value your input and suggestions on the issues before the House. In a representative government such as ours, it is essential that I know what you are thinking in order to do my job.

I appreciate learning of your support for H.R. 1179, introduced by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE). H.R. 1179 would amend the health reform law to permit a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services that are contrary to the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, or purchaser without penalty. This legislation has been referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee for further consideration. I will keep your thoughts in mind as this bill progresses through the legislative process.

As you may know, current law has prohibited the use of any federal funding to be used for abortion services since 1976. Since then the law has been subsequently expanded to cover federal health care programs so that federal government employees who wish to have abortions must pay for them "out-of-pocket". In addition, abortion services are not provided for U.S. military personnel and their families, Peace Corps volunteers, Indian Health Service clients, or federal prisoners.

You may be interested to know that the health reform law made no changes to existing prohibitions on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services. The law further maintains federal conscience rights for physicians and health practitioners. I believe that this amendment to the health care law is unnecessary, and have heard from many constituents who agree.

I believe that there are some matters that should not be legislated, and this is one of them. The choice of whether or not to have an abortion should be left up to a woman, her doctor, her family and her religion, not the federal government. If we are to reduce the need for abortion, it is essential that we provide women with the information and services they need to make responsible and educated family planning decisions.

Although we disagree on this issue, thank you for contacting me. To learn more about my work in Congress, please visit my website at http://holt.house.gov.I look forward to hearing from you again about this and other issues.

Sincerely,
RUSH HOLT
Member of Congress

Anonymity Means No Accountability

2011-11-17T08:04:00.001-05:00

I am trying to be generous and believe that people who say that they want to remain anonymous online because they have "no desire of notoriety or recognition." I really am. The same topic came up when people started joining Google+ recently, and some folks I am connected with were rubbed the wrong way by Google's insistence on "real names." The loophole for those folks was to just make a more believable pseudonym. :-/

My main objection to this, especially in this online world, is that anonymity means no accountability. You can publicly attack others and impugn their character, orthodoxy, whatever. You can do real damage to them. You can misrepresent truth (intentionally or not), such as Catholic doctrine. You can mislead others as to your identity (and by that, I mean more than just name). You can be a total misanthrope, be hateful, spiteful, and mean. All without any personal accountability.

How unjust is it for anonymous bloggers to tell bishops, for instance, that the bishops need to "stand up for the faith" and "have some backbone," when they don't even have the backbone to identify themselves? How much more when they make sweeping statements impugning the orthodoxy and charity of vast swaths of our bishops today?

When I'm feeling generous (especially with some of these folks I consider friends), I want to believe the stated good intentions. But when I'm feeling less so, it's hard to swallow, especially when I see examples of such vitriol from anonymous bloggers--because it's just too convenient to be anonymous online. You have nothing on the line, no accountability.

So for all those--especially purportedly Catholic (although who could verify it?)--online personalities who proclaim humility in anonymity (or whatever other personal concerns you have), I urge you to search your heart again. Is there any hint of fear that you could be held to account for what you write? Even if there's not--especially if there is not--you should reconsider because the potential evil and harm to others (through malice or inculpable error) far outweighs the potential danger to yourself, your humility or privacy. Is it not, in fact, an act of charity to do so? To take risk to yourself out of concern for others? I think our Lord would say so--"no greater love has a man than that he lay down his life for another."

If you can't take that risk and accountability, I'd humbly suggest that perhaps it would be better to not blog, comment, tweet--whatever--online at all.

About the Hidden Exodus

2011-11-09T22:39:00.000-05:00

I really have mixed feelings about this: "The Hidden Exodus". On the one hand, I can sympathize in that my own personal experience of parish life over these last 10 years has been lacking in the sense of family/deep connectedness that I felt both as an evangelical and Episcopalian.

I also understand the tension between adapting church services to be more appealing by contemporary popular standards and our duty to preserve authentic Christian liturgy.

But Fr. Reese of course takes the opportunity to take potshots at the new translation and the Vatican. I also wonder if the survey was framed in such a way as to tend towards those results.

I personally am of the bent that our faith should be challenging us. If it is not, there is something wrong. It is a call to live holier lives, and that's never been easy, certainly not in our culture today.

As a former evangelical Protestant, I can say that I do miss the evangelical bent--tis partly why I have become a lay member of the Order of Preachers, which is evangelical ("apostolic") to the core.

I also agree with the observation that encouraging a love of Scripture is important--we naturally crave the Word of God. Oddly enough, you'll hear more Scripture in the typical mass than you do in a typical evangelical service, but it's instilling a love for personal time with the Word that seems to be missing.

Another point where I think Fr. Reese diverges from the data for his own agenda is claiming that it's not that things are too liberal that draws people away. That probably comes from not having been evangelical Protestant himself--they are basically all conservative and take living the Faith and receiving it for what it is (not manipulating it to suit the zeitgeist) as a key motivating factor in their lives. The 46% who say the Church doesn't take the Bible literally enough--seems to me this is what they're getting at.

I reflect back on the sermons I heard growing up and those I've heard since becoming Catholic, and I can say pretty confidently that a key part of the sermon *every week* was a challenge to ongoing conversion and to go out and LIVE THE GOSPEL. On average in a Catholic homily, my experience has been that few challenge you, few stir that burning in your heart, few have any lasting impact at all. I have heard some, but on average, there is a great difference in this respect between evangelical Protestant and Catholic preaching. I think it's primarily this calling to conversion, holiness, and living the Faith without compromise that people find attractive when comparing these two, and it sounds like the data reflect that, even if framed in different words.

Well, then there are those who do want us to be more in practice like the rest of the world--the "liberal" and "mainline" denominations. I just don't get that approach to Christianity. It doesn't make sense to me at all. Well, I think I understand why people feel the desire to retain vestiges of a religion they feel attached to somehow, but as far as I'm concerned, if I didn't believe what a religion teaches, I just wouldn't join/stay in that religion. It's the only integral thing to do. I don't believe in Buddhism or Islam's creeds; ergo, I am not a Buddhist or Muslim. I don't just pick the things I like that fit with popular culture and say I am.

But as the data reveal--people don't make religious choices based on reason alone (or sometimes at all). I get that. But I digress..

So really, what I wanted to say was that I'm not sure what the right way forward is. A certain amount of adaptation makes sense and has always been the way Christianity has thrived--avoiding syncretism, most of the time. At the same time, Christianity is an historical faith; it is based in real history--a real Person, a real Truth, a real Church that has preserved and handed on what it has received. We can't just reinvent it or whitewash it so much that it looses its true character.

It does seem we maybe erred too much in the Catholic Church these last 40 odd years in the direction of adaptation, so I tend to think that a certain amount of readjustment and alignment, even if a bit awkward, is the right next step. Will the new translation magically make people return to the Faith in droves? Of course not, but that doesn't make it irrelevant or wrong. It is one piece of a big puzzle.

The data are there--we know people feel their needs are not being met. The solution isn't to totally change who we are or adapt the Faith so much that it is indecipherable from modern secularism and popular culture. It seems to me the only right way forward is indeed to recapture and preach the Gospel in its entirety and to practice it as such, in as much as we are able. Sometimes it will align with popular culture, sometimes not, but as long as it maintains its integrity, it will be clear about its value and people will be drawn to it.

Of Theologians and Bishops

2011-08-17T21:21:00.001-04:00

I just wrote this up as a comment on this article in which Fr. Thomas Weinandy tears theologians a new one, mostly in response to the unfortunate commenters on the post. I think it's worth repeating here.

----

There have always been theologians who stray away from the Faith. There's nothing new about it. And yes, sometimes they do get vindicated later on (I'm thinking of Fr. Congar, for example). Even St. Thomas Aquinas was attacked by contemporaries. Sts. Jerome and Ambrose weren't the best of friends. Theologians don't always agree with each other, nor with the bishops of their time. The bishops are duty bound to be conservative, and theologians tend to push the boundaries.

On the other hand, I have to agree with Fr. Weinandy (and the Holy Father, and many, many saints, including the Church's greatest theologians) in that theology should indeed start from the foundation of faith seeking understanding. What the deposit of the faith is is not so hard to find out as some comments [there] suggest (or I suppose as some theologians try to pretend in the name of "academic freedom").

The study of theology is not like other academic disciplines. In fact, it is fundamentally different; it is the queen of all the sciences because its subject is the Infinite, and because the subject of this field's study is de facto an object of faith, it makes no sense to start from anything but faith.

Further, the saints are unanimous in that there is a certain congruity between a life of prayer and sanctity and a true knowledge of God. To suggest otherwise is to fall outside of Catholic Tradition. You may be okay with doing that, but trying to maintain you are a Catholic theologian while living outside of Catholic Tradition is oxymoronic.

Lastly, all the folks who make this another "let's piss on the bishops en mass due to the sex scandal" need to grow up. This is not about power, or old boys' club, or anything like that. Read the letters of St. Paul. Read the early fathers. Read Ignatius of Antioch. Read Bl. John Henry Newman. The bishops are supposed to secure and pass on the deposit of the faith; it's the job description, not a power grab. If you don't know this basic fact about the Catholic Faith, you really don't have any room to be commenting on or judging them, much less commenting about the nature of theology and theologians. Address Weinandy's points if you take issue and stop with the laughable ad hominems..

P.S. I tend to think the real problem is that the average Catholic today thinks that the group they should listen to are the theologians rather than the bishops. It's fine and normal for theologians to be wandering around and testing boundaries, even inadvertently falling into error (as is their wont). They can duke it out with the bishops--that should be between them and their bishop. If they hold a teaching office, the bishops have a duty to make it known when they stray from the Faith.

But for the Catholic "faithful" to follow errant theologians rather than their bishop is, again, outside of Catholic Tradition and really makes it hard to call them "the faithful." Your bishop is your pastor--your shepherd; you follow him, not your whims or the opinions of even the most qualified theologian. This is a norm of faith; there can be exceptions--individual bishops have no guarantee to be free from error, but the exceptions do not change the norm.

----

I should add, read I John 2:3-6, for a Scriptural foundation of the tie between holiness and knowledge of God.

On St. Anselm's Ontological Argument

2011-07-09T14:19:00.001-04:00

I ran across something yesterday that disputed the validity of Anselm's ontological argument using the original (and long refuted) objection that says "I can conceive of a <insert category/type of thing here> than which no greater can be thought, but that doesn't mean it exists." This was originally proposed as an island by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo, and Anselm swiftly refuted it.

