Culture Archives - Page 11 of 50 - Community in Mission

June 20, 2016June 20, 2016

The Lord’s Judgment Will Not Be Delayed Forever – A Meditation on the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel

This post is a kind of follow-on from yesterday’s post as we read the stories of wickedness in ancient Israel and what God did about it.

The first reading from Monday’s Mass (of the 12^th week of the year) describes a crucial, crushing moment in the history of ancient Israel: the loss of the Northern Kingdom and the destruction and deportation of what came to be called the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.

Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, occupied the whole land [of Israel] and attacked Samaria, which he besieged for three years. In the ninth year … the king of Assyria took Samaria [which was then part of Israel] and deported the children of Israel to Assyria, setting them in Halah, at the Habor, a river of Gozan, and the cities of the Medes (2 Kings 17:5-6).

The Northern Kingdom of Israel had divided from the Southern Kingdom of Judah in 930 B.C. as a result of the bitterness following the tail end of Solomon’s reign and the reign of his successor Rehoboam. The tribes that formed the Northern Kingdom were Asher, Dan, Ephraim, Gad, Issachar, Mannasseh, Napthtali, Reuben, Simeon, and Zebulun. (Some from Levi were also settled there.) The survivors of the war were largely deported to Assyria and were “lost” by virtue of intermarrying with the people there. Though some debate the use of the term “lost,” claiming that there were people who escaped deportation or who fled to the South, as an identifiable group they were lost.

After the loss of the Northern Kingdom, only the tribes of Judah (and Benjamin) in the south remained. In effect, the tribe of Benjamin was absorbed into Judah.

Why had this come about? How had a nation blessed by God lost that blessing? Sacred Scripture, a prophetic declaration and interpretation of reality, provides this answer:

This came about because the children of Israel sinned against the LORD, their God, who had brought them up from the land of Egypt, from under the domination of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and because they venerated other gods. They followed the rites of the nations
whom the LORD had cleared out of the way of the children of Israel and the kings of Israel whom they set up (2 Kings 17:7-8).

These consequences did not come without warning. The Book of Deuteronomy (Dt 28:15-68) had long ago warned of what would happen if they broke their covenant bond with the Lord. The text is too lengthy to reproduce here, but the consequences described are frightening, and are exactly what did happen to Israel in 721 B.C. and Judah in 587 B.C. In addition to this ancient warning there were more contemporaneous warnings from the prophets:

And though the LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and seer, “Give up your evil ways and keep my commandments and statutes, in accordance with the entire law which I enjoined on your fathers and which I sent you by my servants the prophets,”
they did not listen, but were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who had not believed in the LORD, their God. They rejected his statutes, the covenant which he had made with their fathers, and the warnings which he had given them, till, in his great anger against Israel, the LORD put them away out of his sight. Only the tribe of Judah was left (2 Kings 17:13-15a, 18).

Even after all of this, Judah did not learn its lesson either, falling deeper and deeper into infidelity and sin. The Babylonians conquered Judah in 587 B.C., leading to the destruction of the Temple and the loss of the Ark.

Stories like these may seem distant, but their elements are sadly familiar to us in times like these, in which there has been a decrease in obedience to God’s laws and a great falling away from the faith. This is true in our nation, our culture, and even to a degree within the Church, where vast numbers have fallen away. St. Paul described them as those who will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears … will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires (2 Tim 4:3). He also described them as similar to Demas, [who] in his love of this world, has deserted me (2 Tim 4:10).

Yes, these are difficult times, times of pruning and purification in the Church and times of great judgment on the once-Christian West. As St. Paul says, the Old Testament stories are lessons and warnings for us: Now these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. So the one who thinks he is standing firm should be careful not to fall (1 Cor 10:11-12).

There are distorted ideas of mercy today based on the belief that God will never punish; He will never say, “Enough!” But that is not mercy at all. For if the iniquity of our times continues unabated, many more will be lost. The body count and sorrow stemming from abortion, euthanasia, war, sexual confusion, greed, and hatred will grow ever higher. At some point, God applies a painful—though necessary—end to prideful, unrepentant iniquity.

Scripture says,

Do not say, “I have sinned, yet what has happened to me? for the LORD is slow to anger!” Do not be so confident of forgiveness that you add sin upon sin. Do not say, “His mercy is great; my many sins he will forgive.” For mercy and anger alike are with him; his wrath comes to rest on the wicked. Do not delay turning back to the LORD, do not put it off day after day. For suddenly his wrath will come forth; at the time of vengeance, you will perish (Sirach 5:4-7).

Therefore, heed the lessons of these ancient stories. We live in presumptuous times, in which many (who know better in the depths of their conscience) rationalize their sin and recast God as the “affirmer in chief,” whose love precludes punishment or judgment. But such a notion of love in incomplete, for love rejoices in the truth not in what is evil and harmful. God has more in mind than merely our own “happiness.” He is thinking of other people and future generations as well. He is patient and waits for our repentance, but He is no pushover. There comes a time when even the finest vineyards must be plowed under if they yield but sour grapes.

