Category: Culture

Posted on

When Your Only Tool is a Hammer, Everything Looks Like a Nail – Why physical science is not enough and why we need the full range of disciplines and branches of knowledge.

We have had numerous discussions here on the blog on the interrelationship of faith and the physical sciences. We live in a time of reductionist thinking wherein many reduce reality to the physically measurable. Theology and other disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, even history according to some, cannot be a part of what we know. Some go even further to deny absolutely the existence of anything beyond matter. Here are things emblematic of our times: reductionist, materialist, and a kind of idolatry of the merely physical sciences.

Indeed the very word “science” has come to mean for many, merely the physical sciences. But, traditionally, theology and philosophy were (and still are, according to many) considered to be sciences. They are sciences for they follow a method, or methods, they include peer review and are subjected to the laboratory of human experience and tested by  time. Of their nature they do not usually include physical measurements, for they engage what is largely beyond the physically measurable. But until recently they were included among the sciences and had a pride of place in university settings.

And while many derisively dismiss philosophy and theology as sciences, the fact is they they do deal with what we all experience on a daily basis. For there are many non material things that humans beings actually and really experience that require study and explanation, synthesis, and discernment.

I was recently given a link to an article by my brother, John, which describes our modern tendencies and problems with reductionism, materialism and scientism. It is by Dr. Jeff Mirus over at Catholicculture.org. I want to present excerpts of a much longer article he wrote and make some comments of my own. Dr. Mirus’ original text is in black, bold, italic. My comments are in red, plain text. The full article is here: The Hammer and the Nail

[O]ne of the great problems we face in understanding human dignity is that by the materialistic, empirical or purely scientific account, both our self-understanding and our freedom are illusions. These terms require some explanation, and the explanation will reveal a tremendous blind spot in our culture’s view of knowledge.

The term materialistic is plain enough. If we insist that there is nothing in the wide world but matter, then we have to admit something that will risk our sanity, namely that it is only an illusion that we can somehow stand outside ourselves and reflect on our being (intellect) or that we can direct our lives according to freely made choices (will). These things [according to materialism] must be illusions because they are abilities which transcend what matter can produce. But to accept this is to deny our own perception of ourselves.

In other words, it is our experience, that we have a spiritual aspect about ourselves. We can consider things which are non-material and concepts such as  justice, love, mercy, sincerity, beauty, moral rectitude, and so forth. Further we have a sense of “I,” that “I” exist, a capacity of introspection and a well defined understanding that I am distinct from things and others around me. Yet again, there are longings for things beyond the physical world such as unity, acceptance, transcendence,  fulfillment, and that ultimate sense of meaning beyond who we simply are, here and now. Clearly, as a theologian I attribute these human longings as pointing to the ultimate longing for God. But, even to the unbeliever, the spiritual insights and thoughts of the human person are empirically evident. These insights are “empirical” in the sense that they rooted in real and actual experience, what we truly experience within our very self. They are also things we are able to verify as existing in other human beings.

For the materialist, these sorts of experiences, these empirical data, must be treated either as an illusion (as our author suggests) or as emanations of brain chemistry not yet fully understood. There is the modern reductionist tendency to explain everything based on physical causation. I remember years ago an a secular and materialist attempt to explain the rather peculiar human experience of consciousness. The author titled his work: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind [1] A reductionist and materialist theory, to be sure!

But the point is that we all experience these sorts of non physical things in our psyche and, as our author goes on to develop, there is a rather twisted and contorted attempt to either dismiss such experiences as of any account or to redefine “empirical” are referring only to physical matter.

In our culture, empiricism is closely tied to what is physically measurable. But spiritual things are, by definition, immeasurable. Therefore, a [modern] empirical account of reality omits the spiritual, and a culture which comes to believe that the only possible solid knowledge is empirical knowledge necessarily either ignores the spiritual or denies it altogether.

Again, it is the MODERN notion that empirical equals physically measurable. For it is clear that very real things are not always physically measurable. For example, we cannot physically measure the degree to which we love someone, long for something, experience sorrow over some situation etc. Yet, these are real, and in a very real way, they are empirical, for they are observable, or shall we say, something we all clearly experience.

Some may argue for brain mapping etc. but here too is a reductionist attempt to reduce non-physical things to the purely physical. For even if there is an aspect of the brain, or central nervous system that is engaged by these human experiences, the answer as to why these non-material aspects are experienced by us, remains something that science is ill-equipped to explain. Justice is not a material thing, it does not go out for a walk or sit down to breakfast. Neither do longing, acceptance, serenity or humor go out to beach together for vacation. These things are real, but they are not material.

This brings us to the idea of a purely scientific account of man, in the modern sense of science, meaning not simply a branch of knowledge, but knowledge acquired by an experimental or empirical method. The scientific approach to knowledge is not wrong in itself, but it is only one approach, and it is necessarily partial. [Exactly, we are not anti-science, to be so would be foolish. But we do accept that science has limits].

Sadly, the modern world suffers from a dearth of other approaches. In particular, it suffers from the absence of a different sort of science, a different approach to knowledge, the approach of theology. Because of the materialistic and empirical biases of our culture, theology is no longer taken seriously as a branch of human knowledge. What was once considered the queen of the sciences, has been gradually eliminated from higher education. This gives rise to a very curious phenomenon: Whenever one branch of study is consistently absent, other branches of study will encroach upon its territory. [Pay attention, what follows is very important].

