Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

Posted on

CS Lewis as many have never heard him.

"C.S.Lewis3" Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia
“C.S.Lewis3” Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia

One of the lesser known and lesser read works of CS Lewis is his correspondence with Rev. Fr. Don Giovanni Calabria. Few indeed have read them since they were written in Latin. And though an English translation was published in 1998, I know few who have ever heard of these letters. The full collection of these letter is here: The Latin Letters of CS Lewis

I first wrote on these letters two years ago but a recent conversation prompts me to re-post on them. Why? There are many who are rightly bewildered at the steep decline of faith in here in America which seems to have happened very dramatically in the late 1960s. But as these reflections by CS Lewis witness, the decline in faith and the erosion of moral life in Europe was already well underway in the late 1940s. Indeed, it was linked to the horrifying experience with two world wars, that seems to have both resulted from, and further exacerbated the decline of faith there.

Had not our Lady warned at Fatima in 1917:

The war (WW I) is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. (Second Secret of Fatima).

Of course we know the sad story. The repentance did not take place and, following one of the most vivid displays of the Northern lights ever recorded (Jan 25, 1938) the Second World War was underway. Germany annexed Austria in March of 1938 and Poland was invaded in 1939. WW II was engaged.

Many of us in America know little of the steep decline of Faith in Europe that took place long before the cultural revolution here of the 1960s. Our knowledge of world history is poor and little do most modern Americans understand the horrifying blood bath that the 20th Century was. Conservative estimates are that 100 million people died in wars or were exterminated for ideological purposes. Loss of faith was surely a cause and also a lasting effect from the cauldron of that horrible Century, a Century marked by amazing invention and yet a body count of almost unimaginable numbers, even more, when we add the horror of Abortion.

These Letters of CS Lewis open a window on that mid-century period of European History. There are some very important insights that CS Lewis offers for the loss in faith in Europe already well underway in the early 1950s when the letters were exchanged.

Indeed I would call his insights stunning in many ways. Lewis argues, in effect that Europe was in a far worse state than paganism. Would that she were even pagan, for the pagans accepted natural law. But Europe, having cast off the faith, is in a state far worse than even before she ever heard of Christ.

In the quotes that follow CS Lewis makes this case quite well an then proffers a solution that we may wish to consider in these times that are even darker for Europe and the whole of the West. Allow me to present just a few excerpts. The Latin text is italicized. The English translation (by Martin Moynihan) is just below the Latin in black bold and italic type face. My comments are in red.

Let us begin with Lewis assessment as to how and by what stages Europe lost the faith:

Neque tamen sine peccatis nostris evenit: nos enim justiam illam, curam illam pauperum quas (mendacissime) communistae praeferunt debueramus jam ante multa saecula revera effecisse. Sed longe hoc aberat: nos occidentales Christum ore praedicavimus, factis Mammoni servitium tulimus. Magis culpabiles nos quam infideles: scientibus enim voluntatem Dei et non facientibus major poena. Nunc unicum refugium in contritione et oratione. Diu erravimus. In legendo Europae historiam, seriem exitiabilem bellorum, avaritiae, fratricidarum Christianorum a Christianis persecutionum, luxuriae, gulae, superbiae, quis discerneret rarissima Sancti Spiritus vestigia? (Letter 20, Jan 7, 1953)

But (this) did not happen without sins on our part: for that justice and that care for the poor which (most mendaciously) the Communists advertise, we in reality ought to have brought about ages ago. But far from it: we Westerners preached Christ with our lips, with our actions we brought the slavery of Mammon. We are more guilty than the infidels: for to those that know the will of God and do not do it, the greater the punishment. Now the only refuge lies in contrition and prayer. Long have we erred. In reading the history of Europe, its destructive succession of wars, of avarice, or fratricidal persecutions of Christians by Christians, of luxury, of gluttony, of pride, who could detect any but the rarest traces of the Holy Spirit?

He makes a remarkable description here. Quite sobering! In effect there grew an appalling lack of love for God, for the poor and for one another. Greed and sloth also took their toll. The lip service faith meant that even Communism appeared more virtuous to some than the Faith.

The wars of which Lewis speaks encompass not only the 20th Century, wherein, as we remarked,  as many as 100 million souls perished in two World Wars and the dropping of the Iron Curtain, but war had taken a terrible toll all through the Christian era. Consider this list: European Wars of the Christian Era. The list is unbelievably long. War upon war, and so much of it was Christian killing Christian.

To be sure, 2oth Century was a kind of death blow to Europe. These terrible things happened on the Christian watch. We must be honest about that. Good things, wonderful things happened too: the monasteries, universities, hospitals etc, the great flowering of all that is best in Western culture. And it can be argued that the faith ushered in these things and also prevented things from being far worse. But a gradual internecine lack of love also took its toll and in the aftermath of the bloodiest century the world has ever known, Europe woke up to a largely faithless landscape.