His mercy waits, but His judgment will not be delayed forever.

This song says,

We have sinned, O Lord, and we have walked not in thy ways; but return,
O Lord, and we shall return; make thy face shine upon us, and we shall be safe

June 14, 2016June 14, 2016

Letting Go of Our Obsession with Having the Perfect Body

The Pope’s recent remarks about the obsession with having the perfect body were intended as a commentary on the rejection by some of the dignity and quality of life of the disabled. I will be writing more on that topic tomorrow. Today, however, permit me some musings on the obsession that many of us have with achieving the perfect body ourselves.

Let me start by saying (with all the good humor I can summon) that I do not have a perfect body. In fact, I have become increasingly dissatisfied with my appearance over the years as I gain weight, lose hair, and watch the gray eclipse the dark brown of what hair I do have left. Fatigue and sore joints are also increasingly my lot.

Yes, I am well aware that my body is far from perfect and is steadily “heading south.” Like many of you, I do my fair share of exercising, watching what I eat, etc. But trying to be something that I am not (a 21-year-old with a 28-inch waist and dark rich hair) is increasingly a losing battle. The fact is, I look just like my father, who looked just like his father. Genetics, body type, and age tend to win, and the energy required to try to overcome these is increasingly disproportionate to the results and to my other duties.

I do want to say that I love being 55. I would never want to be 25 again; I have learned too much in those 30 years. God has done important work in my spiritual life during that time—thank you, Lord! Spiritually, I am now younger, more confident, and stronger, even as my body ages—thank you, Lord. And Lord, please spare me from the obsession with having the perfect body.

Our culture’s obsession with the perfect body has terrible effects upon those who are younger as well. There are many young women today whom I regard as quite beautiful, who nevertheless struggle with low self-image; they are extremely anxious about any perceived imperfection in their hair, complexion, or body shape, no matter how minor. In our hyper-sexualized and visual culture, ordinary women often compare themselves unfavorably to famous women, many of whom look the way they do by spending thousands of dollars and countless hours on personal trainers, makeup specialists, and cosmetic surgery. And with the pervasiveness of photo-editing software, many women today are actually competing with the images of women who don’t even exist; they are “Photoshopped” (see video below).

Men are not immune to this either. Most men care more about their appearance than they will admit. I remember being obsessed for years with the gap between my two front teeth. It made it awkward for me to smile and I was very self-conscious about it. And yet when I asked people about it or admitted my embarrassment, most told me that they hadn’t even noticed it. Weight gain is now my primary irritant. My slash-and-burn Lenten diet merited only a 10 lb. loss, which stopped midway through Lent. A few extra laps around the park just doesn’t seem to do the trick anymore.

At the end of the day, the older body just seems designed to carry extra weight. We should ask the Lord for the proper balance in order to legitimately moderate our caloric intake and to watch our health without the preoccupation with the perfect body.

Part of the obsession for the perfect body is a result of our culture’s preoccupation with youth. Healthier cultures esteem the wisdom of age and look to elders for answers, but ours disdains its older members as “old,” “out-of-touch,” and with little to offer. Meanwhile, the young are considered “hip” and “relevant,” and are presented as the ones who really know what is going on and whose views are both glamorous and cutting edge. Young = good, old = bad.

Thus, younger bodies have become the image of perfection. And even when we leave youth behind, we are still obsessed with looking young. If we don’t, we are perceived as having “lost our edge.” Never mind that we may have reached the peak of our life intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, professionally, etc. If you don’t look young, you’re no good; you’re washed up. This is a foolish preoccupation with mere externals that dismisses the hoary crown of wisdom. Older bodies are rounder, grayer, and less agile. But perhaps God intends this, as we hopefully become more graceful, wise, and mindful in our walk, and as our personality becomes more “well-rounded.”

I have often mused that God built in a certain protection for us as we grow older: as we age and become “less attractive,” our eyesight worsens so that we don’t notice it so much! But then we go ahead and cancel that out by putting on glasses J. With corrective lenses, our artificially “young” eyes can’t bear the sight of our actually older bodies.

These are just some of my thoughts on today’s obsession with having the perfect body.

Help us, Lord! Keep us grateful for what you are doing in our souls even if our bodies are “heading south.” Help us to remember that every passing day here puts us one day closer to being with you. Keep us faithful so that we do not fear aging or the reminder of approaching death it may bring. One day, Lord, we will be in your presence, forever young before you, the Ancient of Days.

