When my Father lay dying, I remember that one of the losses I began to grieve was that he was the keeper of many family stories. He was the one who could look at an old family photograph and tell you who they all were and something about each of them. As I saw him lying there, no longer able to talk much, I thought of all the memories stored up in his mind, all the stories, all the people he once knew and had spoken so vividly of.
And not only the family stories, but he was also a great historian and a great wellspring of the classics. He had read all the “Great Books” all of Shakespeare, all of Sacred Scripture, so many other worthy writings, and had memorized many lengthy quotes.
Such an encyclopedic mind, vivid thoughts, vivid memories, the keeper of the family story. And though I knew he’d take it with him in his soul, there was a grief to me that his magnificent mind was now closing to me. I regret I did not more carefully retain all he told me.
Thankfully he had written a family history that stays with us, and all his many photos and family films, that we worked to preserve, stay with us. We his sons, are moving much of this to digital, but it took Dad’s living presence to really bring these things home.
The video below put me in this reflective mind. It is of an old man who lays dying. And in various flashbacks we see his life, told almost as if from God’s perspective. We see his story, his good moments and tragedies. And then he passes.
I remember a Bible verse my father had jotted down on the frontispiece of a book he was reading at the time of his own father’s death:
But as for man, his days are like the grass, or as the flower that flourishes in the field. The wind blows, and he is gone, and his place never sees him again. (Psalm 103:16)
Reading that, as a very young teenager, I realized, for the first time that the Bible was very beautiful and I was startled to think that the house in which I was sitting would one day “never see me again.” All the stories, all the memories, gone with the proverbial winds.
The photo at the upper right is the last picture I ever took of my father. He standing in front of the family home. This was taken as he was leaving it for the last time. He moved into a retirement community for a brief while, but he was not long for this world. And, there he is, standing in front of the place that “never sees him again.”
Yes, there is something very precious about our memories, our stories. They are meant to be shared, handed down. But something irreplaceable, dies with each person. A very personal glimpse of history, a very personal story, something that can never be fully shared with anyone, no one but the Lord.
Only the Lord really knows our story, knows it better than we ourselves:
O LORD, you search me and you know me.
You yourself know my resting and my rising;
you discern my thoughts from afar.
You mark when I walk or lie down;
you know all my ways through and through.
Before ever a word is on my tongue,
you know it, O LORD, through and through….
For it was you who formed my inmost being,
knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I thank you who wonderfully made me;
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being fashioned in secret
and molded in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw me yet unformed;
and all my days were recorded in your book,
before one of them came into being…
at the end I am still at your side… (Ps 139:varia)
Yes, the Lord knows. He knows all about us.
An old spiritual says,Nobody knows the trouble I seen, Nobody but Jesus. For in the end, he is the keeper of every story, my father’s, my own, yours. And whatever is lost in death will be restored a hundredfold, with understanding besides, in the great parousia. Not a story, not a word will be lost, but we shall recover it all, and tell the old, old stories once again.
Enjoy this poignant and moving video of a man’s life, almost as if told from the standpoint of God, the God who knows. Though the man seems to die alone, someone is remembering his story. Maybe it’s God doing the remembering:
In the wake of the supreme court decisions of this week, I would like to return to a question I have Asked before: Are we coming to a point where we should consider dropping our use of the word “marriage?”
It is a simple fact that word “marriage” as we have traditionally known it is being redefined in our times. To many in the secular world the word no longer means what it once did and when the Church uses the word marriage we clearly do not mean what the increasing number of states mean.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines “Marriage” (i.e. Holy Matrimony) in the following way:
The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament (CCC # 1601)
The latest actions by numerous states and the hat-tip that the Supremes gave Same sex unions mean that increasingly, the secular world’s definition of marriage no longer even remotely resembles what the Catechism describes.
To be fair, as we have previously noted, this is not the first redefinition of marriage that has occurred in America. The redefinition has actually come in three stages:
In 1969 the first no-fault divorce law was signed in California. Within 15 years every state in this land had similar laws that made divorce easy. No longer did state laws uphold the principle which the Catechism describes as a partnership of the whole of life. Now marriage was redefined as a contract easily broken by the will of the spouses.
The dramatic rise in contraceptive use and the steep drop in birthrates, though not a legal redefinition, amount to a kind of cultural redefinition of marriage as described in the Catechism which sees the procreation and education of offspring as integral to its very nature. Now the American culture saw this aspect as optional at the will of the spouses. Having sown in the wind (where we redefined not only marriage, but sex itself) we are now reaping the whirlwind of deep sexual confusion and a defining of marriage right out of existence.
This final blow of legally recognizing so called gay “marriage” completes the redefinition of marriage which the Catechism describes as being a covenant, …which a man and a woman establish between themselves. Now secular American culture is removing even this, calling same-sex relationships “marriage”.
Proposal: So the bottom line is that what the secular world means by the word “marriage” is not even close to what the Church means. The secular world excluded every aspect of what the Church means by marriage. Is it time for us to accept this and start using a different word? Perhaps it is, and I would like to propose what I did back in March of 2010, that we return to an older term and hear what you think.
I propose that we should exclusively refer to marriage in the Church as “Holy Matrimony.”
According to this proposal the word marriage would be set aside and replaced by Holy Matrimony. It should be noticed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to this Sacrament formally as “The Sacrament of Matrimony.”
The word “matrimony” also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complementarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = “mother” and mony, a suffix indicating “action, state, or condition.” Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from secular muddle that has “marriage” for its nomen.