In his brilliant work The Idea of a University, Cardinal Blessed John Henry Newman argues that, as a university is by definition devoted to the full range of disciplines or branches of knowledge, it is a mistake and a distortion to exclude theology. Every branch of knowledge, Newman rightly notes, is tempered and improved by all the other branches, [YES!] as each branch has its own tools and methods, and each learns a certain care and modesty in its conclusions, [YES!] more accurately discerning their application and scope, in relation to what is discovered by other tools and instruments in other regions of investigation. Thus, when one branch of knowledge is left out or, worse, barred from the university or from “sophisticated” discourse generally, others encroach upon its domain, reaching conclusions which are unwarranted and, indeed, unattainable by their own proper methods.

And herein lie a lot of modern problems and distortions. We have become well aware of how science encroaches on faith in recent years. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God per se, that is not its field. And yet, in our times scientists make claims that God does not exist. But their statements are not scientific statements when they speak like this. They are making theological and philosophical claims, for physical science, by definition cannot measure the non-physical or render scientifically based conclusion on the existence or non-existence of the spiritual. Most scientists are not trained in the disciplines of theology and philosophy and are are no more qualified to opine on such matters than “some dude” at the local bar. Yet, as our author goes on to observe:

Thus, on every side, we find well-known scientists, lionized by our cultural elites, writing briefs for atheism, pronouncing that evolutionary biology proves the non-existence of God. [Exactly. But of course biology cannot prove the non-existence of a spiritual being].

And to be fair, some on the religious side have tried to exclude too many aspects of physical science, which has a legitimate and necessary role in human knowledge. In the last century, an often fundamentalist hostility to science has been evident among some Christians who see the Scriptures especially, as a scientific account of creation, rather than a theological account which, while having scientific aspects, also uses analogy, metaphor, poetry and speaks in a general, rather than a consistently specific manner. Further, they see Scripture as a “sole source” of revealed truth. From the Catholic point of view, God’s “Book of Scripture” does not contradict His “Book of Creation.” Both are revelation, and both speak truth to us, and the truth does not ultimately contradict itself.  While there are certain scientific theories that at times come into apparent conflict with Scripture or dogmatic theology, and must be rejected or distinguished, this does not mean that science itself is wrong as a discipline. Neither does it mean that on-going discussions cannot help both disciplines (theology and physical science) to come to a deeper understanding of the one truth. The fact is, I generally find that a lot of scientific discoveries confirm my faith and encourage a sense of wonder and awe. If grace builds on nature, as we teach, then understanding nature is of benefit to us spiritually.

Physical Science too benefits from theology and philosophy by acknowledging that many of its processes of deduction and method are descended from theological and philosophical methodology. Philosophy especially is able to help science reveal possible flaws in reasoning, and also help science to stay within its own defined scope. And that scope is the material, the physical world. But physical science does well to maintain humility and to accept that that there may be things beyond its scope which it is not able to render an account of, one way or the other. If not, the physical sciences fall into the error of scientism. Scientism is the error which reduces everything to matter and insists that nothing exists outside the system which physical science can measure, a conclusion that can, in no way, be proved, scientifically.

In the end, perhaps the problem is best expressed in a very popular aphorism: When your only tool is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. The only trouble is, everything is not a nail. The human person perceives that instinctively, but in our culture we lack the tools to explicate the momentous truths which follow from such an irreducible fact.

Yes, I am convinced that this is going to have to be our way back. Basic human experience. And that experience, if we are honest, shouts to us the existence of the spiritual and the transcendent.

Even physical science rests on the mystic and metaphysical notion that reality is “intelligible.” For intelligibility bespeaks meaning and asks questions about purpose, direction and points, ultimately outside the physical (to the metaphysical) to the question, why? Intelligibility presumes also the great mystery of a  questioning soul. For why do we seek to understand at all? The animals, who are physically very like us, do not seem to ask such questions or probe deeper relations. Intelligibility also presumes that there is actual meaning and purpose to be found. Still further it presumes that “I” exist at all, to discern it, and that my mind is not engaged by illusions and shadows. Why does anything exist at all and what does it mean to exist? How do we define it and by what means do we discover it?

These are deeper questions than they may seem. Reality has a mystical dimension that artists, poetics, writers, philosophers and theologians have pondered for centuries, long before there ever was a scientific method, (developed, by the way, in the largely Catholic and Christian universities of the West, and respectful of the Judeo-Christian insights of natural law and the Wisdom tradition).

We have to continue to engage the modern world in the understanding that things run deeper and more wonderfully than we can physically describe. Deep down most people know and experience this truth. Life has more meaning than just the physical. A beloved spouse is not just another body, they are a person with all the mystery that entails. A kiss is not just two lips meeting, it is two souls sharing the breath of mystical life. A house is not just a physical structure, it is a home with all the non-material meaning that includes. My longings are not just the firing of brain synapses and serotonin, but the sigh of my soul for completion and fulfillment, for something infinite, for something (some ONE) other, for God.

Dr. Mirus is right, life is more than a nail and we need more than a hammer to understand it. Deep down we know this, and this is where we must engage the modern person. We ought to remain respectful of physical science and the wonders it has offered us, yet we must also demand more: a deeper vision that respects the full human experience. There’s more to life.

Please pardon a little science humor and accept my full admission that we also have some real geeks in theology too!

Posted on

Square Dancing as an Image for the Church?