Next Lewis describes how great is our fall:

Quae dicis de praesenti statu hominum vera sunt: immo deterior est quam dicis. Non enim Christi modo legem Naturae Paganis cognitam negligunt. Nunc enim non erubescunt de adulterio, proditione, perjurio, furto, certisque flagitiis quae non dico Christinaos doctores, sed ipsi pagani et barbari reprobaverunt. Falluntur qui dicunt “Mudus iterum Paganus fit” Utiam fieret! Re vera in statum multo pejorem cadimus. Homo post-Christianus non similis homini pre-Christiano. Tantum distant ut vidua a virgine….(est) magna differentia intra absentiam sponsi venturi, et sponsa amissi! (Letter 23, March 17, 1953)

What you say about the present state of mankind is true: indeed it is even worse than you say. For they neglect not only the Law of Christ, but even the Law of Nature as known by the Pagans. For now they do not blush at adultery, treachery perjury, theft and other crimes, which I will not say Christian doctors, but the Pagans and Barbarians have themselves denounced. They err who say: “The world is turning pagan again.” Would that it were! The truth is, we are falling into a much worse state. Post-Christian man is not the same as pre-Christian man. He is as far removed as a virgin from a widow….there is a great difference between a spouse-to-come and a spouse sent away.

Powerful analysis indeed. He makes similar remarks elsewhere about paganism but here it is succinctly stated. The modern European (and I would add American) are in a state below paganism. For at least the pagans had belief in the supernatural, some respect for Natural Law and could see what reality plainly taught. Modern Westerners are blinded even to that.

The pagan world was a virgin waiting for her groom. The modern West is an adulterous divorce’, cynical, angry and “so through” with Jesus. It is hard to know how the secular West will come round. Will she die in her sins, or will the miracle of broken, humbled heart emerge? Pray! Fast!

He reiterates and adds a stunning but biblical insight:

Certe sentio gravissima pericula nobis incumbere. Haec eveniunt quia maxima pars Europa apostasiam fecit de fide Christiana. Hinc status pejor quam illum statum quem habuimus ante fidem receptam. Nemo enim ex Christianismo redit in statum quem habuit ante Christianismum, sed in pejorem: tantum distat inter paganum et apostatam quantum innuptam et adulteram. Ergo plerique homines nostri temporis amiserunt non modo lumen supernaturale, sed etiam lumen illud naturale quod pagani habuerunt. (Letter 26, Sept 15, 1953)

I certainly feel that very grave dangers hang over us. This results from the great apostasy of the great part of Europe from the Christian faith. Hence, a worse state than the one we were in before we received the faith. For no one returns from Christianity to the same state he was in before Christianity, but into a worse state: the difference between a pagan and an apostate is the difference between an unmarried woman and an adulteress….Therefore many men of our time have lost not only the supernatural light, but also the natural light which the pagans possessed.

A powerful and stunning reminder that leaving the faith does not simply put them back to the status quo ante. You can never go home. The West is now in a worse state than paganism for the reasons Lewis states.

Jesus made the same warning: When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. (Luke 11:24-25) Yes, having found the house bereft of the Holy Spirit, quite empty of true faith, Satan returns now with seven more demons and that last state is worse than the first.

St. Peter makes the same point: For if, after they have escaped the defilement of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first (2 Peter 2:20).

But, calling for Hope, CS Lewis considers a way back:

Sed Deus qui Deus misericordiarum est etiam nunc non omnio demisit genus humanum….Non desperandum. Et haud spernendus numerus (apud nos) iam redeunt in fidem….Equidem credo laborandum esse non modo in evangelizando (hoc certe) sed etiam in quadam praeparatione evangelica. Necesse est multos ad legem naturalem revocare antequam de Deo loquamur. Christus enim promittit remissionem peccatorum: sed quid hoc ad eos qui, quum legem naturalem ignorent, nesciunt se peccavisse. Quis medicamentum accipiet nisi se morbo teneri sciat? Relativismus moralis hostis est quem debemus vincere antequam Atheismum aggrediamur. Fere auserim dicere “Primo faciamus juniores bonos Paganos et postea faciamus Christianos. (Letter 26, Sept 15, 1953)

But God who is the God of mercies, even now has not altogether cast off the human race. We must not despair. And among us are not an inconsiderable number now returning to the faith. For my part, I believe we ought to work not only at spreading the Gospel (that certainly) but also to a certain preparation for the Gospel. It is necessary to recall many to the law of nature before we talk about God. For Christ promises forgiveness of sins, but what is that to those who, since they do not know the law of nature, do not know that they have sinned? Who will take medicine unless he knows he is in the grip of a disease? Moral relativity is the enemy we have to overcome before we tackle atheism. I would almost dare to say, “First let us make the younger generation good pagans, and afterwards let us make them Christians.”

To some extent, recent Popes have said the same, we have to begin all over again. But Lewis’ point goes even further since the apostles found a Europe where, at least people were in touch with reality and accepted reality’s testimony as a reliable guide.

Further, the Europe, the West that the apostles encountered had false religion, but at least it accepted that there was a spiritual realm that must be respected as real.

We in the post Cartesian West have retreated out of reality and into our minds. Reality, Natural Law is not a datum, is not a common ground on which to meet. There is no accepted reality, just thought, opinion, views. There is nothing outside ourselves to which we all owe allegiance and which demands our assent. No, we live, not in reality, but in a world of thoughts and abstractions.

Think I’m exaggerating? Try telling a homosexual that the body isn’t designed for homosexual acts and watch how quickly you get a blank stare or indignant response: “What’ my body got to do with it? Its what I feel that matters.” Yes, apparently our bodies have nothing to say to us and neither does anything else in the real world which we dismiss with our ideologies.

Our task in reintroducing the West to reality, to Natural Law, will not be easy, but CS Lewis thinks we’re going to have start there.

Pretty powerful insights, thought provoking, frank and insightful. I am interested in your thoughts.