When I first learned the argument in college, and the objections, I have to say that it seemed then and still seems now to be sound to me. (BTW, this is one of the best plain-language explanations of it I've found.) That said, I have always felt that the argument lacks compelling force. On the one hand, it seems cogent, and I don't see anything wrong with it in itself; on the other hand, it has a feel of verbal/logical trickery to it. You're left feeling like it makes sense and yet that it doesn't. It's the same sense you have when you see a magic trick, and you know that it's not magic, but you can't figure out how it isn't magic. Bertrand Russell seemed to agree with this, saying that it's much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than to say exactly what's wrong with them. I think the reason it feels wrong is that it is so simple and yet the consequences of it being true are so disproportionate to its simplicity--it can't be that easy. But this sense doesn't mean the argument isn't true or that it cannot be compelling. In any case, people have tried and keep trying to figure out if it is indeed valid--and even people of faith differ.

Kant argued that existence isn't a property of a thing, so you can't really "add" it to the concept of that-than-which-no-greater-can-be-thought. That's why he thinks it doesn't work (from what I can tell). The problem I have with this objection is that I don't think he establishes that existence is not in fact something that can be added, even if it isn't a formal property. We all understand the distinction between thoughts and things that exist "in reality," as Anselm himself points out. Kant says that this existence is empirical, something involving the senses that we experience, which is of course a very subjective point of view.

I would say rather that existence is something that can be experienced, and further, even science postulates the existence of things that we as humans cannot experience directly with our senses (e.g., subatomic particles, black holes, cosmic strings, planets in other solar systems, and so on). We can only experience them indirectly and reason about their existence from the observations we make. So things can "have being" without our experiencing them (or even potentially experiencing them) directly.

We implicitly give more value to things that we perceive to have being, rather than just concepts in our heads. So whether or not existence is a proper property or not, it is something that is valuable that not all concepts have. And we think it is better to have this existence than to be thought only. So in this respect Anselm's argument still holds sway.

The other objections I've seen all hinge around disputing the premise or definition of that than which no greater can be thought. One objection, already noted, is applying that concept to things in particular categories--islands, cats, etc. Even though this seems an obvious objection, it is also the most easily refuted. The proposition of the argument is that-than-which-no-greater-can-be-thought without further qualification. It's not the greatest island--we can conceive of something greater than an island. It's not the greatest cat, or human, or computer, or any particular type of thing. It is the greatest thing, across all categories, surpassing all categories. I would suggest saying "infinite good" might help understand why this objection doesn't apply.

Good is what is desirable. Obviously, we each have our own ideas about what is desirable, which is why the infinite qualifier is important--it easily accounts for all of our particular goods that we have in mind and surpasses them. And this ties in with the discussion above about existence--we generally perceive existence as a good, and that's why we can add it to (in a sense) the goodness of the infinite good concept--wouldn't it be better for the infinite good to actually exist? Of course!

The real trouble, if any exists, lies in the assumed definition being a definition of God. Let's set aside the question of God (and all the various ideas we have attached to that concept) and instead just consider the definition Anselm provides as referring to "some thing." Science fiction has done a good job in helping us to approximate this kind of thinking--offering up aliens (like the Q in Star Trek) who are for all intents and purposes like what many conceive of as God (or at least gods). Anyways, the point is that if we can suspend judgment on whether or not the definition pertains to "God" and just consider it at face value, it seems easier to accept the argument as valid, and as such it is not, as Rev. Neal asserts, a faith-based proposition.

On this count, it seems to me that the argument aptly proves the existence of this being, logically speaking. The trouble, as I said, comes when we make the jump from from such a being to any conventional notion of God, or more specifically, the God of the Christian religion. I will not deny that God, in the proper Christian sense, is an object of faith. I would say this is indeed by definition, and dogmatic in the Christian faith. And ipso facto, there are no proofs for his existence. The can be, on the other hand, proofs that lead one to faith in God because they demonstrate truths about him and/or our relationship to him.

This is not irrational, as faith is popularly conceived to be. It is not against reason or without reason--quite the opposite in fact. Faith is an act that uses reason as a launchpad. In function, this is not different from other beliefs that people hold--they are things for which they have little, if any, direct empirical evidence for and yet accept as true, because they seem to make sense in relation to or follow from other things they have experienced, because someone they trust/an authority told them, because it is commonly held by people they know, etc. The difference is in the object--faith is belief in the Divine. Faith can can be based on any or all of these, as well as on the ontological argument.

As for Anselm's argument, it does seem to prove the existence of the being that he posits. For those who do believe in God, they would associate the posited being with God, at least as a way to understand and think about God. For those who do not believe in God, I am not sure how they might grapple with the existence of such a being. For all of us, what bearing does this being have on us? What should our relationship to it be (if any)? Should we ignore it, or should we try to understand it better? How might we understand it better?

If we can accept the existence of such a being, and it seems to me that the ontological argument makes a strong rational case for doing so, then it seems to follow that we need to come to terms with its existence somehow. (Or we can choose to simply refuse to acknowledge the validity of the argument without demonstrating what's wrong with it! ;) ) If we choose to grapple with it, there are further proofs that lead from an initial concept of God such as this to the Christian conception of God, the Trinity, and Faith. I myself have followed them, and they are rational, certainly as rational as any reason I've seen to not believe in God. And in my estimation, the reasons for faith are more compelling, taken as a whole, than those for the lack of it.

Who Cares Who Gets Married?

2011-06-25T18:46:00.004-04:00

There are so many different things to talk about in relation to redefining marriage to encompass same-sex unions, but I just want to comment on this one common sentiment in this post. Since the NY law was passed, I've seen people I follow on Twitter saying things like "who cares who gets married?" and "why do you care? mind your own business."

As I commented to one, that's so deliciously paradoxical. Setting aside the rights--rights and privileges that can be enjoyed without extending the meaning of marriage, as exemplified in "civil unions"--the reason that marriage is recognized as a social construct, and indeed why the advocates of same-sex marriage say that "civil unions" are not enough, is they want their unions to be recognized and accepted in our society, just like heterosexual marriage.

In other words, the crux in changing marriage to include same-sex unions is because same-sex couples care what others think about their unions. They want others to care. They want us to recognize. They want us to accept.

So telling opponents of same-sex marriage to "mind our own business" and saying "who cares" just makes no sense at all. Marriage is not a private matter. It is a public matter. That's the whole friggin' point of all this brouhaha.

People who get married want to declare their intent formally, publicly, and legally to their society. They want us to care, regardless of their orientation.

So who cares? Me. And you should, too.

Review: The Little Way of Lent

2011-03-01T23:41:00.001-05:00

Another review coming to you courtesy of my wife, Chistiane. This one on a book of Lenten meditations written in the spirit of St. Therese of Liseux. Enjoy.

----

The Little Way of Lent, by Fr. Gary Caster

Fr. Caster delivers. In The Little Way of Lent, he offers meditations that focus on the mass readings for each day, with quotes from the autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux. Lent, he says, can be a season of joy, if only we will focus on God and His love instead of on ourselves.

What Fr. Caster offers us is the chance to look at Lent in a different way. We shouldn’t be trying to prove ourselves to God, because we can’t. Instead, we can remember, indeed, revel in, our own littleness, as St. Therese did. We can’t make ourselves into what God wants, but He can. We can only offer him our little gifts, our small sacrifices, because we love Him.

In small, daily steps, centering on the mass readings for each day from Ash Wednesday to Easter Vigil, he meditates on prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, but with the focus always on God as the inspiration and source of strength for our actions.

I highly recommend this book for anyone looking for a deeper Lenten experience. Its day by day, small steps approach makes a meaningful, joyful Lenten journey possible for even the busiest Catholic.

----

Thanks to the Catholic Company for sharing this book with me. As part of the FTC rules, I have to be clear that they gave this book to us in order to elicit a review. The Catholic Company is also a great source for first communion gifts and baptism gifts.

Review: Celebrating Saints and Seasons

2011-02-05T11:33:00.001-05:00

This review comes from my wife, Christiane Little, who is a Catholic homeschooling mom of four. She's very crafty (in a good way :) ) and likes to do projects with the kids, so it seemed like a good fit.

----

Celebrating Saints and Seasons, by Jeanne Hunt

I didn’t really like this book initially. Firstly, this is not a craft book. There are no coloring pages or neat little patterns for ornaments. Instead, there are ideas, ranging from simple, like using flower stickers to create a Lenten countdown calendar, to more challenging projects, like planning a New Year’s campout. Organized by month, the book offers suggestions for seasonal celebrations like Earth Day and Thanksgiving as well as memorials of Saints and other heroes like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King Jr. There’s a wealth of material, a boon to anyone finding themselves short of ideas.

The book did grow on me after a bit. However, there are features that I find less useful. The “prayers” in each section are basically (sometimes overly flowery) prose poems. They may work well for personal meditation for the parent and educator—a number of them, to be fair, are thoughtful and/or beautiful – but will not appeal to nor be appreciated by most children.

The other feature that I found unappealing was the inclusion of guided meditations and pseudo-liturgies for home and possibly school use. These might work with a group of teens or pre-teens, but I doubt they would be very enthusiastic about them. The points made in the course of these rituals would be more likely to make an impression if presented in a less formulaic way.

Overall, I’d recommend this volume to anyone looking to plan engaging activities with a Catholic slant for kids and family. It’s definitely geared towards adults, not kids, though. These aren’t ready-made projects; most require some degree of planning. However, with a little imagination, parents and educators will find plenty of ways to use the material presented here to enrich their lives and the lives of the children they work with.

----

Tradition Is Progressive

2011-01-03T15:26:00.002-05:00

It’s a common misconception that “tradition” and “traditional” is somehow backwards looking or simply conservative. It’s not.

‘Tradition’ comes from the Latin traditio, the noun of the verb tradere, ‘to transmit’, ‘to deliver’. It was a term of ratification in Roman law: for example, the legal transfer of a shop or house was accompanied by the act of handing over its keys, traditio clavium; the sale of a piece of land was accompanied by the act of handing over a clod of earth. Tradere, traditio meant “to hand over an object”, with the intention, on the one hand, of parting with it, and, on the other, of acquiring it. Tradere implied giving over and surrendering something to someone, passing an object from the possession of the donor to the receiver... An equally good simile would be that of a relay race, where the runners, spaced at intervals, pass an object from one to the other...
from The Meaning of Tradition by Fr. Yves Congar, O.P.

Tradition is not something for your grandparents. It’s not wistful nostalgia for the past. It is, in brief, what enables us to keep moving forward, to keep expanding and enhancing our knowledge about things, to progress--it’s progressive, not conservative. Whether or not you like it, essentially everything you have had taught to you is a kind of tradition, and that is A Good Thing.

Of course, not all traditions are good or perennially helpful. Each of us has to evaluate what is given to us and assign it value, but I’m just saying we shouldn’t discount tradition just because it was handed down to us, i.e., not dismiss things out of hand because they are “traditional.” I would even go further to suggest that we might want to implicitly give traditional knowledge more value than something we discover on our own until we have plenty of evidence to recommend another course precisely because it is something that those who came before us thought was valuable enough to hand on to us.