Problems to resolve – To return to this phrase “Holy Matrimony” is to return to an older tradition and may sound archaic to some (but at least it isn’t as awkward sounding as “wedlock”). But clearly a new usage will be difficult to undertake. It is one thing to start officially referring to it as Holy Matrimony. (Which, by the way I have done in my parish – we no longer prepare people for marriage, but for “Holy Matrimony”) But it is harder when, for example, a newly engaged couple approaches the priest and says, “We want to be married next summer.” It seems unlikely we easily train couples to say, “We want to enter Holy Matrimony next summer.” or even just to say, “We want to have a wedding next summer.” Such dramatic changes seem unlikely to come easily. Perhaps you, who read this blog can offer some resolutions to this problem.
Perhaps, even if we cannot wholly drop the terms “marry, ” “marriage” and “married” a more modest form of the proposal is that we at least officially discontinue the use of the word marriage and refer to it as the “Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.”
What do you think? Do we need to start using a new word for marriage? Has the word been so stripped of meaning that we have to use different terminology to convey what we really mean?
When I proposed this two years ago this very time, many of you we rather unconvinced and some were even perturbed that we were handing on over our vocabulary to the libertines. That may be, but we already know that “gay” will never mean what it used to, and it would seem that “marriage” will never again mean what it did.
A secondary but related proposal is that we begin to consider getting out of the business of having our clergy act as civil magistrates in weddings. Right now we clergy in most of America sign the civil license and act, as such, as partners with the State. But with increasing States interpreting marriage so differently, can we really say we are partners? Should we even give the impression of credibility to the State’s increasingly meaningless piece of paper? It may remain the case that the Catholic faithful, for legal and tax reasons may need to get a civil license, but why should clergy have anything to do with it?
Frankly, I am uncomfortable signing DC Marriage licenses, and do so only because my Ordinary has indicated we should continue doing this. I am happy to obey him in this and defer to his judgment in the matter. There is a reason his is the Ordinary and I am not. That said, I have told him what I think. But for now, it seems clear we must stay the course and still sign them until the Bishop says, no more.
If we did stop signing civil licenses, we would surely need a strong catechesis directed to our faithful that reiterates that civil “marriage” (what ever that means anymore) is not Holy Matrimony and that they should, in no way consider themselves as wed, due to a (meaningless) piece of paper from a secular state that reflects only confusion and darkness rather than clarity and Christian light.
Here too, what do you think? Should the Catholic Bishops disassociate Catholic clergy from civil “marriage” licenses?
The decisions of the Supreme Court regarding marriage today were disappointing but not surprising. Especially disappointing was the decision turning away “Proposition 8” where California voters rejected the status of legal marriage for same-sex attracted couples. The court seemed to set aside that proposition for technical reasons. This is not a legal blog, and hence I am not equipped to speak to legal aspects of the questions. And frankly, I am not at all certain that a Proposition 8 were it voted on again today, would pass.
For indeed, I think many of us who support traditional marriage are bewildered by the kind of tsunami that has swept over our culture in regards to this matter. DOMA passed not so long ago with an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate, and was signed into law by a relatively liberal President, Bill Clinton. More recently, Proposition 8 passed in the rather liberal state of California. Now, just a few years later, polls show that over 60% of Californians want Proposition 8 removed.
Yes, there have been dramatic shifts, and within such a very short number of years! Perhaps “tsunami” is a adequate description, or that it almost seems as if some hallucinogen has suddenly had its effects on American opinion.
And while this is also not a political blog, it seems, culturally that proponents of same-sex unions have scored their victory by successfully shifting the terms of the discussion away from marriage per se, to the rights of the individual adults in the question. The legal analysis of the attorney for the plaintiffs in these cases indicated that a crucial factor in his victory was that his side was able to demonstrate damages incurred by the plaintiffs, whereas of those who opposed them could show forth “no damages” in permitting the same-sex unions to be recognized.
Culturally and politically this also seems to be the essence of the problem, that the focus is on the rights of the adults in the question, not on what is best for children. And we Catholics too, who engage to debate on behalf of traditional marriage, often fall into this trap of focusing on the adults in the equation, not on the children, and what is best and just for children.
Simply put, the Church has, and must continue to oppose every erosion of traditional marriage because traditional marriage is what is best for children. And while it is true that we have a pastoral concern to call to repentance those who commit serious sexual sins, such as fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts, from the public policy point of view the Church’s stance on marriage is that traditional marriage is what is best and just for children. Hence to act in ways, or adopt policies that further erode traditional marriage, is to act unjustly. It is unjust because it fosters and encourages a climate that is increasingly poisonous and problematic for the children who are raised in it.
And hence, our objection to the legal recognition of Same-sex unions is not only an objection to homosexual aberrations, but also to other assaults on the family such as fornication, cohabitation, polygamy, no-fault divorce, intentionally single motherhood, and fatherhood, and so forth. Every child deserves, and has the right to be raised by his father and mother, who have committed themselves to a lifelong stable union.
Psychologically as well, every child deserves to have a father and mother. The father both teaches and forms his child in the way a mother cannot. Likewise for the mother, she also teachers and forms a child in ways that a father cannot.
Given what is best for children, the Church holds that it is reasonable to expect that traditional marriage and the traditional family be upheld and encouraged in our culture. Fornication and cohabitation should be shunned. Where adoption is necessary, the traditional family setting should be sought and have the preeminence among any other sort of setting. Only in rare cases where a traditional setting absolutely cannot be found, the children be put into less than ideal settings such as with one mother, or one father, or same-sex couples and so forth.
Further, as a culture, we ought not go on celebrating all sorts of other “diverse” forms of family and marriage. This does not help children, but it harms them by further fostering less than ideal family settings.
One may wish to argue the legal aspects of giving special recognition in terms of benefits and other legal rights to traditional families. There are possibly legitimate legal arguments about the equal protection clause etc.
