There is an old saying, “If being a Catholic were against the Law, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” Tragically for many Catholics, being a Catholic is little less than a sound or label they go by when they need to fill in the blank on a questionnaire: Religion ______________. Only 25% go to Mass on Sunday and even many at Mass dissent on many critical matters.
In a more ecumenical vein, the writer Maya Angelou once wrote: “A woman said to me the other day, regarding herself, “I am a Christian.” And I said in reply, “Already?”
Indeed, for Christian is more than a label, it is a life.
The video below is a very creative one that addresses the question of being a Catholic. A young woman is a trial for “the crime” of being Catholic and the case seems like a slam-dunk when she “admits” to “the crime.” But her defense attorney comes “to the rescue” and in so doing well illustrates that there is more to being a Catholic that saying you are one. Consider watching this video. It is more creative than first meets the eye, and it lays out a lot of tendencies that are quite common today.
There is a line in the first letter of John (read on the Monday of this week), a line that proves of critical important to many difficulties today with heresy, unbelief and moral decay. The line says:
Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist... (1 John 4:1-3)
John also writes in the second Letter:
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 1:7
One of those fundamental principles at the heart of the Johannine scriptures is that the Word become flesh. Jesus actually came in the flesh, we could touch our God. The true faith is incarnational. In Jesus Christ, God takes up the physical order, Justice, Truth springs up from the earth (cf Ps 85:11). God actually becomes man. The love of God and his salvation are tangible, and real, not merely ideals, wishes, or hopes, but real and tangible. Faith is about reality. This is John and the Holy Spirit’s insistence, and it is adamantly expressed that we not let this true slip from our understanding even for a moment.
For there are, and have been, many Gnostic and neo-gnostic tendencies down through the centuries which seek to reduce faith merely to intellectualism, to ideas or opinions, and to remove things from the world of reality. Thus St. John and the Church have had to insist over and over that Jesus is real, that faith is real, and is about real, tangible, even material things.
When Jesus came among us, He was not content merely to speak of ideas. He did not simply advance ethical theories or set forth merely philosophical notions. He also spoke to actual human behaviors, not merely speaking of them, but actually living them, and modeling them in the flesh. He demands for his followers not mere intellectual affirmations, but an actual walking in his truth, using our very bodies, and living his teaching. We are to renounce unnecessary possessions, actually feed the poor, confess him with our lips, reverence human sexuality through chaste living, accept suffering, even embraced it, for the sake of the kingdom, and so forth.
Yes, faith is about real things, about actual concrete behaviors that involve not only what we think, but actually how we physically move our body through the created order, how we interact with the physical order, and with one another.
Jesus also took up and made use of the physical and created order in his saving mission. Obviously he took it up in the incarnation, but he also referenced creation in many of his parables, pointing to the lilies of the field, to the sparrow. He made paste with saliva and mud, anointed with oil, change water to wine, laid hands on the bodies of countless individuals in healing, took bread and wine and change it to the body and blood. He took up The wood of the cross, lay down his body in suffering and death, and raised it up again on the third day. Then He took his body, yes his physical body with him to heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father.
Yet despite this radical physicality seen in the Gospel and the work of God, there remains a persistent tendency on the part of many to reduce the faith by removing it from the physical and temporal order rendering it a merely ethical notion, an intellectualism, or a set of ideas, and even mere opinion. Faith rooted in daily reality, and with measurable parameters, is set aside, and sophistry takes place. Never mind what a person does, all that seems to matter to many us what they think about it, or what their intentions are.
Gnostic tendencies have existed in every stage, but were most severe in the early centuries among heretical groups, only to resurface in recent centuries, especially since the so-called enlightenment where human reason is exulted unreasonably.
The Protestant revolt took up the rationalism of those “enlightenment” times and brought the first great blow to the house of faith by rendering the Sacraments mere symbols, no longer the touch of God. No longer for them does baptism actually save us by washing away our sins, for many of them it only symbolizes faith. Holy Communion for most of them was no longer the actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, but only a symbol of him, something that evokes thoughts and memories what he said and did. For the Protestant groups, most of the other Sacraments simply fell away. No longer was it necessary to lay hands on the sick, to lay hands on to ordain or bless. All such things were unnecessary, even abhorrent to many Protestants who took up enlightenment rationalism, and reduced faith to intellectualism, ideas, and words on the page.