June 10, 2016June 10, 2016

This Role Used to Be Filled by a Father

If you ask me (and even if you don’t ask me) something in the video below is amiss. Twenty years ago a father would have filled the role depicted in it. Watch it and see what you think. In making my observation I am not blaming women/mothers. But if any video could demonstrate that we have a crisis of fatherhood and “missing man syndrome,” this is it. There should be a father—a man—in this video, but he is absent. But the video reflects reality does it not? What will you and I do to change this?

May 29, 2016

Remember! On Memorial Day

What is honor? The full etymology of the word is debated, but what seems most likely is that it comes from the Latin word honos, which, though translated as “honor,” also points to the word “onus,” which means “weight” or refers to something heavy. Hence, to honor someone is to appreciate the weight, significance, or burden of something he has done. It is to acknowledge that he carried a great burden well, that he withstood a heavy load, that what he did was weighty, significant.

For many, Memorial Day means the beginning of summer. To others, it’s a day off to go shopping. But as I am sure you know, Memorial Day is really a day to honor those who have died in the service of our country, those who carried a great burden so that many of us did not have to.

Our soldiers, police officers, and first responders are deserving of our honor, for they put their lives on the line so that we can live more freely and experience abundance. None of us can fail to appreciate the burdensome weight that some carry so that we can live well, freely, and comfortably. Freedom is not free; it is costly.

War remains controversial (as well it should). But soldiers do not create the politics they are sent to address. They are simply told that there is a danger to be faced, an injustice to be ended; and so they go. Private First Class Arthur Richardson is one of those who went north during the Korean War and did not return. He carried well the great weight of being a solider. He also carried the weight of collective human sinfulness (which is what brings war) and felt its burden keenly; he gave his life.

The love of one’s country (patriotism) is related to the fourth commandment. The Catechism teaches,

It is the duty of citizens to contribute to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity (CCC # 2239).

The Lord Himself makes it plain: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).

I recently watched Ken Burns’ documentary film on the Second World War, entitled simply, “The War.” It remarkably depicts the suffering and cost, and the burdens carried, especially by the soldiers. But it also shows the sacrifices made by many back home who scrimped, saved, and went without. Some endured the loss of loved ones. Some were detained in camps.

Each episode of the documentary begins and ends with the same beautiful and haunting anthem and can be heard in the video below. Its basic theme is “America, I gave my best to you.” The full text is as follows:

All we’ve been given by those who came before
The dream of a nation where freedom would endure
The work and prayers of centuries have brought us to this day
What shall be our legacy? What will our children say?

Let them say of me I was one who believed
In sharing the blessings I received.
Let me know in my heart when my days are through
America, America, I gave my best to you.

Each generation from the plains to distant shore
With the gifts they were given were determined to leave more.
Battles fought together, acts of conscience fought alone:
These are the seeds from which America has grown.

For those who think they have nothing to share,
Who fear in their hearts there is no hero there.
Know each quiet act of dignity is that which fortifies
The soul of a nation that will never die.

America, [America] I gave my best to you.

The word “memorial” comes from the Latin memorare, which is an imperative meaning “Remember!” So Memorial Day is “Remember!” Day. To remember something is to allow it to be present in our minds and hearts such that we are grateful, sober, aware, and different.

This is a day to remember that there are men and women who have died so that you and I are able to live with greater security, justice, and peace. May these fallen soldiers rest in peace. We owe them both a debt of gratitude and our prayers.

Here is the song and video from “The War” by Ken Burns.

May 12, 2016

A Meditation on Being Overwhelmed

The first video at the bottom of this post presents a portrait of a man who is simply overwhelmed. He can’t seem to live up to expectations, neither those that are self-imposed nor those that are imposed by others.

One of the paradoxes of our time (at least in the West) is that we have so many creature comforts yet in many ways have never been so uncomfortable. Our high standard of living is accompanied by stress, worry, and a gnawing dissatisfaction. It seems that the more we have the more we worry.

In a way, we have too much to lose; we want and expect so much that we’re never satisfied. There is a kind of slavery that comes with having many possessions. If we’re not careful our possessions end up possessing us! Further, they set loose desires in us that can become extreme and difficult to master. In the end our desires expand with each new thing we get. It’s like a man who overeats; his stomach stretches so that he must eat more each time in order to feel full. Scripture says,

Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. … The sleep of a laborer is sweet, whether he eats little or much, but the abundance of a rich man permits him no sleep (Eccles 5:10,12).

The second video is an advertisement for Traveler’s Insurance that well depicts how our possessions cause us worry and make us restless. Of course, they claim that if you’ll just buy their insurance, all your worries will vanish! Nevertheless, it is a cute and poignant ad.

Yes, these two videos depict our times very well.

I believe that one of the deepest sources of stress today is the false notion that you can have it all: the well-appointed house in the suburbs, two fulfilling careers, well-raised children, etc.