Posted on

Sober and Serious on Syria. A Pastoral Teaching rooted in the Just War Teaching

090813One of the more common critiques that many Catholics make of their clergy is that they seldom hear from their pastors on moral topics in the news and our culture such as fornication, divorce, abortion, religious liberty, homosexuality, redefining marriage and so forth. Most recently the question of war and warfare have also been in the news.

As a pastor I try my best to teach the faithful under my care when these topics arise and explain Church teachings in these matter briefly. I often provide handouts as well to accompany the teachings that I do, usually at announcement time, separate from the Homily.

This weekend as the question of military action looms in Syria, another teaching moment arose and I spoke for about five minutes on the topic explaining the insights of Pope Francis, the American Bishops and using the catechism. If your clergy spoke to you on this matter I am interested in what they said and how they said it and encourage you to use the combox.

As for me, here is a brief synopsis of my own  comments this weekend.

As you know there is a very savage civil war underway at this time in Syria. And recently this included the use of chemical weapons. According to our own Government and other international investigators this attack is credibly attributable to the Syrian Government.

Chemical weapons, to include poison gas and nerve agents were first used on a wide scale in World War I and the effects were so horrific that the international community later passed strong resolutions forbidding the use of such weapons. So vivid and awful were those memories from WW I, that the international community has largely, with a few exceptions, abided by these restrictions ever since.

All people of good will rightly detest and are gravely alarmed by the recent deployment of these sorts of weapons by the Syrian Regime against its own people. The President, to his credit, is not willing to simply ignore these egregious violations of human rights and international law. And, also to his credit, he has remanded deliberations regarding any military retaliation to the reflections of the American People, working with their congressional representatives.

In accord with this call for reflection, Pope Francis and the American Bishops have all expressed caution and concern regarding military retaliation at this point, considering it premature, and and in violation of the principles of the “Just War” teaching dating back to St Augustine.

The Just War Tradition is not meant to “justify” war so much as it is to frame the decision of any recourse to military action in the mature and thoughtful deliberations of Scripture, Natural Law and and the long experience of the Christian Tradition.

The Criteria to be met in order to regrettably enter a conflict with military retaliation is well summarized in the Catechism as follows:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

– there must be serious prospects of success;

– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2309)

At this time, based on what is known and has been set forth by our government, it is the respectful judgement of the American Bishops, and Pope Francis that the criteria for the recourse to war or warfare are not fully met.

This judgment is very similar to the judgment that was rendered on the eve of entry into the War with Iraq. As can be seen, the conditions for recourse to war are very strict, and they ought to be. War is a horrible reality and brings great suffering. It is already clear that the suffering in Syria is great and it does not seem that military intervention by the US will have a reasonable hope of ending that.

Let us also be clear, the deliberations about recourse to War involve prudential judgements where reasonable people may differ as to the details. Unlike other moral issues such as abortion which involve an absolute moral evil, warfare, while strongly limited by our principles, can theoretically be a legitimate course of action under strict circumstances, as stated. Thus, the Catechism while giving clear principles to be followed also says:

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. (# 2309).

Hence we respect that this is a decision that does finally belong to the President in consultation with the Congress. The Church does obviously urge that our reasonable criteria for “Just War” be at the heart of any deliberations. Our Holy Father and the Bishops must also state that, based on what has been disclosed to the American People, the criteria for just war are not met and that other lesser measures be pursued first.

Let us pray for our President and congressional leaders that they wisely and faithfully execute the offices of leadership entrusted to them by the American People. May God grant his wisdom and insight. For the people of Syria too we pray for an end to conflict and the miracle of forgiveness.

Posted on

Four Descriptions of Discipleship – A Sermon for the 23rd Sunday of the Year

090713In today’s Gospel Jesus defines four Demands of discipleship. We can look at them one by one.

I. The CONTEXT of the discipleship. The text says that large crowds were following Jesus and so he turned to address them. Just about any time you find a mention of a large crowd fasten your seat belts and prepare for a hard teaching. Jesus didn’t trust the big crowds who were often out for the goodies. They were looking for miracles, multiplied and free bread, physical healings and a fiery sermon. So upon sensing a large crowd the texts says, rather provocatively, that Jesus turned to address them. He then gives a series of “hard sayings” which seem almost designed to thin the ranks and to distinguish true disciples from the “lip service” crowd.

We will see in a moment what he says. But let’s take a moment and examine other incidents where the gospels demonstrate Jesus’ tendency to distrust big crowds:

  • Mat 7:13 Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
  • Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
  • Luke 6:26 Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.

There is also the tendency in the gospels for the mentioning of a large crowd to be followed by a “hard saying:”

  • Matt 19: 1-6 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (cf also Mark 10)
  • Luke 11:29 As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.
  • Luke 14:26-27 (Today’s Gospel) Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
  • John 6: 2 and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the miraculous signs he had performed on the sick….and He said to them, I am the living bread come down from heaven…..the crowds murmured.

So, the CONTEXT of discipleship is not usually with the crowd. Though many are called, indeed all are called, only few make the cut and become true disciples. There is a kind of remnant theology at work here, to be sure. But it is a common pattern that Jesus thins the ranks and distinguishes the many who are called from the few who are chosen.

This is a fact not only in the Scriptures but it also remains true that the Lord has often had to prune his Church. Even now we are seeing a large falling away, a kind of pruning as large numbers depart who are not able to take the “hard sayings” of Jesus and the Scriptures about sexuality, forgiveness, love of one’s enemies, heroic charity and generosity, and so forth. The CONTEXT of discipleship is with the few, rather than the many.

