Category: Culture

Posted on

Modesty and Men

We have had three great discussions on the blog in recent months regarding modesty, HERE and HERE and HERE. In my post some weeks ago I did not distinguish between men and women for the matter in question was dirty dancing which involves both. However, the conversation turned inexorably to women and girls, what they wear and how they should behave. I also note that 90% of the commentators were women. Last week Laura raised the question of modest beachwear and focused especially on the bikini. Here too the majority of the commentators were women and the conversation was mostly about what was proper for women and girls.

However, in both conversations there were a few comments that expressed irritation that questions of modesty always seem to center on women and little is said about men. I was asked by a few to blog about men and modesty and perhaps set forth some principles for men and boys. Here is my humble attempt and I ENCOURAGE you to add to the discussion for I am no expert on this. I really propose only to set the table and put out a few items on the lazy Susan. This discussion is really pot luck so make your contribution too.

Perhaps a few opening principles and premises to frame the discussion.

  1. Men and women are quite different when it comes to questions of attraction and arousal. While there are many individual variances, as a general rule men are much more likely to be immediately interested by way of visual stimulation. Attraction for women seems a bit more complicated and subtle. For men there seems to be a pretty quick trip-wire whereas for women it often seems that a series of switches need to be thrown in the right combination. Men can become interested very quickly and easily. Beauty, shape, posture, the way she walks, all of this is like eye candy to men. It does not seem to me that most women are this easily caught into the cycle of interest and arousal though there are exceptional persons and moments. Rather than say women are never like this, what I am saying is that it seems a far less common occurence for women. For men it may happen hundreds of times a day 🙂
  2. Compassion and understanding and sobriety  – Some are sharply critical of men with regard to their quickly roving eye. The most extreme form of it comes with expressions like “Men are pigs.” We will talk in moment of the fact that men have to take some responsibility for this aspect of who they are but here at the beginning perhaps some understanding is in order. Men do not simply or freely choose to have this almost instant-on switch. It sort of comes built in and the off switch is not easy to find. Men are drawn very quickly, almost instantly, by beauty. Of itself this is not evil. God surely means for beauty to attract. The problem comes with our fallen nature that frequently desires inordinately or inappropriately. But the point to make here is that rather than simply denounce men as pigs it may be more appropriate merely to be sober about the fact that men have strong desire in this regard. Due to the fallen nature we all have this desire is often difficult to control perfectly. It is part of our human condition. Part of modesty for women it seems is a kind of strategy in this regard as well as a kind of charity. As a strategy, modesty helps keep unwanted attention within reasonable levels. As a form of charity modesty accepts the fact that men are easily tempted to unchaste thoughts and takes reasonable measures to assist men in this regard.
  3. Reasonable expectations – Now reasonable is an important word. Women cannot be expected to take unreasonable measures to protect men in this regard. Men are attracted by a LOT of things and invisibility is not reasonable or possible to demand of women.
  4. Hence, men must also develop self discipline, custody of the eyes and careful discretion. Jesus speaks of looking at a woman with lust as a serious sin (Matt 5:28 ). It is one thing to notice that a woman is beautiful, that is usually good and natural. But it is another to stare intently at her and  sexually fantasize about her. This is to cross a line. For many men such a standard seems impossible to fully meet. But in effect Jesus is offering a freedom and a power over what goes on in our minds. Through self-discipline, daily prayer, the sacraments and scripture it is possible to have increasing authority over our thought life. Jesus would not command it if it were not possible. It is a usual fact that self discipline increases over time and we who are men OUGHT to be growing in this and not just indulge our every thought and desire and be stuck in lust. Progress in this matter is to be insisted upon.
  5. Political incorrectness alert! – In the end life is not always fair and modesty issues are simply going to weigh more heavily on women. This is for two reasons. First women have more to cover. It is simply a fact that the female body, at least in our culture, has more of what we can simply term here as private areas. These areas arouse significant sexual interest in men and however much we may want that to change in a big way, it probably isn’t going to dramatically change. Secondly since men are more easily tempted in these matters, it seems reasonable that women ought to take this into account. Surely we can only expect what is reasonable, but prudence and charity ought to be operative in such matters.

What of Modesty for men in terms of clothes and behavior.

