Tag: Faith & Current Events

Posted on

On the Inopportune Nature of Capital Punishment

Most arguments about Capital Punishment focus on whether it is intrinsically right or wrong. But perhaps there is a middle position, wherein Capital punishment is not described as intrinsically wrong, but its use is described essentially as inopportune. Let’s just call this the inopportunist position.

This is largely where I stand. I am an inopportunist, acknowledging that Capital Punishment is not intrinsically wrong, but also arguing it should seldom or ever be used under current circumstances. More on that in a minute.

But first to say, I think it is clear that Capital punishment is permitted by the Scriptures, under certain circumstances, even in the New Testament. For example, St. Paul says,

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Rom 13:3-4)

With a text like this it is clear that the Church cannot simply declare the death penalty intrinsically wrong. In this sense it is different from abortion, for in abortion the innocent are murdered. In capital punishment the (presumably) guilty are killed, to both punish them and protect others.

It is also a true fact that, when asked to enforce the law that an adulteress be stoned to death, Jesus did not do so and did not agree with any insistence that the Law must be followed. Yet he did not act to abrogate the law in this respect in any judicial sort of way.  So while it is hard to demonstrate that he set aside the law, altogether, it is clear that he does not insist that punitive regulations requiring the death penalty be followed. Hence, neither are we required to apply this penalty according to Old Testament provisions.

So, to be clear, since scripture cannot be merely set aside, and since the New Testament does not explicitly abrogate recourse to the death penalty permitted in the Old Testament, then the Church does not, and I would argue, cannot, declare it to intrinsically wrong. But neither can or should we insist that all Old Testament punitive law requiring the death penalty for certain crimes, be enforced.

Prudential Judgment – So, lets argue that, given the New Testament record, we are permitted but not required to use the death penalty.  And if we are permitted, but not required to do do something, we are now in the realm of practical or prudential judgment, not merely moral judgment. And, for the Church, we are also in the realm of pastoral judgment.

“Pastoral judgment” here indicates a judgment, based on careful discernment, by the pastors of the Church (The Pope and Bishops, effectively),  of the best stance and teaching for the Church on this matter. Their judgment should be based in Scripture and Tradition, but also, as a practical and prudential judgment, takes into account the current context, and how this issue affects and influences other teachings and the Church’s capacity to teach and witness to them.

With all this in mind, I would argue that the Church has adopted, as a prudential judgement and pastoral approach, what I am calling the “inopportunist” position. Namely, that Capital Punishment, though not intrinsically evil, and permissible under certain very specific situations, is not required, and should almost never be used. The Catechism states this clearly enough:

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2267)

As a prudential judgment and pastoral approach the Catechism states some of the following reasons that Capital Punish be rare, if not  non-existent. Such a position is:

  1. more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good – It would seem that here there is a reference to the overall pastoral vision of the Church to restore greater respect for the sacredness of all human life. We live in times where this is particularly doubted by many. The Church has battled powerfully to end abortion, withstand euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and so forth. Further, there is the often hidden but profound tragedy that over 90% of pregnancies with a poor prognosis (i.e. birth defects, Down Syndrome, etc) are “terminated.” In other parts of the world, and even here in America, some use abortion for sex-selection. But the Church insists that human life is sacred, even when coming to us in the non-preferred sex, or with the burdens of handicaps and challenges. Given the overall and increasing disrespect for human life, especially with regard to troubled human persons, the Church has adopted as a pastoral approach that serves the wider common good of respect for all human life, even of the guilty. This pastoral stance makes sense, for the credibility of our witness to life and to the common good that such a witness serves. And though it is possible for us to make distinctions as we did above, such distinctions are often lost on an often cynical populace. There is not a pro-lifer around who hasn’t had to answer questions cynically raised by those who scorn pro-lifers’ consistency on the issue of life. There is a good pastoral and prudential judgement that says, Capital punishment should be off the table – just don’t use it.
  2. more in conformity to the dignity of the human person – This largely includes what is said above. It may be hard for us emotionally to see and accept this, but even serious criminals do not lose their fundamental dignity. Note the Catechism does not say that Capital punishment intrinsically violates human dignity, only that eliminating it practically is “more” in keeping with human dignity.  In this regard, note that in God’s original dispensation, long before the Mosaic Law, God confronted Cain for killing his brother, and God punished him with exile in the land of Nod. But Cain feared for his life. But the LORD said to him, Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over. Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. (Gen 4:15). Hence, though punished, Cain did not loose his dignity nor was the sacredness of his life forfeited.
  3. without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – While some argue that the impending death of a criminal will help him repent, the usual human experience is that repentance and conversion take place more slowly over time. God himself adopts a great patience with us as Scripture says, The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Rather, He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). For us who would be like God, we want every one to come to repentance and be saved, even those who have done terrible things. Hence the Catechism teaches it is fitting for us to allow the guilty to live in hopes that they may come to life saving repentance.

Hence, the Church, without ruling Capital Punishment intrinsically evil, sees its use to be inopportune for the reasons stated. So what is a Catholic to do?

Why not just stand with the Pope and Bishops on this? We’re in a tremendous battle to recover the dignity of all human life (not just some) and the death penalty is a fly in the ointment. It distracts from the pro-life vision and renders the witness of many pro-lifers less effective. Recent Popes and most all the world’s bishops and the Catechism have adopted a position which excludes recourse to the death penalty and such a position makes good sense given the climate we are in.

Again, why not just stand with them? They are our pastoral leaders and have asked precisely this, that we stand together with them on this and all other life issues.Why not just do it? Why not set politics aside, and personal preferences too and say, “For the sake of unity and a more coherent and powerful pro-life witness, I will stand with the Pope and Bishops on this.”

Is insisting on the death penalty really that important? Why die on that hill (pardon the expression)? Given that the Church does not say it is intrinsically wrong,  and thus your conscience is respected, is it really so awful to say, “I will stand with the Church on this and oppose frequent use of the death penalty, that I will ask that it almost never be used” ?  Is what the Pope and bishops teach really so bad?