Years ago, in High School, I dated Paula, who liked square dancing. So, most Saturday nights we were down at the community center, she in her petticoats and dress, I in my jeans, button down western shirt with a scarf tie and hand towel.

Square dancing has some basic moves that beginners learn. And so it was that Paula and I started with the basics. But in square dancing there are different levels, and so eventually we cleared the floor and watched those who knew the more advanced moves. Sometimes there were several levels of dancers. I remember being amazed at the complicated moves the move senior members had learned and wondered how I would ever master it. But, little by little the moves were learned, and we got to stay on the floor just a little longer as the months and years ticked by.

Image of the Church? I was over at YouTube and came upon the video below of a square dance group that’s pretty advanced. I remember many of the moves they do, but some of it was above what I ever learned. And  suddenly it occurred to me that I saw an image of the Church.

Please forgive me. I know you think I must be theological geek at this point. Surely as a young man I never gave a thought to the Church, in terms of square dancing. But now with this great love for God and for the Church, I can’t help it, I see the Church in square dancing. Just a few thoughts:

1. Every Square Dance needs a caller and, if the dancers in the square are the body, he is the head. He calls the moves, and the dancers must listen and respond. He has the authority to set direction and maintain order. If a square falls into disorder he reestablishes order by calling them home. Not only that, it is also the role of the Caller to teach new moves and drill the dancers until they master it. So the caller is the source for unity and direction for the square.

This is also the role of the Pope and the Local Bishop in the Church who also have the authority to set direction, maintain unity and restore order when necessary. It is also their role to teach the faith, along with their priests and catechists until the faithful master the Christian walk (dance).

2. As long as everyone listens carefully, and fulfills their particular role in the particular moves, the dance continues. But when, usually through error, one or more of the dancers veers away from the directed move, the square either stumbles or falls apart. As long as the dancers are open to learn, the square will continue to get better, and become a good, and disciplined group who increasingly enjoy advanced square dancing.

So too with the Church. When all listen carefully and do their part, the Church is strong and well ordered. When the faithful do not listen, or persist in error, the Church stumbles and is less effective. Disunity leads to a poor Christian walk (dance), not only for individuals, but also for groups and parishes. But if the faithful are willing to learn to and grow, the dance of faith becomes deeper and richer, more enjoyable, and just plain fun.

3. Everyone has a role, but not the same. When the caller calls a dance move, what you do in response depends on where you are in the square at that time. You might just stand still while others move, or you might be the one who switches positions. And all this varies from move to move.

And so it is with the Church. We have varied and different roles depending on where we are in the Church. Some of our roles are stable but others change depending on the situation. As a pastor, I am a leader and teacher in my parish. But at a meeting with the bishop I am a learner and a man under authority. In the parish I may take the lead when it comes to teaching the faith, but I may need to learn from my parishioners when it comes to understanding some technical legal matter, or car repair, etc. In such cases many of my parishioners can show me the way. We all have different gifts and talents and they all interact in various ways, depending on the situation. At times we lead, at times we follow, at times we stand still, while others move about us. All at the direction of the caller.

4. There is an etiquette to square dancing. There are bows, and curtseys, there’s a way you hold a lady’s hand, and there is a graciousness expected by all. Especially for those in higher levels, proper attire is also expected. Timeliness is also important since it is necessary to have eight people to form a square and get things underway. Thus everyone needs to be committed and timely. If just one of the eight is late, seven others are left standing. In larger groups, where there are numerous squares, people can mix and match a bit, but one missing member always impacts many other people.

In the Church too, basic kindness and generosity are also expected and necessary. Where there is Charity and truth, God himself is there. Further, people must be true to their commitments and be timely or many others suffer.

5. There is a great intricacy to square dancing where many aspect are interacting at once. It is almost mind-boggling to watch as the dance unfolds.

So too with the Church, there are many layers and great intricacy at work. Some are praying, some are studying, some are raising children, some are preaching, some are evangelizing, some are caring for the poor, some are praying in front of abortion clinics. But all are responding to the great call of the Shepherd Jesus speaking through his Pope and Bishops, through the Scriptures and the Tradition. It is a great dance of wonderful intricacy, and everyone interacts at different levels, all at once.

So there you have it: the Church as a square dance. Enter the dance, learn the moves and have a great time.

This video shows Square Dancing at a more advanced level. I got close to this, but never this good. Paula’s parents could have danced like this in their sleep.

Here’s how a caller teaches a new move:

Posted on

On Artistic Genius and Music as Onomatopoeia

Musical expression is a particular gift and genius of the human person. And our capacity for music is not just to make crude sounds. Rather we are possessed, at least collectively, of creative genius in this regard. The video below illustrates this genius.

Do you remember your grammar and the grammatical term Onomatopoeia? An Onomatopoeia is a word that sounds like the object it describes. Words like oink, meow, Wham! Sizzle, and my personal favorite:”Yackety Yak”

There are times too when music takes up a kind of onomatopoetic quality. In the video below Moses Hogan, one of the great modern arrangers of the old African American Spirituals describes his arrangement of “Joshua Fit the Battle of Jericho.” He has the male and female voices in a frenetic dialogue with lots of staccato notes dominating in the male voices. This creates the very sound of an intense battle! The song sounds like what it is describing. It’s a kind of “musical onomatopoeia.” There are other aspects of the same concept, you’ll hear the trumpet in the soprano and the battle reach climax in a moment of dissonance. And wait till you hear the walls fall at the very end in a cascade of notes!