This insight about the context not usually being the crowd is also important, because there are many today who have a mentality that argues that the Church should “get with the times,” that the Church should listen to the people, and give them what they want, that the Church should reflect the views of the faithful. But this is not the job of the Church. The role of the Church is not to reflect the views of its members as if it were some political party. Rather, the role of the Church is to reflect the views of its Founder, Jesus Christ who handed on his teachings through the apostles and evangelists. More often than not, these teachings will not be in simple lockstep with what the crowd says, what is popular, or what is current.

The context of discipleship is often at odds with the great crowds and this we see, when Jesus turns on them. The first reading today reminds us: For the deliberations of mortals are timid, and unsure are our plans. For the corruptible body burdens the soul and the earthen shelter weighs down the mind that has many concerns. And scarce do we guess the things on earth, and what is within our grasp we find with difficulty (Wisdom 9:13-16)

II. The CENTRALITY of the discipleship. Jesus indicates that we can prefer or love no one more than him if we are going to be his disciples. This extends even to our family relationships: If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Now “hate” here does mean that we are to have contempt for others or nourish unrighteous anger toward them. What we are dealing with here is a Jewish idiom. The Hebrew language, for some reason, has very few comparative words such as: more, less, greater, fewer, and so forth. Hence in ancient Hebrew if one were to prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate one would say, “I love vanilla but hate chocolate.” But what “hate” means here in context is that I “prefer” vanilla, not that I literally hate chocolate.

So, what Jesus means is that we cannot prefer anyone or anything to Him. He’s first, he’s number one. Jesus says, I must have absolute priority over the closest human relationships in your life.

If there’s anyone in your life that can talk you out of obeying God, forget ‘em! Anyone who keeps you away from God has too much power. Anyone who can keep you from your Christian walk has too much power. Anyone who can pull you into unrighteousness has too much power.

So if The boss instructs us to do something immoral – sorry boss. If the accountant or lawyers advise saving money by paying unjust wages or cutting necessary benefits – sorry boys. A boyfriend pressures his girl friend to have sex – sorry dear. Peers pressure to use drugs or abuse alcohol, skip school, or steal – sorry buddies. A spouse calls his or her mate away from teaching the children the ways of faith. – sorry honey. A child pressures a parent to that which is unwise or wrong. – sorry child of mine.

So, do you get it? No one is to have priority of Jesus Christ and what he teaches. The word “hate” here may not be literal but on second thought, if Jesus really does have priority in our life it may cause some to say, “You’re so devoted to him, I think you hate me!”

We need to attend to this since too many of our human relationships cause us to sinfully compromise our walk with Jesus. Some people have too much power, a power that belongs to the Lord.

III. The CROSS of discipleship. Jesus says, Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me
cannot be my disciple. So if we want to be a disciple we must be willing to carry the cross.

Now the cross comes in many forms, but in the end, to be a disciple does not mean we are in any way exempt from the troubles and trials of this world. Jesus indicates that we will be hated by the word (cf Jn 15:20), persecuted and sorely tempted by this world. But if we hold out, victory will be ours.

It is a simple rule: No cross, No crown. There are some who want to preach a prosperity gospel. There are others who demand a gospel stripped of its moral imperatives. Still others demand an updated faith that tickles their ears and affirms their aberrant behavior.

But Jesus points to the Cross, not to torture us, but because it is the only way to glory. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world (John 16:33). Now, for a little while you may have to suffer various trials…(1 Peter 1:6). And this wisdom is already evident, when we consider that even in this world, all of what we most value, Family, talents, career, achievements, all came at the cost of sacrifice. Sacrifices bring blessings. Jesus is not into pain for its own sake, but because sacrifice brings blessings.

IV. The COST of discipleship – And thus Jesus continues: Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’ Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops? But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms. In the same way, anyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.

Jesus asks us to count the cost of what he is teaching here. Discipleship is costly. Jesus gives the image of someone building a tower or of a king going to battle. But, truth be told, these examples are distant from us. So Jesus brings it home and says to us: anyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.

The Greek word ἀποτάσσω (apotasso) translated here as “renounce” also means, “to say farewell.” And the Lord is reminding us that heaven costs everything. Ultimately we must say farewell to everyone and everything we consider precious here in order to inherit heaven. This of course is not something that waits merely for death.

At one level, we give back everything to God as we go, little by little. We have all given back loved ones. Perhaps too we have given back youthful figures, strength, good health, and so forth. Ultimately we will give it all back.

But at another level the Lord is clear to say here that we must be willing to part with anything that hinders discipleship now, not later. The fact is that many things attach us to this world and make discipleship difficult. Are we willing to de-clutter our life, simplify and get more focused on being disciples? Or will we go on setting down roots here and amassing a worldly kingdom?

What’s it going to be, the world or the Kingdom? Count the cost. See what it really means to be a disciple and what it cost, then decide. In the end, heaven costs everything. But you’re going to lose it all anyway. It is a wise man who gives away what he cannot keep to gain what he could never buy.

What Jesus is looking for are disciples who, having counted the cost and realistically assessed it, are ready, nonetheless, to be his disciples. Tag-alongs, lip service Christians, fair weather folks, need not apply. So today Jesus is looking at a big crowd and teaches in a way that is meant to distinguish true disciples from the “lip service” disciples. We are asked to ponder in which category we most truthfully belong.