Think about it. Perhaps there is a “third way” in this case. Perhaps we need not argue forever on whether the death penalty is right or wrong, just that its use is inopportune, given current conditions and the pastoral challenges to restore respect for life in accord with the common good. Think practically and prudentially. Again, think about it.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

In this Video Senator Rick Santorum looks at the Pro-life continuum in a stunning way:

Posted on

What if Hollywood Wrote the Paschal Mystery?

What would happen if Hollywood got hold of salvation history? The following video is meant to be funny and it is. But consider that it unwittingly makes a very important point.

You see, Hollywood loves the “happy ending” and notions like the cross are quite foreign there. Hence, in this clip the Terminator, (Arnold!) won’t let Jesus die! According to Hollywood Jesus, our hero has to live. Further, Hollywood often solves things with violence. Almost every action movie is permeated with violence, revenge and death to enemies. So this video, (pardon the relatively poor quality) shows what would happen if Hollywood tried to “rework” the paschal mystery.

Now if Hollywood with its worldly perspective got its way we’d still be dead in our sins. An old Gospel song says, “He would not come down from that Cross just to save himself. He decided to die just to save me.“

So now that you’ve permitted me to be serious for just a moment, enjoy a rather silly video, though please overlook the “cartoonish” violence that is part of the shtick.

Posted on

Aut Deus aut Mendax – Either the Lord God, or a Liar. A Consideration of the Divinity of Jesus as the "Make or Break" Dogma

I just viewed the First Episode of Catholicism with my Bible Study Students. The series, as many of you already know, is fabulous and I cannot recommend it enough. In the First 20 minutes  Fr. Barron goes right to the heart of the faith and makes it clear that Jesus is God, He is the Lord.

And this truth about him is not only the most stunning aspect of our faith, it is also the most uncompromising. Jesus is Lord. While there are some today who want to find some middle ground by calling Jesus merely “a good man” or a “fine ethical teacher,”…. sorry,  no can do. His divine claims cannot be set aside as if they weren’t there, so we can accept his “less controversial” call to love. The whole Jesus, the real Jesus, can be very disconcerting and he compels a choice. We are free to choose, but we are not free NOT to choose: either he is Lord, or he is a liar. Decide.

Indeed, an old Latin phrase expresses that there is no middle ground between “Jesus is Lord” and any lesser declaration. The Latin phrase is Aut Deus, aut mendax. Another version goes: Aut Deus, aut homo malus In other words, either Jesus is the Lord God, or he is a liar, Either he is God, or a very evil man. Either he is who he claims to be, or he is seriously deluded, dangerous, and a blasphemer, one to whom we should not listen. And if He is who He claims, then we must worship and obey him as Lord. But you can’t have it both ways.

Many years ago in seminary I was quite surprised to listen to some of my professors try an do just that. Want to have Jesus be more palatable to the modern setting, they would often declare what I considered to be heretical things about Jesus Christ. Some of them said, he did not claim to be God, or he did not know he was God. When I might meekly suggest a certain text that more than suggested he darn well knew he was Divine they would simply declare that Jesus never really said what I was quoting from the Scripture. They said the early Church “simply put those words in his mouth.” They would especially put their nose in the air and sniff if I quoted from John’s Gospel which they regarded as a later and non-historical reflection on Christ.

Thankfully I had some other professors who were able to reassure me that the Divinity of Christ was not in question and that the Scriptures accurately what reported what Jesus himself actually said and did. It still shocked me that teachers who denied or questioned the divinity of Christ could openly teach in a Catholic seminary and am happy to report that those problems have long since been cleared up at the seminary I attended. Yet, I must say, I am still bothered to hear that some college students still have to endure this sort of heresy, it is especially grievous to me that some of this still goes on at Catholic Colleges.

Never one to simply collapse under pressure or discouragement I took up the challenge to assemble the Biblical evidence as to Jesus’ Divinity. It is remarkably rich and consistent throughout all the New Testament Books as you shall see. In this article I give the scripture citations for the most part but cannot include most of the texts in the article since they are so numerous that they would eclipse the article itself. Perhaps at some point in the future I will publish a version with all the citations spelled out. For now, let these suffice to show forth a glorious Scriptural affirmation of the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is Lord.

1. Clearly this is a dogma of the Faith (de Fide). The divinity and divine Sonship of Jesus is expressed in all the creeds. This is perhaps most clearly stated in the Athanasian Creed (Quicumque):”…we believe and confess that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is God and man. He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before all ages and man born in time of the substance of His Mother. He is Perfect God and perfect man.”

2. There are many passages in the Old Testament that express the qualities of the coming Messiah, among them are some very exalted titles:

  • a prophet – (Dt. 18:15,18)
  • a priest – (Psalm 109:4)
  • a shepherd – (Ez 34:23ff)
  • King and Lord – (Ps 2; Ps 44; Ps 109; Zach 9:9)
  • a suffering servant – (Is. 53)
  • the Son of God – (Ps 2:7; 109:3)
  • God with us (Emmanuel) – (Is 7:14; Is 8:8)
  • Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of the world to come, Prince of Peace – (Is 9:6)
  • Eternal King – (Dan 7:14)

3. In the New Testament the Father attests to the Divine Sonship of Jesus – (Mt 3:17; 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 3:22; 9:35; Jn 1:34; II Pt 1:17)

4. In the Gospels the Lord Jesus gives Testimony to His own divinity and self knowledge. He is of noble stature and knows of his own dignity and power expressing it often in the following ways