  1. Tight and tiny swimwear for men seems just as inappropriate for men as for women. There is simply no good reason to wear tiny speedo suits outside of certain very limited swim-racing situations. The purpose is obviouslyto arouse sexual interest and to display what ought not be displayed. Further, I will say, most men look just plain silly wearing such swimwear. Larger “boxer-shorts”  style bathing suits seem far more appropriate.
  2. Going shirtless should be limited. I am not aware that women are all that tempted by shirtless men, even those who are slender and muscular. But if the women on this blog tell us men that it is at times problematic then we ought to stop. A further concern about going shirtless other than in beach settings and limited sports settings is that it just seems a bit rude and far too casual. Our society has become so casual about everything. Men walking through city parks without shirts just seems too informal and frankly I don’t care for it. Such behavior was not commonly accepted in this country prior to the 1960s. Find a cool and comfortable shirt men and wear it. It does  not belong tied around your waist. Neither should your t-shirt be pulled up over the back of your head to expose your belly and chest. It’s just ugly, inelegant and far too casual for public parks. Save it for the back yard or the beach.
  3. Saggy drawers have to go – no one cares to see your underwear. Please! Pull your pants up. This dumb trend that emerged from gansta culture is thankfully on the wane but it isn’t disappearing fast enough.
  4. Tight fitting jeans and open shirts are retro and wrong. Back in the 1970s we went through a lot of dopey stuff where men’s fashions started to take on rather feminine notions. The disco era brought this to its high point. It was an era of extremely tight jeans. Men started unbuttoning their shirts two and three buttons down. In those days hairy chests were in and an exposed hairy chest with gold necklaces was not uncommon. Jeans were worn low and large belt buckles to draw the look below the belt were being worn. Boots were also often worn.  It was all silly and stupid looking: Men getting dolled up. The purpose was to strut your stuff. Men trying to sexualize themselves. I don’t really remember what the women thought at that time. Were they attracted by this? That seems to have been the purpose and if it was meant to tempt women, it was wrong. Every now and then these retro fashions try to make a come back. Bottom line is that men should dress modestly in loose fitting comfortable clothing. Shirts should be buttoned. Large belt buckles or things to draw attention to the waist are inappropriate and can be sinful.
  5. I’ll never get used to men wearing earrings. This many not pertain to modesty per se and I know men whom I respect that have earrings. But I’ll never get used to it and live for the day when earrings on a man are gone from the scene.
  6. Wear a suit more often – Our culture is so casual. Suits and Ties are getting rare. Many men no longer even know how to tie a Tie. They have to ask their mother. Go to http://artofmanliness.com/ a learn how to tie a tie and read the three-part series on purchasing and wearing a decent suit. It is modest and professional. We priests too need to stop bumming around and learn the art of wearing our clerical attire well, to include a tailored cassock:  http://www.clergyapparel.com/
  7. Men should behave modestly. Sexual jokes, immodest conversations, improper posture and the like are wrong. Men are exceptionally poor today at curbing their behavior in mixed company. Learning to be a gentleman is a lost art. Immodest behavior, scurrilous jokes, remarks about women’s bodies and the like are bad enough around other men, but they take on added ugliness in the presence of women. Men must learn to treat women with respect. They should not be treated as or thought of as sexual objects. Men should consider that the purpose of dating is to find a wife not just to have fun and “play the field.” If a man realizes that the purpose of dating is to look for a wife, he may well behave differently. This woman may not just be my next sexual partner, she may well be my wife and the mother of my children. More than clothing, men’s  biggest problem with modesty is how they regard and treat women. I know it is complicated and women send confusing signals. But in the end we have to be men. And real men treat women with respect. they do not seek to conquer them or merely have them. They seek to love them, provide for them and cling to them as a spouse. The Bible says that a man clings to his wife. That is what a man does. Boys play. Men are modest and respectful around women and seek to form proper, lasting and deep relationships with them.

Comments are wide open. I have not been without controversy I am sure. I am especially interested in what women might have to say about ways we men might be more modest. It is not all that clear to most men how women might be tempted. The more we can know the more we can improve.

Be careful everyone to remember that this is a “family blog.” Mature topics like this sometimes require that we be artful in our descriptions so as not to offend the pious, the young or even each other.

This video elaborates my final point.

Posted on

Religious Life in the Movies

This is a clip I posted on Youtube  from the 1958 Movie, “The Nun’s Story” starring Audrey Hepburn as a young woman named Gabriel Vandermal who becomes Sr. Luke of a fictional French Women’s Order. The movie, as you shall is stunningly beautiful and the liturgical scenes are carefully done. This movie is available for purchase at Amazon.com and I recommend it to your library.

However the following should be noted. The movie presents a rather negative portrait of Religious Life by emphasizing its hardships and demands to the exclusion of its joys and benefits. It more than suggests that many aspects of Religious Life at that time were unreasonable and unnecessarily harsh. Perhaps they were at times. Some older Sisters I’ve talked with tell me that many aspects of this movie are accurate and things were tough in the old days. An interesting aspect of the portrait presented is that primary source of the hardships was the women toward each other. It is common in some current narratives, especially from older women religious, to speak of the old Church as patriarchal, male dominated, and hence oppressive to women. Yet in this piece from that actual period, the clergy are distant figures, and the main interplay is with the women and how they both support and also oppress one another.