Posted on

Not all lawful pleasures are necessarily helpful, as seen in a cartoon.

St. Paul wrote, All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient (1 Cor 6:12). “Expedient” here means useful, profitable, or helpful.

Of course St Paul does not refer in this verse to things which violate the moral law of God, but rather to things which, while lawful, may not be helpful. For it sometimes follows that was is fine for others causes harm to me. A glass of wine is good, but not for an alcoholic. A few potato chips are tasty and good, but some struggle to eat them in moderation and should stay away. Others struggle with salt or or sugar, both gifts of God but not helpful for those with hypertension or diabetes. I love peanut butter, but I cannot eat it in moderation so I don’t eat it at all. Making extensive travels may be fun and enriching, but not perhaps for someone who has duties to stay close to home and care for children.

Learning that all things are not helpful or expedient is a wisdom that saves us a lot of trouble.

Let us be clear again, this this does not refer to transgressions of the moral law. St Paul is not saying unchastity, or wrathful anger, or greed etc are “lawful” and thus above criticism. These sorts of things ought be critiqued and corrected along with a call to repent.

But even for lawful pleasures, a certain care is necessary. And thus Paul speaks of accepting that not all available pleasures are for us, or to be indulged just because we want them. Other factors such as health, safety, charity toward others, cost, the relationship of some pleasure to other duties, etc are all factors that may make a lawful pleasure inexpedient.

I thought of all this when I saw this video. It features a youngster with a strange horn protruding from his head. Perhaps it is a devilish horn of some sin or addiction. At any rate he sees others eating ice cream and seeks some for himself. But the ice cream man warns him that this pleasure is not for him for some unknown reason related to the horn. This pleasure is lawful, but for him it is not expedient.

But the youngster has a melt down, a temper tantrum and the ice cream man relents. As you will see in the video, the youngster suffers the effects. For, as St. Paul says, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient.”

Posted on

Back to Basics! Recovering a Catechetical Vision that is simple and foundational

Image by PierreSelim (Own work) Licensed under CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Image by PierreSelim (Own work) Licensed under CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

I’ve spent the last few days putting the Parish Sunday School curriculum together. As is often the case, every three or four years, I am returning to a back to basics approach in the parish that emphasizes the fundamental kerygma and its message of sin, redemption and grace. Perhaps a little background:

About eight years ago I was speaking to sixth grade Sunday School students and I mentioned Adam and Eve. It became evident to me within a few moments that they didn’t really know who Adam and Eve were. One of the students was able to say that he thought they were in the Bible or something, but no details could be given.

It became clear to me in that moment that we could no longer do business as usual when it came to catechesis. Luckily my Director of Religious Education had similar concerns and did not resist my notions that we had to try something radically new.

That “something new” was really “something old” and amounted to a back to basics approach which taught of sin, redemption and grace, in that order.

Clearly if God’s people have lost touch with the awful disaster of Original Sin and all our personal sins, the gift of redemption and the glory of grace are under-appreciated and and even dismissed as of no value. Further, how can someone experience Jesus as their Savior if they don’t even think or know that they need to be saved?

So we have to go back to basics and tell the “old, old stories” again of mankind lost in sin, living in the dark shadows of death and ensnared in the mystery iniquity. Yes, It was time to re-read the Genesis account of Original Sin and all the old stories.

We have also developed a “whole family catechesis” approach wherein every grade level is on the same subject and are reading the same Bible stories and following the same curriculum. And while the kids are in Sunday School class, I am out in the cafeteria teaching the parents the same material.

I teach the parents both method and material. For material we use the old Classic My Catholic Faith which provides a great summary and curriculum of the faith in a kind of flyer format that is both handy and properly detailed.

But in each session we also read a Bible Story. One of the great losses in modern times is the loss of story-telling. And the Bible has great stories.

Standing instruction # 1 for the parents is “READ THE BIBLE TO YOUR CHILDREN.” Every day if possible! And I model that with the parents. In each class we spend the first 20 minutes reading a Bible story, usually from the Catholic Children’s Bible which does a good job presenting the whole Bible in story form. And, having read a story (e.g. of the tower of Babel) we discuss its teaching and I link it to the catechetical material specified in the curriculum.

In modelling this, I hope to show how they can do the same with their children at home. Bible Stories are both memorable, and teach fundamental truths in ways that reach deeper than merely the intellect. They touch the heart and draw the children into the world and mind of God.

Bible Stories don’t just teach they imbue. To “imbue” means to inspire or permeate with a feeling or quality; to saturate, suffuse, or steep one in what is taught or presented.

Thus Bible Stories are essential if we want to communicate the culture and world of the Bible to our children and help them make sense of our glorious faith.

The back to basics approach is broken into three main sections, based on the words of an old hymn:

I once was lost in sin, but Jesus took me in, and then a little light from heaven filled my soul!

Part 1 (Sept to January) – SIN – I once was lost in sin – Here we start with the story of Original Sin and read the early chapter that show how God made all things to be very good, But in Original Sin and all the other sins committed and described in the early chapters of Genesis, both creation and man were devastated. Sin and our conniving with the devil is responsible most of the suffering in the world. Through Bible stories and about forty pages of the “My Catholic Faith” catechism we learn of sin’s devastating effects We distinguish Original Sin, Actual sin, mortal and venial sin, the seven deadly sins and so forth. In so doing we paint of picture of how we were lost in Sin.