In this three minute video Moses Hogan describes his intent of echoing the sound of a battle and then the song is sung. Enjoy this brilliant and beautiful arrangement of the Spiritual. Admire too the wonderful discipline of the choir that is necessary to execute this spiritual flawlessly.


Posted on

Civilization Killers – On the Decline of Three Basic Cultural Indicators and What it Means for America

Recently, there was a remarkable article over At Real Clear Politics which summarizes important social trends in the United States. The article by Rich Lowry summarizes the views of Charles Murray who gave a talk at the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Murray focuses his data on White America only to avoid the sticky wicket of race politics that so often clouds a conversation on social and moral trends that are wider than race.

The recent unpleasantness in New York where the high rates of abortion in the Black community (simply a statistical fact) were featured in a billboard, quickly devolved into a discussion of race, rather than abortion. Hence, to avoid this sort of thing, Mr. Murray used data only on the White community.

And what he has discovered is that there are significant differences between economic classes in this Country that sheds important light on the cultural crisis we are facing. In effect, economic class is a big indicator in moral behavior today. This was not the case in the past and the class division in America has led to two very different Americas, two increasingly parallel worlds in effect. Likewise, it becomes increasingly clear which world is influencing which.

I would like to presents excerpts of the article by Rich Lowry and make comments of my own. Lowry’s original remarks are in bold, black italics, my remarks are plain text, red. The full article is here: Coming Apart at the Seams.

The social threat to the American way of life is…dire….it is [also] insidious, and…complicated. No grassroots movement has mobilized against it, and no high-profile bipartisan commission is suggesting remedies. Yet it proceeds apace, all but ignored except in the lives of Americans – Lowry refers here to the decline in important “founding virtues” which have made this country strong: marriage, industriousness, and religiosity. And he is right that almost no one wants to talk about the decline of these things. If we had a reform program only half as committed as the anti-smoking campaign of the past 25 years, we’d be well on our way to recovery, I suspect. But sadly there is little agreement on such a campaign, even in the Church where too may pastors, catechists and leaders seem to emphasize not offending, over being real clinicians and doctors with real and clear direction for what ails us.

If there is ambivalence in the Church, it is far worse in the wider civic world where a consensus on good behavior has broken down.

A personal story comes to mind here. I was in a meeting with some local activists here in DC and we were discussing the social structures of poverty. The usual list was announced in the room to include things like, capitalism, the greed of (rich) people, racism, not enough Government action, even lead paint. I happened to interject that the chief cause of poverty is single motherhood and also wondered if we ought no counsel sexual abstinence, and encourage marriage. The room was suddenly silent, and all eyes were on me. Most of those eyes were glaring, some dismayed. Only a few showed understanding or agreement. Some one finally broke the icy silence and suggested that I leave such controversial views to my own pulpit and stick to things where there was real consensus and which was less…ahem… “judgmental.”

Yes, the lack of a grassroots movement seems directly tied to a loss in common moral vision. We do not seem to agree on what is vice, and what is virtue. Here again, I fault the Church and Protestant denominations for failing to hand on the vision and to insist upon it among their (our) rather sizable number. I think we are improving in the Catholic Church and some of the evangelical denominations are doing a better job. Collectively, the Catholic moral vision is being better articulated by many bishops and pastors who see no choice but to speak out.  But for a long time we have been too silent, and there still is to much silence from Catholic pulpits as a whole. If there is going to be any sort of grassroots movement it is going to have begin with us.

Among those trying to sound the alarm is Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute…..In a bracing lecture on “The State of White America,” he notes that America has long had an exceptional civic culture. “That culture is unraveling,” he warns. “America is coming apart at the seams. Not the seams of race or ethnicity, but of class.” – It does seem that class, even more than race, has become a large dividing line in this country and the question of virtue and vice is significantly influenced by it, as we shall see.

Murray takes whites as his subject to avoid the question of whether racism is responsible for the problem he describes, namely the “emergence of classes that diverge on core behaviors and values.” – Good move, as stated above. If this discussion gets tagged with race, the question of race will rob all the oxygen from the discussion and the moral questions will be unaddressed.

Murray identifies what he calls the “founding virtues,” such as marriage, industriousness, and religiosity, which have always been considered the social basis of self-government. He looks at whites aged 30-49 and divides them into the top 20 percent socio-economically and the bottom 30 percent. The top tier is basically the upper middle class, the bottom the working class. He finds two worlds, increasingly separate and unequal. – So the basic groups we are dealing with in this reflection are upper middle class and working class.

Notice, the very rich are not mentioned. It seems to me that they are a group unto themselves when it comes to the moral life. They (e.g. Hollywood, national politicians, and the very rich) often manifest poor moral values but are more able to “get away with it,” not often suffering all the usual social ills that go with bad behavior. The very poor seem also not on the radar here. Their problems in the moral realm are very often even more complicated and tied in with a very corrupt welfare system that rewards bad behavior and punishes good.

So let’s look at the data of the middle range of classes, the upper middle class and the working class:

 

In 1960, everyone was married – 88 percent of the upper middle class and 83 percent of the working class. In 2010, 83 percent of the upper middle class is married and only 48 percent of the working class. This gap “amounts to a revolution in the separation of classes.” – Now stable marriage is a key indicator and component of a strong culture. And we can see here that it is the working class that has taken a huge hit in the marriage statistics. In the Church we have noticed this too. In 1974 there were approximately 400,000 weddings in the Catholic Church. In 2004 there we about just under 200,000. The drop in Catholic weddings was attributable to numerous factors including a fall-off in general Church attendance, but the trend is similar to the overall working class, where marriages have dropped by almost half.