Along with the Sacraments, many of the Enlightenment-era Protestants banished most beauty in the churches with iconoclastic tendencies. No longer should creation in the pigmented paints, beautiful stained glass, precious metals, candles incense and so forth be raised up to the glory of God. This too is far too incarnational for the the “purity” of the rationalist mind. Stark white-washed churches were exulted, and the feast of the senses common in Catholicism was frowned upon. Faith that was “purified” of all this incarnational “excess” and was to exist only in one’s mind and heart.
The use of the body to worship in Protestantism was also largely banished. Kneeling, sitting, standing, signs of the cross, vestments, all of this was banished. Afterall what did the body have to do with it? It was in the mind, and in the heart that one worshiped God. Why bend the knee when it sufficed to bow in one’s heart?
And thus, there was a great retreat from the bodily aspect of the incarnation.
We should be clear, that not all Protestant denominations equally indulged iconoclastic and rationalistic tendencies in this aftermath of the enlightenment. There remained many great artistic and musical accomplishments within the Protestant realm, to include architecture. But the general pattern is clear to some extent in all the denominations founded by men after the “Enlightenment.” Worship and faith moved more into the mind, and world of ideas and away from the created, tangible and physical realities of this world.
Many other moral troubles of our day also bespeak a Gnostic, anti-incarnational tendency. For example the exultation of intention over actual behavior. Never mind what a person actually does. The only morally significant matter is what they intend, that they mean well.
Yet another tendency is the word-smithing of our day. It’s not abortion, it’s choice. It is not contraception, it is reproductive choice. I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual. They’re not fornicating, they’re cohabiting, it’s not an act of sodomy it is “gay” etc. The more vague, vapid and non-descriptive the word the better. Abstractions and generalities replace clearer and reality based descriptions.
Here then is a brief tour of the Gnosticism of our times. We can see why St. John and the Holy Spirit were so passionate to warn against any false teachers who denied the incarnation, call them not only false teachers, but “antichrist.” We live on the ever darker side of the Cartesian divide, living in our minds, denying that creation or our bodies are revelation or have anything to say to us.
Of course this is antichrist, it is a slap in the face of God who made all things and established the created by his Word, the Logos. And since all things were made through Christ, the Logos, then all creation has a “logike” (a logic) that is clearly perceived in what God has made. To go on denying this is “illogical” is “anti-logical” is contrary to the Logos, the Word through whom God created and sustains all things. Contrary to the Logos is just another way of saying, “antichrist.”
(One paradox to all this is the flourishing o the material (physical) sciences in our times. I have written more on this paradox here: Cartesian Anxiety)
It occurs that our capacity to converse and to set forth arguments for the truth are often hindered today on account of many factors. One of those factors is a paradoxical relationship between a kind of skepticism and and exaggerated insistence on absolute proof that results. The fact is, absolute certitude in our human condition is rare, and to insist on it is usually unreasonable. This of course does not mean that firm certitude cannot be had in many matters as well as lesser degrees that remain a firm confidence as to the facts in a matter.
On Monday there was posted a reflection on the nature of thinking (Here)and argumentation and there was a promise of a follow-up. Herein is an attempt at that follow-through. First a quick review of Monday’s post:
We can distinguish two types of argumentation: Deductive and inductive.
Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a valid, it must be impossible for both its premises to be true, and its conclusion to be false. The truth of the premises establishes the truth of the conclusion.
The classic example of deductive argumentation is:
1 All men are mortal.
2 Socrates is a man. Therefore:
3 Socrates is mortal.
It is simply not possible that both 1 and 2 are true, but 3 is false, so this argument is deductively valid.
Any deductive argument must meet this high standard or it commits a logical error, and so, technically, is fallacious.
Now to be sure, not all our arguments can meet this high standard of deductive reasoning since not every premise can be as firm as “all men are mortal.” This includes many arguments that we would usually accept as good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly probable, but, they are not absolutely certain. Thus an argument that claims the high standard of deductive reasoning, but cannot meet its high standards is said to commit a “formal fallacy”. This does not mean that the argument is without any merit, only that it claims too much for itself. We often set an impossibly high standard, namely, that all things must be absolutely certain for me, every argument absolutely airtight, and purely deductive.