  • Jesus indicates that he transcends the prophets and Kings of the Old Covenant
    • Jonah and Solomon – (Mt 12:41ff; Lk 11:31ff)
    • Moses and Elijah – Matt 17:3; Mk 9:4; Lk 9:30
    • King David – (Mt 22:43ff Mk 12:36; Lk 20:42ff)
    • He says that the least born into His Kingdom will be greater than John the Baptist who, till that time was considered the greatest man born of woman – (Mt 11:11; Lk 7:28)
  • Jesus teaches that he is superior to the angels:
    • That they are his servants who minister to Him – (Mt 4:11 Mk 1:13; Lk 4:13)
    • That they are his army – (Mt 26:53)
    • That they will accompany him at his second coming and do his will -Mt 16:27; 25:31; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26)
  • Jesus appropriates Divine actions unto himself and thus sets forth an assimilation unto the Lord God:
    • He declares it was He who sent the prophets and doctors of the Law (Mt 23:34; Lk 11:49)
    • He gives the promise of his assistance and Grace (Lk 21:15)
    • He forgives sins which power belongs to God alone (e.g. Mt 9:2)
    • He, by His own authority completes and changes some precepts of the Law. (Mt 5:21ff)
    • He declares Himself to be Lord of the Sabbath (Mt 12:8; Mk 2:28; Lk 6:5; Jn 5:17)
    • Like the Heavenly Father he makes a Covenant with His followers (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20)
  • Jesus makes Divine demands upon his followers
    • He rebukes some for lack of faith in him (Mt 8:10-12; 15:28)
    • He rewards faith in him (Mt 8:13; 9:2; 22:29; 15:28; Mk 10:52; Lk 7:50; 17:19)
    • He demands faith in his own person (Jn 14:1; 5:24; 6:40,47; 8:51; 11:25ff)
    • He teaches that rejection of him and his teachings will be the standard of final judgement (Lk 9:26; Mt 11:6)
    • Jesus demands supreme Love for him which surpasses all earthly loves (Mt 10:37,39; Lk 17:33).
    • He accepts religious veneration by allowing the veneration of falling to the feet: this is due to God alone (Mt 15:25; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 28:9,17)
  • Jesus is well conscious of His own power – Mt 28:18
    • His many miracles which he works in his own Name.
    • He transfers this power to his disciples
  • Jesus knows and teaches that his own death will be an adequate atonement for the forgiveness of the sins of the whole human race. (Mt 20:28; 26:28)
  • Jesus appropriates to himself the office of Judge of the world which according to the OT (eg Ps 49:1-6) God would exercise (eg Mt 16:27) . And His judgement extends to every idle word (Mt 12:36), will be final and executed immediately – (Mt 25:46)
  • Jesus is Conscious of being the Son of God.
    • Jesus clearly distinguishes his claim in this regard from his disciples relationship to the Father. When he speaks of his own relationship he says, “My Father” To the disciples he calls God, “Your Father” but, He never unites himself with them in the formula “Our Father” Thus a distinction is maintained. (Jn 20:17)
    • Jesus revealed himself to be Son of God first in the temple when he remarked to Mary and Joseph that He must be about his Father’s business (Lk 2:49)
    • Jesus claims to be both messiah and Son of God in the presence of the Sanhedrin (Mk 14:62). The Sanhedrin perceive this as a blasphemy.
    • Jesus tells a story of himself in the Parable of the Evil Husbandmen thus confessing himself to be the only Son of God.
    • He is aware of being one with the Father (“The Father and I are one.” (Jn 10:30,38) They Jews respond by accusing Him of blasphemy
  • Jesus indicates in John’s Gospel that
    • He is eternal “Before Abraham was I am” (Jn 8:58)
    • That He has full knowledge of the Father (Jn 7:29; 8:55;10:14ff)
    • He has equal power and efficacy with the Father (Jn 5:17)
    • He can forgive sins (Jn 8:11 et sicut supra)
    • He is Judge of the World (Jn 5:22,27 & sicut supra)
    • He is rightly to be adored (Jn 5:23)
    • He is the light of the world (Jn 8:12)
    • He is the way, the truth and the light (Jn 14:6)
    • His disciples may and ought to pray to the Father in His name, additionally they may to Him (Jesus) (Jn 14:13ff 16:23ff)
    • The solemn confession of the Apostle Thomas “My Lord and my God.” is acceptable and in fact, an act of Faith (Jn 20:28)
  • Other Scripture Passages on the Divinity of Christ
    • I John 5:20 – “And we know that the Son of God is Come and has given us Understanding that we may know the true God and may be in His True Son; this is the True God and Life Eternal.”
    • John 1:1-14 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…..”
    • Phil 2:5-11 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped…and every tongue must confess to the Glory of God the Father that Jesus Chirst is Lord.
    • Rom 9:5 – “to them, (the Israelites) belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh is the Christ, who is God over all blessed for ever.”
    • Titus 2:13 “Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ.”
    • Heb 1:8 – “But to the Son (God says): Your Throne, O God is for ever and ever.”
  • In addition Scripture attributes Divine qualities to Jesus
    • Omnipotence manifest in the creation and the conservation of the World – Col 1:15-17; I Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2ff
    • Omniscience – Col 2:3 – In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge….
    • Eternity – Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together
    • Immutability – Heb 1:12; 13:8
    • Adorability – Phil 2:10; Heb 1:6

Well I hope you get the point. Those who claim that Jesus didn’t know he was God or never made divine claims just haven’t read the Scriptures. And those who would want to “tame” Jesus, by removing his “controversial” (to say the least) claim that He is Lord, have to realize that they must set aside enormous numbers of things said by Jesus about himself to do that. Calling him a “good man” who “taught us to love” is to evade the compelling question: Is He the Lord or is He a liar and a blasphemer? This question must be unambiguously answered by every Christian, He is Lord,  He is God. All things came to be through him and he holds all creation together in himself. And those who have denied his divinity will one day fall to their faces before his glory (Rev. 1:17).