But this is a lie. You cannot have it all. We all have to make choices. Life involves trade-offs. Choosing one thing often means saying no to other things. A father can’t necessarily climb the career ladder rapidly yet still be reasonably present to his wife and children. The big house in the suburbs isn’t always an acceptable option if it means a long commute, additional time away from the family, and/or a large mortgage that requires overtime and/or a second job. Buying all the latest gadgets isn’t wise if it means being unable to save for the children’s education or for retirement.

We simply can’t have it all. We have to decide what is important and make choices that reflect our priorities.

But as it is, we often want too much and on top of that, we want it right away. We entertain the notion that somehow we can have it all. This attitude then fuels unrealistic expectations. Not only do I believe I can I have it all, I think that I should have it all. And if I don’t have it all, then I’m either resentful, or I’m worried that I don’t measure up to other people’s unrealistic expectations. There’s an old saying that goes, “Most of us spend money we don’t have, to buy things we don’t need, to impress people we don’t like.” All of this is a recipe for stress, anxiety, and anger.

What to do? Decide! Decide what is important to you and then build your life around that. It’s going to mean that some other things have to go. If your family is your top priority, then you may not be able to accept that promotion if it means spending significantly less time at home. Some people do choose to wholly dedicate themselves to some work or cause. That’s fine. But someone who does make that choice should think twice about getting married (and having children).

And as for possessions, my advice is to simplify. It is far better to live in a smaller house in a less prestigious neighborhood and actually be able to know your spouse and children, than to live in the big house on the hill that requires long hours at work to pay for and is filled with anger over your absence and anxiety about money.

Scripture says, Better a little with the fear of the LORD than great wealth with turmoil. Better a small serving of vegetables with love than a fattened calf with hatred (Prov 15:16-17).

In the end, less is more. We want too much. We think we can have it all. But that’s not true. Psalm 86:11 says, Make simple my heart, O Lord (Simplex fac cor meum Domine). Ask the Lord to help you to desire what is good and then to build your life around that. You can’t have it all. You have to decide. Life involves trade-offs.

We must learn this deeply. If we don’t, we should expect to be overwhelmed and owned by what we claim to possess. Yes, a simple heart is a gift to pray for.

Here is a remarkable portrait of modern man: overwhelmed, anxious, fearful that he does not measure up to the unrealistic expectations of the world, yet unable to decide what is really important.

May 3, 2016

Some Things You May Not Know About Vivaldi

One of my favorite composers is Antonio Vivaldi (1678-1741). While I love his secular pieces (such as The Four Seasons), I am especially fond of his Church music. It is so light, bright, and tuneful! Vivaldi loved to go up and down the musical scale, varying the theme a half step at a time.

Ah, Vivaldi, he’s right up there with Handel, Bach, and Mozart! I consider him to be an especially Catholic treasure given his large body of sacred Latin liturgical music.

Here are just a few things I’d like to share about Vivaldi, things you may or may not know:

1. Vivaldi was a Catholic priest. He was ordained in Venice in 1703, at the age of 25. However, it would seem that the active priesthood did not suit him. Within a year, he asked to be excused from the daily celebration of Mass due to a “tightness of the chest,” which he complained of his entire life. Most scholars think that this is a reference to asthma, although there may have been other causes, including heart-related matters. But a deeper reason may lie in the fact the Vivaldi was pressured to become a priest. In those days, often the only way a poor family had to ensure the free schooling of a son was to send him to a seminary. Music seems to have been Vivaldi’s passion. Some biographies of him relate that he would sometimes leave the altar in mid-Mass to go into the sacristy to write down a musical idea that had just come to him!

2. Vivaldi spent most of his musical career working in an orphanage (mostly, though not exclusively, one for girls). While this may seem an odd and unfruitful place for a composer, it actually was not. The Ospedale della Pietà, where he worked for many years, was one of four well-endowed orphanages in Venice. Most of the children were the illegitimate offspring of Venetian noblemen who fathered them in the course of their (sadly common) dalliances. The noblemen funded orphanages to care for these children of theirs. In Venice, these homes developed a reputation for fine music, all performed by girls. The girls were trained in music from their earliest years and concerts were a way for the orphanages to raise money. At the Ospedale della Pietà, some of the girls remained well into adulthood, continuing to perform there. The video below depicts what such a setting was like, and shows how Vivaldi would give performances, secular and liturgical, with “his ladies.”

3. Not all found Vivaldi’s music as outstanding as many of us do today. Carlo Goldoni, an Italian playwright of the time, described Vivaldi as “… this priest, an excellent violinist but a mediocre composer …” But Vivaldi also had fans and patrons, and he earned a decent living selling copies of his many concertos, operas, and Church works.

4. In 1720 Vivaldi began living with a woman, Anna Giraud. To be fair, though, he always maintained that she was with him as a housekeeper and a friend. Furthermore, her sister also shared the house with them. Vivaldi trained Anna to sing and she had an excellent reputation as a singer. Vivaldi stayed with her until his death. Were they more than friends? It’s hard to say, but why not take Vivaldi at his word?