But as a principle, it is not unreasonable that a culture might seek to foster traditional family settings and bestow special benefits upon a traditional family to encourage such settings. And thus, prescinding from all the legal questions that may surrounded special benefits, as a principle the Church does support certain special benefits and prerogatives be given to traditional families.
Again, the bottom line is we want to support and foster what is best for children. The traditional family setting, with a father and a mother in a lifelong committed relationship of marriage, and raising their children in that setting is what is best for children. It is what we must seek to promote.
As a faith community, we set forth what God himself has set forth. God’s wisdom is also vindicated by the common sense of natural law. Traditional marriage, is what is best, and what is just for children.
Supreme Mistake – The systematic dismantling of traditional marriage through sexual irresponsibility, fornication, adultery, easy divorce, and now elevating as same sex unions to the status of legal marriage, all shred what children need and deserve, namely, traditional marriage.
The Supremes of SCOTUS have weighed in on the topic, but it is we who have made the supreme mistake, as a culture. We have made a mess of the family over the last 60 years. Sadly, it our children who suffer, and our children yet to be born will suffer by our supreme mistakes.
One of the great modern problems is boredom. It might seem that we would be one the of least bored ages of all, with our many diversions. Almost every form of entertainment is available quite literally at our fingertips, television, radio, Internet, Netflix, video games, and on and on.
But boredom easily overtakes us moderns. The problem seems quite simply that we are overstimulated.
The loud and frantic pace of even our recreational activities, leaves most of us incapable of appreciating the subtler, gentler, and more hidden things of life.
Dale Ahlquist, the great commentator on Chesterton, in his book “Common Sense” writes:
There is no excuse for being bored… And yet the modern world is bored.… Our entertainment grows louder, flashier, and more bizarre, in an ever more desperate attempt just to keep our attention. (Chapter 2, incipit)
As Chesterton proclaims, In Tremendous Trifles, p. 7) the world will never starve for want of wonders; but only for want of wonder.” He also says that there are no dreary sites, only dreary sightseers.
And thus, boredom is a problem on the inside. And happiness too, is an inside job. A great gift that all of us should seek is is a gift of wonder and awe; the gift to appreciate God’s glories and wonders on display at every moment, and everything we see and everyone we encounter.
But the gift of wonder also depends on other gifts, in particular, humility and gratitude.
Ahlquist writes:
The key to happiness and the key to wonder is humility.… Humility means being small enough to see the greatness of something and to feel unworthy of it, and privileged to be a able to enjoy it. (Chapter 2 mid).
Consider well the meaning of these wonderful yet simple words, and the relationship between humility, wonder, and gratitude. Yes, to humble is to feel unworthy of the glories before us, to wonder at them and feel privileged just to enjoy them.
Indeed, even the word “consider” invites us to a kind of awestruck and grateful mysticism. For the word “consider” comes from two Latin words cum (with) + sidera (stars), i.e. “with the stars.” In other words, to “consider” something is to think upon it, regard it and gaze upon it with the wonder that one has been looking at the night sky filled with stars!
So, “consider” well the glories on display from moment to moment, behold them with humility, with wonder, and gratitude.
This video I put together celebrates the night sky, a glory that most of us city dwelling moderns have never truly seen, but a glory that was on display every night before the year 1900.
“Empty_City_Road” by Vicky Walsh, Posted through http://www.deviantart.com/art/Empty-City-Road-74864575″target=”_blank
We have discussed on this blog numerous times before the coming demographic implosion, especially among Europeans as a result of declining birthrates. It is a matter of some debate how serious the problem is, even among those living in Europe. And not being a denizen of Europe I am not able to play the prophet.
But one thing is clear, the birth rates are so low among traditional inhabitants of Europe, English, French, German, and Italian among others that it would seem the Europe as we have known it is aborting and contracepting itself out of existence. These ethnicities, races, and national identities are largely being replaced by Muslim immigrants. This much seems quite clear.
What is unclear, however, is the degree to which the Muslim immigrants will adopt European ways, to include smaller family sizes, European ways of thinking and living. It is largely assumed here in America the Muslims who Emigrate to Europe bring with them an unassailable attachment to Muslim culture, understood in its most radical and anti-western demeanor.
This assumption is not necessarily yet demonstrated by good, solid sociological or demographic data. Some argue that Muslim immigrants are largely adopting European ways, others argue that the opposite is true.
Further, some argue that the French are beginning to turn the birthrate problem around and are now above replacement level. This too, remains to be seen, particularly as to whether it will be maintained going forward.
In many ways, the jury is still out regarding Europe and its future.
An article appeared in the Washington Post today, on the very front page, which sets forth the demographic issue in Portugal. And there, according to the article, seems to exist a kind of worst-case scenario. The article describes the increasing results of what can only be described as a cultural suicide of the Portuguese through abortion and contraception leading to very low birthrates. But there also seems to be little economic incentive for people to immigrate and prop up the numbers. It seems very few are interested in taking the places of the diminishing and dying Portuguese.
The result, according to the article, is economic implosion as well as a sociological nightmare wherein few younger people exist to care for the older ones and in many parts of Portugal it seems that no one will be left to bury the dead.
Yes, it is the worst of both worlds: declining birthrates along with no immigrants to fill the gap.
Ronald Regan once received some heat from conservative Americans during the immigration debates of his administration. Inclined to grant amnesty to those here illegally, he observed that if our population is not increasing in America, neither will our economy grow. He was right, but certainly went against the prevailing orthodoxy which tends to see the economic pie as a fixed set of resources that must be divided among ever larger numbers at the table.
But this does not seem to be absolutely the case. It would seem that increasing populations also bring with them some of their own assets. Economies are generated by demand, and the supply, which we have in some abundance, grows to meet it. Growing populations, at least in the more affluent West, do tend to grow the economy as well.