Elijah once rebuked the people saying, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word. (1 Kings 18:21). But we must answer. Is Jesus the Lord, or a lair? And if Jesus is Lord, follow him and realize that you will one day stand before him to render an account. But we cannot trivialize or tame Jesus. Neither can we evade our decision about him.  Our whole destiny rests on this choice, this answer.  Choose the Lord.

Please take time to view the Catholicism series, by Fr. Robert Barron. He, by God’s grace has done a marvelous thing. You won’t be disappointed.

Here is a scene from the Movie “The Gospel of John” where Jesus, in effect, calls the question.



Here is the Catholicism trailer:

Posted on

Five Hard Truths That Will Set You Free

Some years ago I read an essay by the Franciscan Theologian Richard Rohr. I will say, (honestly) that I do not share a lot of agreement with Richard Rohr (no need to detail that here), but I found this particular essay compelling. I do not recall the exact title of that essay but in my mind the title “Five Hard Truths that Will Set You Free” seems the best title. The following five truths from that essay are indeed hard truths. They tend to rock our world and stab at the heart of some of our most cherished modern notions. But if they can be accepted for the truth they convey they bring great peace. We live is a rather self-absorbed, self-focused time and these five truths are not only good medicine for that but they also help us to have more realistic expectations as we live in an imperfect and limited world. Study these truths well. If they irritate you a bit, good, they’re supposed to. They are meant to provoke thought and reassessment. The principles are Richard Rohr’s the comments are mine.

1. Life is hard –We live in rather comfortable times. These are times of convenience and central air conditioning. Medicine has removed a lot of pain and suffering, and consumer goods are in abundance and variety. Entertainment comes in many varieties and is often inexpensive. Hard labor is something few of us know, obesity is common due to over abundance.

Because of all these creature comforts we have tended to expect that life should always be peachy. We are rather outraged at suffering, inconvenience and delay.

Our ancestors lived lives that were far more brutal and short, and they often spoke of life as a “vale of tears,” and understood that suffering was just a part of life. But when we suffer we start to think in terms of lawsuits. Suffering seems obnoxious to us, hard work, unreasonable! We are often easily angered and flung into anxiety at the mere threat of suffering.

This principle reminds us that suffering and difficulty are part of life, something that should be expected. Accepting suffering does not mean we have to like it. But acceptance of the fact that life can be hard at times means we get less angry and anxious when it does come. We do not lose serenity. Accepting that suffering is inevitable, brings a strange sort of peace. We are freed from unrealistic expectations that merely breed resentments. We also become more grateful for the joys we do experience. Accepting that life can be hard is a truth that sets us free.

2. Your life is not about you– If you want to make God laugh tell Him your plans. If you really want to give him a belly laugh, tell Him, His plans! We often like to think that we should just be able to do what ever pleases us and maximizes our “self-actualization.” However, we do not decide alone what course our life will take.

In this age of “nobody tells me what to do” it is important to be reminded that our true happiness comes not from getting what we want, but what God wants. Our destiny isn’t to follow our star but to follow God. True peace comes from careful discernment of God’s will for us.

It is sad how few people today ever really speak with God about important things like careers, entering into a marriage, pondering a large project. We just go off and do what we please, and expect God to bail us out if it doesn’t go well. You and I do not exist merely for our own whims, we have a place in God’s plan. Our serenity is greater when we prayerfully discern that place and humbly seek God’s will. Accepting the fact that we are not merely masters of our own destiny, and captains of our own ship, gives us greater peace and usually saves us a lot of mileage.

Humbly accepting the truth that my life is not simply about me and what I want is a truth that sets me free. This is true because we often don’t get what we want. If we can allow life to unfold more and not demand that everything be simply what I want I am more serene and free.

3. You are not in control– Control is something of an illusion. You and I may have plans for tomorrow but there are many things between now and tomorrow over which I have no control. For example, I cannot even control or guarantee the next beat of my heart. Hence I may think I have tomorrow under control, but tomorrow is not promised and may never come.

Because we think we control a few things, we think we can control many things. Not really. Our attempts to control and manipulate outcomes are comical, if not hurtful.

Thinking that we can control many things leads us to think that we must control them. This in turn leads to great anxiety, and often anger.

We usually think that if we are in control we will be less anxious. This is not true, we are more anxious. The more we think we can control, the more we try to control, and thus, the greater our burdens and anxiety. In the end we get angry because we discover that there many things and people we cannot control after all. This causes frustration and fear.

We would be freer and less anxious if we would simply accept the fact that there are many things, most things, over which I have no control. Our expectation of everything being under control is unrealistic. Life comes at you fast and brooding over unpredictable things and uncontrollable matters is bondage. Simply accepting that I am often not in control is freeing.

4. You are not that important– Uh Oh! Now this one hurts. I thought the whole world should revolve around me. I thought it was only my feelings that mattered, and my well- being that was important. Truth be told, we are loved by God in a very particular way, but that does not over rule the fact that I must often yield to others who are also loved by God in a very special way.

The truth is sometimes that other people are more important than me. I might even be called on to give my life so that others may live. I must often yield to others whose needs are more crucial than mine. The world doesn’t exist just for me, and what I want.

There is great peace and freedom in coming to accept this. We are often made so anxious if we are not recognized, and others are, or if our feelings and preferences are not everyone’s priority. Accepting the truth that I am not that important allows us to relax and enjoy caring about other people and celebrating their importance too.

5. You are going to die. –  Yes, it is a hard truth but it is very freeing. We get all worked up about what this world dishes out. But take a walk in a cemetery. Those folks were all worked up too. Now their struggles are over and, if they were faithful they are with God,  they now experience that “trouble don’t last always.”

This truth also helps us to do the most important thing: get ready to meet God. So many people spend their lives clowning around and goofing off. Yet our most urgent priority is to prepare to meet God. In the end, this is freeing because we are loosed from the many, excessive and contrary demands of the world and we concentrate on doing the one thing necessary. Our life simplifies and we don’t take this world too seriously, it is passing away. There is peace and freedom in coming to accept this.