5. Vivaldi’s works all but disappeared after his death in 1741 and were not heard regularly or known widely again until the 1950s! In this sense he was an “opaque luminary.” (This expression refers to a person who shines brightly in his own time but is largely forgotten after death.) From his death until 1950, the name Antonio Vivaldi was largely unknown.

6. Vivaldi’s works began to come back to light beginning in 1926. It was at this time that the Salesian Fathers, wishing to sell a large number of old volumes in their archive, invited Dr. Alberto Gentili, professor of music history at the National Library of Turin, to assess their value. Many of the 97 volumes in the archive contained Vivaldi manuscripts. And thus Vivaldi music reappeared on the landscape. Although the Second World War slowed the process of compiling and collecting the full library of Vivaldi music from other sources, the hunt was on! In 1951, concertgoers in England were among the first to hear this newly rediscovered baroque master. Since then, Vivaldi has assumed his place alongside Bach and Handel, and is considered by most to be their equal. With them, he paved the way to Mozart.

7. Vivaldi died in 1741 at the age of 63. The cause was said to be “internal fire,” probably another reference to the asthma that plagued him all his life.

Yes, Vivaldi, the gift of his music is great!

The video below depicts the way in which Vivaldi’s Church music was likely performed. It shows how Vivaldi probably gave performances, secular and liturgical, with “his ladies.” Note that both the orchestra and the choir contain only women. This particular performance takes place in the Church of the Pietà in Venice, which was Vivaldi’s church and is attached to the Ospedale della Pietà. This is the movement from the now-famous Gloria in D. The text is Domine fili unigenite, Jesu Christe. Most of us who have sung this piece are used to it being in an SATB (soprano, alto, tenor, bass) arrangement, but for historical accuracy it is performed here exclusively by women. Notice the beautiful candles, too!

May 2, 2016May 3, 2016

Pulling up Roots from Reality – A Review of a Cogent Analysis of the Post-Cartesian West

Over the years I have attempted to trace the philosophical disaster of our modern world. Certainly the fundamental roots can be traced back to the breakdown of the medieval synthesis, the rise of nominalism, and the doubts of Descartes. These introduced a disconnect from reality. Descartes introduced a radical doubt in anything seen or experienced, and this disconnects us from reality. If we pull up roots from reality and the revelation of creation, we live increasingly within our mind and out of touch with reality.

Welcome to the modern, post-Cartesian age, a strange landscape in which reality and stubborn facts aren’t considered too important. (N.B. To me, it is a strange paradox of modern times that we idolize the physical sciences; I have written more on that topic here: On the Cartesian Anxiety of our Times.)

Two of the most extreme examples of the disconnect from reality in our times are the celebration of homosexual activity and so-called transgenderism. If a “cultural Neanderthal” like me suggests that the design of the body speaks against homosexual acts by a simple consideration that the biology of sexuality is violated, I am greeted with responses ranging from blank stares to indignation (“What does the body have to do with it? It’s what I think and feel that matters!”) And thus the disconnect from reality and the retreat into the mind and psyche is complete.

How did we get here?

A few years ago, we priests of the Archdiocese of Washington attended our annual professional day. In reviewing my notes from that conference, I was once again inspired and instructed by the teaching of Msgr. Brian Bransfield, who was then the Associate General Secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. He presented a brief, cogent description of the stages of our collective journey out of reality and into the self-defined world of personal opinion and the mind. It was really an aside within a much longer talk, but I am always appreciative of those who can see and describe the stages of our current malaise.

Allow me to quote from Msgr. Bransfield and then supply some commentary of my own. Please direct any criticism at me, not him, since I am merely excerpting from a larger talk (and context is important).

Here is the excerpt I’d like to discuss:

We can trace the fragmentation of the last four hundred years in steps:

To establish clear certainty in his search for knowledge, Descartes set up a dualism between the material and spiritual.
And in the dualism [he] introduced a separation in which he set man’s internal mind in opposition to external reality.
[Next, he] … elevated the mind (the thinking subject) and reduced the external, objective world of concrete reality.
Man’s understanding of himself and the world has been in a downward spiral ever since. Only the mind and what the mind says is reality, is real.
[And] thus there is … a collapse between the mind and reality. And in the collapse, reality loses.
[And so] reality becomes a mere label (nominalism). The child in the womb is not called a child; it is labeled something else. A refugee seeking asylum is not called a person, but is labeled undocumented.
[So] the mind now “creates” rather than conforms to reality.
Relativism is born; the thinking subject is … autonomous. Notice that word: “autonomous.”
And [thus] the ultimate absurdity is enthroned: nihilism, nothing—not as a privation but as a positive reality. There is nothing, no relation between reality (be it the child in the womb, the prisoner on death row, or the immigrant on the border) and our conscience. There is no communion between reality and the mind.