In 1960, births to single mothers in the working class were just 6 percent; now they are close to 50 percent. Interesting that our author does not give the number for upper middle class single mothers. My own thought on this is that, while the number is not as high as among working class people, the number is still a lot higher than 1960. Single motherhood began as a problem in the inner-cities and was influenced by a perverse welfare system that rewarded single mothers and comparatively punished married mothers. But the trend of out of wedlock birth has long since reached the suburbs, where the numbers as not as high (close to 80% of children on welfare are born to single mothers), but the numbers have trended much higher.

 

When it comes to industriousness, there’s the same divergence. In 1960, 1.5 percent of men in the upper middle class were out of the workforce; it’s 2 percent now. In 1968, the number for working-class men hit a low of 5 percent; even before the spike in unemployment after the financial crisis, it was 12 percent in 2008. “The deteriorations in industriousness,” Murray notes, “have occurred in labor markets that were booming as well as in soft ones.” – OK, so Mr. Murray has screened for unemployment. What we’re talking about here is the number of people who simply don’t bother to look for work anymore but live off others or the State. So the “loafers” have doubled in number. The ethic of hard work has taken a hit. However, I would note here that the 12% figure, though higher, is still fairly low, and America remains a nation of hard workers. We still have a work ethic, it would seem, almost to a fault, since many Americans have their career as more important that their vocation (IMHO). Thus children are in day-care and many marriages are strained by overwork and long hours.

Although secularization has long been on the rise, it’s more pronounced in the working class. Among the upper middle class, 42 percent say they either don’t believe in God or don’t go to church. In the working class, it’s 61 percent. In other words, a majority of the upper middle class still has some religious commitment, while a majority of the working class does not. Now this is very paradoxical to some I am sure. I happened to discover the truth of this when I lived among the poor of Southeast Washington for 7 years. I had always thought that the poor were very religious. I think the Scriptures themselves influenced me in this as they warned of riches and indicated God’s loving favor to the poor. But one of the discoveries I made about the very poor was that almost none of them ever went to church! I came to see this as one of the things that contributed to their poverty. For what it indicated was their disconnectedness from others. Churches, among other social functions, serve to knit people together in a socially supportive structure. Having severed themselves from such a community, the poor were even more vulnerable.

Here too, government welfare has had a deleterious effect since many of the poor look to an impersonal government for “the check” rather than to others around them. The advantage of course is that the Government doesn’t ask too many questions or insist upon weekly attendance at services or social functions.

I did not see or experience these poor as atheists in any way. But religion and faith were simply not a big part of their lives. I often had long talks exhorting the poor I met to reconnect with God and the Church. I would even eventually tie on-going help to attendance.

It would seem that the trend of irreligiosity has also reached the working class in higher proportions too. Some will tie this to bad work schedules and the like, rooted in the fact that everything is open on Sundays now. But most churches have a wide variety of things on the schedule including Saturday evening masses, Sunday evening Masses, mid-week bible studies and the like. The fact is people in general are more secular, and this does not bode well for them of for this country as a whole.

These trends mean, just as it is suffering economically, the working class is getting cut off from the richest sources of social capital: marriage, two-parent families, and church-going. More people are falling into a lower class characterized by men who can’t make a minimal living and single women with children….. And this goes back to my point raised in that room of social activists. The fact is that living a life rooted in biblical and natural virtue is just better for you. It leads to fewer complications, greater stability and prosperity, better health, and a higher degree of satisfaction.

Social activists who want to make life better for the poor should reconsider their “agnostic” position regarding sexual choices, and the role of marriage and traditional family values.

In re-proposing the Gospel to an increasingly secular and cynical culture  we should not forget to “sell” the Gospel and traditional moral norms as just plain smart, even from a worldly point of view. That is not the only reason we seek to live them, but the fact is, blessings come from following God’s plan, burdens and hardships multiply to those who fail in this regard.  Mr. Lowry says it succinctly and well: the working class is getting cut off from the richest sources of social capital.

He quotes the 19th-century observer of American life Francis Grund: “The American Constitution is remarkable for its simplicity; but it can only suffice a people habitually correct in their actions, and would be utterly inadequate to the wants of a different nation. Change the domestic habits of the Americans, their religious devotion, and their high respect for morality, and it will not be necessary to change a single letter of the Constitution in order to vary the whole form of their government.” I believe De Tocqueville said something very similar: Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie is not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people who are their own masters if they are not submissive to the Deity?

In other words, if freedom is to be politically advanced, then the self control of most Americans must be a presupposed foundation. If that foundation of morality and self-control is lost, the foundations of democracy are threatened.

And we see this in our times. As the decency and self control of more and more Americans diminishes, legal restrictions and punitive measures increase, lawsuits ensue, legal fears increase, and political liberties are gradually eclipsed. Our growing and increasingly intrusive Federal Government does seem very tied to our inability, or unwillingness, as citizens to curb and govern our behaviors. The Constitution, and the freedoms it ensures are thus gradually eroded.

Some consider the Constitution too dated, others see it not permitting enough Government restrictions to curb the bad or unpleasant behaviors of people today. Perhaps this is so. But the solution is not to disregard the Constitution but to reform our lives. We shouldn’t need a nanny state, we ought to grow up and do what is right and proper.