Part 2 (From Pre-Lent through early Easter) – Redemption – but Jesus took me in. Having welcomed Jesus as savior of the world at Christmas we now look to the paschal mystery wherein Jesus undertakes to save us from our wretched condition. Here too we read Bible stories and connect to the elements of Jesus ministry to heal us, drive out demons and ultimately to take the hill of Calvary engage Satan in battle, suffer die, rise and ascend for us. The goal here is gratitude more than information. We strive to “remember,” that is, to have so present in our mind and heart what Jesus has done for us so that we are grateful and different.

Part 3  – (Early Easter through Pentecost). – Grace– And then a little light from heaven filled my soul! In saving us, Jesus gives us a new mind and heart, a whole new life. The graces of the Christian life are explored: Faith, Hope, Charity, patience, joy, chastity, forgiveness, mercy, and so many other virtues and gifts. We reflect on the whole new Life Jesus has given us and encourage testimony about the transformation brought about by God’s grace working through Scripture, Sacraments, fellowship and prayer. If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation.

Its a back to basics approach rooted in the basic kerygma and meant to draw people into the great drama of life: sin, redemption, grace.

Pray for our Sunday School. This evening I spend a couple of hours reviewing the first section of our curriculum with our teachers. In effect I teach the teachers.

Back to basics! Parents, are you reading bible stories to your children? How are you growing in your own faith? And don’t be anxious. The basic curriculum is not that hard. Its easily memorized in the words of the old song

I once was lost in Sin
But Jesus took me in.
And then a little light from heaven filled my soul!

Sin, redemption, grace. Keep it simple, don’t complicate it. Details can come later after the mastery of the basic elements. In two weeks I will scan the curriculum and post it on my Parish Website.

But don’t wait. Get a children’s Bible and start reading the Genesis stories to your kids (and to yourself)!

Here’s a kind of jazzed up version of the Hymn I reference. Looks like it was filmed in the 1970s so take that into consideration 🙂

Posted on

Pardon some "plain talk" about beachwear. But we need to regain our senses at the beach.

090413I was recently at the beach. It was a fairly nice “family beach” which dials back the loud youth culture and caters more to quiet things like dining, and more homespun entertainment on the boardwalk.

Please pardon me for what I write here. It is a little plain spoken. But at the end of the day, I wonder if a little plain talk isn’t necessary when it comes to beach”wear” (I put “wear” in quotes, because, frankly, there isn’t a lot wearing going on, more nudity really).

Yes I must say, I always remained astonished at the tiny and revealing swimwear worn by many women. Frankly it’s so revealing and over the top that I don’t even find most of it attractive, just lust provoking, and lust isn’t pretty. There is something about modesty that I find more attractive. Maybe its the mystery that modesty protects which appeals. But when almost 98% is “on display” I just feel more sad and alarmed than anything.

I know that some of you will say, “But Father, but Father, what about the men? Are you just going to criticized the females?” Well, to some extent, yes. Frankly most men at the beach cover up a lot more than women do. Most men wear baggy swim trunks that reach often to the knees. And even though men don’t need to cover their chests, (at least in our culture), frankly most of our one piece swimsuits have a lot more fabric than the two piece bikinis of  women. And even the one piece swimsuits of most women fit very tightly so that every curve is accentuated.

But for the record, and for the sake of equality let me be clear, if a man wears a tight speedo I am going to say he is out of line and is dressed immodestly. But frankly, I almost never see that today. Most men would not be caught dead in such a silly thing.

At a personal level it is a very great puzzlement to me why anyone, male or female, would desire to walk around in public with barely a stitch of clothes on. I admit that I am a rather shy person. I almost never wear shorts and would never dream of taking my shirt off in public. Even on the beach I wear baggy shorts that extend beyond my knees and a t-shirt. If I remove the shirt at all, it is just for a brief swim, then I put it right back on.

So I admit, I am shy. But even factoring in my shyness, the question remains, What gets into a person that they are not embarrassed to walk around all but naked? Tiny low cut bikinis that almost shout “Look here at this part of my body!”

It is all odd to me and strangely sad. When I go to the beach I usually spend little time out on the sand, and only walk there at all to be polite to friends. Normally I stay back at the house and enjoy a quiet porch and a book. But out on the beach and boardwalk a kind of sadness envelopes me as I see so many young girls and women denude themselves. I walk, I do not sit on the beach, lest my celibate eyes, were to alight on a particular woman and stare too long.

It was not always this way at the beach. In fact the near nudity of current beaches was all but unthinkable until about the 1950s. As the video shows below, swim wear and modesty at the beach were carefully maintained and swimwear for both men and women covered most of the body. This began to change mid century as swimwear, especially for women, became tighter and gradually more abbreviated.

The present insanity and imprudence has been around since the late sixties, so its not new, but there were times, not so long ago, before the revolution, when sanity, modesty, prudence and respect were maintained even at the beach.

OK, I can hear some saying now, “Father, you are judging me…you are old fashioned….I am a modest woman and I wear bikinis….you’re a dirty old man.”

Well, I am judging, yes I am. Although it is your behavior I am judging. As for you personally, I am actually speaking, presuming you are a reasonable person who would give consideration to what I am saying, namely, that a lot of swimwear offends against modesty and tempts people to impurity. But if you still insist I am judging, fine, but you are judging me in what you say. You are breaking your own rule. So it looks like there’s a pair of us.