In other words, I’m suggesting we not reinvent the wheel if we don’t have to. What our parents and grandparents (and theirs and theirs and theirs) hand on to us should have implicit value for us, to help us to not start from scratch, to learn from their experience and mistakes, and to, as Sir Isaac Newton and others have said, see a little bit further than they by standing on the shoulders of giants. We should value tradition because it enables us to be truly progressive.

Review: Discovering Mary

2010-12-05T18:48:00.003-05:00

Today I got around to reading Discovering Mary, by David Mills. The book is succinctly written--super easy read. It’s also structured very well and simply--chapters that are on target, broken up further into common questions. At one point in the book, David says that the book is adapted from an FAQ he wrote, and it certainly has that feel, which is actually a good thing for this purpose.

If I had to criticize something, it would be that at times his answers/explanations come across as bald assertions, and he doesn’t provide notes to back them up. I’m not saying what he says isn’t true or founded in research, but it would be nice for those who want to dig deeper on specific topics to have the notes with specific references. With that said, he does provide a solid bibliography at the end of the book for further reading, so that’s helpful.

What I did like, apart from the brevity and succinctness, is that I think he hits the crucial common questions and is very honest, saying things like isn’t that stretching things a bit? Honest sentiments that I know Protestants have--and myself, being a convert as well and having had these same thoughts. Heck, I still think that sometimes, but as David rightly points out, sometimes the Church sees better than She can explain. I’m coming up on 10 years as a Catholic this coming Easter, and I have to agree with him that actually living and experiencing the Faith with its Marian dimensions makes a big difference from just reading the propositions, evidence, and argumentation. That’s certainly been my experience with, for example, the rosary.

I was a tad unsatisfied with the devotions coverage. It’s not that he didn’t mention the “issues” we converts have, but that the answers were a bit too superficial for me--at least, I still feel a bit uncomfortable with some of the apparent hyperbolic language that Catholics use in regards to Mary--even though we all know the actual doctrine is sound. As David said at one point, the Church goes to great lengths to reinforce that we should not worship Mary or ascribe her true Divine nature, but at the same time, I still find myself kind of bristling at words like “our life, our sweetness, and our hope,” and I still don’t get “star of the sea.”

That’s just me, though; not sure if there is anything besides living with it longer that will help. I did learn a few things, especially in the titles and devotional chapters. Probably my favorite line in the book--and the one thing to take away from an apologetical perspective, is this:

You can’t love Mary only for herself. It makes no sense.

So compact but so meaningful, so true. Also, I sometimes have to remind myself that we’re talking about Jesus’ mom, and he’d probably be happy for us to compliment her, even if we do get a bit over the top at times.

Good book. Easy read. Covers what he says he’ll cover, well, and concisely. Recommended.

Thanks to the Catholic Company for sharing this book with me. As part of the FTC rules, I have to be clear that they gave this book to me in order to elicit a review. The Catholic Company is also a great source for first communion gifts and baptism gifts.

Speaking of Abominations

2010-08-27T00:10:00.001-04:00

Some Christians who have personal problems with homosexuality are all too eager to quote Leviticus 18:22:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. (NAB)

They might shiver with self-righteous titillation as they roll that last word around on their tongue. What they seem to not realize is that it's not the only thing that Holy Scripture presents to us as an abomination. Consider the following:

There are six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to him; Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood; A heart that plots wicked schemes, feet that run swiftly to evil, The false witness who utters lies, and he who sows discord among brothers. (Proverbs 6:16-19, NAB)

So haughty eyes (pride) and lying are also an abomination, as well as troublemaking.. Consider also:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NAB)

See how heterosexual adulterers and fornicators (i.e., those having sex outside of marriage) are grouped along with "sodomites" as well as thieves, the greedy, drunks, slanderers, and, in general, the unjust? Or:

Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21, NAB)

What? No mention of homosexuality in this list, but it does include simple impurity? hatreds? (By the way, what does abomination mean? Look it up.) Outrage? Acts of selfishness? Any kind of immorality?? That seems a bit harsh, no?

Well, yeah, it would be harsh were it not for the grace of God freely given to us through Jesus Christ, which is the real message of the Gospel. As St. Paul said elsewhere, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," but he immediately goes on to say, "they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-4) Likewise, the passage from 1 Cor above immediately continues, "That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed [in baptism], you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." And the passage from Galatians goes on to list the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control--these are built up in us by the Holy Spirit as we cooperate with the grace of God!

The message of the Gospel--the Good News--is that we can have hope, despite how utterly screwed up we are. It's not a matter of tritely saying "hate the sin; love the sinner." No, if we hate anything, it is all sin, and not because we find it personally distasteful but because we recognize that it pulls us away from our One True End, that is, it is a disorder.

You see, we are rightly and naturally ordered toward God--our End, our Goal--and all sin is by definition that which draws us away, that is, orders us in a direction away from Him. When the Catholic Catechism speaks of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered, this is what it means. In much the same way, it speaks of masturbation as a grave disorder, I might add.

The Catechism goes on to say that "Every sign of unjust discrimination in [homosexuals'] regard must be avoided," which is what I'm driving at here: If you condemn homosexual acts, you should in the same breath condemn selfish acts in general as St. Paul does, which includes any sexual acts that are not ordered towards procreation within the context of marriage. There is no room for special/more intense condemnation of homosexual acts in a rightly considered view of human sin.

But more importantly, Christians need to shift their energies from condemnation, disgust, or even hate and instead invest their energies in exhortation, compassion, and, indeed, charity. Yes, we do need to defend marriage, but frankly, that defense needs to be more encompassing and holistic--towards eliminating cohabitation before marriage, supporting greater fidelity within marriage, supporting people in natural family planning, working to reduce divorce, and generally working to better promote a holistic, positive understanding of human sexuality whose goal is to make people happier and healthier in this life as well as properly ordered toward eternal life with God. (The two go hand in hand.)

A defense of marriage that focuses exclusively on preventing the civil recognition of homosexual unions as "marriage" is almost certainly doomed to fail in the long run, and in the short run, it distorts the Christian Gospel and offers a terribly negative, lopsided, unattractive, and unhealthy view of the essentially positive Christian understanding of sex (and life in general!).

Disclaimer

2010-07-18T14:42:00.001-04:00

As a lay Dominican, having membership in a venerable, 800-year-old Catholic Order, one of the privileges I have is to note this membership using the Order's suffix, "O.P." (short for Ordo Praedicatorum or Order of Preachers, which is the proper name for Dominicans), along with a prefix that identifies me as laity such as Mr., Mrs., Ms. I also typically wear some indication of that membership, as we are encouraged to do, which as of late for me tends to be a simple, black and white (the colors of the Order) bracelet my wife made for me that spells out V-E-R-I-T-A-S (Latin for truth, a motto of the order) in block letters. That's pretty much the extent of the external signs we lay Dominicans wear most of the time, and of course, we're free to identify ourselves as lay Dominicans, as I do on this blog and elsewhere.

My membership and these signs indicate a calling, a vocation to live my life according to the Rule of the Lay Fraternities of St. Dominic. They indicate and in doing so promote accountability for my solemn promise to live that way: to study, to pray, to contemplate--in community--and share what I can with the world. They do not indicate that I speak in an official capacity, either for the Order or for the Church, nor are they any kind of guarantee that what I say is without error.

What I share on this blog and elsewhere is my personal take on all this stuff. If any of it is right or true, it's only because I happen to be correctly representing the truth; if any of it is not, it's because I am imperfect and only see the truth dimly. All I can guarantee is that I do my best to represent what is good and right and true, and hopefully my being a lay Dominican helps me to do that more often than not.

In SPND,

Mr. Ambrose Little, O.P.

(Br. Albertus Magnus, in the Order)

P.S. If you're interested in learning more about being a lay Dominican, check out our province's Web site. You can also email me at ambrose at laydominicans dot org.

Defending the Indefensible?

2010-07-17T02:04:00.001-04:00

Prologue

This post has been long in coming but has just been delayed cuz I've been too busy. I told Bertrand I'd respond in due time; it's a good thing that can mean basically anything. :)

You see, few months ago, Bertrand Le Roy posted his thoughts on a post I wrote about four years ago that very briefly dealt with the Inquisition (which really is properly called inquisitions as they came and went over a period of several hundred years in different places, but I'll stick with the standard singular for convention's sake). Now, please bear with me because I intend not to get into debating the finer points of the inquisitions; I just need to set up the context for this post.

Apparently, Bertrand didn't read even the rather short article I referenced, by historian Thomas F. Madden, much less consult the book I referred to, but he seems to have just grasped onto the summation I gave, which without the context provided by my references is hard to come to terms with. In fact, although I can't recall my thoughts at the time exactly, I tend to think I was being a bit controversial intentionally to tease people to read the references or, at least, explore the subject more thoroughly than accepting the popular mythos about it.

Since it spawned such a heartfelt response by Bertrand, though, I feel he deserves a thorough response. So prepare yourself for some slow reading!

Chapter I

First of all, let me quote the referenced article by Professor Madden:

When most people think of the Inquisition today what they are really thinking of is the Spanish Inquisition. No, not even that is correct. They are thinking of the myth of the Spanish Inquisition. Amazingly, before 1530 the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe. There are actually records of convicts in Spain purposely blaspheming so that they could be transferred to the prisons of the Spanish Inquisition.

Now I've read more than the average person about the Inquisition. But having been trained as an historian (that's what my Bachelor's degree is in, and I graduated summa cum laude), I would by no means call myself a historian of the Inquisition. I've barely scratched the surface, and frankly, using the professional study of history, one could spend a career researching and writing on the topic.

And yet, I do think I've spent more time trying to delve into the reality of the historical situation than most have; plus, my studies in school focused in large part on the high and late medieval period, so I rely on that to further contextualize my understanding of the subject--it's why I can read what I have and think, yeah, that sounds about right for the thinking of the period, and feel relatively confident in the conclusions of these other historians who actually have studied the topic professionally.

As a trained historian, I'm also cognizant of the bias introduced both by earlier Protestant and Enlightenment writers who are largely responsible for the myth as well as that of the Catholic historians who possibly are too indulgent and forgiving while, in my opinion, rightly trying to balance and correct the myth.

On to Bertrand's comments.. I'll cite three paragraphs that I think sum up his position.

No, really, you shouldn't defend Inquisition and pretend it was a benevolent organization. Please, be an adult and recognize when something you or an organization you belong to screwed up. It will elevate you, whereas the defensive position brings you down to the level of the guilty.