So there you have them. Five hard truths that will set you free. Think about them. Memorize them too and pull them out when life comes at you fast and hard with it’s agenda of control, self importance and empty promises of perfect comfort here on earth. A simple, sober, humble and focused life brings great serenity.

Painting above: Open Door By Donna Shasteen
As Seen In: The Illustrated Word


Some readers of this blog may recognize this post as a reworking of one I did two years ago. Every now and then, the day just gets past me, I was in meetings all day, and thought, “This will be a day to post a “greatest hits!”

Posted on

Exploring Four Myths About the Crusades

Back in Seminary I remember a Church History instructor warning us not to be “too defensive” of the Church when others point to our shortcomings. He said that the Church is so big and so old, that just about anything you can say probably has some truth to it. He went on to clarify that it didn’t mean that everything said about the Church was necessarily fair or set in proper context to be understood. Neither was it fair that the Church was often singled out. Nevertheless given the billions who have been Catholic over 2000 years, there are plenty of sinners and plenty of saints, lots of glory and lots that was gory. So be careful he said, “Never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish.

Hence when we come to the Crusades, we have a bit of a balancing act. At one level, the usual pointing to this historical period with selective moral outrage, is a tired old attack on the Church, an attack, usually simplistic in its understanding, devoid of historical context, and quite one-sided. That said, there were surely excesses and gravely sinful acts that often come in the fog of any war, religious or not.

With that in mind I’d like to look at excerpts from article recently published over at First Principles, the Article is Entitled: Four Myths About the Crusades. The Author is Paul Crawford. In the excerpts that follow, his text is in bold, black italics. My comments are in red plain text. The full text of his lengthy and excellent article can be read by click the title above.

Myth #1: The crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and even a cursory chronological review makes that clear. In a.d. 632, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, Spain, France, Italy, and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica were all Christian territories. Inside the boundaries of the Roman Empire, which was still fully functional in the eastern Mediterranean, orthodox Christianity was the official, and overwhelmingly majority, religion. Outside those boundaries were other large Christian communities—not necessarily orthodox and Catholic, but still Christian. Most of the Christian population of Persia, for example, was Nestorian. Certainly there were many Christian communities in Arabia.

By a.d. 732, a century later, Christians had lost Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and southern France. Italy and her associated islands were under threat, and the islands would come under Muslim rule in the next century. The Christian communities of Arabia were entirely destroyed in or shortly after 633, when Jews and Christians alike were expelled from the peninsula. Those in Persia were under severe pressure. Two-thirds of the formerly Roman Christian world was now ruled by Muslims.

What had happened?…The answer is the rise of Islam. Every one of the listed regions was taken, within the space of a hundred years, from Christian control by violence, in the course of military campaigns deliberately designed to expand Muslim territory….Nor did this conclude Islam’s program of conquest….Charlemagne blocked the Muslim advance in far western Europe in about a.d. 800, but Islamic forces simply shifted their focus…toward Italy and the French coast, attacking the Italian mainland by 837. A confused struggle for control of southern and central Italy continued for the rest of the ninth century and into the tenth. …[A]ttacks on the deep inland were launched. Desperate to protect victimized Christians, popes became involved in the tenth and early eleventh centuries in directing the defense of the territory around them…..The Byzantines took a long time to gain the strength to fight back. By the mid-ninth century, they mounted a counterattack….Sharp Muslim counterattacks followed…

In 1009, a mentally deranged Muslim ruler destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and mounted major persecutions of Christians and Jews….Pilgrimages became increasingly difficult and dangerous, and western pilgrims began banding together and carrying weapons to protect themselves as they tried to make their way to Christianity’s holiest sites in Palestine.

Desperate, the Byzantines sent appeals for help westward, directing these appeals primarily at the person they saw as the chief western authority: the pope, who, as we have seen, had already been directing Christian resistance to Muslim attacks….finally, in 1095, Pope Urban II realized Pope Gregory VII’s desire, in what turned into the First Crusade.

Far from being unprovoked, then, the crusades actually represent the first great western Christian counterattack against Muslim attacks which had taken place continually from the inception of Islam until the eleventh century, and which continued on thereafter, mostly unabated. Three of Christianity’s five primary episcopal sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria) had been captured in the seventh century; both of the others (Rome and Constantinople) had been attacked in the centuries before the crusades. The latter would be captured in 1453, leaving only one of the five (Rome) in Christian hands by 1500. Rome was again threatened in the sixteenth century. This is not the absence of provocation; rather, it is a deadly and persistent threat, and one which had to be answered by forceful defense if Christendom were to survive.

It is difficult to underestimate the losses suffered by the Church in the waves of Muslim conquest. All of North Africa, once teeming with Christians, was conquered. There were once 500 bishops in North Africa. Now, even to this day, the Christian Church there exists only in ruins buried beneath the sand and with titular but non-residential bishops. All of Asia Minor, so lovingly evangelized by St. Paul, was lost. Much of Southern Europe was almost lost as well. It is hard to imagine any alternative to decisive military action in order to turn back waves of Muslim attack and conquest.

Myth #2: Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich.

Again, not true. Few crusaders had sufficient cash both to pay their obligations at home and to support themselves decently on a crusade.” From the very beginning, financial considerations played a major role in crusade planning. The early crusaders sold off so many of their possessions to finance their expeditions that they caused widespread inflation. Although later crusaders took this into account and began saving money long before they set out, the expense was still nearly prohibitive.

One of the chief reasons for the foundering of the Fourth Crusade, and its diversion to Constantinople, was the fact that it ran out of money before it had gotten properly started, and was so indebted to the Venetians that it found itself unable to keep control of its own destiny. Louis IX’s Seventh Crusade in the mid-thirteenth century cost more than six times the annual revenue of the crown.