If this movie is a reasonably accurate portrait of religious life in the first half of the 20th century (sounds so long ago now!) then it is clear that reforms were needed. However, as an outside observer who is both male and barely old enough to remember the old Church, I must say I deeply regret that the reforms that may have been necessary got so out of balance for many women’s Religious communities. An over-correction seems to have set it in in many, though surely not all. The abandonment of the Religious Habit, community life, a common apostolate, and deep love for the Church seems to have been lost, in some. Thankfully there are many Religious Communities of women which never succumbed to the radical notions that swept others. Also, there are many new, thriving and exciting new Communities of Women religious as well. In my own convent are the Servants of the Lord and the Virgin of Matara. (they wear a blue and gray habit).  They are imbued with deep love for the Lord, our Lady and the Church. They seem quite happy and foster great holiness within their sisters. They seem also to have found a good balance between the following of a clear rule and of doing so in a way that is respectful of the humanity of each each sister. There is nothing of the robotic and unhappy obedience depicted in this movie. The Sisters I know are quite alive and experience their religious life in a deeply human way.

The movie The Nun’s Story surely has a strong point of view that could have been more balanced. I cannot imagine that it was quite as strict or unhuman as this movie depicts. Further, Sr. Luke makes a decision in the movie that is problematic from the point of view of the vows she made. Nevertheless, with these cautions I strongly recommend the movie. It is beautiful, though controversial in some aspects. I post the clip here in the interest of seeing a brief look at Religious life in the wider culture and in the movies. Enjoy this beautiful video.

Posted on

Update: What Did Jesus Look Like?

A little over a week ago I posted on the question, What Did Jesus Look Like? Among the things we discussed, was what data the Shroud of Turin supplied. Many consider it authentic (including me). But even for those who do not it can still aid in our speculation of what Jesus may have looked like. Now it seems that the History Channel will be airing a special on March 30th from 9-11pm EDT  that considers the data from the shroud, and using forensic science and other methods, seeks to present three-dimensional renders of the “man of the shroud.”

While the Archdiocese of Washington cannot endorse TV shows in any official way, nevertheless, as an update on my previous post I want to inform you of this interesting looking addendum to our previous discussion. The home page for this projest is Here: http://www.raydowning.com/  And this is a video trailer of the project.


The Real Face of Jesus on HISTORY 3/30
Uploaded by HistoryChannel. – Classic TV and last night’s shows, online.

Posted on

Say What You Mean, Mean What You Say, But Don’t Say It Mean

I’ll admit that I struggle with the concept of “civility.” I keep it as a very firm rule for myself. I try to be clear but also charitable in what I say. I also try to avoid “ad hominem attacks” which are  attacks on the person rather than the argument. I also try to avoid assigning motive when the motive is not clear to me.

But I also admit that there is a great deal of variability in what people consider civil discourse. In some cultures there is a greater tolerance for anger. I remember dating an Italian girl for a brief time back in college. I remember being at her house and how she and her mother could really go at it with a heated debate (usually in Italian – Mama Mia!). But no sooner had they very intensely argued over some particular, say  of preparing the meal,  than they were just fine, as if nothing had happened. Angry discourse was more “normal” for them. Even in this country there are regional differences about civility. In New York and Boston, edgy comments and passionate interruptive  debate are common.  But in the upper midwest and parts of the deep south conversation is more gentle and reserved. At the time of Jesus angry discourse was apparently quite “normal” for Jesus himself engages in a lot of it, even calling them names like, “Hypocrites.” “Brood of Vipers,” “Liars,” “Wicked” etc.  Yet, the same scriptures that record these facts about Jesus teach that he never sinned. Hence, at that time such terms were not considered sinful to utter and must not have been since I am a firm believer that Jesus never sinned. Jesus even engaged in prophetic actions like overturning the tables in the temple courts. No one said he’d done wrong,  they just wondered where he got the authority to do this (cf Mark 11:28). In that culture prophets did things like this. No one liked it,  but just like our culture tolerates some degree of civil disobedience, even reveres it, Jesus’ culture  expected things like this from prophets. Now be careful here. I am not saying it is OK for us to talk like this because Jesus did. We do not live then, we live now and in our culture such dialogue is almost never acceptable. There ARE cultural norms we have to respect to remain in the realm of Charity.

So there seems to be a lot of variability in the concept of civility and civil discourse. In general our culture seems to prefer a gentler style of discourse, with the regional variability I have already mentioned taken into consideration. But we have recently been through a very tough Healthcare debate (battle?) in which the discourse went beyond what many think was civil. Over at the USCCB blog is a posting  which raises concerns about it. I would like to excerpt it here and add some of my own comments in RED. And as always I’d like to know what you think. (You can read the complete and uninterrupted USCCB Blog post here: USCCB Media Blog) Meanwhile here are my excerpts and comments.

The heat in the aftermath of passage of health care reform reveals the depth of feeling among those for and against the landmark bill that affects all Americans. Such heat, however, cannot justify the verbal and physical violence that has ensued. 

If we needed health care because of the crisis affecting the sick, especially the weakest among us, we need even more a move toward civility, if not for our own betterment then at least for the betterment of our children.