I cannot think of a single reason why one would unconditionally support the worst that religion has done and still does today. There are plenty of religious people who embrace humanism as something fully compatible with their faith, and who are not embarrassed to recognize evil when they see it.

Instead of apologizing for the indefensible, you should be the first to forcefully reject the parts of your own religion that are archaic, barbaric and evil. That should only reinforce the core of it, which I understand is supposed to be love.

First off, let me say I appreciate that Bertrand, unlike the militant atheists in the Dawkins and Hitchens crowd, seems to recognize there is goodness in religion, even if it only extends in as much as religious people share his humanistic values. It is good in debate to seek common ground!

Let me say unequivocally that the Catholic faith is a humanistic faith in that we see all of creation as inherently good because it comes from God whom we believe to be infinitely good. One need not go far to see reiterated pronouncements by bishops on the dignity of human life and its inviolability these days in the face of what the Venerable John Paul II termed "the culture of death" that does what Bertrand accuses "three great monotheistic religions" of doing: separating humanity into two categories--those who have full human rights and those who don't ("sub-human").

For The Big Three, Bertrand claims that we use heresy or apostasy as the condition upon which human rights are predicated. I won't speak for Judaism or Islam, but I will say this is not true for Christianity, nor has it ever been--even in the inquisitions.

To judge that a person is deserving of punishment is a matter of justice, not a determination that they are sub-human or lacking in human dignity. The very fact that the accused in the inquisitions were tried--that the inquisitions themselves were courts of justice--bespeaks an implicit recognition of the dignity of the accused and their right to a trial (keep in mind the inquisitions began pre-Magna Carta), a trial that tries, even with imperfect means, to determine truth and mete out justice. Even if you disagree with the premise that religious belief is a matter for public judgment (and the corresponding execution of sentences based on that judgment), it remains that this is not a question of denying human dignity but rather of what is a matter for public judgment.

Furthermore, punishing people, even with capital punishment, is also not a matter of denying human dignity but of determining that the individual has harmed human society and poses so great a threat for ongoing harm to society that their natural right to life must be forfeit in order to serve justice (for the harm done society) and to protect the society going forward from more harm. I happen to be an advocate against capital punishment, but I recognize the rationale behind it and think in certain circumstances it can be acceptable. But the validity of capital punishment as a means of justice is also another debate.

In any case, to suggest this sort of thorough judicial procedure that underpinned the inquisitions is an a priori denial of human dignity is simply wrong.

Take, on the other hand, our contemporaries. I would say that it is rather they in the culture of death who use arbitrary measures to determine if a life bears human dignity, if is "worth living" and thus worth protecting. They use arbitrary and unverifiable criteria based on conjecture--not established judicial procedure by a qualified judge--to determine if a life has human dignity. They use unverifiable conjecture on the perception of pain, self-consciousness, viability, too much pain, ability to be cared for, etc. to determine without due process that a human person does not bear the human dignity that calls for protection.

I don't know where Bertrand stands on life issues, but Catholics certainly are at the forefront in defending human life and human dignity, from conception to natural death. This stems from our belief that creation is good because it comes from God and, more specifically, that human life is good because we are made in the image of God and are called to a special participation in Divine life, a sharing in the love of the Trinity.

For humanists to pretend that belief in the dignity of the human person is an invention of the so-called Enlightenment is just preposterous. At the very foundation of the Christian religion lies a sublime recognition of the dignity of human persons, a dignity so great that God, in his infinite goodness, deigned to make it in his own image and then took on that human nature to more fully bring it into communion with his own being. It's not for nothing that we call the Gospel the Good News!

Chapter II

Which leads me to the second contention of Bertrand's...

I hold the opinion that this is in large part caused by the fact that this organization believes itself to be holy and infallible.

After very tenuously comparing the Inquisition to the Vichy government and then looping in the contemporary specter of the child abuse crisis (after all, what critique of the Church today would be complete without that?), he really gets to the heart of the matter. How can an organization that does things like the Inquisition and abuses children dare to call itself holy and infallible??

The gauntlet is thrown. The evidence is in. It's clear that it is patently moronic to claim such a thing given the indisputable (and self-documented, I might add) wrongs done by "the Church." How can one even begin to defend such a clearly indefensible position?

The answer lies in a not-too-fine theological point. I say that to preclude pretense at dismissing what I'm about to say as theological finery because, trust me, this is pretty straightforward compared to theological finery. When the Church says that it is holy and infallible, it is not without qualification, that is, not without a requisite understanding of what the Church is and how we understand it to be such.

There are multiple dimensions to the reality of the Church. Book upon book upon book has been written about this, so forgive me for my necessary simplification.

The Church is the mystical body of Christ, with Jesus as its head, made up of:

the communion of the faithful living today

the communion of the faithful departed who are being purified (popularly known as "in purgatory")

the communion of the faithful departed who are purified and participating fully (as fully as humanly possible) in the Divine communion of persons known as the Trinity (popularly known as "in heaven")

When speaking of the Church as the corporation of its members, the Church is holy and infallible only in as much as the Church's members are conformed to their head--Jesus Christ. Those living today and in purgatory are being sanctified (made holy) through the grace of God. Those in heaven have been sanctified.

The holiness of individuals living today is not complete nor guaranteed--we must cooperate with the grace of God, and our holiness is not our own doing but a gift of God that we receive and cooperate in effecting. Therefore, speaking of the Church as a corporation of such individuals, it's obvious that it is not possible to speak unqualifiedly about the Church's holiness. Even without the ample objective evidence we have of our imperfection, you can see that our understanding of our nature as living, faithful humans informs us that we are imperfectly holy.

Similarly, infallibility is not an unqualified quality of the Church. No individual possesses it unqualifiedly before "getting to heaven," and we only are infallible in heaven because we see God, who is Truth in essence, face-to-face (what we call "the beatific vision"). So even in heaven, infallibility is not a matter of some arbitrary definition of truth, as is popularly conceived, but simply a seeing and recognition of the Truth that is.

The infallibility granted to the Church on earth is essentially the same--it is a seeing and recognition of the Truth that already is, not a creation of truth. On earth, we see the Truth only partially, and the truth that the Church proclaims infallibly is only what the Church believes it has received from God. The conditions for an infallible definition are actually quite rigorous, and the Church is in practice quite reluctant to define things in such a way.

Papal infallibility is also a gift granted under special circumstances (more on that here). It is never arbitrary (i.e., a whim or personal opinion of the pope) but is a way to formally recognize a truth that is implicit in Divine Revelation. We only have two instances where theologians agree this gift has been exercised, and there have been only twenty-one ecumenical councils (the other way things are definitively proclaimed infallibly) in two millennia.

I say all this about infallibility not so much to dig deep into the subject but rather to impress that it is actually quite unusual for it to be actively exercised and that is not possessed by individuals (bishops nor popes) in an unqualified way nor as a tool for them to shove their opinions down others throats. That's not to say that Catholics are only bound to consent and obedience for infallibly defined dogmas, but that's another discussion.

The important thing here is to realize the very qualified and rare way that definitive, active infallibility is exercised in the Church and, as noted, only there have been only two known infallible definitions by a pope. So there is no burden on the faithful Catholic to defend every proclamation of a bishop or even the pope as if it were infallible.

Especially in matters of discipline (e.g., how ecclesiastical trials are exercised), there is no guarantee of infallibility, so it is entirely unnecessary to defend, for instance, the decision of a pope to authorize torture as a tool in the inquisitions. That, I would argue, is a purely human decision by a human conditioned by his culture and time, and I wouldn't defend it beyond defending any such historical fact or personage--that perhaps in that time and culture it was understandable. Would it have been better had torture not been authorized? Almost certainly, but it would be anachronistic of me to suggest that he should have known better. Surprise! Even popes can be wrong!

Chapter III

So why the heck am I bothering to defend the Church in regards to the inquisition or any other controversial matter? Because too often the facts get severely distorted and generalizations are made that really do strike at the deeper realities of the Church and, worse, endanger others' faith.

When I defend the Church in regards to the Inquisition, the Crusades, the priestly abuse crisis, etc., it is in no way to defend the evil and abuses perpetrated by individuals--even bishops and popes. The fact that popes and bishops and priests are imperfect does not endanger my faith because I have a right understanding of the holiness and infallibility of the Church. Personally, I am of the conviction that we should recognize and address the serious failings of priests (and bishops and popes), both past and present.

In each controversial situation, there was real wrong, real evil, real suffering caused by members (even leaders) in the Church. THAT is the scandal; that is what we can all agree to decry. While priests and bishops are admittedly "just human," they are called to live a holiness of life that is exemplary to others, and Christian Scripture says that they will be judged more harshly precisely because they are expected to be Christian models and have at their disposal the graces to realize their calling. It is right to expect them to live exemplary lives, and because of this, it is just as right to be more offended when they don't, as compared to other members of human society. (That's why my stomach turns when the defense is made that "there are so many other child abusers out there, why not talk about them??" It's because priests should be better--they're supposed to be examples to us all!)

But to recognize and address the real evils perpetrated does not require one to condemn the whole. Abusus non tollit usum--the abuse of a thing does not nullify the proper use of it. In the case of the inquisitions, as an institution set up in a culture where heresy was a capital offense, where there was little to no regulation of means of interrogation, and where presumption of innocence was not par for the course, it was good (even juridically advanced for the time) to have competent judges who had strict regulations on the methods of interrogation they could use, who had (for their time) very enlightened understanding of ulterior motives of witnesses, who had a deep grounding in theology and Catholic doctrine and could rightly discern real heresy, and who were enjoined to presume innocence and do everything they could to convert and correct a person (rather than, as in the myth, gleefully handing them over to punishment).

Torture, specifically, was recognized as an extremely imperfect means of learning the truth, despite its being authorized. It was not authorized in the beginning, and once it was, as I understand it, the guidelines were to use it rarely, much like we understand the current situation for the U.S.. I'm not defending torture; I'm just pointing out that for those on the front lines in protecting the society, the Inquisition was in its inception as "enlightened" as the policy makers today. Even after all this time and "enlightenment," there are supposedly enlightened people today who still defend it in some circumstances. I am not one of them, nor would I defend it in the case of the Inquisition except to point out what I have pointed out.

Would it have been better for the Church of the time to refuse to cooperate and pressure for a change in societal structure? Maybe. In fact there have always been Christians calling for social reform, even if not always the hierarchy. But if the Church had refused to participate as it did, it seems to me that far worse would have happened. The Church has to work within societal structures that exist, even while working for a more just society in the future. Let's not forget that the goal of a good inquisitor was to establish innocence and bring the guilty back to the Church, even in opposition to the local authorities (who were more than once hostile to the imposition of the inquisition as a regulating "meddling" force in their affairs). This is quite different from the picture painted by comparing it to the Vichy government--just going through the motions to achieve the ends of the state.