The popes resorted to ever more desperate ploys to raise money to finance crusades, from instituting the first income tax in the early thirteenth century to making a series of adjustments in the way that indulgences were handled that eventually led to the abuses condemned by Martin Luther.

In short: very few people became rich by crusading, and their numbers were dwarfed by those who were bankrupted. Most medieval people were quite well aware of this, and did not consider crusading a way to improve their financial situations.

Crawford states elsewhere, that plunder was often allowed or overlooked, when Christian armies conquered, in order that some bills could be paid. Sadly, plunder was commonly permitted in ancient times but was not unique to Christians. Here again, we may wish that Christian sentiments would have meant no plunder at all, but war is seldom orderly, and the motive of every individual solider cannot be perfectly controlled.

The bottom line remains, conducting a crusade was a lousy way to get rich or raise any money at all.

Myth #3: Crusaders were a cynical lot who did not really believe their own religious propaganda; rather, they had ulterior, materialistic motives.

This has been a very popular argument, at least from Voltaire on. It seems credible and even compelling to modern people, steeped as they are in materialist worldviews. And certainly there were cynics and hypocrites in the Middle Ages—medieval people were just as human as we are, and subject to the same failings.

However, like the first two myths, this statement is generally untrue, and demonstrably so. For one thing, the casualty rates on the crusades were usually very high, and many if not most crusaders left expecting not to return. At least one military historian has estimated the casualty rate for the First Crusade at an appalling 75 percent, for example.

But this assertion is also revealed to be false when we consider the way in which the crusades were preached. Crusaders were not drafted. Participation was voluntary, and participants had to be persuaded to go. The primary means of persuasion was the crusade sermon. Crusade sermons were replete with warnings that crusading brought deprivation, suffering, and often death….would disrupt their lives, possibly impoverish and even kill or maim them, and inconvenience their families.

So why did the preaching work? It worked because crusading was appealing precisely because it was a known and significant hardship, and because undertaking a crusade with the right motives was understood as an acceptable penance for sin….valuable for one’s soul. The willing acceptance of difficulty and suffering was viewed as a useful way to purify one’s soul

Related to the concept of penance is the concept of crusading as an act of selfless love, of “laying down one’s life for one’s friends.”

As difficult as it may be for modern people to believe, the evidence strongly suggests that most crusaders were motivated by a desire to please God, expiate their sins, and put their lives at the service of their “neighbors,” understood in the Christian sense.

Yes, and such concepts ARE difficult for modern Westerners to believe. Since we are so secular and cynical, the thought of spiritual motives strike us as implausible. But a great Cartesian divide, with its materialist reductionism,  separates the Modern West from the Middle Ages and Christian antiquity.  Those were days when life in this world was brutal and short, and life here was “a valley of tears” to be endured as a time of purification preparing us to meet God. Spiritual principles held much more sway than today.

Myth #4: The crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians.

Muslims had been attacking Christians for more than 450 years before Pope Urban declared the First Crusade. They needed no incentive to continue doing so. But there is a more complicated answer here, as well.

The first Muslim crusade history did not [even] appear until 1899. By that time, the Muslim world was rediscovering the crusades—but it was rediscovering them with a twist learned from Westerners. In the modern period, there were two main European schools of thought about the crusades. One school, epitomized by people like Voltaire, Gibbon, and Sir Walter Scott, and in the twentieth century Sir Steven Runciman, saw the crusaders as crude, greedy, aggressive barbarians who attacked civilized, peace-loving Muslims to improve their own lot. The other school, more romantic, saw the crusades as a glorious episode in a long-standing struggle in which Christian chivalry had driven back Muslim hordes.

So it was not the crusades that taught Islam to attack and hate Christians. …Rather, it was the West which taught Islam to hate the crusades.

Yes, the strange self-loathing tendencies of the dying West do supply our detractors, and would-be destroyers, with ample reason to detest us.

I am interested in your thoughts. I don’t think it is necessary to vehemently defend the Church’s and the Christian West’s series of Crusades. There were many regrettable things that accompany any war. But fair is fair, there is more to the picture than many, with anti-Church agendas of their own, wish to admit.

And for those secularist and atheists who love to tout “how many have died as the result of religious wars and violence,” We do well to recall how many died in the 20th century for secular ideological reasons. Paul Johnson, the English Historian, in his book Modern Times, places the number at 1oo million.

Does this excuse even one person dying as the result of religious war? No. But fair is fair. Violence, war, conquest  and territorial disputes, are human problems not necessarily or only religious ones.

Painting: The Preaching of the Crusades form Wikipedia Commons

This video covers some of the Christian ruins in North Africa, including the See of St Cyprian of Carthage

Posted on

On the Paradox of What We Call Balance and What it Means for the Spiritual Life

In the video at the bottom of this post is a remarkable display of poise and balance as four women ride tall unicycles and perform increasingly astonishing feats. Yet is it proper to say that they display balance? Is it not, rather, a consistent lack of balance, within a range, that they actually display and accomplish? At no one moment can any of them be said to have perfect equilibrium. Frankly if they did have such equilibrium, they would fall. What they actually do is sway, and move back and forth to keep from falling.

What we call “balance” seems often and actually to be the on-going destruction of equilibrium within a manageable range. Without some “flexibility,” some ability to “teeter,” a fall is inevitable.

I learned this riding a bike, as I am sure you did. When I rigidly tried to avoid falling by maintaining perfect equilibrium, I fell at once. Only when I learned to accept a range of motion, and to lean and sway into turns, did I discover that balance is a range more than a fixed point. I learned the same with ice skating, roller skating too. True skating is a graceful and on-going destruction of balance within a range, a kind of perpetual falling forward and leaning sideways.