As for being old fashioned, yes I am, I admit the charge. Older fashions are better, more attractive. Modesty is reverence for mystery and is very beautiful. I tell you folks used to know how to dress up real nice. It was all so much nicer than the cut off jeans, sloganed t-shirts and sandals that predominate the scenes of shopping malls and public squares today. In the “old days” folks knew how to put on some decent clothes to go out in public. Today, most don’t seem to care and we almost never dress up. I’m gonna say, it doesn’t look pretty, collectively we look like slobs.

As for saying you are modest but wear a bikini, sorry I don’t see it, at least not when you’re wearing a bikini. No, I see a naked woman, not a modest one. Wearing a bikini is not modest. It just isn’t. And frankly a lot of the tight fitting, low cut, one-piece suits aren’t all that modest either.

As for being a dirty old man, I’ve got news for you. Young “clean” men also have “dirty” thoughts when they see naked and provocatively dressed women. They just do. And if you know this, (and deep down you do), why do you do it?

OK, some plain talk. I apologize. But at the end of the day, come on y’all, lets put on some clothes at the beach, and lets call most beachwear what it is: Immodest.

I have written elsewhere that the word modesty comes from “mode” referring to the center or middle. Hence I recognize that there is going to be some leeway when it comes to fashion and that we should not require extreme coverup for women. However, the nudity (and that’s what it too often is) at beaches is not the “mode” of modesty. It is the extreme of immodesty.

Now since I have been plain spoken here, I am going to step back and let you comment with little interference from me. Its your turn.

This video gives some history of swimwear and points a way back. Enjoy it and spread the word.

Posted on

A Reflection on the mystery of Art as a capacity of the Human soul

"Brush and watercolours" Jennifer Rensel - Flickr: Let's paint!. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons
“Brush and watercolours” Jennifer Rensel – Flickr: Let’s paint!. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

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 also for beauty, once it is 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 at 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.
–

Posted on

Words Fall Short: A meditation on the limits of human language and thought

By Antonio Litterio, Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons
By Antonio Litterio, Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

It happens, quite often, that our strengths are very closely related to our struggles.  And one of our strengths, clearly, is our capacity to speak and to write, to use words to symbolize reality, and thereby convey thoughts. So also our ability to think, to abstract and conceptualize, and interpret reality. I of course am a great believer in the magnificent thing we call speech, for I write every day, and I preach every day and like to consider myself a reasonably thoughtful person. .

To speak and to write, such a magnificent mysterious capacity within our soul. Somehow with our senses, and our mind we are able to grasp the physical realities, people places and things, as well as metaphysical realities such as justice, love , nature, and purpose. And we are also able to think and to abstract. There is not just nature, there is what is “natural,” there are not just trees, there is “tree-ness”, there are not just humans, there’s something called humanness. Yes, such a miracle, thought, language, speech, and writing. By it we communicate facts, ideas, feelings, longings, and yearnings.

Yet our language and even out thoughts have a fatal flaw that introduces a great human struggle. For “words” and thoughts, by their nature, reduce complex realities to a simple sounds (i.e. words), and concepts (i.e. thoughts). Words are little more than a grunt, a mere sound. And words in written form are the mere combination of letters we call a word. But words and even thoughts are not the reality we describe, they are merely a symbol pointing to that reality.

To say the word “tree,” neither produces the reality of a tree, nor fully describes it. The word “tree” can only summarize the whole range of realities and ideas such as: wood, roots, leaves, photosynthesis, strength,  shade, green, autumn colors, things made of wood, paper, furniture, and on and on. What a tree is, potentially or actually, cannot be reduced to a mere sound.

If  this simple word, “tree,” referring to a relatively simple reality is inadequate, how much more so far more complex realities such as the human person, justice, love, poetry, and above all else, God.

Yes, words are wonderful things, a kind of shorthand. But words can also get in the way, especially when we think that because we have named something, we have fully described or comprehended it. Not so, reality is always richer than the words or thoughts that we “reduce” it to. It is perhaps necessary for us to do this sort of reduction in order to manage, and not be overwhelmed,  but, again reality is always richer than the thoughts or words we reduce it to.

In this sense, there is an old saying which goes “Don’t think, look!” In other words, we tend to rush to analysis, rather than to savor reality. And while analysis is ultimately essential, we ought to try to experience reality as fully as we can, before we “reduce” it by analyzing it, before reducing it to thoughts and words.

Another related saying is, “Don’t just do something, stand there!” For too often we rush to respond to reality, rather then to experience and savor it. Reality is always richer in our analysis in our thoughts or words about it. And without experiencing it as fully as possible, reactions are often mistaken, or off the mark.

In a noisy age, it is important to rediscover the need to slow down and experience reality, and also the need for silent contemplation before quick analysis and the “necessary evil” of reducing reality to words and concepts.

There’s yet another old saying, likely from the far East, which says, “Those who know do not say, those who say do not know.” That is, words for fall short of the reality of what is known, and the wise person grasps this.

One of the Eastern fathers, when asked to explain this saying to his disciples said, “How many know the smell of a rose?” And all of his disciples raised their hands. But when he said to them, “Put it into words” everyone remained silent.

There is a humility and recognizing the limits of words. Some things cannot be reduced to words at all, other things only partially. The wise and humble person appreciates this. St. Augustine, when asked about Grace said, “If you ask me I don’t know, if you don’t ask me, I know.” In other words, this is a truth best appreciated, and savored, apart from words.

Silent contemplation of the very deep mysteries of God is a more proper disposition than many words. And while words are eventually necessary, the silence between the words when we speak of God, are probably more instructive than the words themselves.