And there is something to be said for the fact that the Church at the time was made up of humans at the time who were conditioned by their cultures just like we are. Our culture can either help or hurt our ability to see the truth clearly, and it can certainly hamper our freedom to act on it. In this sense, yes, I agree that from my distant vantage point, it seems like the Church could have done more and advocated against the state more for religious freedom. That the leaders of the time did not fully see or act on what I think is a richer understanding of religious freedom is unfortunate, but from a historical perspective, it is understandable.

In Summary

To sum up, I agree that what is truly wrong and evil--even when done by leaders of the Church--should be decried and not defended. What I defend against is not such real evil but rather the exaggerations, extrapolations, and outright lies brought to bear against the Church, using these lamentable, real evils as a basis.

Do I therefore risk being seen as "defensive" as Bertrand put it? Do I even risk being thought to defend the indefensible, bringing me "down to the level of the guilty"? Obviously! As is evidenced by Bertrand's musings. But for me those are risks worth taking in the love and service of truth, the Church (that holy and infallible Divine institution, rightly understood), and those who might be led astray by those same distortions of truth to their own harm and detriment.

Pax vobiscum!

-ambrose

They Just Don't Get It

2010-04-13T22:37:00.001-04:00

Sadly Necessary Disclaimer: For those who are uncritically swallowing the media distortions around the Holy Father. I don't expect you to agree with my perspective, but please have some common sense and do not imply that this is some bizarre, backhanded defense of a coverup. I don't believe for one instant that Benedict was involved in a coverup. I know his mind from his writing and speaking pretty well, and I don't believe that mind could or would ever intentionally participate in a coverup. My defense of him should be considered evidence of that.

--------------------

I just read this seemingly innocuous article (compared to the standard malicious fare hurtling around these days) about Benedict XVI's "record" trying to judge the "success" of his pontificate.

In reading it, I was not so much upset but just bemused and baffled at how off kilter folks can be in the lens they use to interpret the words and actions of Pope Benedict XVI. Even his proclaimed "biographer," John L. Allen, Jr., also makes the same goof, but I suspect that's a product of where he's coming from as a journalist accustomed to trying to interpret for the world in a reasonably fair-minded manner.

The problem is this lens that judges Benedict's actions as if he is acting like a politician, i.e., that he makes choices based on his concern about how history, the media, popular opinion, etc. will judge him. Now to try to not appear totally naïve, I wouldn't say that he takes no thought for these things--in his position, he has to give them some thought, but that doesn't mean he makes choices based on them. In fact, I would say that his record of making apparent blunders reflects a certain lack of concern towards them, that he makes decisions despite these concerns, not because of them.

I've read a lot of Benedict's thought, both from before he became pope and more since. And maybe that's why I'm extra defensive of him--because it's clear to me that, contrary to popular caricatures, he carries the heart of a true shepherd of souls and that this care for souls is what his central motivation is. His concern for Truth, for the Church, for the unity of Christians, and the liturgy are all driven by this--yes, even the seemingly hard things he says and does. (Note this is not saying he's impeccable or never makes mistakes; rather, I'm speaking of his core motivations.)

If you want the key to understanding Benedict, it is true, real faith, true, real love for God, and true, real love for souls. If he thinks in centuries, it because he knows the Truth has stood fast in the Church for centuries and that it's his responsibility to lead the Church during his vicariate so that it can continue for centuries to come.

But I would say he thinks more in terms of eternity--with a view to the salvation of eternal souls. That's his job, what he's dedicated his life to, and he takes it very seriously, to the point of risking alienating those lost awash in our tepid culture of materialistic relativism and even endangering his own person.

I recently watched The Gospel of John, and the actor, Henry Ian Cusick, did a wonderful job at driving home that Christ pulled no punches. He wasn't diplomatic or soft spoken in speaking the truth, even at the risk of alienating the majority of people in the culture prevalent in his day--he didn't even soften the blow when faced with losing those considered to be his disciples (see John 6:60-66).

So yeah, before you ask, I think the Holy Father is right in doing the same, speaking the truth even when it causes a stir and people get upset and even some people use it as an excuse to leave the Church or commit hateful acts of violence and vandalism. I think he's right even when it incenses the pundits and causes them to twist facts and hurl the most vile of accusations based on the slightest evidence contorted in the most ludicrous ways. He's right to do so because innumerable souls would be damaged if he didn't continue to doggedly speak the truth. He's right to do so because those who are estranged because of the truth can indeed only find the Way through the Truth by the Light.

I leave you with this reading from the gospel according to John, without further comment. This is what Benedict and the Church he leads--in its essence, its purpose, its mission--is all about.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God. (John 3:16-21, NAB)

Pro Abortion People Are Not Monsters

2010-03-26T01:06:00.001-04:00

I'm writing this post for two reasons. First, because I, like others, am sick and tired of the vilification and extremism on both sides of the abortion debate. It's gone on for too long and, from my point of view, the pro-life extremists are at least partially responsible for the ongoing legality of abortion because their words and actions have galvanized many people who might otherwise be brought around to see the other side and maybe even change their minds, which is what we all want.

Even many pro abortion folks--even our supposed "most pro-abortion president ever"--have explicitly said that they want abortion to be rare, so that is something to build on. Clearly they acknowledge it is not a desirable solution--they recognize there is something sinister in it if they want to make it rare, so the argumentation needs to revolve around discussing if it isn't even more sinister than they recognize it to be--so sinister that we just can't allow it to remain legal any more than other forms of taking human life are legal.

The second reason is to elaborate and respond to some friends who are pro abortion and I've recently discussing the issue with in bits (e.g., on twitter).

So, I'll try to elaborate some rationale supporting abortion w/o simply vilifying or caricaturing in hopes of helping my anti abortion friends understand and empathize with the thinking a bit more, and I'll consequently respond to each position and explain why I can't see it as viable. Doubtless I'll do an imperfect job at both, so I ask for some indulgence and understanding. I know that I, too, am biased despite my attempts at being fair and deliberate.

As I see it currently in my thinking, the abortion debate boils down to basically two issues.

1) When does human life begin?

-or-

2) Does all human life have equal dignity and correspondingly demand equal protection?

This is why phrasing the debate in terms of pro life and pro choice is a terrible mistake and has only led to further galvanize irrational people on both sides. So-called "pro choice" people are no more consciously anti-life than "pro life" people are anti choice. We really should just say pro/anti abortion.

Only a true monster would prioritize a mother's whim over the life of an innocent, defenseless human being in her womb. So, pro abortion folks have to believe that it is not a human life in question. I think this applies to the majority of people who'd classify themselves as pro choice.

The reply to this position is surprisingly simple. The consensus in biology tells us that at conception, a new organism is created that, left uninhibited and given natural nourishment, will divide and develop into a recognizable human body, be born, and mature into adulthood. It has all the genetic information that will make it up, so genetically speaking, once conceived, it is fully its own human life. (Would like to highlight that this has absolutely ZERO to do with religion--we're talking about hardcore science.)

For those who think this through and are attached to the pro abortion position, they must fall back on the second issue--a definition of when life deserves to be protected, i.e., what life is worth living and, correspondingly, worth protecting. Put another way, at what point does a human life gain human rights such as the right to life?

Leaving this delineation up for debate is, in my opinion, a truly frightening proposition, for a number of reasons:

1) For a life in the womb, the judgment of whether or not the life is worth living is based on conjecture. Will the parents have the money, time, or even psychological or social capacity to raise the child well? Will the child become a "productive member of society"? And so on.. even if you buy into the idea that some life is not worth living (which is a very debatable idea), to make that judgment on conjecture about the future is dangerous to say the least. The future simply cannot be predicted--to gamble someone else's life on a future prediction is unconscionable. It's no different from those parents who go crazy because they lost everything in some financial disaster and then kill their whole families because they can't imagine how they can continue to provide for them.

2) Even if we could reliably predict the future, it's axiomatic that perspective is everything. Some people can live in and through the most terrible circumstances and still be joyful, content people, while the wealthiest celebrities seem to have a knack for self destruction. Even if an externally dire life situation were likely, that's no indicator at all as to how happy or fulfilled an individual person might be living it. It's just not right to prevent someone even having the chance to have what they'd consider to be a satisfactory or even happy life.

3) We also know that except for a small minority, people tend to have a very strong urge for self-preservation, so given the choice, most people won't kill themselves, even if they are unhappy. So if the vast majority of people won't choose to kill themselves, who are we to kill them preemptively? Seems obvious that we should assume they will, like most people, want to live, even in unfortunate circumstances.

4) <insert other quality of life indicator here> - It all boils down to an essentially completely arbitrary line in the sand as to what constitutes a human life worth protecting, and when you make that line movable based on non-objective criteria, you open yourself up for tragedy like was seen in the 20th century with the many genocides that occurred under the Nazis, the Communists, Rwanda, and elsewhere. And anti abortion folks would indeed also say that the lives taken through abortion is genocide on the grandest scale ever.

In all genocides, someone decides that these certain criteria mean that those who meet that criteria are not fully human and so they can be treated like animals or worse and killed at whim. Under current law that allows abortion on demand, we are saying that we think that parents, sometimes even teenagers, can set those criteria for their children (but only in the womb and usually only to a certain term, oddly enough).

We don't let teenagers vote or drink, but we can let them set criteria for human life worth protecting? We insist that parents educate their children and restrict their choice in regards to their children on a host of other matters (like wearing bike helmets), but we let them decide in the first place if their child's life is worth living? How does that make sense?

Freedom in general and freedom to choose in particular are always constrained in a civilized society. Phrasing the debate in terms of choice is disingenuous; phrasing it in terms of "women's [reproductive] rights" is even more so. It's not about a black and white matter of freedom or choice but whether or not parents should be able to choose if the life of their child is worth living, and given the considerations above--even granting that some human life is not worth life (which for the record I reject)--any reasonable person should see that arbitrarily drawing a line in the sand is an unacceptable option when considering human life and the rights it entails. We have to fix human rights to something more objective, and as noted, that objective thing is biology--we know a human life is genetically fully itself once conceived, and any point after that is an arbitrary judgment related to quality of life, which is simply unacceptable.

So no, pro abortion people are not monsters. I have to believe they just aren't clear thinkers because the reasoning against abortion is simply too strong. I admit it ultimately does boil down to a judgment call considering the various rationales; I just don't see how the other conclusion is viable in the end. To accept the pro abortion position, you have to accept too many unacceptable implications and risk something that is entirely too valuable--human life.

Honest and Fair Public Square

2010-02-28T23:21:00.001-05:00

About a week ago, Stanley Fish published "Are There Secular Reasons?" in the NYT op ed section. I read it and tweeted something to the effect that I probably couldn't have said it better, but it assumes that contemporary folks care about being philosophically consistent.