Let’s look at each point in detail. Msgr. Bransfield’s description is in bold, black italics while my meager commentary is in plain red text.

We can trace the fragmentation of the last four hundred years in steps:

Notice the use of the word fragmentation. If we live in our heads rather than in reality, then there is very little to unite us with one another. If what I think constitutes my reality, and if the same is true for you, then we are fragmented rather than united because there is nothing outside ourselves to unite us. Each of us is living in his own little world, not in a shared experience called reality.

To establish clear certainty in his search for knowledge, Descartes set up a dualism between the material and spiritual.

This began the disconnect between the actual world and what we think. Descartes entertained or struggled with radical doubt; he could not be sure that there was really anything “out there,” that is, outside his own mind. The only thing he knew for sure was that he existed, because he was a thinking agent. (This was the source of the memorable “Cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am)). That is all that was certain for Descartes; everything else might have been a dream or deception.

Thus the wall of separation between the thinking mind and reality was introduced.

By the way, radical doubt, though an intriguing theory and one we have all wrestled with a bit, is wholly useless at the end of the day. One cannot possibly live by it. Such folks sit on chairs that may or may not be there and avoid walking into walls that may or may not be there. But of course they are there. The doubters ignore the overwhelming evidence of reality in theory, but must navigate it in actuality. Their theory of radical doubt is useless and they violate it at every moment.

But useless though it is, the theory has proven quite intoxicating to the decaying West, which loves its dualisms and prefers conflict to synthesis.

And in the dualism [he] introduced a separation in which he set man’s internal mind in opposition to external reality

And thus begins the retreat out of reality and into our minds. We start to live up in our heads and think something is so just because we think it to be so.

[Next, he] … elevated the mind (the thinking subject) and reduced the external, objective world of concrete reality.

What we think becomes more important that what actually is. Thought, opinion, and feeling trump reality. Many people today do not even sense the need to check what they think against the facts. They don’t believe it’s necessary because thinking it makes it so.

Today we often hear phrases such as “That may true for you, but it’s not true for me.” Or (more humorously) “Don’t confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up!” And thus what we think trumps reality. We actually start to believe that statements like “Truth is relative” are real arguments (they are not). It’s really just lazy “living up in our head” and a stubborn refusal to engage reality.

Man’s understanding of himself and the world have been in a downward spiral ever since. Only the mind and what the mind says is reality, is real.

This partly explains the shredding of tradition and the iconoclastic tendencies of the modern age. Who cares what the ancients said or thought? If you and I (who are contemporaries) can’t even agree on what is real, and if all that matters is what I think, then why should what I care what you think, let alone what someone who lived centuries ago thought? If we all just live up in our heads rather than in reality, then what do I have in common with you let alone with The Founding Fathers, St. Thomas, or Jesus for that matter. All that matters is what I think; everything else goes in the shredder.

[And] thus there is … a collapse between the mind and reality. And in the collapse, reality loses. Exactly!

[And so] reality becomes a mere label (nominalism). The child in the womb is not called a child; it is labeled something else. A refugee seeking asylum is not called a person, but is labeled undocumented.

And thus the modern battle over terminology: pro-abortion or pro-choice, baby or fetus, fornication or cohabitation, homosexual or gay, redefining marriage or marriage freedom, refugee or “undocumented” (or even worse, “illegal alien”).

So much hinges on terminology, semantics, euphemisms, and redefinition; thought overrules reality. If we can influence thought, then reality doesn’t matter. Never mind that a baby has been dismembered alive, this is all about “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” And “sodomy” is such an unpleasant reality; let’s just call it “gay love.” And men can call themselves women and we are supposed to say, “Isn’t that nice.”

It’s as if we suppose that our terminology and thoughts can somehow change reality. They cannot. But in this post-Cartesian fog we’re in, that is exactly what we suppose. Away with reality; all that matters is what I think!

[So] the mind now “creates” rather than conforms to reality.

Yes, or so we think.

Relativism is born; the thinking subject is … autonomous. Notice that word: “autonomous.”

And here is where things begin to get scary. Reality is what I say it is. No one gets to tell me what to do or what to think; I should answer to no one.

As Pope Benedict warned, while this attitude marches under the banners of tolerance and freedom, the ultimate result is tyranny.

This is because if you and I cannot agree on something outside ourselves to which each of us is bound (e.g., reality) and to which we must answer, then we cannot appeal to that. Instead we must resort to the use of power to enact our view. Raw power—be it political, economic, or merely the power of popular opinion—is now used to impose agendas. Appeals to reason, common sense, justice, religious values, and even to constitutional parameters are becoming increasingly difficult.