If you’ve never ridden a bike or skated, consider walking. When I am standing still I am at equilibrium, I am balanced. But I am also getting nowhere. If I want to get somewhere, I have to walk. Now walking involves leaning and imbalance. When I walk I lean and begin falling forward. I then catch myself with my foot,  before a complete fall. And the process continues: leaning, falling, catching…..leaning, falling, catching. Only in this way can I walk or run and get somewhere. So equilibrium has its place but sometimes it gets in the way or progress.

And all of this presents a spiritual picture.

Believing is Leaning – Most of us, if asked, would like everything in our life to be in perfect equilibrium, perfect balance. To loose our balance physically, we think,  is the prelude to a fall. Hence balance tends to be valued, not only in the physical sense, but also as a a symbol for emotional, spiritual and mental equilibrium. To become mentally or emotionally “unbalanced” is a euphemism for mental illness or distress. But the fact is, perfect equilibrium, perfect balance,  is seldom to be found in the human person. And perhaps that is good, especially in the spiritual life. The spiritual life is really about leaning.

Consider for a moment that one of the most common words we use to indicate belief is  “Amen.” Most people say it means “I believe” or “It is so.” But more fundamentally the root meaning of the Hebrew word Aman (from which we get Amen)  is that something is sturdy, firm, or sure. As such, “Amen” signifies a leaning action. Amen, implies we are leaning over on something, or depending on something for support, we are “basing” our life on God, and the truths of God.

The word Amen signifies, not only leaning, but also what is leaned on. Balance, as we have discussed, requires a graceful “imbalance” within a range. But it also needs at least one thing (usually the ground) which is steady, firm and constant. In the spiritual walk, this firm, steady and constant ground is God himself, and by extension the doctrines of faith he has revealed through the Church and Scripture.

Thus, in an extended sense when we say amen, we mean,  “I am leaning so far over on this truth of faith, and on God himself, that if He does not uphold me with it I’ll fall flat on my face.”

So faith is not so much about the control of equilibrium,  it is about the trust of leaning, confident that God will provide the steady support we need so we can lean.

Consider walking then as an image for spiritual growth. We progress in the spiritual life not merely by standing still with the familiar and the easily understood, but also by leaning forward into the unknown and mysterious. As we do so, we are confident that God is true and  reliable and will uphold us if we lean forward on him and what he teaches. God often asks us to lean on Him as he leads us out of our comfort zone and challenges us with new things and experiences. The future that lies ahead of us in often unknown. There are new challenges that await us. God asks us to trust by leaning forward on Him in a kind of spiritual walk knowing that he is a steady and firm support. But as with physical walking, we can only make progress spiritually if we are willing to lean and step out in faith.

We can also learn that some flexibility is necessary in the spiritual life, along with limits beyond which we ought not go. In the video, the women unicyclists can and must lean, but only so far. If they lean too far, they fall. If they lean not at all they also fall. Hence in the spiritual life, the doctrines of faith taught by the Lord, and through the Scriptures and the Church, present a kind of “range of motion.” Within the Church there are varying interpretations and applications of teachings, there are permissible varieties in terms of liturgy and authentic spiritual reflection, there are a permissible range of of what we call “schools of thought” and theological traditions. Flexibility permits such variety and a leaning toward them or away. However, there is a range to leaning beyond which we should not go, lest we fall. The Church rightfully thus sets forth the limits and designates a range for our leaning, lest we fall.

True spiritual growth is a journey and a journey requires walking, and walking requires some degree of “imbalance” and trust. In physical walking we “catch” ourselves and walking is a self-controlled fall. But in spiritual walking it is God who catches and who is in control. Do you want to get to heaven? Do you want to journey home? Then you have to walk. Lean, trust and keep saying “Amen!”

Photo Credit from The New York Daily News

Enjoy this video and consider that the paradox of true balance and motion is to permit a proper degree of imbalance and leaning.

Posted on

Who Says Theology Isn’t Science? A Reflection on the Reductionist Definition of the Word, "Science"

A few months back I blogged on the interplay between Theology, Philosophy and “science.” A reader wrote in the combox a mild rebuke of me, for using the word “Science” in a reductionist sense to mean, merely the physical sciences. He went on to insist that theology and philosophy ARE sciences, older and frankly more developed in many ways, than the natural or physical sciences, (whose fundamental theories still shift dramatically every few decades).  Further, theology and philosophy have served as the intellectual foundation for the scientific method and what has come to be called the natural or physical sciences.

I appreciated his rebuke and though I cannot remember exactly where to find it, I have thought a lot about it. Indeed, we have allowed the word “science, ” a word so respected by the modern world, to mean only the physical sciences, and many have tolerated others calling Philosophy and Theology “unscientific.”

Now the word “science” comes from the Latin “Scientia” meaning “knowledge.” For Aristotle scientific knowledge was considered to be a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained. Until the 2oth Century “science” was understood in this broader sense. Hence both Philosophy and Theology involved a body of knowledge that was a tested and reliable way of navigating reality, and can be rationally set forth as reasonable. Both sciences built a vast body of knowledge and a careful discipline of distinctions and delineations that set forth a framework in which to see and know the world.  (It will be admitted that, as in any science, there can be rather wacky and strange fringes that developed and were later discarded or critiqued within the discipline.  But this is true of the natural sciences too, that have also had their share of strange and exotic theories that were later and largely set aside).

In terms of theology, Faith is a way of knowing. I come to know certain things because God reveals them. Faith is a way of knowing based on a trust that God exists, and is both truthful and accurate in what he says. But the natural sciences also put a kind of faith in the reliability of the senses and what they reveal. By accepting the revelation that comes from God, I come to know many things.

Now therefore we must be insist, the Judeo-Christian theological tradition is a careful, smart and time tested way of knowing that extends in its roots back some 5,000 years. It is no mere whim. Any serious look at the Catholic faith will show forth a theology that is careful, nuanced, thoughtful, time-tested, and well rooted in both Scripture and ancient tradition. Just a five minute glance at the Summa Theologica will show this. One need not agree with the faith or even be a believer in God, but only fair-minded to see that there has been a careful and thoughtful and disciplined reflection over the centuries, and an accumulated body of knowledge that even now continues to deepen.