A few days later, one of my buddies on Twitter, Christof Jans pointed me to this response by a fella down under, saying it was an intelligent response, and I just got around to reading that. So enough of the prologue; here's the deal, as I see it.

Not surprisingly, I still think Fish's point stands. In fact, it seems like Mr. Blackford missed the point entirely, or if he didn't he's being disingenuous in his response. First, he starts out by trying to paint Fish as some devious rhetorician, pointing out his use of "apartheid" and "'real' in quotes" as if it's wrong for him to do so. Blackford then goes on to bandy about the ever present propaganda about how when religion is in charge, everything goes badly, tossing out the usual suspects.

He goes off on this tangent, but he still rightly identifies that it was a particular historical backdrop that John Locke and his ilk were coming out of. He also rightly identifies something that he seems to not fully understand the implications of--that deriving policy--the how we ought to live and, consequently, govern ourselves--requires humans to imbue facts and assertions with value, regardless of if those facts and assertions are presented by religion, science, or ideology.

Blackford then returns to the tired assertion that when government tries to enforce a particular religion, it always does badly, conveniently forgetting or ignoring that the greatest atrocities in history were committed under intentionally irreligious. Look back on the 20th century where we have the Nazi atrocities, the Communist atrocities, the purely political great (and small) wars, the socio-political genocides of the 90s, and so on. Compared to these, even the extremely caricatured popular misconceptions of the inquisitions, Crusades, and so-called religious wars of the early modern period pale.

Of course, I'm not going to suggest that the reality of the Crusades, the abuses of the inquisitions, or the wars that took place in the name of religion are justifiable--my point here is just that any assertion that a religiously-based government is inherently worse than a purely secular one is baldly false by any honest historical measure.

All that said, this discussion is a red herring, as far as what Fish was trying to say. His point had no hint of what Blackford puts on his lips: "He needs ... an argument as to why we now live in an era when it is wise to trust the state to decide which religion is correct, and then legislate accordingly." In other words, Blackford, in his apparent anti-religious paranoia that is common among the atheistic élite, dodges Fish's argument and instead attacks the straw man that Fish (or those who agree with him) are proposing a return to theocracy.

We're not. We're merely calling out the ignorance, the dishonesty, or the unfairness of the modern liberals who advocate that religion must be purely a private matter that has no influence in the political arena. The crux of Fish's argument is exactly what, as I said, Blackford admits to but seems not to understand the implications of--that assigning value to facts and propositions must come from a metaphysical foundation.

To say that "everyone doesn't want to die or be raped" or to rely on other "obvious" (or as the Enlightenment thinkers might say, "self-evident") values still requires imbuing those propositions with value and assenting to that value. If those truths are not founded upon some objective metaphysical foundation (e.g., natural law), all they are is wishful thinking, the current popular opinion, or, might makes right. Stripped of such metaphysical foundations, legislating and enforcing these "obvious" values is nothing more than mob rule all gussied up in the pretty clothes of our much lauded democratic republic.

And in fact, we see the realities of this mob rule coming to fruition on critically important social issues like abortion, euthanasia, and the meaning of marriage. The dogma of Progress tells us that we must believe that these changes are for the better, that these are on par with the abolition of slavery, that whatever further "liberties" we gain are inherently good. This is wishful thinking on a grand scale; any student of history knows that history ebbs and flows in terms of good times and bad times.

But I digress, my point in calling this out is not to predict our own civilization's downfall but merely to highlight that history teaches us that not all changes in our society and government should blindly be accepted as "progress," i.e., something good/to be embraced. We need to judge proposed changes to our law by something more substantial than current popular ethos/culture/opinion.

To make such judgments, we are forced to draw on substantive values that, as Fish points out, cannot come from mere scientific, secular investigation or discourse. The truth is, as Blackford does admit, that we do draw on such values with or without recourse to religion. The difference between, say, me, a Catholic, and a contemporary materialist/empiricist/secularist/average Westerner is that I can be philosophically consistent in drawing on these metaphysical foundations while they, as Fish and the author he reviews point out, have to smuggle these values in and try by appeal to the bogeymen of the Enlightenment period and to popular sentiment to assert them as self evident or "obvious."

Now I might agree that, in general, the values of life, liberty, and equality are good values (because I derive them both from natural law and my religion, though not unqualifiedly), even if they are smuggling them in, and if we left it at that, we'd be fine. The objection motivating this critique is not to suggest that we should abandon the secular, pluralistic state or these smuggled values. The objection lies in what Fish calls out through his flowery language--that the secularists need to, first, ensure they're aware they are smuggling, second, that they be honest about it, and third, that they be fair and equitable as a result, realizing that the values they smuggle in are inherently no more or less valuable in a truly secular, pluralistic state than the values explicitly founded in religion.

The fact that my values may be religiously informed does not inherently make them less valuable than values others derive from whatever basis they use to inform their values, and in fact, we're suggesting that whether they want to admit it or not, their values are also ultimately, truly derived from some metaphysical source--we're just being honest about ours.

To put it another way, we are all appealing to certain metaphysical foundation based on our personal beliefs, regardless of if they are overtly religious or based on these implicit metaphysical foundations that secularists "smuggle" in. The consequences of such honesty and fairness is that those who advocate the "naked" public square, who advocate that religion be a purely private matter and be banished from public debate, cannot tenably advocate that--if they are being honest and fair.

A pluralist, free society doesn't mean a society that is free of religion but one in which all religions and non-religious ideologies can freely advocate their values. Otherwise, we end up in a situation no different from a state religion, where a particular ideology is established and others, solely because they are religiously informed, are outlawed. This is precisely the situation that our forefathers fled from. This is freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. It is not honest; it is not fair; it is not free.

Feast of the Incarnation

2009-12-20T22:38:00.001-05:00

Today I saw someone tweet that "Christmas does NOT commemorate the INCARNATION of our Lord, but His NATIVITY." Seems relatively harmless, right? Here's another example of the same sentiment, rightly corrected by Fr. McNamara.

What's the problem? Simply put, the Feast of the Nativity of Christ (Christmas) is about the Incarnation. Fr. McNamara offers a pretty good, concise clarification. I'd like to elaborate a bit. First off, in the Orthodox tradition (see this and this, for example), the Nativity is inextricably related to the Incarnation. In the first reference, Archbishop Dmitri says "…the Nativity of Christ (December 25). Eight days later (January 1) we remembered the Circumcision of Christ and then His Baptism (January 6). The commemoration of these events in our Lord's earth [sic] life basically form one feast, the feast of the Incarnation of God the Word." In the second, His Grace Bishop Youssef uses "Feast of the Nativity" and "Feast of the Incarnation" interchangeably. I mention these because sometimes the Orthodox can give us a bit more insight into the ancient Christian faith than we get from only Roman Catholic sources.

Now back to Fr. McNamara, he notes that "the prayers used during Advent are taken from the ancient manuscripts known as the Scroll of Ravenna (fifth-sixth centuries) and the Gelasian sacramentary (seventh century). Their constant theme is the coming of Christ, both in the incarnation (first coming) and at the end of time (second coming)." He goes on to note that the Nativity was celebrated earlier than the Annunciation, and that these prayers that relate the Incarnation to Christmas are correspondingly more ancient.

It seems pretty clear to me that the chief meaning of the celebration of the Nativity is the Incarnation—the Word become flesh. It'd probably be helpful to distinguish between the basic, biological event of the incarnation and the Incarnation as a theological reality. Those who make the point in the tweet above are thinking (presumably) only of the former; the problem is that this is not the way that the Church traditionally thinks about it.

The feast of the Annunciation has its own particular emphasis on Mary's awesome and unique role in salvation history—her immaculateness and her fiat. That it follows this event would also be, biologically speaking, the beginning of Christ's life on earth seems to me to be of secondary concern for the Annunciation, and I think it is only recently that focusing on that aspect in relation to the Annunciation has become en vogue in Catholic circles due to pro-life concerns.

From a biological point of view (a pro-life-concern point of view), yes, it is the point in time when the Word took on human nature. But that's just not the point. You see, we know that the Word is eternal—from the beginning, and it is this Divine nature that makes the Incarnation so special. The Incarnation is first and foremost a theological event, not a biological one. This theological event of the Incarnation, you might say, is ultimately what the Annunciation all about. So if we're going to give the Annunciation celebration a secondary meaning, it should be the wonder at the Incarnation, not so much the fact that it was biologically the beginning of Jesus' human life.

Looking at it like this—with the Incarnation (as a theological event) as the central focus (and not the human conception of Jesus)—it's not hard to see that we can just as rightfully celebrate the Incarnation at Christmas. You see, the biological events (conception and birth) are not the important things here. There's nothing particularly special, unique, or wonderful about them in themselves—it is the Incarnation, the Word become flesh, that gives them both significance. And indeed, as Archbishop Dmitri points out, the other events in Jesus' earthly life are also occasions to celebrate the Incarnation. As events that situate Jesus as a real human being in time/history, they are important, but those are more like the background to the theological story. The Incarnation is not (just) about Jesus' human conception; it's about God becoming man so that man might become God (St. Athanasius). It's just that awesome.

So what bugs me about the tweet (apart from it being something of a novelty and historically ill-advised) is that it inadvertently obscures and diminishes the deeper, more important meaning and value of these two feasts. In a way, it subjugates the Incarnation to the pro-life cause, which is just wrong.

When speaking of the Incarnation, perhaps it'd more better to speak of the feasts of the Incarnation (instead of just one), or to speak of it, as Archbishop Dmitri did, as one mystical feast that spans many particular holy days (mirroring the same reality of Christ's Incarnation lived out across many days on earth). But in any case, it certainly is valid, good, and part of our ancient Tradition to celebrate the Incarnation during Advent and Christmas. Enjoy!

Marriage Must Be Strengthened, Not Redefined

2009-11-05T09:16:00.001-05:00

Despite regular and repeated efforts to tell us we think otherwise, we--faithful Catholics--do not hate gays. We have just as much love, care, and concern for our gay friends and family as we do for our straight ones (and yes, I do personally have several gay friends and a gay family member, FWIW). We are not fearful. We are not hate mongers. We're not ignorant or on the fringes of some sort of "right-wing" or "backwoods" group. We're not narrow minded, irrational, nor stupid. And we're not worried about what other people do in their bedrooms.

On the contrary, marriage is a public, societal, civic (and for many, religious) institution. Our position is not about denying anyone the right to live and love as they please; it is about the public, civic institution of marriage. And marriage, for us, is even more than that--it's a sacrament, right up there with baptism, the Eucharist, confirmation, ordination, reconciliation, and last anointing. It's in the top 7 things we care about. But regardless of our religious beliefs, marriage, for everyone, is something that spans cultures, time, politics, governments, and with few exceptions (I'm being generous and assuming there have been a few societies, though I don't know of any), it has been recognized as a man and a woman forming a stable bond in which they can raise children.