 Politics has become a kind of blood sport. News junkies over the weekend heard reports of crowds shouting racist remarks and individuals spitting at African American lawmakers, including John Lewis, who suffered violence years ago when he marched for Civil Rights. Surely he – and all of us – has a right to expect that that chapter of despicable, racist violence long over. This event is not verified or recorded in any of the video from that day. At best it is a story that is going around that we can only hope is untrue. It is reported that Congressman John Lewis did mention hearing some slurs but did not clearly indicate if they were racial slurs or what. Further it is not certain how many,  if any,  engaged in this behavior. Was it one, many, etc. It is not certain. If it did happen it is reprehensible. But likely it involved just one or a few. I do think we have made a lot of progress in this area and that such behavior is not tolerable in our society. The vast majority of those who were against the bill would surely and adamantly agree that any such behavior in this regard was unacceptable. John Lewis is surely a hero of the Civil Rights Movement.  What ever variability there may be in how people size up civility, racial slurs and spitting are beyond any one’s tolerance.

 We’ve seen reports of homes and offices of lawmakers vandalized and heard of death threats. Anonymous messages are being left on voicemails – I even got one from a nun, for goodness sake. If that isn’t proof that we’ve gone astray I don’t know what is. Yes, and for the record this happened on both sides of the debate. Congressman Stupak, interviewed on NBC news indicated receiving threats from pro-choice people when he was holding out due to abortion funding. After the vote the threats switched to the pro-life side! Alas, here too we can only hope that those who make such threats are in the vast minority. It is true however that threats of this nature are a regular part of the lives of public figures, not just politicians, but also media personalities, movie and sports figures, and others.  

 The wonderfully unedited Web may share some blame as it gives free reign to those who say whatever suits their strategic purpose, truthful or not. Their presentations – usually anonymous – underscore a significant failing of the Web, lack of editors and accountability. Ah and here is where it comes home my friends. What is said here has a lot of truth. The anonymous quality of many who participate can lead to much higher levels of unkindness and inaccuracy. If no one know who I am I can say just about anything. In general our discourse at this blog has been civil but we have had our moments. The impersonal quality of a lot of the communication can lead to a kind of forgetfulness that a real person, or person is on the ther side of the screen. Further, writing does not always allow the nuance of the spoken word and personal interaction where tone of voice and facial expression can often supply clarifying data that one is speaking ironically, or facetiously, or just in good fun. True we do have our “emoticons”  like 🙂 and 😉 and LOL! that help but we have to be very careful when we write to remember that much data is lost when the word is only written. Accuracy is also a bit of a problem when the writer  is anonymous for they are less concerned with their reputation and will more likely say inaccurate things that they would otherwise have to verify. Hence our reserve to speak about things we are not sure of  is diminished.

 The intolerance and incivility did not begin with legislation passed Sunday night. It is not unrelated to the divisions that exist in our country and, sadly, even in our church. Yes, how we Catholics speak to each other needs further reflection. It has been my experience that most Catholics are far more passionate about their politics that their faith. This is sad but it also affects the way we speak to one another. We often use political terminology such as right/left; conservative/liberal which may not well apply to the Church settings. I fielded a lot of remarks in the past week accusing the Bishops of being lap dogs for the GOP etc. But I guarantee you when it comes to immigration reform or capital punishment, that others accuse them of being “lap dogs” for the Democrats. What if they were neither? What if they were Catholic and trying to articualte Catholic principles in a polarized world? What seems to happen is that we take a lot of our politics into the Church with us. To be sure there are some very serious divisions in the Church that need often frank discussion and cannot reduce to a “Can’t we all just get along” mentality. Finding the balance is not always easy.

It starts with how we view others – as enemies rather than as fellow travelers on the journey of life. It includes whether or not we’re willing to give another the benefit of the doubt, accepting that their intentions are good, even if their goals differ from ours. It involves accepting the fact that each of us is a child of God and precious to Him and our brother or sister. – Well said.

Last Tuesday, March 23, Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, noted the bishops’ disappointment that the health reform legislation did not include all they sought….Even in disappointment, the bishops were civil and generous. Their position is worth emulating.

[There is] a maxim attributed to St. Augustine, “In essentials, unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity.” In all things charity surely is the message we all need today. It’s not a bad start to Holy Week.

So, there it is. How exactly to define civility in every instance is not always clear. An old answer to these hard to define things is “I know when I see it.” So perhaps it is more art than science to define civility But it is clearly getting edged out, to be sure. In an era when shared values and reverence for a shared and immutable truth have been largely jettisoned what we end up with is power struggle. Such a scenario is usually ugly.

In the Black Community where I minister there is an expression, “Now don’t go and make me lose my religion!” What it usually means is that we can get so wrapped up in our anger and frustration that we cast off charity, which is the highest call of our faith. We need to check ourselves occasionally. In a world increasingly hostile,  where do we stand?  It may be true that, as we discussed above, there are some cultural differences when it comes to what is acceptable in discourse. But in the end charity and civility cannot be wholly cast aside. Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t say it mean. And whatever you do make sure you don’t lose your religion!  🙂

Here is a video I have posted before showing the “angry” style of Jesus culture. He is no wilting flower here nor are his listeners shy about expressing their opinion. Our culture is not generally very accepting of such discourse.