I am no economist and will admit there are matters to debate here, but my own experience shows an increasing population in this country has, in fact, generated a growing economy for the most part.
But, as the example of Portugal shows, it would seem that a declining population, does not leave more with a fewer at the table, but results in less for everyone. Lowering of the economic tide eventually grounds all boats.
Consider some excerpts from the Washington Post article on Portugal today:
For an enterprise in the business of welcoming life, the birthing ward in Portugal’s largest maternity hospital is eerily quiet….Elsewhere in the hospital, signs of Europe’s crisis within a crisis are everywhere. Serving a country that was battling a low birthrate even before the region’s economy fell off a cliff, Alfredo da Costa Maternity Hospital delivered about 7,000 babies a year until recently. But…the number of births crashed last year to 4,500, leading the hospital to mothball an entire wing and slash 20 percent of the staff.
The recent decline in births across Portugal — a 14 percent drop since 2008 — has been so acute that in an increasingly childless country, 239 schools are shutting down this year and sales of products such as baby diapers and children’s shampoos are plummeting….At the same time, in the fast-graying interior, gas stations and motels are being converted into nursing homes.
Portugal is at the forefront of Europe’s latest baby bust, one that is shortening the fuse on a time bomb of social costs in some of the world’s most rapidly aging societies….
Europe has faced a gradual decline in birthrates since the 1960s…a modest rebound during the 2000s….has now gone into reverse.
The baby shortage, economists say, is set to pile on the woe for a swath of the continent that may already be facing a decade or more of economic fallout from the debt crisis that started in 2009.
A reckoning accelerates. By 2030, the retired population in Portugal, for instance, is expected to surge by 27.4 percent, with those older than 65 predicted to make up nearly one in every four residents. With fewer future workers and taxpayers being born, however, the Portuguese are confronting what could be an accelerated fiscal reckoning to provide for their aging population.
[Some] experts predict that the population loss ahead could be beyond even the worst-case predictions….That has many here bemoaning the “disappearance” of a nation and asking: Who will be left to support a dying country of old men and women?
Seniors living at the home, such as Maria Jesus Rodrigues, 87, relish the contact with children. “We used to have children everywhere when I was young. We never thought about the economic side; we just had them,”
Rodrigues…burst into a local folk song. “I have to sing now,” she crooned, “because when I die, there will be no one left to sing for me.”
Hence it would seem that Portugal is in very serious shape, inheriting the worst of both worlds. Low birthrates and no immigrants. There was a time, when Catholic Portugal teamed with large families.
In a way, there is a judgment of God upon the whole West, In effect God seems to be saying, “If you don’t love life you don’t have to have it.”
Large sections of Portugal may simply go into an unpopulated an abandoned status (until some economic incentive returns for others to move and live there).
Other large sections of Europe, once Christian, seemed destined to become Muslim Caliphates. That of course presumes that the Muslim immigrants retain their identity and their love for large families, and do not adopt decadent Western ways.
All that remains to be seen, but it does seem clear that the Europe we have known is passing from our sight. Pope Benedict spoke of the lights going out all over Europe. He certainly had the faith in mind, but as an article like this shows, it is not only the Christian faith which is diminishing in Europe, but even European as we’ve known them maybe endangered and simply disappearing.
The Church has always been right about contraception and abortion. These paraded in as devilish lives which promised “reproductive freedom” and prosperity. But in fact, they only ushered in what they’re really all about: death.
Here is a video from heady and arrogant times. I like Star Trek, but this clip is very emblematic of an era and the thinking that has led us down some very tragic paths. Captain Kirk speaks right out of the mentality of the mid 1960s.
In my work as a spiritual director, and also in deliverance ministry, as well as in my own experience of growth, it is very clear that there are common patterns of distorted thinking that disrupt spiritual growth and cause distress and disorder. These cognitive distortions lead one to misinterpret, or to over interpret the data of the world and to live in a kind of unreality, or exaggerated reality.
But of course holiness and wholeness presuppose what scripture calls a “sober mind” (cf 1 Thess 5ff; 1 Peter 1:13; 4:7; 5:8; Titus 2:2ff; among many others). Romans 12 exhorts us:
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. (Romans 12:2-3)
Many sinful attitudes, fears, resentments, aversions and anxieties come from distorted thinking. These patterns emerge from our flesh but are also open doors for demonic influence as demons can exploit and further twist our experience of reality. The world too is able to exploit cognitive distortions both for profit and for influence.
The renewal of our minds is a key aim of spiritual direction, deliverance ministry and of overall spiritual growth. Hence, learning to recognize and name the more common forms of distorted thinking, also called cognitive distortions. Learning their “moves” we can begin to have mastery over them and begin to experience greater freedom and authority over our thought life. And, since most feelings come from thoughts, our emotional life will also be in greater repair. This includes having greater authority over and freedom from anxieties, resentments, anger, paranoia, and depression.
Lets take a brief look at some of these cognitive distortions and see their moves and bad fruits:
1. Overgeneralizing –The frequent tendency to think that a negative situation is part of a constant cycle of bad things that happen. People who overgeneralize often use words like “always” or “never.”
For example, a person might think: I had plans to go to the movie with friends, but the plans fell through. This always happens to me! I never get to have fun!
The more likely truth is that such a person does have enjoyable things in their life. And, like most other people, there are also disappointing moments. Life is a mixed bag. But, at the end of the day, most people have far more blessings than burdens.