So that's why we care and are not willing to just stand by and let it be whimsically be redefined by this particular cultural ethos in this particular time. It's too important to experiment with. Democracy is great, but the current will of the majority does not equate to what is true or right. History does not define what is true or right either--it just records what is, so saying "history will prove us right" just doesn't make sense.

It may be that our society continues in the direction it is heading as so many are predicting and that gay marriage will eventually be legalized in every state. That won't make it right, though; it'll just make it what the will of the current majority is, just as the current majority for now seems to still think we shouldn't legalize gay marriage. Two sides of the same coin--democratic majority <> truth, right, or justice in either case.

We are not the ones who made gay marriage into an issue. We did not wake up one day and think "hey, whom can we exclude next?" Our society, like pretty much all societies throughout history (I do have a BA in history and humanities, FWIW), just knew what marriage was and made laws to support it because it is in the best interests of a society to do so. It was they on the other "side" of this issue who have made marriage into an open question and are pursuing us for not agreeing with them. We are simply responding with what we think is true and right and just, upholding what marriage has meant across most human cultures and time. We are not out to get anyone nor actively seeking to exclude anyone. We're just standing by the most time-tested human institution.

I have been accused of using reason to defend prejudice; my motives (and those of all who share the traditional view of marriage) have been questioned. I can understand that--there certainly are those who are motivated strictly by prejudice. And in a sense, you could say that any received/traditional understanding of something is a kind of pre-judgment on a thing, i.e., prejudice. But the problem with prejudice is not prejudice in itself but an adhering to it despite reason--an unwillingness to examine an issue reasonably and be open to change your pre-judgment.

This I and many, many others have done in the case of redefining marriage. Our positions are not based on prejudice but on reason, truth, and justice, which means giving a thing what it is due. Before gay marriage advocates burst on the scene, we (pretty much all of us) just assumed a lot about marriage. It's like you assume your car will just work when you turn it on. You may never think about why or how it works. The same goes for how we think about marriage--it just works and has been proven to work and has existed longer than any other human institution and in basically all human cultures.

So why question it? Why change it? Why redefine it? To make the case for that is tough, and we're saying we're not convinced. It's not about hate; it's not about fear; it's about justice--the chief concern of civil society. It wouldn't be just to grant the same civil benefits to gay unions unless they can be proven to provide the same benefits to our society. This certainly hasn't been proven in any sense of the word I know, and it doesn't even bear out in theory--just using reason to think about it.

The real problem we're facing here--the reason so many people (IMO) don't seem to get us is that marriage is already in a bad way in our society. Soaring divorce rates and the consequent perception of marriage as a very temporary arrangement. The perception that marriage is some kind of love story ending (it's really just the beginning). The perception that marriage is a human right (it's not--it's a privilege). Devaluing of new life in the family, and a basically complete lack of understanding of the meaning and value of sex. The best answer to these problems is to work to fix and strengthen marriage, not to further undermine it by reinforcing these problems through redefining it to include other forms of human relationships.

The American Catholic bishops have recently said most of this, probably better and certainly more concisely than I. You'll forgive me for coming across a little defensive, but it gets old having people telling you and others lies about what you think and feel, especially when it paints you as a terrible caricature and it just plain ain't true.

Review: Last Call

2009-10-08T23:36:00.001-04:00

I recently wrapped up listening to the Last Call CD series by Tim Staples. Briefly put, I was disappointed, but that's not to say that the series doesn't have good content--it's just not what I was hoping for when I requested it. Based on the description, I was hoping for an in-depth presentation of the Catholic teaching around the Last Things. Certainly, Catholic teaching on this subject was presented; however, it was so couched in apologetics that at times it was a challenge to take away from it what was Catholic and not be distracted by other things.

Part of the problem is the format. The presentation was so riddled with quotes (I swear if I heard "close quote" one more time..) and citations that it was a task to listen to. Extensive quoting and citations is appropriate for apologetics, of course, but it just really doesn't work in extended audio format. A big point of providing citations is so that others can look them up, and unless you're sitting there with a notepad, they're just plain extraneous. I get audio books so I can listen when I can't read--in my truck. I certainly can't be writing down and looking up references.

The constant quoting just wears on the nerves because Tim actually says "quote" and "close quote." I was trying to think about how you could do quotations in an audio book format without doing this. I do think sometimes you could get away with it with appropriate pauses, shifts in tonal quality, and change in language/style, though it would take maybe more planning and thoughtful execution in addition to the already thorough preparation of the content, so I can't fault him too much on that--probably wouldn't be worth the investment.

The other thing that can bug you is the sort of self-assured, almost gloating tone he had at times. "Folks, <chuckle> this is not how it is..." seems to have stuck in my mind as an example of it. It's hard to figure out who the best audience is for this work. The reason is that the presentation manner (and where it is being marketed) indicates it is meant for Catholics, but it seems to me that apologetics in nature are best used as a response to critics.

I have to guess it is meant as training material, but that's not how this work is presented. If you read the description, it sounds like a straightforward elucidation of the Last Things. It sounds like it is geared toward helping you meditate on them and help you "be prepared." It sounded like it'd present the truth as truth, in all its own, self-resplendent beauty and not truth used as a tool to defeat others' positions.

So I don't feel like I can recommend it. I have read a pretty positive review of it, though, so clearly there are different perspectives on it. I think it would help if the book were more clearly presented as an apologetics training tool. As noted, I think there are more appropriate formats for this purpose, and toning down the gloating would make it more appealing, at least to me, who also comes from a Protestant background and still has many family and friends who are Protestant. Even if you are only talking to Catholics, if you're doing it to train them, you shouldn't train them to gloat. It's not polite, and it certainly won't win anyone over.

Thanks to the Catholic Company for sharing this book with me. As part of the new FTC rules, I have to be clear that they gave this book to me in order to elicit a review.

Is Transubstantiation a Physical Change?

2009-09-21T23:48:00.000-04:00

In response to my last post about Eucharistic Adoration, a commenter, "Adoro," says that we do not and should not say a "physical" conversion occurs. This is my response.

---

Hi Adoro,

You should consider using your real name. It adds authenticity, relatability, and contributes to trust in this virtual world we call the Web. As our Lord said, I have said nothing in secret; the Gospel is not an anonymous matter.

Anyways, I don't know about not saying "physical." Nothing I've read (St. Thomas, Cath En, Catechesim, Trent, and more) says we shouldn't or don't say "physical." Granted, most of them also do not use "physical"; rather they say "substantial" and say "body and blood."

Catholic Christology hashed out at some pain that Christ has both Divine and human nature, i.e., part of his substance is human, and we say we partake of his "body and blood," both of which are physical in nature. Our doctrine is very clear that none of the substance of the bread and wine remain (and surely bread and wine are physical substances). In fact, Trent condemned as contrary to the faith the idea that "only the substantial form (forma substantialis) of the bread underwent conversion, while the primary matter (materia prima) remained."

That's why I say it is proper to say "not only physical," while it is not proper to say "not physical."

Now, I think the crux of the matter is a question of one's understanding of "physical." You and McBrien seem to mean it only to refer to the physical attributes (what in Aristotelian thinking are called "accidents"). In that sense--in terms of accidents or "species"--yes, there is no physical change, but that is precisely why there is a distinction made between accidents and substance in this matter--to highlight that the change affects the entire substance while retaining the outward appearances (accidents). As noted, substance in this case includes the physical because the substance of both bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ have a physical nature--not just in the outward forms but essentially. And because the substance/essence of Christ includes natures that are not just physical but also spiritual, and not just human but also Divine, we also say that we partake "body and blood, soul and Divinity."

Regarding the concern about folks who take the understanding of the conversion to inaccurate extremes, that is no argument against transubstantiation itself (or a substantial physical change, which, again, is implied in the doctrine). Our doctrine also tells us that Christ's whole substance is contained in each and every particle of the consecrated host (see CCC 1377 and Trent Canon III of the 13th Session), so that excludes the idea that breaking or scratching or otherwise tearing the host injurs or tears Christ himself apart. People who think that need to be taught a right understanding of this doctrine, not to be taught that it is outmoded or have it substituted for a vague term like "sacramental," which while true does not help understanding much.

Now I acknowledge that these distinctions are unfamiliar to the average contemporary mind. But that does not mean that they are beyond the modern mind. We can have things like stem cells explained to us enough so that we grasp the important bits, even if we don't have degrees in advanced biology. In the same way, we can learn the stuff needed to get a sufficient understanding of transubstantiation.

Finally, to reiterate why all this is important, I'd like to quote a bit (more) from the old Cath En: "So the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation sets up a mighty bulwark around the dogma of the Real Presence and constitutes in itself a distinct doctrinal article, which is not involved in that of the Real Presence, though the doctrine of the Real Presence is necessarily contained in that of Transubstantiation. It was for this very reason that Pius VI, in his dogmatic Bull 'Auctorem fidei' (1794) against the Jansenistic pseudo Synod of Pistoia (1786), protested most vigorously against suppressing this 'scholastic question', as the synod had advised pastors to do."

So we see that this tendency to dismiss transubstantiation as a "medieval" anachronism is not new at all; instead, rather, it is considered a "mighty bulwark." This is what I was trying to point out in my last post--that a proper understanding of and belief in transubstantiation is key to a proper, healthy understanding of the Real Presence. As McBrien and others have shown, one's understanding of this has very practical implications in how we worship God, and how we understand our relationship to him and to others, especially in the context of our liturgy.

I ask you, which abuse would be worse: an inaccurate, extreme concern for the Eucharist or a disregard, irreverence, and devaluing of it? So, even granting that an inaccurate understanding of transubstantiation can lead to the former, I suggest that this possibility is much less dire than the latter, which is a fruit of being wishy-washy and vague about the Real Presence.

Peace be with you.

Eucharistic Adoration: A Step Forward

2009-09-09T00:37:00.001-04:00

Dear Anna Arco tweeted today about Fr. McBrien's latest spiel on his blog with the statement "NCR's Fr. O'Brien dismissively calls Adoration a "step backward". He neglects to explain why." Needless to say, that grabbed my attention. Not because I latch onto every apparently unorthodox thing Fr. McBrien says--I don't have the time for that--but because I have relatively recently come to a very personal, experiential appreciation for Eucharistic adoration.

The "old" Catholic Encyclopedia speaks about the "adorableness of the Eucharist." I just love that phrase; I can't help it because I look over at my youngest son of 7 months and think about his adorableness. Of course, we're talking about totally different meanings of "adorable," but there is something in the deep movement of affection that is common to both.