As a personal testimony I must say that I have come to have a deep reverence for the faith that I did not have as a youth and college student. But entering upon the study of theology I came to discover and respect the careful, thought and method that underlies the Catholic Faith. And I believe what I have been taught not merely because it is taught by authority, but also on account of the evidence I see for its truth and reliability. In the laboratory of my own life I have tested the teachings of the Scriptures and the Catholic faith and found them to be both true and reliable. I also find great credibility in the fact that these teachings stretch back to Christ and the Apostles, and even further into Jewish antiquity, and have been carefully tested by generations, and handed on intact for 2000 years of the Church’s history.

Hence the science of Catholic Theology is a careful, tested, and reliable way of knowing for me and it fully qualifies for the term “science” since it is a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained. To be sure, there are certain mysteries beyond simple explanation, but this is true in the natural sciences as well.

A few final thoughts on this from an excellent article written Matthew Hanley  over at The Catholic Thing. What I present here are excerpts. But you are encouraged to read the fuller article by clicking on the link. A few minor thoughts from me are in red.

Science and love don’t ordinarily seem to go together. Love we tend to associate with feeling, attraction, and passion – not exactly the stuff of science, which goes with reason, empiricism, and progress. But love as science is not an unfounded mystical metaphor or eccentricity.

One of the passages in Story of a Soul, the autobiography St. Thérèse of Lisieux, whose feast day is today, that has most struck me is when she recounted coming across the words Jesus spoke to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque: “I want to make you read in the book of life, wherein is contained the science of LOVE.” This made quite an impact on Thérèse: “The science of Love, ah, yes, this word resounds sweetly in the ear of my soul, and I desire only this science.” Her famous vocation of love was crystallizing.

Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Worker Movement, also wrote that “love is a science, a knowledge, and we lack it.”

Not long before St. Thérèse’s time, the concept known as positivism, which holds that no sciences exist except those that study the phenomena of the natural world, had begun to gain traction. The French philosopher Auguste Comte [argued] that humanity was entering into an era in which scientific knowledge alone is fit to replace all other forms of knowledge, such as “primitive” theological knowledge or even philosophical knowledge. Yes, here is where the old synthesis began to break down.

The Enlightenment [had] also solidified the idea that science should supersede traditional moral and ethical systems, which could, after all, easily be dismissed as “unscientific.”

Science has enriched our world in important ways. But you don’t have to be a cradle Catholic to perceive that playing the science card – in contemporary bioethical debates, for example – is a manipulative, self-exculpatory means of attempting to secure carte blanche approval for blazing any trail you wish. Soloviev recognized, as too few do today, what was at stake in relegating religious and philosophical knowledge to the periphery where they are not allowed to inform how scientific advances should be interpreted: “Carried to its logical end, the principal of utilitarianism is obviously equivalent to the complete negation of ethics.” Benedict XVI said virtually the exact same thing just last year.

Only the “science of love”, which Benedict described as “the highest form of science,” can protect mankind from the corrosive effects of today’s default (utilitarian) mentality because – as Karol Wojtyla put it in his 1960 book Love and Responsibility – “only love can preclude the use of one person by another.” A magnificent insight.

This type of terminology, I think, ….invites us to revisit just what we mean by science – and by love, which John Paul II called “the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being.” Exactly, the word “science” cannot and should not be reduced to merely the natural or physical sciences, or merely to the empirical method.

The saints all pursue their own diverse vocations of love by following the “scientific” method Jesus counseled: discite a me — “learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart.” [1]

Painting above is of St Thomas Aquinas surrounded by other Doctors of the Chruch

I have posted this video of Fr. Robert Barron before. In it he speaks of the modern error of “scientism” – The view that reality is restricted to what the empirical  sciences can explain.

Posted on

Yes, But How? A Reflection on the Mystery of Art

I cannot draw or paint. Yet I have always marveled at how some can take an empty canvas and bring it to life with color, form, depth, and shadow. And, little by little, from the painter’s brush and soul a picture emerges. So too with sculpting. A mere block of marble, with each blow of the sculptor’s tools, it comes to resemble the form of a human being or some other reality with nature.

Some years ago, there was a painter, on PBS (Bob Ross) who would, over the course of a half hour paint a picture and describe what he was doing as he went. I watched that show most every week for a number of years and, though I watched him, saw what he did, and even heard him describe the techniques, I never really ceased to be amazed by the mystery before me. How did he do it? Yes, he spoke of method and technique, but there was some deeper mystery at work; a power of the soul, a gift. He claimed we all have it. But I am more inclined to think some have it as a special gift.

Michelangelo famously said, Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it. He also said, I saw the angel in the marble and carved until I set him free. Yes, but how does he see it? How does he set it free? Indeed, another great mystery and faculty of the human soul of some.

As with music, the art of painting and sculpting seems a unique capacity of the human soul. Animals do not draw, they do not sculpt, they do not even appreciate art. It is a special gift to the human person to be captivated by beauty, and for beauty, once seen and experienced, to emerge from his soul in expressive praise. There are special glories and a unique gifts given only to the human person, a mysterious gift to be sure. It is caught up in our desire for what is good, true and beautiful, caught up in our soul’s ultimate longing for God.

Perhaps Michelangelo should have the last word: Every beauty which is seen here by persons of perception resembles more than anything else that celestial source from which we all are come.

Picture: A Painter in his Studio by Francois Boucher

Here’s a painter a work on a speed painting with a surprise end:

David Garibaldi: Jesus Painting from Thriving Churches on Vimeo.

–
Here’s a video of Bob Ross, the Joy of Painting show I mentioned above. In this brief passage he teaches us to paint a mountain and gives a little philosophy as well.
–

–
If you have time this video shows a remarkable transformation of a block of marble to a face.
–