And that leads us to inductive arguments which do not propose to be as rigorous as deductive argumentation. But note, they are STILL good arguments, and often the only argumentation available to us in many matters. A good inductive argument lends support to its conclusions and sets forth good reasons for them. But it does not assert and cannot claim the 100% certainty of deductive arguments. This is because they often use premises or assert conclusions that are not self evident, but only likely and probable. Thus the terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are “strong” and “weak” rather than certain or “proved.”
The fallacies discussed here in today’s post relate to inductive reasoning and argumentation rather than deductive.
One of the things that make inductive arguments strong or weak are the premises and reasoned conclusions drawn from them. Sometimes premises are weak, or sometimes, even if the premises are strong the conclusion is either erroneous or too strong. Errors in inductive arguments are called informal fallacies.
We do well to review some of the fallacies that commonly come up, especially in modern discourse, since they affect our discussion here on blogs like this, and may at times harm our ability to discuss matters and/or to engage in strong apologetics.
Not let it also be clear, in inductive reasoning and argumentation we are not in the realm of absolute proof and certitude and thus, not every fallacy renders an argument wholly in valid. A fallacy is a conclusion based on unsound argument, a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid or very weak. The conclusion in a given argument may still be valid, but our reasons set forth are weaker than they should be due to some fallacy or weakness in the argument. Thus, before we look at any fallacy we must first set forth the cautionary fallacy meant to warn the skeptic. Namely the:
Fallacist’s Fallacy – The fallacist’s fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a particular point of view, and found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the whole point of view is utterly false. This, however, would be to go beyond the evidence. For it is possible to offer a fallacious argument even for proposals that are true. For example, One could argue that 2+2=4 but do so on the basis of an appeal to authority: “Mathematician Al Jones says so″ But using the argument from authority is weak, unnecessary and it does not follow that 2+2=4 merely because Jones says so. So, Perhaps the argument is bad, but it has a true conclusion. A proposition therefore should not be dismissed because one argument offered in its favor is faulty.
Thus, those who would like to think they can dismiss any claim to truth merely because they can find a fallacy in arguments are themselves committing a fallacy for an error in a premise, or conclusion does not of itself prove the point wrong in an absolute sense. And that leads to:
Argument from Authority – arguing that a point is true merely because some one in authority says so. Strictly speaking this is not a fallacy, at least in inductive reasoning. There are times when the testimony of an authority is an important aspect in inductive arguments. This is especially so when the authority is so beause they have witnessed something, or are highly expert in a complicated matter. But generally the argument from authority is a weaker argument.
Take Scripture for example, or the Magisterium. Arguments form authority can and do hold sway in the realm of faith, but it is also important to remember that something is not merely true because it is said by the Bible or a Sacred Council, but also that the Scriptures say these things because they are true, the Church teaches them because they are true. Hence we do well, especially in apologetics not merely to quote authority, but also to appeal to reason, natural law, human experience, the order of creation and other evidence to build the case.
The argument from authority is ineffectual to those outside the realm of faith and thus the instinct of the Church has usually been to rely on more than internal authority to make her case.
Ad Hominem (Personal Attack) – Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down. Now not every personal observation is ipso facto an ad hominem attack. It is not always invalid to question if one was a true witness to an event about which they speak, or even, to a certain extent if they are properly schooled in the matter whereof they speak. Neither is it necessarily an ad hominem attack to note personal mannerisms or tone that indicate something of substance related to the argument, perhaps of hostility to the subject or a lack of seriousness.
But again, generally speaking, ad hominem arguments are rather weak and implicitly suggest that that the interlocutor is not able to assail he argument on a more substantial level. It is not uncommon that Christians today are simply dismissed as backwards, old-fashioned, hateful, bigoted etc., as if that were somehow an argument. We too will often be dismissive of one another using labels such as conservative, liberal, etc as if that were an argument.
Appeal to Popularity – These are arguments that appeal to the mere fact that an idea is fashionable as evidence that the idea is true. This is a fallacy because there are many factors that can contribute to a rapid increase in popularity of an idea. Peer pressure, tangible benefits, or even mass stupidity could lead to a false idea being adopted by lots of people. A rise in the popularity of an idea, then, is no guarantee of its truth.