Unfortunately, it wasn't until recently that I really knew this. Of course, that we can and should adore the Eucharist follows from what we believe about it--that it is truly, really, actually the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The change is not temporary; as long as the host remains incorrupt, the real presence of God remains. This I knew since well before I became Catholic and gave complete assent to.

And yet, despite this mental assent, I was reluctant to actually practice it. I think this was mainly due in part to laziness and in part due to some clinging on of my Protestant predispositions. Thankfully, my lay Dominican chapter president, Mr. Robert Ellis, O.P., decided to make Adoration a part of our monthly gathering. It was thanks to him, doubtless the Spirit working through him, that I was first exposed to Adoration experientially.

Adoration is one of those things that is truly ineffable. Because of that, there is little point my trying to describe it, but I'll just say that it has had a rather profound impact on my life. It sort of reminds me of runners who say that you just have to do it in order to understand why they like it. It's a kind of high, but instead of a natural, it is a supernatural high. At least that's been my experience.

Now Fr. McBrien comes along and says that Adoration is a step backwards. He says that Adoration is only good for pedagogy--for teaching people about the Real Presence. The thing is, Fr. McBrien seems to be confused as to the nature of the Real Presence. He says, "The transformation (the medieval word was 'transubstantiation') is sacramental, not literal or physical." Then a bit later, "they have been changed sacramentally, not literally or physically, into the body and blood of Christ."

I think maybe I can begin to see the root of the problem. He seems to have a very vague and somewhat inaccurate notion of the Real Presence. He claims that transubstantiation is a "medieval word." It is true that it was coined then, but the Church has kept and cherished that word and even uses it today as the most fitting description of what happens (see Catechism #1376). I've run into even orthodox priests who seem to belittle transubstantiation as some rarified or antiquated way of explaining things, so I don't fault McBrien too much for his implicit attempt to marginalize it.

And yet I must blame him and them, because it is important that we be clear on this. Even if you don't understand the fineries of Aristotelian categories, it doesn't take a PhD to understand the basic ideas of substance and accidents. Indeed, it seems these days it takes a PhD to not understand them! Or at least to attempt to divest them of their power in explaining things.

The Church has been painfully precise and clear in defining the Real Presence. The CathEn goes as far as to say "Eventually the West became the classic home of scientific perfection in the difficult doctrine of Transubstantiation." And ecumenical councils, catechisms, and doubtless every official means through which the Church lays out our doctrine has confirmed the understanding conveyed by transubstantiation.

So it seems pretty arrogant, if done intentionally, to cast the term aside today. And whether or not it is arrogant, it certainly should not be done without offering a better substitute.

And what does McBrien offer? Not only does he say, vaguely, "sacramentally," but he also seems to explicitly deny a right understanding of the Real Presence by saying "not literally" and "not physically." If it is not literally changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, then how is it changed? Imaginarily? Allegorically? If it is not physically changed into our Lord's Body and Blood, then how is it changed? Spiritually? Ideally?

He says "sacramentally." Of course it is sacramentally changed! It's a sacrament! Can you be more vague? Coupled with his denial of a literal and physical change, the reader is left to come up with all kinds of imaginings as to how the change occurs.

The Church, on the other hand, is very clear on how it is changed. It is changed substantially, and not just partially substantially (i.e., it does not retain any of the substance of bread and wine as in impanation or consubstantiation) but fully substantially--there is no substance of bread and wine left. It must be admitted that both the Body and Blood of Christ and bread and wine have physical substance; therefore, it is not accurate to say that the change occurring at the consecration is not physical. You could say it is "not only physical," but you can't just say "not physical."

And what can we say about "not literally" beyond verbalized puzzlement. What does McBrien intend by this? Sadly, I fear it may expose a susceptibility to materialism or at least a materialistic outlook because the only viable meaning I can derive is that he means essentially the same thing as "not physically" such that it is simply reiterating his misconception, only with deeper implications. In "not literally," he is not just denying the physical change but also any actual change at all. Coupled with "not physically," it is an apparent denial that there is a meaningful reality beyond the physical such that you could rightly say it literally (i.e., actually/in effect) changes.

What is even more saddening is that I think McBrien is representing what is these days a majority Catholic (at least Western/American Catholic) understanding of the Eucharist. They say with their mouths "real presence" but have no adequate conception of what that means. They truly do not believe it literally or physically changes.

It is no wonder then that McBrien would assert that Adoration is a step backward. It is no wonder that Catholics of that ilk are all too keen on relocating the tabernacle safely out of the way. It is no wonder that they are more keen on community, "being Church," and a "common meal" than on the awesome, actual, literal, physical and spiritual presence of God we encounter in the Eucharist.

Ironically, McBrien says that we don't need Adoration any more because "most Catholics are literate and even well-educated, the Mass is in the language of the people (i.e, the vernacular), and its rituals are relatively easy to understand and follow." He contrasts this supremely educated state of Catholics today with the unwashed masses of the past who needed this "extraneous eucharistic devotion" to educate them on the Real Presence. It is ironic because it is painfully clear to me and other Catholics who truly do understand the Real Presence that he (and many others like him) just don't get it. It is ironic because it is clear to us that we need Adoration precisely because of folks like him.

In those eminently dismissable medieval times, there was a problem of poorly educated priests. In hearing McBrien and other priests who share his views, it seems we have that problem again, only now they are often well educated--just in all the wrong ways--and, apparently, lacking true, Catholic faith. When we pray for priests in this year of priests, we need especially to remember Fr. McBrien and other priests who have apparently lost their way, however well-intentioned and good they might otherwise be.

Perhaps we should pray that the Spirit would lead them to spend some time in Adoration and find what I found--that it is a great wellspring of grace and a deepening and maturing of faith, that is, a real step forward in one's sanctification.

UPDATE (21 Sept 2009): I was a little surprised in doing refresher study around this just now to find an explicit anathema for those who hold McBrien's position--see Canon VI of the 13th Session. Dang, I shoulda just found that and saved myself a blog post. :-)

Review: Sexual Authenticity

2009-07-13T23:07:00.000-04:00

I recently finished Sexual Authenticity (blog) by Melinda Selmys, and I thought it was good. One could say many fine things about how Melinda speaks honestly and openly about her own experience as a homosexual and her journey thence to her current state as a happily married Catholic mother. One could laud that she doesn't regurgitate the stereotypical or ideological polemics in treating the subject as it is dealt with in the media and literature (on both sides). One could reflect on how she deftly catches the average Christian mentally red handed in his prejudices (and in that group I include myself).

As I said, one could and should offer many commendations to her for her prose, but the thing I found most praiseworthy was her integral treatment of sex in the human person, including how it pertains to God. She identifies rightly that the essential ailment of our society is not the current trends towards the acceptance of homosexual unions but rather an impoverished understanding of sexuality and marriage in general. It is heartening to find I am not alone in this perception, though I certainly lack the depth of experience and research Melinda has on the topic of homosexuality.

I learned from her, and I found her treatment of the theology of the body to be insightful. I have yet to take up that work of John Paul II, but I have encountered a number of accounts of it, many of which seem to me, not even being familiar with the source, superficial. Melinda's treatment resonated deeply, and perhaps as a result of her own recounting of her penchant towards philosophy, and just seeing it throughout her writing, I am inclined to think her treatment is true to the source.

Similarly, I have taken up other books on sexuality from a Catholic perspective. Too many of them are self-congratulatory and, dare I say, sickeningly pious. I consider myself one more inclined to religious fervor than your average Joe, but they were too much, even for me. Not so with Sexual Authenticity. One of my favorite bits was this:

Lighten up. Sex is fun, it's relaxing, it's ridiculous. The problem with all of us Catholics is that we have this airy-fairy, pie-in-the-sky, überserious understanding of sexuality. For the rest of the world--and even for most of the sane Catholics--it's nothing like that at all. When was the last time that you made love to your husband, or wife, and thought "Oh! We are becoming one! We are the sacramental manifestation of Christ's love for His Church! We are the Image of the intimate life of the Holy Trinity!" Never. What you're really thinking is, "The baby had better not wake up halfway through like last time. I wish he'd had a shower in the last week. Did I remember to turn the dishwasher on?" Right? So don't give me all this nonsense about how sex is holy and must be kept in a shining tabernacle, protected from the blasphemy of condoms and fur-lined handcuffs. Get real, take yourselves less seriously, put your high horse in the stable, and have some fun like everybody else.

!! I was laughing out loud reading this. And it goes on. It was so good of her to do this, to balance out the saccharine treatment sex often gets from Catholics. This is part of what makes the book so authentic, that and the fact that she doesn't let this acknowledgment contradict the real truths that we can indeed get so sappy about. As she follows on: "How a person experiences sex--the individual, and in some sense unrepeatable, experience of making love on a particular day--is a different matter from what sex, as an element of human reality, means." And thus begins her exposition of the theology of the body.

There's a lot more to say, but I'll leave that for you read. It was honest. It was instructive. It was relatable. It was true. It's a good book that you should read no matter where you stand on these issues. You'll get something good out of it.

Thanks to the Catholic Company for sharing this book with me.

A Good Confession

2009-06-14T22:48:00.002-04:00

Thank God that I was able to receive the sacrament of reconciliation yesterday (a.k.a., confession). It's such an awesome channel of grace we have!

I tried something this time that worked out really well. In examining my conscience beforehand, I actually wrote down my sins, because I've often found that I forget all but the ones that pester my conscience most once I actually get in to confess.

I really think writing them down helped a lot. I mean, of course it helped me remember them, but I think in doing so, I was able to make a much fuller and complete confession than perhaps I ever have. It was great. Even though I know God is merciful and forgives even those sins we innocently forget, there's just something really.. fulfilling (?) about making such a full confession.

I was reading recently Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska's published Diary recently, and she recommends three things to those who want to benefit most from confession: complete sincerity and openness, humility, and obedience (Notebook I, 113). I think writing my sins down helps with both the first two. If I don't, I can easily fall into being overly generous and forgetful of my own faults, and that leads to pride. In writing them down, I see them staring me in the face, keep them in mind, and consequently will not be so easily led to pride but rather will maintain a more realistic view of myself (and work towards true humility).

I guess the adage of your mileage may vary applies, but it's probably worth trying. Also, if you have an iPhone, using the ShopShop (shopping list) app can be a good tool for this. :) Peace!

UPDATE (7 July 2009): I found on the Saint Cast site that there is an iConfess app for $0.99; it has stuff to help you examine your conscience, info about confession, some prayers, and a tagging capability that you could, I suppose, use to keep track of things to confess. I think I like the free form shopping list approach better, but it is a good start. Maybe v2 will expand.