Everyday ten trillion things go right and a few things go wrong. This is not an exaggeration when we consider that every function of every atom, molecule, cell and organ is a blessing and a success. Further, most every part of every system on this planet is up and running in a functional way so as to sustain our life. Things we seldom think about are taking place at every moment: photosynthesis is supplying oxygen, millions of ecosystems are running in symbiotic harmony, the Van Allen belts in the upper atmosphere are deflecting harmful radiation from the sun, the gulf stream and weather patterns are distributing warmth and rain, etc. Beyond the earth, Jupiter and Saturn are catching comets, the asteroid belt holds a lot of other space debris at bay, the sun is stable, and our earth has an orbit that is only 3 degrees off from a perfect circle, ensuring that the warmth of the sun is fairly even throughout our orbit.
The list could go on. But we ought to avoid overgeneralizing and exaggerating about how bad things “always” happen to us, and good things “never” come our way. This is not reality. It is not sober thinking. It makes us negative, fearful and anxious. It is not of God and has its origin in the sinful drive of ingratitude. There is much (ten trillion+) for which to be grateful for on any given day, even when certain disappointments have come. We need to embrace reality, and the reality is that overgeneralizing about negative outcomes is neither real nor balanced.
Satan can surely tap into this distortion to stir up resentment, fear, anxiety, and other negative emotions. The world too can “cash in” but string up the same negativity and proposing false or incomplete solutions for just $19.95 plus shipping and handling. Politicians and other organizations can also command too much of our loyalty and have too much power over us by inciting this distortion.
2. All or Nothing Thinking –Seeing things as only perfect or terrible, good or bad, 100% or Zero, with little or no room in between. For example, I am either a hero, or a total loser. Small mistakes are seen as total failure. Perhaps a person on diet slips, and has a large piece of cake, and then thinks, I am a total failure, I just gained ten pounds. There is very little “middle ground” in all or nothing thinking.
There is also the tendency in all or nothing thinking to think that affirming one thing, means denying others. For example, if I say, I like “A” that this therefore means I am somehow saying that B, C and D are of no value whatsoever. But of course that may not be the case at all. Yet, the all or nothing thinker may take offense at the affirmations or points made by others since they see no middle ground, or the possibility that many things can be affirmed and praised at once, or that preferences can be on a continuum somewhere between zero and one hundred.
Indeed, the reality is that most things in life, and most scenarios admit of a kind of continuum of outcomes between all and nothing, 100 and zero. There are often many different outcomes and possible combinations that are both praiseworthy and acceptable. But the all or nothing thinker, because of this cognitive distortion has a difficult time remembering and accepting this.
The result of all or nothing thinking at the personal level is either pride, wherein one thinks of themselves or their performance too highly, or low self esteem wherein one, seeing something less than perfect in their performance deems themselves to be a total loser. There are any number of issues that revolve around anxiety (e.g. performance anxiety) and fear (fear of failure), resentments and depression that set up on account of this cognitive distortion.
At the social level there is often hostility to all opinions that are not 100% in sync with what the all or nothing thinker insists is best. Such people often take offense when none is intended. For example, perhaps someone other than them, or what they think, is affirmed. They then think that they, or what they think, is therefore wholly discarded or ridiculed. In this way, all or nothing thinking tends to make people hostile, fearful, thin-skinned and unnecessarily insistent on perfect agreement or outcomes.
It is not hard to imagine how both the devil and the world can lay hold of and tap into this distorted drive of the flesh and hold people in bondage to fear, hostility and many anxious notions that see no middle ground, and no reason to hope. Since the world is not perfect, there is nothing good to celebrate, and those who do celebrate something are dismissed as naive, stupid or worse. The all or nothing thinker presumes that if someone affirms one thing, they “must think it is all good,” which, of course is not necessarily true. But the distortion leads them to scorn and even ridicule people unnecessarily. Thus the evil one easily locks all or nothing thinkers into ever deepening degrees of negativity, hostility and fear.
3. Fortune Telling – Predicting that something bad will happen, without any evidence. For example, a person may think, “I don’t care how hard I have prepared for the talk, it is going to go terribly. People will hate my talk or be bored.”
Essentially this is a form pessimism and negativity that taps into the sin against hope called “despair.” Fortune tellers tend to see the world merely as a hostile place, and opportunities merely as burdens and traps.
But, of course opportunities are not necessarily good or bad, hostile or benign. They are just opportunities.
Further, ‘failure’ is not always total, or even failure at all. The cross was a failure to many who saw it that day, but it was actually victory. Some of my “worst” sermons have had surprising effects. Life is a funny proposition. But the Fortune teller rejects all this and insists that disaster is just over the next ridge.
Sadly, most fortunetellers set up self-fulfilling prophecies. Expecting bad things, they usually get it, or can at least collect ample evidence to prove their thesis and be confirmed in their downward cycle of negativity, anxiety, depression, despair, and cynicism.
Satan can easily exploit negativity and the “hunch” that bad things are going to happen. Fortunetellers keep the door wide open to the devil’s shenanigans, practically delighting in his works so as to say, “See, I told you so.”
This negative thinking has to go. It is a distortion that denies the possibilities of every opportunity, and the possibility of paradoxical and surprising outcomes.
4. Emotional Reasoning –Believing that bad feelings or emotions reflect the situation. For example, I feel anxious when I fly, so airplanes are not safe.
Our feelings have the capacity to “damn reason.” We need to be very careful to remember that feelings are just feelings. They ought not be wholly ignored, but neither should they be the deciding factor. Many of our feelings are simply wrong and rooted in traumatic or powerful events of the past.They may not in fact reflect the current reality. That I feel unsafe does not mean I am unsafe. That I feeling bad about a meeting does not mean it was a bad meeting etc.
Once I was walking with a friend and a dog came running up to up. My friend, who had once been bitten and infected by a dog was afraid. But I had grown up with dogs and could see that the dogs was lumbering up to us to greet us, not attack us. Both of us were looking at the same data, and both of us had different feelings. I was right, there was nothing to fear. The dog came an sniffed my hand and wagged its tail. No harm.