In the video below, Fr. Robert Barron laments that we can’t even have a decent argument anymore since we seem to agree on so little; we just end up talking past one another. The final result is the use of raw power. Reality is what I think; I am autonomous. If you don’t agree with me, at first I will first ignore you. If that doesn’t work, I will work to marginalize you, to eliminate your influence. And if necessary, I will destroy you.

Welcome to the dark side of the Cartesian divide.

[And thus] the ultimate absurdity is enthroned: nihilism, nothing—not as a privation but as a positive reality. There is nothing, no relation between reality (be it the child in the womb, the prisoner on death row, or the immigrant on the border) and our conscience. There is no communion between reality and the mind.

Yes, today we witness the exaltation of nothing, the outright celebration that “nothing is true.” Indeed, we live in self-congratulatory times where many, if not most, applaud their nihilism as being “open-minded,” “tolerant,” “humanitarian,” and so forth.

But as Msgr. Bransfield points out, all this really does is to sever communion. There is nothing humanitarian about it because there is no real communion between human beings possible when I just live in my own head. Further, there is nothing to be tolerant of because there is nothing out there (outside what I think) to tolerate. And there is absolutely nothing open-minded in any of it, because it is the ultimate in close-mindedness to say, “Reality is what I think it is, and that settles it.” For the modern post-Cartesian, tolerance is “your right to agree with me.” Being open-minded means you agree with me. And humanitarianism is only what I say it is.

So here we are in a post-Cartesian malaise, with the vast majority of us living up inside our own heads. In this climate the Church must keep shouting reality.

It is dark now and it will likely get darker. But reality has a funny way of reasserting itself. Our little collective experiment in unreality will necessarily run its course. Let us pray that our reintroduction to reality will not be too harsh. But I am afraid that it will be.

https://youtu.be/CYJ9BOcOxy8

April 10, 2016April 11, 2016

Eradicating Poverty Is Not a Gospel Value – A Reflection on a Teaching by Cardinal Sarah

The eradication of poverty is an oft-stated goal of the modern, liberal West. President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s pronouncement of a “war on poverty” so imprinted this notion in the Western mind that it has become almost axiomatic. It is now a fundamental pillar in the thinking of almost every person (and organization) in the Western world, from the religious pew-sitter concerned for the poor to the most secular humanist bent on a utopian vision. Poverty is a great enemy that must be stamped out!

The only problem is that this is contrary to the Gospel! It is no surprise, therefore, that even after decades of Western “do-goodism,” barely a dent has been made in the percentage of people living in poverty. In fact, some statistics show that the percentage in poverty has increased. But why should we expect great fruitfulness in something that opposes God?

I can see the look of shock on your face right now; you may even be embarrassed that I have written this. I’d like to share a quote with you from Robert Cardinal Sarah, which makes an important distinction that we need to recover. While what he says may also shock you, I encourage you to read it carefully and thoughtfully; the distinction he makes is critical. Not only does the Gospel depend on it, but cultures and individual lives do as well. For indeed, in the name of eradicating poverty some of the worst of Western arrogance has been displayed. It is an arrogance that does not even recognize that it can become willing to the destroy the poor themselves as well as what and whom they love all in the name of this “noble” goal.

Cardinal Robert Sarah is no neophyte in this discussion. He grew up in an impoverished region of Africa and later headed the Roman dicastery, Cor unum, a charitable arm of the Holy See. The extensive passage below is an abbreviated version of the Cardinal’s response to the following questions posed by his interviewer, Nicholas Diat:

How would you describe the nature of Cor unum, the dicastery to which you devoted several years of your life, in its fight against all sorts of poverty? Furthermore, why do you speak so often about the close relation between God and the poor?

In his reply, the Cardinal is reacting somewhat to Mr. Diat’s description of Cor unum’s work as “fight[ing] against all sorts of poverty.” The Cardinal’s response is nothing short of stunning. Please read it carefully and consider obtaining the book so as to able to read the unabridged remarks as well.

The Gospel is not a slogan. The same goes for our activity to relieve people’s suffering … [it is a matter] of working humbly and having a deep respect for the poor. For example, I remember being disgusted when I heard the advertising slogan of a Catholic charitable organization, which was almost insulting to the poor: “Let us fight for zero poverty” … Not one saint … ever dared to speak that way about poverty and poor people.

Jesus himself had no pretention of this sort. This slogan respects neither the Gospel nor Christ. Ever since the Old Testament, God has been with the poor; and Sacred Scripture unceasingly acclaims “the poor of Yahweh.” …

Poverty is a biblical value confirmed by Christ, who emphatically exclaims, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:3). … The poor person is someone who knows that, by himself, he cannot live. He needs God and other people in order to be, flourish and grow. On the contrary, rich people expect nothing of anyone. They can provide for their needs without calling either on their neighbors or on God. In this sense wealth can lead to great sadness and true human loneliness or to terrible spiritual poverty. If in order to eat and care for himself, a man must turn to someone else, this necessarily results in a great enlargement of his heart. This is why the poor are closest to God and live in great solidarity with one another; they draw from this divine source the ability to be attentive to others.