Posted on

Who Told You You Weren’t Beautiful?

We live today with very high expectations of many things. Culturally we have very demanding standards for beauty, especially in regard to women. We expect them to have appealing “curves” but be slender etc. Even ordinary weight is considered by many as unattractive. All this obsession with perfection leads to low self esteem among women and men too. Further, these high expectations of zero body fat and perfect shape, hair color, skin tone etc. leads to hypercritical and hurtful remarks. There is an old saying that “expectations are premeditated resentments.”  Hence this attitude also may have to do with marriage difficulties as the near perfect bodies of youth give way to the more “settled”  bodies of middle age and beyond. (Gravity and age do have their effects and even if you weighed what you did in High School it doesn’t look the same!) Plastic surgery is a miracle for those with truly catastrophic injury or deformities but today it is too often the refuge of those who have become obsessed with how they look and how they think others regard them. Oh to be free of such obsessions! The picture to the right depicts a woman but men have the problem too.

Help me Lord to be little more comfortable in my own skin. Help me to accept that you like both tall and short people because you made them both. Both the blond and the brunette are from your hand, wavy hair, straight hair wirey hair are all from you and apparently to your liking. Thin and hefty, black, white and all between are from your artistic hand. Help me to love me as you made me. If I should lose weight for health’s sake help me, but if its only about what others might think of me, free me.

Watch this video and see how a very lovely young woman is not lovely enough. She has to be altered, “perfected.”  And when simple natural enhancements are not enough her image must be furthered altered on a computer. Message: the perfect beauty does not exist for the world of media. She must be invented. Then everyone can pine after and spend large amounts of money and time trying look like someone who doesn’t even exist.

Posted on

Rescuing Hope

Hope is one of those words (like love) that has to be rescued from a world that has overused and misused it for so long that its original meaning is almost lost. Hope has come to mean something amounting to a vague wish for something or a substitute for the word “maybe.” For example a person might say, “I hope it doesn’t rain tomorrow.” Usually what hope means here is that “I wish it wouldn’t rain,” or “It probably will rain but it sure would be nice if it didn’t.”  Another example: A person is asked, “Will you be at the meeting tomorrow?”  And they respond, “I hope so.” But what this expression most often means “Maybe I’ll be there.” In both examples, doubt clouds the use of the word, the desired outcome seems unlikely. It is true the word hope is not always used in rather doubtful situations but too often it merely expresses a wish whose outcome is more doubtful than likely, when things could go either way.

I cannot set forth a whole treatise on hope here but would like to set forth certain teaching to try and rescue hope from it’s secular meaning or at least distinguish the Theological Virtue of Hope from secular hope.

The Theological Virtue of Hope is Confident Expectation – And this brings us to the theological meaning of the word hope which is a much more vigorous word in its religious setting. The definition I memorized of hope back in Seminary is the older one in use prior to the current Catechism but I list it here since it captures the vigorous quality of the word:

Hope is the Theological Virtue wherein one confidently expects God’s help in attaining eternal salvation.

The Catechism of the Catholic Defines Hope in the following way :

The theological virtue by which we desire and expect from God both eternal life and the grace we need to attain it (Glossary, cf # 1817)

Notice first of all how much more vigorous hope is in these definition. It is a “confident expectation.”  The Catechism in # 1817 quotes from the letter to the Hebrews which says, Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful (Heb 10:23). This is more than a vague wish of something that is unlikely or could possibly go either way. This is more than a “maybe God will save us.” Rather it is vigorous because the One who has promised is trustworthy, true and able. It is also vigorous because true hope is a Theological Virtue. That is to say it is infused into the soul of the believer by God himself. Hence, although it interacts with our human nature and builds on it, it does not wholly depend on our mood or temperament.

The Theological Virtue of Hope has God for its proper object – St. Thomas Aquinas makes it very clear that eternal happiness with God  is the proper and true object and purpose of hope: The hope of which we now speak attains God by leaning on his help….[and] the good which we ought to hope for from God properly and chiefly is the infinite good…For we should hope from Him nothing less that Himself….Therefore the proper and principle object of hope is eternal happiness (II,IIae, 17.2). Both definitions above also make this clear. With this in mind we can see that “hope” has suffered the same fate as the word “love.” Too often people say, “I Love God…..I love my wife….I love my new car.” Obviously love has lost its meaning through overuse and misuse. So to with hope. We say, “I hope in God and to be with him eternally.” And then we say, “I hope it doesn’t rain.”  But theologically hope does not pertain to things like rain, the outcome of  football games, or to getting a raise, etc. Hope in Theology always has God for it’s object. I have no thought that we will ever  get love and hope back to their proper objects and context but mention their origin so that we can understand that when the Church and Scripture use these words they do not mean them in the flat and often vacuous way the world does.