This is a common fallacy today in the era of opinion polls, focus groups and democratic notions. It is often said the Church must come more into line with the views of her members and the view of moderns Americans. The implication is that what is popular is therefore right. But this does not follow, for what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. Further, the Church does not exist to reflect the views of its members, but rather of its founder.
Fallacy of Stereotyping – applying the observed property or characteristic of one part of a group to all the members of that group indiscriminately. Here too this fallacy is commonly exhibited in comments, a great deal of which I have to delete which like to presume that all Catholic priests are pedophiles because a small number were. There are other charges of this nature that fly: all Catholics suffer from guilt, the Catholic Church is just the Republican party at prayer, the Bishop are all a bunch of liberals, etc. All of us must be careful, for it is very easy to sterotype and we often get a lot of support for this behavior. But it too is weak for of argumentation at best and an outright lie at worse.
Appeal to Novelty – Appeals to novelty assume that the newness of an idea is evidence of its truth. That an idea is new certainly doesn’t entail that it is true. Merely being a new idea, of course, is no guarantee of truth. In our modern age this attitude is very pervasive. Old for many equals stuffy, prejudiced, uninformed, nonscientific etc. New is exulted by many as ipso facto better, more accurate, more informed, and some how right just because it is what we think now. Many scold the Church for not embracing modern attitudes about women, sexuality, authority and the like. We are told that we need to listen to the young and follow their lead. But the only real reason it would seem that we should do this is because these things are new and/or their proponents are young. Again, this is not a strong argument since new does not thereby equal right. To be sure there are some new things worth embracing, but that is because they are true for other reasons, rather than merely that they are new.
Appeal to Antiquity – Appeals to antiquity assume that the mere fact that an idea has been around for a while shows that it is true. That is, the only evidence that it offers is age. Age of itself can be a motive for credibility in that it indicates, to some degree, that an idea has stood the test of time. Age is also of value when looking the root meaning or origins of historical realities. Hence ancient sources can be more valuable when studying historical matters.
But of itself, age alone is not proof that something is right, since even some long stand ideas have fallen away based on better evidence. Further, even ancient documents (e.g. Gnostic gospels), contain error. Some years ago Pope Pius XII warned against an antiquarianism that seemed to be impressed with older and often rites and forms in the liturgy simply because they were old.
As an ancient Church we reverence antiquity and uphold the democracy of the dead that tradition is. But things are not good simply because they are old. Every appeal to antiquity is not to be excluded but of itself mere antiquity is not a strong argument since it does not follow that old always equals good or right. Otherwise, if someone can demonstrate something is older than Christianity, (e.g. the Jewish faith) then they would right and we would be wrong.
Appeal to Emotion – An argument that attempts to persuade using emotion, rather than evidence. This type of argument is fallacious because our emotional responses are not always a good guide to truth; emotions can cloud, rather than clarify, issues. Arguments are best based upon reason, rather than on emotion, if we want to demonstrate something as true. This is a common form of argumentation in the popular media and culture today. The “sob story” is a mechanism used to persuade that a particular course of action is right. And if someone cries on national television, it is often implied that what they are saying or proposing is somehow more true or carries more weight.
But something is not true simply because the person expressing it is emotional, whether angry or weeping or enthusiastic. Emotion may indicate some sincerity but as a form of argumentation it is weak.
I sometimes get comments on the blog that assert that a certain teaching of the Church is somehow hurtful to that commenter or offensive. Regrettable though this is, it is not an indicator that that Church teaching is necessarily wrong. Jesus of course offended a lot of people but it does not follow that he was wrong or committed error.
Appeal to Poverty – The appeal to poverty fallacy is committed when it is assumed that a position is correct because it is held by the poor. This is usually rooted in the a priori assumption and tendency to categorize in an unquestioning way and contrast the excesses, greed, and immorality of certain rich with the simplicity, virtue, and humility of certain poor. This can give rise to arguments that commit the appeal to poverty fallacy. The poverty of a person that holds a view, of course, does not establish that the view is true; even the poor can sometimes err in their beliefs.