When it comes to saving the American way, balancing the budget is the easy part. -Yes, being saved from ourselves would seem much more difficult.

Murray argues that America can maintain its national power even if these trends continue. – I disagree. I think these downward trends are civilization killers.

If the family is not strong and continues to slide into disarray, we cannot continue as a strong nation and, like ancient Rome, will fade away.

Our work ethic remains strong and there is some hope here.

But as for secularization, that we can have an intelligible and reasonably unified culture without a common “cult” seems  dubious. We need not be united on every particular dogma, but, we must have someone and something above us, as a culture, to unite us. The source of our unity cannot be within us, it must transcend us. Pretending that we can have real unity when increasing numbers reject that transcendent vision is fanciful in the end, for with nothing bigger than “us” to unite us, we end in power struggles and endless divisions. The disunity may ultimately be too strong for the great American experience to continue. I do not say it will come soon, but the trend lines do not currently point in promising directions.

As always I am interested in your thoughts.



This song says, America! America! God mend thine every flaw, Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law!

Posted on

Without the Truth, We are Left Only With Power. A Reflection Based on the Pope’s Teaching in Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus had been brought before Pontius Pilate for trial and in a pivotal scene there is this memorable dialogue:

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” “What is truth?” asked Pilate. (Jn 18:37-38)

I have generally interpreted Pilate’s remark about truth to be highly cynical and dismissive, almost as though he said it with a wave of the hand. Further, I have thought it well reflects the cynicism of our own times that so dismisses the notion that there is such a thing truth or that it can be known. While many claim this rejection is liberating, the fact is, without a common consensus on a basic framework of truth to which we must all assent, things reduce to a power struggle where the strongest and loudest win. This does not actually seem very liberating in the end.

Pope Benedict in his new Book, Jesus of Nazareth (vol. 2), ponders the implications Pilate’s question and what it means for us, who, at least culturally struggle with the same question, “What is Truth?”  I’d like to give a few excerpts from the Pope’s reflections and add some commentary of my own. As usual, the Pope’s text will be in black, italic bold, and my comments will be plain text red.

The Pope begins by pondering if Pilate’s question is not somewhat understandable given that Jesus indicates his kingdom is rooted in the Truth. But since there are often endless arguments as to what truth is, Pilate, as a politician, asks, “What is truth? As if to say, How can a kingdom be built on something that is so debated? The Pope writes:

[Since] Jesus bases his concept of kingship and kingdom on truth as the fundamental category, then it is entirely understandable that the pragmatic Pilate asks him: “What is truth?” (Jn. 18:38).

It is the question that is also asked by modern political theory: Can politics accept truth as a structural category? Or must truth, as something unattainable, be relegated to the subjective sphere…? By relying on truth, does not politics, in view of the impossibility of attaining consensus on truth, make itself a tool of particular traditions that in reality are merely forms of holding on to power?

In the last 50 years or so, the West has struggled greatly under the dissolution of a common moral and religious vision. Though we have long had sectarian differences, the basic Judeo-Christian vision held sway and tended to unite us in the essentials of a moral, and even political vision. That common vision, that grasp of the common truth, to which most assented, has dissolved. But, as the Pope articulates,  there are some who celebrate this dissolution, since; some argue that traditional and religious views excluded many from “power” or a place at the table. A united vision was/is to narrow for them.  So they not only celebrate the abandonment of truth as a category, but many actually seek to undermine and attack it. This is usually done through an un-nuanced call for diversity and the labeling those who seek to maintain a common vision as hateful, bigoted, narrow-minded, and so forth. Perhaps with this in mind, the Pope goes on to say:

And yet, on the other hand, what happens when truth counts for nothing? What kind of justice is then possible? Must there not be common criteria that guarantee real justice for all—criteria that are independent of the arbitrariness of changing opinions and powerful lobbies?…..

In effect, when there is no common basis from which to act, when there is no commonly accepted truth, no basis on which to reason, what we end up with is a power struggle. In the vacuum of a truth-free zone, what is reasonable does not hold sway. Rather, the one with the most power, money, and influence, the one who can shout the loudest or is most politically connected, wins the day. Truth thus yields to power, and without a common truth, mere power moves to the center.

And yet, it is one thing to assert that a common truth should unite us, but it is another to define what that truth is and should be. The Pope continues:

What, then, is truth? Are we able to recognize it? Can it serve as a criterion for our intellect and will, both in individual choices and in the life of the community?

The classic definition from scholastic philosophy designates truth as “adaequatio intellectus et rei” (conformity between the intellect and reality); Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 21, a. 2c). If a man’s intellect reflects a thing as it is in itself, then he has found truth: but only a small fragment of reality—not truth in its grandeur and integrity.

It seems here we have an appeal to what we have come to call the “Natural Law.” There is an “is-ness” to things, a nature that we must come to perceive and be in conformity with. In a pluralistic culture such as America, Natural Law is likely the essential basis from which we could build consensus. But, sadly, here too, there has been a breakdown in a Natural Law basis as many in our society have come to doubt that reality is intelligible at all.

St. Paul lamented the same thing in his day when he wrote of the Gentile world: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their senseless minds were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (Rom 1:18-21).

In rejecting the Natural Law, and that reality itself should be a guide for us, the modern discussion retreats primarily to the mind and the realm of opinion. And, as in Paul’s day, we have a lot of senseless thinking that is highly disassociated from reality.