But the point is that the feelings were not the reality, they were just feelings. Mine happened to be right, and my friend’s were wrong. But neither set of feelings changed the reality.
Here too, Satan and the world can easily exploit feelings to make us think things that are not necessarily so. An important part of spiritual growth is learn how to discern feelings, and seem them as part of the picture, not the whole picture.
5. Mind Reading – Jumping to conclusions about what others are thinking, without any evidence. For example, My friend didn’t stop to say hello. She must be angry at me. Well, perhaps, or perhaps too she was in a hurry, or maybe she didn’t even see you or know you were there. Or, My boss cast a negative glance at me, he is upset and I am going to get fired. Maybe, or perhaps as he was looking in your direction he remembered something he forgot to do, or an argument he had with his wife. Perhaps too he had gas pains!
This sort of distortion is often rooted in a form of pride called grandiosity, wherein we think we are always the main thing on other people’s mind, or the reason they act. I once knew a man who was very paranoid and I would often remind him that people had better things to do with their time than think of him or ways to trip him up.
Mind reading is also rooted in pride because we trust too much that we have command of all the facts and really know what is going on. We do not. This is a distortion. We do well to develop a healthy type of reserve in our conclusions about what others are thinking or about their motives. We ought to ask of God a certain kind of “blindness” that fails to notice so many things we really can’t even understand.
This form of distorted thinking leads to many fears and anxieties that are usually needless and baseless. Satan surely has many doorways through this form of pride and anxiety producing thinking.
6. Mental Filter –Focusing only on the negative parts of a situation and ignoring anything good or positive. For example, I got a lot of good feedback from the conference I led. But one person disagreed with my premise. I guess the conference wasn’t so good after all.
This distortion is similar to number one above.
7. ‘Should’ Statement – excessively telling yourself how you “should” or “must” act. For example, I should be able to handle this without getting upset and crying!
Clearly there are moral parameters that we must observe in our Christian walk. But there are also many other “rules” and norms we demand of our self that are not necessarily reasonable or correct.
In spiritual direction a person will often say, “I should do this or that” And often I must ask, “Who told you that?” Not everything we think we should do, must in fact be done.
And thus we must carefully discern what is really required from us, and what is not, or what is merely optional based on circumstances.
The devil loves “should” statements because he loves to destroy truth by exaggerating it and making it an unbearable burden. It also gives him the opportunity to masquerade in pious clothes.
For example consider the following “should” scenario. “You know, your prayers would be answered if you just prayed or fasted a little more. You really “should” multiply your prayers and double your fasts.” But this can be very devilish.
First it is devilish because to some degree it is true. We probably could pray more (if we neglected other things). But, that we can pray more, if for example, we never slept, does not me we ought to do so or must do so.
Further it is devilish, because if the devil can sow that the sought that we could or ought to pray more, they we have NEVER prayed enough. And now he has us where he wants us: discouraged, guilty, anxious, and seeing prayer as an increasing burden, and God as a task master.
Finally it is devilish because it suggests that we will get what we want as a result of our efforts, rather than the grace of God.
So, “should” statements can be very devilish. And they are this way because they masquerade in pious clothing and moral duties. But too often should statements are wolves in sheep clothing. There are legitimate duties we have, but do not trust every should thought. Discern carefully.
There are more cognitive distortions we could discuss, but allow these to suffice. Add your own in the comments file.
The life of the mind is very important in the spiritual life. Our thoughts are critical to what we do, how we feel and to our sense of well being and serenity.
Bottom line – DO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU THINK. Discern, distinguish, sift and sort. Consider well that God wants to give you a sober mind, that is, a clear mind, a mind that is in touch with reality, not lost in distortions, and unreality. Ask for a sober mind and make the journey.
Video – Maybe our cluttered lives reflect our often cluttered thoughts:
The Gospel for today sets forth some parameters in terms of how we picture Christ. Sadly today, as in the time of Jesus many have a designer Messiah, a designer Christ that they worship. It is not the real or revealed Christ they acknowledge and worship. Rather it is a Christ of their own design they create, or shall we shall we say “carve” in the form of an idol and then worship.
Lets look at some of the parameters Jesus sets forth for our acknowledgement of him and worship. As we shall see, the Lord denotes both problems and parameters in understanding who He is.
I. Confusion – The Gospel begins: Once when Jesus was praying in solitude, and the disciples were with him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” They said in reply, “John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, ‘One of the ancient prophets has arisen.’”
Note that in the attempt to take a poll of popular opinion, every single answer is wrong. This is an important insight since it is a sort of American obsession to take polls and think we have found answers and the truth. No, we have not. We have simply found what is popular, not necessarily what is precise.
In 1855 a poll of Americans would probably have found that slavery was fine. In 1940 in Germany most Germans likely thought Hitler was on target with his notions that Jews were an enemy of the State. In 1950 most Americans probably thought that segregation was good, even of a sort of godly order.
Polls do not necessarily show the truth at all. They merely record what is popular or common. But, what is popular is not always right. And what is right is not always popular.
Thus, in the poll Jesus informally takes, the truth is not disclosed. Only opinion, and all of it, every bit of it, wrong. To all Catholics and dissenters who love to quote polls and what “the majority think,” beware, the truth is not necessarily to be found at all in polls; merely what is common or popular. More is necessary that to inquire what “the people” think. The Church cannot, and must not be run simply on what the faithful want, think or opine. Even more so the Church cannot simply bow to popular opinion in the secular world. It is a very unreliable indicator of the truth as we see here.