St. Thomas said in the prologue to question three in part one of the Summa: “Now, because we cannot know what it God  is, but rather what he is not, we have no means for considering how God is, but rather how he is not” (Prima pars, q. 3, prologue).  Since God is hidden, and we could never even come close to comprehending Him. His essence is therefore beyond anything we can describe with words. Words and analogies about God fall so far short, as to be more unlike him than they are like him. And thus we are reduced more to describing what God is not, than what he is.

And even when we say what he is, we really have little idea of what we are talking about.  God is not just wise or like some wise man, He is wisdom itself.  God is not just good or like some good person, He is goodness itself. He does not exist like we exist, He is not just some other object in the universe, he is existence itself. And while we are using these words, we do not really fathom what they really or fully mean. To some extent we know what it means to exist, but we do not know existence itself. We know good things, and good people, but we do not know goodness itself. These realities are too rich to be reduced to a manageable concept. or mere word.

St. Thomas Aquinas also said in his commentary on Boethius’ De Sancta Trinitate that while we can know God through His creation, and in God’s actions through history, the highest form of the knowledge of God is to know God as the Unknown (tamquam Ignotum).   That is, to have the wisdom and humility to say that the highest form of talking about the Holy Trinity is to know that one does not know, that one does not comprehend or grasp the essence about that which we speak. We can say what God is not, but we cannot say comprehensively what He is, in essence.

Now this is humility. It does not mean that we know nothing, but it does mean that we must approach God with humility, realizing that we know very little. And what we do know is more by negation, than by positively grasping that of which we speak.

Yet because we frequently are not humble, because we forget that what we know is very limited, because we forget that our words reduce even natural concepts to simplistic signs called words, and thoughts…because we forget all of this, we often get into hideous and prideful arguments.

An old saying goes, “The wise man may point to the moon, but the fool sees only the finger.” That is, words are like the finger, our thoughts are also like the finger, but our thoughts and our words are not the reality, they only point to the reality.

But instead of seeking the reality, we debate about the words, about the reduction that we call  thought. Surely this is unavoidable in an absolute sense, but if we can humbly realize that our words and concepts are not the reality, but only that which points to the reality, perhaps in this humility, arguments about “the finger” (to use our analogy) will become less destructive and hateful.

It is true, some words, and ideas are simply wrong, are not in conformity with the truth, and are quite out of touch with reality or revelation.  In such cases, we must critique, debunk, and demonstrate the error of such notions.

But in so many other cases, we end up debating things that we ought not to debate.  And we do so, not because the words that are spoken by others are untrue, but simply because they are not precisely the words we would use, or the formula that we prefer. Someone may speak poetically, but we  prefer science, and so we scoff. Someone speaks in terms of Carmelite spirituality, but we prefer Ignatian, so we scoff. Someone encounters God charismatically  but another, more traditionally. And out come the long knives.

How foolish. God and the life he offers is so much richer than our words, concepts, and thoughts. Of course there will be legitimate diversity, there has to be. The Church, in Her Scripture and Tradition certainly sets up guardrails, beyond on which we shall not go. But within the guard rails is a road with different lanes, different traditions, both intellectual and spiritual.

Perhaps an old story I heard once on retreat will help. It is about two blind men. Each of them went separately to a man who could see and asked, “What is this thing called Green?”  But of course. how does one describe the color green to a man who is never seen? All one can do is use analogy. So the man who could see, said to the first man, “The color green is like soothing and soft music.”  To the other man who came to him later, he said, “The color green is like the smell of cool mint.”  Both men went away reasonably content. Of course, neither of them had really experienced the color green, but had only heard an analogy of it. But when the two blind men got together they were heard to be screaming at one another, and even threatening violence as the one shouted, “Green is like cool mint!!” and the other said, “No! is is like soft music!”

Of course those of us who know the color green, know that it is a far richer concept than either cool mint or soft music.  We easily laugh at the the blind men debating which analogy was the correct one. Neither analogy was correct, nor incorrect, they’re just analogies, describing some aspect of “Green”, but not even close to the whole meaning. So we laugh. To use the previous analogy, the blind men were “seeing” only the finger, and missing the moon to which it points. Green is not cool mint or soft music, it is only like them in some distant way. In fact, green is more unlike cool mint than like it, more unlike soft music than like it.

But though we laugh at the blind men, we are so much like them in so many ways. We think we see so well, but much of reality is hidden to us. So many of the words and concepts on which we insist are but reductive analogies of a far richer reality. And while we may find certain approaches, certain words, certain traditions, certain analogies, to be more helpful than others, the reality to which these things point is so much richer than any reductive word, thought or analogy of them.

It is too easy, even in matters which the Church grants us freedom, to be like the two blind men savaging each other and threatening violence over whose analogies are the best. And yet, neither analogy is even close to the actual reality. More unlike it and like it!

Perhaps it is best to end were we began: Our strengths are often our struggles. Our capacity for language, for words, for signs, analogies, and all sorts of intellectual concepts, is a remarkable and magnificent capacity. But too easily our strength also becomes our struggle because we forget that our signs, words, analogies and intellectual concepts are not the reality they describe, but merely point to the reality, a reality that is far richer the words or concepts.

Only humility can help us, so that our strengths do not turn to become the very thing over which we struggle!

The LORD is in his holy temple; let all the earth be silent before him. (Habakkuk 2:20)