Paul pointed to the approval of homosexuality in his time as a chief symptom of the problem.  Paul called homosexual acts “paraphysin” (contrary to nature). Any simple investigation into the anatomy involved makes it clear that the man is not made for the man, rather the woman is made for the man. But simple natural observation seemed to escape many of the people of his time and he describes their minds as “darkened.”

In our own time, as Natural Law recedes, we also, as a culture, retreat into the mind and lose touch with reality.  And sure enough, homosexuality is approved by increasing numbers as the simple truth expressed by nature is replaced by thought and opinion.

The Pope next moves to a more theological answer to the question, “What is truth?”

We come closer to what Jesus meant with another of Saint Thomas’ teachings: “Truth is in God’s intellect properly and firstly (proprie et primo); in human intellect it is present properly and derivatively (proprie quidem et secundario)” (De Verit., q. 1, a. 4c).And in conclusion we arrive at the succinct formula: God is truth itself, the sovereign and first truth (“ipsa summa et prima veritas”); Summa Theologiae I, q. 16, a. 5c). This formula brings us close to what Jesus means when he speaks of the truth, when he says that his purpose in coming into the world was to “bear witness to the truth”.

….. Man becomes true, he becomes himself, when he grows in God’s likeness. Then he attains to his proper nature. God is the reality that gives being and intelligibility. “Bearing witness to the truth” means giving priority to God and to his will over against the interests of the world and its powers. God is the criterion of being…..

Hence, to increasingly know the Lord is to know the truth, and to have that truth set us free (cf John 8:32). For we who believe, truth is not merely a set of facts, but it is found in a personal relationship with God who, through the Holy Spirit,  leads us to all the truth (Jn 16:13). Further, to know Jesus is to increasingly know the truth for he said plainly I am the truth (Jn 14:16)

We may also say that bearing witness to the truth means making creation intelligible and its truth accessible…..Let us say plainly: the unredeemed state of the world consists precisely in the failure to understand the meaning of creation, in the failure to recognize truth; as a result, the rule of pragmatism is imposed, by which the strong arm of the powerful becomes the god of this world.

This was said above but repeated here for emphasis: to abandon the truth found in Natural Law, and in God for believers, is cede the field to the most powerful. It is not the reasonable who win the day, it is the strongest, richest or most powerful.

What is truth? Pilate was not alone in dismissing this question as unanswerable and irrelevant for his purposes. Today too, in political argument and in discussion of the foundations of law, it is generally experienced as disturbing. Yet if man lives without truth, life passes him by; ultimately he surrenders the field to whoever is the stronger.

A good summary statement.

“Redemption” in the fullest sense can only consist in the truth becoming recognizable. And it becomes recognizable when God becomes recognizable. He becomes recognizable in Jesus Christ. In Christ, God entered the world and set up the criterion of truth in the midst of history.

The criterion of truth this time in the discussion should seem plain to us. Although, in a pluralistic society we may struggle to easily define truth, coming to some broad consensus is  essential for us. The word , “criterion” means, standard, principle or rule. Without some common basis, things reduce to power struggle. We see this increasingly to be the case as the West loses any common basis to discuss matters. What we are increasingly seeing are shrill debates, protests, advocacy journalism and the like. When conversations rooted in reason and commonly held truth can no longer be had, it’s “turn up the volume” time in America.  The one with the most money and power wins.

Posted on

More Data on the Lost Generations and the Urgent Task for the Church

It has been clear for some time now in the Church that Catholics, as a group, are growing more distant from the Church teaching on sexual matters. It seems well demonstrated that most Catholics form their view on these matters more from the culture than the scriptures or the teachings of the Church. The culture shouts promiscuity and normalizes both the heterosexual and homosexual expressions of it. Meanwhile, I’m sad to say, many clergy and catechists remain quite silent and vague about it. This is not true of all, but I know that a common complaint on the part of the faithful is, that what they hear from the pulpit, is filled with vagaries and generalities. Only rarely do they hear straightforward teaching on sexual matters and other important topics as well, such as the need to attend Mass, go to confession, the reality of hell etc.

With the combination of a loud culture and quiet pulpit and classroom, it is no surprise that that recent statistics show that a growing number of Catholics do not hold the Catholic faith when it comes to moral issues, especially the sexual ones. Here are some excerpts from a recent article over at the CARA (Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate) blog written by Mark Gray:

In 2010, 20% of adult Catholics “strongly agreed” that “homosexual couples should have the right to marry one another.” An additional 28% “agreed.” Thus, overall 48% of Catholic respondents indicated some level of agreement with this statement. The margin of error for the 2010 Catholic data is ±5.8 percentage points. Thus, the point estimate for agreement could range as high as 54% or as low as 42%. ….Levels of agreement with the statement have grown [over the years] as disagreement has diminished.

There is another [General Social Survey] GSS question that has a longer history that is related to the results of the marriage question shown above. The GSS asks respondents if “sexual relations between two adults of the same sex” is wrong. In the 2010 GSS, for the first time, the percentage of adult Catholics indicating this is “not wrong at all” outnumbered those who said it was “always wrong” (44% compared to 42%)…(margin of error was ±5.9 percentage points).

As one can see from the trend in the figure [above right], the real point of change occurs somewhere in the early 1990s and has continued to evolve to this day. Responses to this question differ by age with younger Catholics being more likely than older Catholics to say this is “not wrong at all.” However, the sharp change in the population overall in the early 1990s cannot be explained by generational replacement alone.