The Theological Virtue of Hope pertains to what we do not yet fully see or possess. – Though hope is confident expectation it is not absolute fact or current possession which some of our Protestant Brethren assert when they claim a “once saved, always saved” philosophy. St. Paul writes of hope this way: For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. (Rom 8:24-25) In other words, if I were to say, “I hope I find my Bible.” and I then I find it and am holding it, hope vanishes. I don’t hope for what I already have. Hope pertains only to what I currently do not yet have or fully possess. I confidently expect that I will possess it one day for God has promised it, but I do not yet have it. I am not “saved” (past tense) as some Protestants assert but am justified through the Blood of Christ and am being saved (present active participle) as long as I hold to God’s unchanging hand by his Grace. Hence, hope is confident expectation,  but not possession.

This then leads us to the two primary sins against hope – As the previous point demonstrates, a careful balance is necessary. Confident expectation of God’s help is to be vigorous. But this vigorous and confident expectation must not suffer due to either excess or defect. St. Thomas as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church distinguish two sins against hope: Despair and Presumption.

  1. Despair – By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God’s goodness, to his justice – for the Lord is faithful to his promises – and to his mercy. (CCC # 2091) While despair may have many complicated psychological motives it ultimately concludes that God cannot or will not save me or give the graces necessary to obtain the life he offers. Despair can pertain to thinking I will not go to heaven or, more immediately, that it is not possible live the holy life to which God summons us. Our modern world considers things like chastity, forgiveness, self control  etc.  to be unrealistic if not practically impossible. This is a form of despair because it denies  that God’s grace can equip, empower and enable people to live holy lives. But hope confidently expects from God the graces necessary to attain to eternal life. Hence this type of despair is a sin against hope. In final despair a person rejects the gift of confident expectation of God’s help by denying that God is willing or able to save them. Thus he or she sins against hope. St. Thomas in the Summa also links despair to the captial sins of lust and sloth.  The object of hope is a good that is possible by God’s grace but arduous to some extent. Now if bodily pleasures and preoccupations cause one to have a distaste for spiritual goods and thus cause a person to reject spiritual goods as “not worth the effort”  then he ceases to hope for them through lust. On the other hand there are some who,  seeing that something is possible but arduous,  grow sad and downcast and come to see it as impossible due to this sadness or aversion to significant change required. Thus they despair through sloth (cf II IIae 20.4).
  2. Presumption – There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God’s almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit) (CCC # 2092) Among many in the house of faith (both Protestant and Catholic) the second form of presumption is quite evident. We have talked at great length in this blog about the standing presumption by many if not most that just about every one goes to heaven. At too many funerals bold canonizations take place. Confident expectation of God’s help is essential to hope but presumption sins against hope by in effect claiming to already have “in the bag” what God offers on condition. We must freely accept his transformative grace and by it attain to the holiness without which no one will see God (Heb 12:14). This requires a profound work of God to take place in us. It is freely and unconditionally offered but it must be fully accept by us. Our acceptance will lead to changes that many resist and God will not force. Presumption rejects the arduous nature of what we hope for and claims to already “have”  what is offered. In this way presumption sins against hope for once one has what they hope for,  hope ceases. Although they DO NOT have it, by claiming they DO have it,  hope dies in them, for who hopes for what he already has? (Rom 8:24). Clearly balance is required! Confidence yes, current possession or possession without condition, no. One of the best Scriptures against presumption is from Sirach:

Rely not on your strength in following the desires of your heart. Say not: “Who can prevail against me?” for the LORD will exact the punishment. Say not: “I have sinned, yet what has befallen me?” for the LORD bides his time. Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin. Say not: “Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive.” For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath. Delay not your conversion to the LORD, put it not off from day to day; For suddenly his wrath flames forth; at the time of vengeance, you will be destroyed. Rely not upon deceitful wealth, for it will be no help on the day of wrath. Sirach 5:1-10

An Act of Hope:

O my God,
relying on Your almighty power
and infinite mercy and promises,
I hope to obtain
pardon for my sins,
the help of Your grace,
and life everlasting,
through the merits of Jesus Christ,
my Lord and Redeemer. Amen.

Posted on

Nihilism Reaches the Suburbs

This blog contains something of my personal story. If you want to skip the “personal story segment” and shorten your reading,  jump down to (What is Nihilism?)

What a Year! Those of us who are a little on the older side lived through and remember the dramatic culture changing year of 1968. What an awful year in so many ways. The Vietnam War was at it height and wasn’t going well from the Tet Offensive to anti-war protests here at home. The Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King  was earth shaking. Terrible riots followed that dreadful event making matters even worse. Those riots completely reshaped many cities. Robert Kennedy was assassinated later that year. Demonstrations and riots also accompanied the Democratic Convention in 1968. And all through it a steady beat of the sexual revolution eroded modesty and illicit drug use became very public. Disrespect, even hatred of authority in any form was epidemic and reverence for any form of tradition cast aside. Hippies, love-ins, crash pads and a general haze of pot and hash hung in the air of College campuses and places like Haight Ashbury in San Francisco. Slogans like Free love! If it feels good do it! Make love not war! etc. were common. Many College campuses ceased to function under the weight of almost constant student protests. The cultural revolution had reached critical mass.