II. Clarity –Jesus next asks the college of apostles together: Who do you (all) say that I am? But here too nothing much comes. There is silence. In the poll of the college, of the experts, of the “inner circle” there is too much positioning and guarded delay for an answer to come. Here too the “academy” cannot generate an answer. There is too much peer pressure and competition for the top spots for bold and daring answers that cut against the grain and deem to defy monotheism. the crickets of “careful” and fearful silence is all we hear. Among experts there is often a waiting about to see what is the “acceptable” and politically correct opinion. No answer is forthcoming. The panel of experts is too busy fretting about what will position them correctly, than what is the correct answer.
Finally though, from among them, one man is anointed by God to give the answer: After silence the text says, Peter said in reply, “The Christ of God.”
Here therefore is the proper answer. Although the Lucan text is brief recording only the answer, the Gospel of Matthew adds:
Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:17-19)
And thus is supplied a kind of ecclesiology. The truth is not to be found in a mere poll of the populace, or even the faithful. Neither is the truth to be found in the mere college of the apostles, or in any mere consensus of leaders, no matter how erudite or faithful. Rather, the Lord anoints Peter to supply the answer.
It is true, the college of bishops is an important element in considering Church doctrine. A homily is not the time to set for a full ecclesiology, but, at the end of the day, the Catechism reminds us:
When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them….The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.…The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful…The Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff. The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.”But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.” (Catechism 880-885).
And thus, orthodoxy is ensured in and through Simon Peter and his successors. To those who object and prefer democracy or consensus leadership, look to the confusion and silence that they produce in a scene like this and see that they are found wanting. If there are still concerns, talk to Jesus, who has set aside your preferences in favor of his own will and structure for the Church. The Church is hierarchical and fundamentally has Peter and his successors for its head. This generates the truth. All other approaches, no matter how popular or politically correct fall short.
III. Cross –Jesus, while accepting the answer, orders the apostles to a kind of holy silence for now. The text says, He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone. He said, “The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.”
Why does Jesus rebuke them and say this? Simply put, it is because many errors and distortions regarding the Messiah were common at the time of Jesus.
Most conceptions of the Messiah at the time thought of the Messiah in political and worldly terms. To them, the Messiah would come on a war horse, with all worldly power and ruthlessly destroy the Romans, reestablishing the Kingdom of David as a political power, and restoring economic prosperity to Israel.
Jesus however was trying to teach them the more central work of the Messiah was rooted in the Suffering Servant songs of Isaiah, 53 – 57 wherein the Messiah would suffer mightily, on account of the people sins, and yet by his suffering make them whole.
In effect therefore, the essential error of that day was to conceive of the Messiah as a cross-less Christ. To them, the Christ would require nothing from them, and supply everything. He would usher in the kind of worldly kingdom on their own terms. He would destroy others for their sake. If there was a cross, it would be for others, not for them. It was a Christ, the Messiah, without the cross
In our own time, while there are errors regarding Christ’s divinity, and more rarely, errors regarding his humanity, the essential error of our time is very much the same, it is a cross-less Christianity. We have been through a long period, and are still to some degree in it now where many conceive of Christ without the cross.
Indeed, many conceive of a fake, unbiblical Christ. In one degree or another many have reduced him to a harmless hippie who walked about blessing children, healing people, and, if he said anything harsh at all, it was only toward the rich and powerful.
It is true that Jesus healed multitudes, and consoled the afflicted. But he also spoke clearly of sin, warned of judgment and hell. He demanded complete adherence to him and his teachings, without compromise. And as we see in this Gospel, and in many other places, he demanded we take up a cross daily in order to be his disciples and follow him. Simply put, without the cross, there will be no crown.
Indeed, many today have reworked Christ and no longer worship or revere the Christ of Scripture, but rather, a Christ, a God of their own making and understanding; a Lord who merely affirms them and does not warn them, as did the Christ of the Scriptures.
Jesus Christ was no despot, but neither was he a pushover. He is the Lord and he will not simply come to us on our terms. He will not simply be what we demand that he should be, any more than he was the Messiah that the first century Jews expected him to be. Indeed, so insistent was he that he be what and who his Father called him to be, that he lovingly went to the cross as the true Christ to save us from our sins. He did this even we we insisted and would have been happy if he were a different kind of messiah.
And we must meet the real Christ if we are ever to be saved. We must worship the true, the Biblical Christ, we must adore him and obey him to be saved. We must not gainsay or reinterpret his words, or water them down. We must encounter the real and true Christ, and not think that we can merely give him a cardigan sweater to sell him to a world gone soft, and hypersensitive. Only the real Jesus can save us.
And thus Jesus warns them, not to proclaim his to the world as the Messiah in worldly terms, as a redefined of Messiah. Indeed, right though Peter was, neither he nor the others would really, or fully understand him until he saw Him risen from the dead, and even more so until Pentecost.
And here, is a challenge for you and me: Who is the Jesus you worship? Is he the true Jesus is proclaimed by the Scriptures and the Church? Or is he a Jesus of convenience, a cozy sort of Jesus who just happens to comport with your politics, your worldview, your moral habits, and so forth.
It is true, Jesus comforted the afflicted, but he also afflicted the comfortable. And the truth is we are in both categories. We are at times afflicted in the Lord consoles us. But it is also true that we are all too comfortable in our sins. And the Lord loves us too much to affirm us today, but watch us descend to hell tomorrow.
Again, only the real Jesus will save us. And thus Jesus warns the apostles and warns us to be sure that we understand what it really means to call him the Messiah, the Christ, the Lord.
IV. Close to Home – Jesus Now brings the point closer to home, the text says, Then he said to all, “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”
Note that the text is clear that he is speaking now not simply to the apostles, but to all of us.
And this point is clear, there is simply no getting around it, the carrying of the cross, daily, is at the center of discipleship. Jesus is not handing out pillows, or other sorts of bromides. He is speaking to us about the sober need to carry the cross daily. Here the real Jesus is talking, not the cross-less Jesus.