It is the case that frequency of Mass attendance correlates with responses to these questions….The only complication to this…. is that Mass attendance varies by age and generation ….So is it Mass attendance that makes one more likely to oppose civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples or is it something generational? It is likely both but which matters more? And again the figure above indicates some sort of “period effect” in the early 1990s that is also likely important. Margin of error for sub-groups is the biggest obstacle to understanding and disentangling these effects.

The full article is here: Catholic Attitudes. Please note, Mr. Gray’s purpose in the article is to report the numbers not to advocate for or against what they say.

My own thoughts are that the generational factor is very significant. I understand that Mr Gray above thinks there are other factors too. I accept that but would still highlight the generational factor. There are increasing numbers of young people who have never known a time when the wider culture did not approve of homosexual behavior. Those of us about 45 and older DO remember such a time, but the younger ones have largely had a steady diet of  “there’s nothing wrong with homosexual behavior and if anyone thinks so, they’re a bigot.” And as they have heard this, the Church has only vaguely set forth a principled case for the wrongness of promiscuity in general, and homosexual activity in particular.

To paraphrase a well known quote from the last election, The Church’s chickens are coming home to roost. To put it Biblically: For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? (1 Cor 14:8).

In the Church I think we have to accept that a generational shift has occurred, both in the Church and in the culture. And it has happened on our watch.

Rear-guard action? With the increasing move to give legal recognition to (so-called) gay marriage, the Church is scrambling to teach the faithful again on the basics of marriage. But, truth be told, it’s something of a rear-guard action. Marriage has been in trouble for a long time in this country, family sizes have decreased, divorce has skyrocketed and cohabitation and single parent families are becoming as common as marriage. Gay “marriage” is just the latest confusion, polygamy is surely next.

Yes, we have returned to the battle late. When the first no-fault divorce laws went into effect in 1969 and the ten years following, I am unaware that there was much of a collective effort by the Church to oppose and turn back that horrible idea.

Inward focused! Of course in 1969 we were rather inwardly focused. We were moving around the furniture in our sanctuaries, tuning up guitars and having endless debates about women’s (lack of) ordination, Church authority and the like. And while we looked inward and debated among ourselves, we lost the culture. We stopped evangelizing and articulating a clear moral vision for our culture in a way that was effective.

I am told the situation is worse in Europe. Both Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have said we have to start all over again there and completely re-evangelize Europe.

But start we must. And while we do so, we will called all sorts of names by a culture that now finds the Gospel and its moral vision to be obnoxious, even hateful. It will be our task to re-propose the Gospel in creative and thoughtful ways, and to present why it makes sense and is not, in fact hateful.

I think some of the younger clergy, religious and laity have become better prepared to do just this. I am impressed with the dedication, fidelity, creativeness and zeal of many of the younger and emerging leaders in the Church. In a way their presence and numbers is something of a paradox, since, as the numbers above show, there seems to be an overall generational shift away from the Church. It is almost as if these younger and emerging leaders, (clergy, religious and lay), have been snatched by the Lord from a raging torrent and set on solid rock. And now they have zeal to snatch others from the torrent and draw them to the solid rock of the Church and Christ. It is a small but significant army. And the trumpet the Church is sounding is becoming clearer too, more and more are mustering for the great struggle to re-evangelize the culture.

In tomorrow’s blog I’d like to address the Biblical teaching on homosexual activity as well as heterosexual promiscuity. I do this in an attempt to answer those surveyed above who think there is nothing wrong with either. Just my own little way of trying to turn back some of the numbers and not be among those who have been far too silent.

Here is Fr. Barron’s take on how we lost the culture and what we might do to re-evangelize it.

Posted on

God Only Knows – On the Great Discovery of Our Very Selves

Today’s post is brief due to the fact that my own computer crashed – Disk error….Cache flaw….divide by zero….error….error….

Alas and despite my Computer Science Degree from 30 years ago, I am often mystified by the complexity of our modern devices. Most of us who use them really have very little idea of how they basically work!

But if you think these mere computers are complex, how about you? The Scripture from Thursday of this week at Mass says this:

More tortuous than all else is the human heart, beyond remedy; who can understand it? I, the LORD, alone probe the mind and test the heart (Jer 17:9).

One of the greatest discoveries that we are onis the journey to discover our very own self. And only the Lord can really do this for us. For, it is so often the case that we allow illusions to dominate our sense of our self.

The world and so often tells us that we were made to be rich, powerful, beautiful, popular and so forth. And we run after these things, only to eventually discover their emptiness.

We too build up expectations for ourselves that are often wrong and misguided. We often try to be what others are, to have gifts that others have, to look like others etc. Perhaps it is the movie star or sports hero we feel drawn to imitate. Perhaps it is the media-driven body-type we must be. Perhaps there is some one we admire, and we have to be just like them.

But here is the real question: Who is the man or woman God made you to be? What are the gifts He gave you? What is His plan for your life?

This is the real and great discovery. And it is not merely a discovery, it is an acceptance, a whole hearted and grateful acceptance for the gifts that God has given me and the “self” he has made me to be.

In Lent this journey, this great discovery is intensified. But in the end it is a life-long journey that we must make, and God alone can show us the way.

I conclude with a story about Rabbi Eleazar who thought, one day:

Eleazar, why are you not more like Moses? Moses was a great man! But then I thought again, that if I try to be Moses, I will one day face God who will say to me, Eleazar, why were you not more like Eleazar?