Yet not all of us in 1968 were radicalized yet. I had a flat top crew cut and was just a young kid. We decorated our bikes with streamers for the 4thof July and attended parades. My patriotic father was heading off to the war, and like any typical boy I was accustomed to building forts, playing German spotlight and king of the mountain. Our little neighborhood in north suburban Chicago seemed worlds away from Haight Ashbury, or even Grant Park in Chicago where Chicago Hippies smoked pot and did LSD. I remember once driving past Grant Park on the way to a downtown museum and asking my mother with shock, “Mom! Why do those men have hair like girls!?”  These strange sights were scary and made no sense. In April of that year Dr. King had been assassinated and though news was less 24/7 than today I remember being terrified to see whole sections of the South  and West Side of Chicago on fire in the news. My mother only told me when I was older that she had barely escaped with her life. She had been substitute teaching on the South Side that fateful April Day when the riots closed in. An angel in a police uniform escorted her out.  It was 1968. The Cultural Revolution had reached critical mass. The nuclear fission bomb of cultural revolution had exploded. But the fallout had not reached the suburbs yet.

Fast Forward just ten years. It is 1978 and I am a Junior in High School.  By now the radiation of the late 1960s had spread a kind of radiation sickness to areas not initially devastated. By now I had long hair, down to my shoulders. I was a little too shy to be far advanced in the sexual revolution and anger and a kind of hatred and  ridicule of authority was my thing. Pop music was OK but heavy Rock Music was my real thing. It fed my anger and made me feel righteous in my disrespect of parents and others in authority. Rock music confirmed and validated my anger and also the dogma that old people didn’t know anything worth learning. I was somewhat at odds with my father and though I could not withstand him, I avoided him and nursed great hostility for him in my heart. And Rock music supplied me all the material I needed. Nihilism had now reached the suburbs and I was one revel in its hostility. Who were you to say what was right or wrong!? What do a bunch of old gray haired men in the Vatican know that is worth anything. Yes Nihilism had reached the suburbs!

What is Nihilism? – Nihilism is fundamentally a philosophical doctrine that exults in the negation of one of more traditionally meaningful aspects of  life. It comes from the Latin “nihil” which means “nothing.” Culturally nihilism exalts in tearing down traditional forms and understanding. In its most radical form, Nihilism argues that life itself is without any intrinsic meaning or purpose. Moral Nihilism argues that there are no moral norms or criteria that are universally valid and that morality itself is just a contrivance;  that good and evil are just human constructs. Intellectual Nihilists deny that anything can really be known. Metaphysical  Nihilists deny that anything is actually real!  But in the end what Nihilism enjoys most is reducing to nothing that which was something. It hates the past, denies that previous generations have anything to teach us. It accepts almost no limits and denies that anything is really true. Everything must go and be replaced by… nothing. Yes it is absurd but it is really more about anger and rebellion than anything reasonable. How could it be reasonable since reasonableness presupposes standards and norms? Nihilism is hostile to the notion that anything can really be known or stated with certainty and is fundamentally deconstructionist because it loves to tear down the moral,  social and cultural fabric that took centuries to develop.  In the end, Nihilism exults in nothingness.

But sadly most people today suffer from some form of Nihilism. Most people deny the fact of objective moral norms. Even more deny the notion of absolute moral norms. Most people today no longer consider things to be true or false. Rather, most everything is seen just as opinion or a subjective point of view. It may be true that many things are just opinion but does this mean that there is really no objective truth to be found? It would seem so, according to many if not most people today. All of this of course leads to a rather deep cynicism as well as an incapacity to come to agreement on many important issues of the day. Since no agreed upon norms exist, life amounts to a power struggle between factions. Nihilism has so permeated our culture that most people don’t even know its there. It’s like talking to a fish about water and the fish says, “What water?” Most people congratulate themselves for their Nihilism by calling it other things like “open-mindedness”, “tolerance”, “acceptance”, “progressiveness” and the like. There are real virtues by these names but it is likely that most who claim these virtues for themselves are actually just suffering from some form of Nihilism. Yes, I want to argue that nihilism has reached the suburbs, the kitchen table, the family hearth.