And do not miss the word daily, as in “daily cross.” Frankly, one of the great teachings to embrace, is the capacity to make small and daily sacrifices. And if we will learn the wisdom of small, daily crosses, many large and heavy crosses will be avoided. The cross of daily discipline, of daily sacrifices, makes life much easier.
For example, daily overeating, brings about a weight gain that may amount to more than 100 pounds. And it is a daunting cross to seek to lose that much weight. Better the smaller, more manageable daily Cross of learning to live within limits, and to build virtue of healthy eating habits.
The Lord, in calling us to carry a cross daily, gives good advice. Better the small, manageable and daily cross than the heavy, unwieldy, nearly impossible cross of many duties deferred. Vices indulged soon become habits seemingly impossible to break. But virtues growing daily become good character, lived almost effortlessly.
Again, imagine a pianist who takes up the daily Cross learning scales and basic music books. Soon enough, he is able to play complex Chopin Etudes and Bach Preludes almost without effort. But take a student who scorns daily practice. Now, looking at the notes of even one of the simpler Bach Preludes, seems impossible to him, and likely is. And thus the daily cross of practice helps us avoid the nearly impossible crosses that will inevitably come without it.
Therefore, the Lord Jesus is not speaking to us in a merely harsh tone when he tells us take up our cross daily; he is giving a good, solid advice. The road to salvation is narrow and few find it. Why is it narrow and why do few find it? because the narrow way is the cross. Yet, given Adam and Eve’s choice, given the fact that we live in Paradise lost, there is no other way back to paradise and to heaven except through the narrow way of the cross.
Therefore in love, real love, not fake or sentimental love, the real Jesus, not the fake Jesus, speaks to us in love of the cross.
And Let this be clear, if we will walk with the real Jesus, he will make a way for us, he will open doors, he will end storms! But he did not do this without his cross, and he will not do it apart from our own crosses. We must be willing to take up our own crosses daily: crosses of self-denial, of renouncing sin, and a practicing virtue. And if we walk with him in this way, he is a way maker.
Of his own cross Jesus said, after three days he would rise. It is no less the case for us. If we will walk with him in this narrow way of the cross, we will see glory. The Lord promises that he will do it!
I am already a witness, and I pray you are too, that when we take up our crosses, doors begin to open, issues begin to resolve, glory begins to manifest. Daily prayer, daily Scripture, frequent Communion and confession, walking in fellowship, all of these have a cumulative affect. An old hymn says Yield not to temptation, for yielding is sin, each victory will help you, some other to win.
Yes, victories mount, many little things that up to a lot. Taking up daily crosses builds leverage. Virtues are fed and they grow, vices are starved and they diminish.
I promise you in Christ Jesus total victory. In taking up your cross daily, he will give the victory, but not without the cross, not without the cross. It is the real Jesus who speaks this, not the Jesus in a cardigan sweater, but the real Jesus speaking from the cross, and now from Glory.
The real Jesus does not deny the cross, but he will stand by you and help you carry it. And with Jesus you will carry it to glory. In three days you will rise.
The famous and oft quoted Proverbs 31 says, Charm is deceptive, and beauty is vain; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
This is no disrespect of women, especially those of widely regarded physical beauty. But it is something that men especially need to be mindful of, for men are very visual, and thereby focused on physical beauty. Yet physical beauty, however a man accounts it, is no guarantee that the woman in question shares his faith, values, or outlook. Neither does it reflect anything for or against her virtue, honesty or integrity.
This is a remarkably hard truth for men to apply. It is NOT a hard concept to understand in the abstract. And most men will nod or say amen to what was said above. But when abstraction becomes reality and “she” walks in the door, “lookin so fine” it is too easy to watch how every shred of common sense vanishes in an instant. Thinking shuts down, and decisions are often made with little sober reflection. And suddenly the man goes into his “Baby if you’ve got the curves, I’ve got the angles” mode.
Again, let the disclaimer be clear that “attractive” women (however one accounts that) are no more or less likely to be virtuous. The point isn’t to be suspicious of women regarded as attractive, but rather that men need to be on guard in reference to their tendency to equate looks alone with inner realities, or, alternately to disregard more serious and deeper considerations altogether when good looks enter the scene.
Proverbs 31 quoted above reminds men that charm can be deceptive and that beauty, considered simply as physical beauty is vain (i.e. an empty or neutral quality) when considering a woman. Physical beauty is also “fleeting” as men account it in our culture, since, in these times especially beauty is tied to youthful features which necessarily mature as years progress.
Thus, Proverbs 31 sets forth a whole host of qualities that a man ought to esteem in a woman, beyond looks. The qualities are too numerous to set forth in this post but you can read them here: The Woman of Proverbs. But surely among those qualities are that she is of noble character, industrious, generous to the poor, caring of her family, faithful and kind.
Yes, comes the advice, look to these, not just to “looks.” There is more to life than charm and looks. Men need to be sober about this, but often are not. There is actually a person attached to those looks who needs to be discovered, respected and also assessed for who she really is.
In the video below, two men are driving along a road and come upon a beautiful woman standing provocatively next to a disabled car. You know they are going to stop! And stop they do! But suddenly one of the men thinks beyond the looks, and sees something wrong. Yes, there is more to the picture than a beautiful woman. Something beyond mere beauty must be considered!
Enjoy this humorous illustration of Proverbs 31:30 Charm is deceptive and beauty is not only vain, but in this case it is downright fleeting!
When my Father lay dying, I remember that one of the losses I began to grieve was that he was the keeper of many family stories. He was the one who could look at an old family photograph and tell you who they all were and something about each of them. As I saw him lying there, no longer able to talk much, I thought of all the memories stored up in his mind, all the stories, all the people he once knew and had spoken so vividly of.