The Church must not fight against poverty but, rather, wage a battle against destitution, especially material and spiritual destitution. … [so that all] might have the minimum they require in order to live. …

But we do not have the right to confuse destitution and poverty, because in so doing we would seriously be going against the Gospel. Recall what Christ told us: “The poor you will have always with you …” (Jn 12:8). Those who want to eradicate poverty make the Son of God a liar. …

[In his yearly Lenten message in 2014, Pope Francis] espoused what St. Francis [of Assisi] called “Lady Poverty.” … St. Francis of Assisi wanted to be poor because Christ chose poverty. If he calls poverty a royal virtue, it is because it shone brilliantly in the life of Jesus … and in the life of his mother, Mary of Nazareth. …

Similarly, I often think about the vow of poverty taken by religious … [they] do so in order to be as close as possible to Christ. The Son [of God] wanted us to be poor in order to show us the best path by which we can return to God. …

The Son of God loves the poor; others intend to eradicate them. What a lying, unrealistic, almost tyrannical utopia! I always marvel when Gaudium et Spes declares, “The spirit of poverty and charity is the glory and witness of the Church of Christ” (GS 88).

We must be precise in our choice of words. The language of the UN and its agencies, who want to suppress poverty, which they confuse with destitution, is not that of the Church of Christ. The Son of God did not come to speak to the poor in ideological slogans! The Church must banish these slogans from her language. For they have stupefied and destroyed peoples who were trying to remain free in conscience (Cardinal Sarah, God or Nothing: A Conversation in Faith with Nicholas Diat, pp. 140-142).

Perhaps stunned himself, Mr. Diat follows up with the following question: “Are you not afraid of being misunderstood in employing this sort of distinction?”

The Cardinal replies,

It is a lack of charity to shut one’s eyes. It is a lack of charity to remain silent in the face of confusing words and slogans! … If you read the Latin text of Gaudium et Spes carefully you will immediately notice this distinction (Ibid, p. 143).

This is a powerful insight and it reveals the deep flaw in Western “anti-poverty” programs. Christ asks us to love the poor and imitate the best of what they are, not eliminate them and disregard the simplicity and trust that they can often exemplify. But we in the West, imbued with our materialistic notions and mesmerized by the comfort and control that wealth can temporarily buy, denigrate what the Gospels praises and seek to eradicate it.

So unreflective are we in this matter that some will even justify the most awful things in the name of eradicating poverty. Many programs (U.S.-sponsored and U.N.-sponsored) with this goal advocate for contraception, abortion, and/or euthanasia. Some have even sought to compel these sorts of things as a precondition for receiving aid. Some seek to impose certain aspects of Western thinking, something that has been labeled an attempt at “ideological colonization.” Many of us in the “First World” often speak of the “Third World” in a way that at best is patronizing and at worst exhibits a thinly veiled contempt.

While it is true that certain economic and political systems best support Western lifestyles, there is more to life than material abundance. With our own culture, families, and common sense collapsing around us, it seems odd that we so easily consider our way of life superior; that we see our relationship to the poor and to poorer countries as one in which we have all the answers and they should just listen to us.

The word “arrogance” comes to mind. We too easily assume, without even asking, that we know what is best; we presume that poor people in every part of the world want what we have (materially) and that they don’t perceive the awful price we have paid in order to get it.

We must recover a respect for the world’s poor, who have much to teach us. Even if they are not materially without troubles, they often possess many things we have lost: simplicity, family and tribal (communal) life, reciprocity, proper interdependence (as opposed to radical individualism), trust, a slower life, and a less-stressful life.

Further, we must not forget that the Lord counseled poverty (Lk 18:22), declared the poor blessed (Lk 6:20), lived simply Himself having “nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), lived among the working poor, and warned of the pernicious quality of wealth (Lk 16:13). God hears the cry of the poor and Mother Mary taught us of a great reversal that is coming, when the mighty and powerful will be cast down and poor and lowly raised up (Lk 1:52). Jesus taught us that many who are now last will be first in the kingdom of Heaven (Mat 19:30). In this life, the poor will sometimes need us. In the next life, on Judgment Day, we are going to need them to welcome us into eternal dwellings (Luke 16:9).

I really cannot say it better than did the good Cardinal, so I will not attempt to do so. We must surely work to alleviate the destitution that often comes in times of famine, war, or natural disaster. But destitution and poverty are not the same thing. Overlooking this distinction can be deadly for the poor we claim to serve and for their cultures, and can result in the worst forms of ideological colonization and secular utopianism.