And more than ever this is why we need Catholic culture and faith. It is only with something that we can battle nothing. I have come a long way out of my Nihilism that reached full flower in the late 1970s. I had turned my sights away from God and the Church and found only  “nothing.”  I cannot say I have fully emerged from Nihilism for it has  so permeated everything. And yet I credit the Catholic faith for restoring to me to truth and its existence. I credit the faith for restoring my hope and healing so much of my anger and cynicism. I thank the Catholic Faith for restoring to me my sight. Truth inevitably leads to beauty and goodness,  and what a beautiful view it is. There is great serenity and freedom in the truth. I know that Nihilism brought me only anger and struggle against perceived enemies (i.e. my father, the Church et al.) that was far from serene.   So here I stand more blessed than I deserve, coming out of nothing into everything, out of darkness into light. The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light; but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be. (Matt 6:23-24)

This video presents what had been my “theme song” in High School. One of my favorite rock groups was The Who and they published a song in 1978 that resonated very deeply with my Nihilism at that time. I am embarrassed that I ever thought this a theme song. But it surely does capture Nihilism well. Notice how the moral Nihilism gives way to anger, then cynicism, then despair and ultimately a kind of death wish. The song ends by saying in a rather exalted tone: “Here comes the end of the world!”  Nihilism alright, in the end: nothing!

Here are the words to the song you can hear on the video:

I’ve had enough of bein’ nice; I’ve had enough of right and wrong I’ve had enough of tryin’ to love my brother.

I’ve had enough of bein’ good; And doin’ everything like i’m told I should; If you need a lover, you’d better find another

Life is for the living;  Takers never giving

Suspicion takes the place of trust; My love is turning into lust; If you get on the wrong side of me you better run for cover

I’ve had enough of bein’ trodden on; My passive days are gonna be long gone; If you slap one cheek, well, I ain’t gonna turn the other

Life is for the living; Takers never giving. Fooling no one but ourselves;  good is dying; Here comes the end
Here comes the end of the world

I’m gettin’ sick of this universe; Ain’t gonna get better; it’s gonna get worse; And the world’s gonna sink with the weight of the human race

Hate and fear in every face; I’m gettin’ ready and I’ve packed my case; If you find somewhere better, can you save my place?

Fooling no one but ourselves; Love is dying; Here comes the end; Here comes the end
Here comes the end of the world

Posted on

Do We Need a New Word for Marriage?

Here in Washington DC today Gay and Lesbian couples lined up to apply for “Marriage”  Licenses. It is a simple fact that word “marriage” as we have traditionally known it is being redefined in our times. To many in the secular world the word no longer means what it once did and when the Church uses the word marriage we clearly do not mean what the DC City Council means.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Marriage in the following way:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament (CCC # 1601)

The latest actions by the DC Council, along with Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts and Iowa have legally redefined the term marriage. Other states will likely join the list. The secular world’s definition of marriage no longer even remotely resembles what the Catechism describes.

To be fair, this is not the first redefinition of marriage that has occurred in America. The redefinition has actually come in three stages:

  1. In 1969 the first no-fault divorce law was signed in California. Within 15 years every state in this land had similar laws that made divorce easy. No longer did state laws uphold the principle which the Catechism describes as a partnership of the whole of life. Now marriage was redefined as a contract easily broken by the will of the spouses.
  2. The dramatic rise in contraceptive use and the steep drop in birthrates, though not a legal redefinition, amount to a kind of cultural redefinition of marriage as described in the Catechism which sees the procreation and education of offspring as integral to its very nature. Now the American culture saw this aspect as optional at the will of the spouses.
  3. This final blow completes the redefinition of marriage which the Catechism describes as being  a covenant, …which a man and a woman establish between themselves. Now secular American culture is removing even this, calling same-sex relationships “marriage”.

Proposal:  So the bottom line is that what the secular world means by the word “marriage” is not even close to what the Church means. Is it time for us to accept this and start using a different word? Perhaps it is and I would like to propose a new (really an old) term and hear what you think. I propose that we should exclusively refer to marriage in the Church as “Holy Matrimony.”  According to this  proposal the word marriage would be set aside and replaced by Holy Matrimony. It should be noticed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to this Sacrament formally as “The Sacrament of Matrimony.”

The word matrimony also emphasizes two aspects of marriage: procreation and heterosexual complimentarity. The word comes from Latin and old French roots. Matri = “mother”  and mony, a suffix indicating “action, state, or condition.”  Hence Holy Matrimony refers to that that holy Sacrament wherein a woman enters the state that inaugurates an openness to motherhood. Hence the Biblical and Ecclesial definition of  Holy Matrimony as heterosexual and procreative is reaffirmed by the term itself. Calling it HOLY Matrimony distinguishes it from SECULAR marriage.

To return to this phrase “Holy Matrimony” is to return to an older tradition and may sound archaic to some but at least it isn’t as awkward sounding as “wedlock.” But clearly a new usage will be difficult to undertake. It is one thing to start officially referring to it as Holy Matrimony. But it is harder when, for example, a newly engaged couple approaches the priest and says, “We want to be married next summer.” It seems unlikely we could train couples to say,  “We want to be wed next summer.” or to say, “We want to have a wedding next summer.”  Such dramatic changes seem unlikely to come easily. Perhaps we cannot wholly drop the terms “marry” and  “married.” So the more modest form of the proposal is that we at least officially discontinue the use of the word marriage and refer to it as the “Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.”

What do you think? Do we need to start using a new word for marriage? Has the word been so stripped of meaning that we have to use different terminology to convey what we really mean?