Some years ago Liberation Theology was popular and many of its proponents argued its veracity since it had emerged from the poor and the experience of poverty. Perhaps there were elements of truth in the theology but it does not follow that merely because it came from the poor or was popular among them that there was truth for that reason.
There is another version of this argument that presumes that something is good or right merely because it seeks to alleviate poverty or address the issue. While that may be a good goal, it does not follow that the action is for that reason alone. In fact it can argued that great harm has been done in the name of do-goodism
Appeal to Wealth – An argument that assumes that someone or something is better simply because they are wealthier or more expensive. It is a thinking that everything that is associated with wealth is good. Rich people can be thought to deserve more respect than poorer people; more expensive goods can be thought to be better than less expensive goods solely because of their price.
There was a notion among some, especially back in the 1980s that the views of American Catholics should be more adopted by the Vatican that Catholics in the third world since we contributed most of the money and, on account of our wealth were more advanced. Arguments such as this makes an association with money a sign of superiority.
It may be of value to consult wealthier and successful people in matters of the business in which they excel, but wealth alone is not an argument of whether a position is right or wrong.
Is/ought Fallacy – An argument whose premises merely describe the way that the world is, but whose conclusion describes the way that the world ought to be. You can’t get an ‘ought’ simply from an ‘is’. For example consider the following: (1) Feeling lust is only natural and common. Therefore: (2) There’s nothing wrong with feeling lust. This argument’s premise simply describes the way that the world is for many people, asserting that it is natural to feel lust. To describe the way that the world is, though, is to say nothing of the way that it ought to be, namely that we ought not condemn lust.
And there are many who argue what ought to be from what is, often pointing to widespread misbehavior then concluding that we ought to therefore approve of it. But this does not follow, it is a fallacy. Now here we must be careful, for the point is not that there is no relationship between what is and the determination of what ought to be, only that merely moving from is to ought is not of itself sufficient.
Post Hoc Fallacy – The Latin phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc” means, literally, “after this therefore because of this.” The post hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because one thing occurred after another, it must have occurred as a result of it. Mere temporal succession, however, does not entail causal succession. Just because one thing follows another does not mean that it was caused by it. This sort of argumentation is especially weak when it comes to social and cultural phenomenon which are often complex and multivariate.
The most common form of this argument on blogs like this is the Vatican II argument wherein it is observed that things went south after the Council, therefore the Council caused it. Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps things would have been worse without the Council. But like most widespread social phenomena, it is difficult to point to only one thing as the cause for a complex matter. Simple temporal sucession in matters like these does not necessarily argue for cause and the post hoc argument is exceptionally weak in such matters.
Cum Hoc Fallacy – The cum hoc fallacy is committed when it is assumed that because two things occur together, they must be causally related. This, however, does not follow; correlation is possible without causation. Here in DC last year it was noted that whenever the Redskins lost the game closest to the election, that meant that the incumbent president or presidential party lost. But correlation does not equal cause. By the way the incumbent (Mr Obama) did not lose. Another famous example is that there were more pirates back when the planet was cooler and less pirates now that it is warmer. But no one would seriously argue that the solution to global warming (if that even exists) is to recruit more pirates.
An example is the Church regarding this fallacy is widely held notion that celibacy is somehow a cause of pedophilia. Never mind that the vast majority of celibate priests never offended and that Married men offend in greater percentages. Never mind that, many people connected celibacy and pedophilia and assumed that since they were together, in this case, celibacy must be a cause of this criminal behavior. They went on to suggest the elimination of celibacy. But again it does not follow that correlation (in this case a very weak correlation) equals cause.
Equivocation Fallacy – The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a word is used in two or more different senses within a single argument. For an argument to work, words must have the same meaning each time they appear in its premises or conclusion. Arguments that switch between different meanings of words equivocate, and so don’t work. This is because the change in meaning introduces a change in subject. If the words in the premises and the conclusion mean different things, then the premises and the conclusion are about different things, and so the former cannot support the latter.
This sort of error happens a lot in people who read the Bible. Consider this: 1. Salt is a compound of Sodium and Chloride and it often found in salt shakers.
2. Jesus said, you are the Salt of the Earth. 3. You are therefore sodium and chloride and likely live inside a salt shaker. But of course this does not follow since the literal meaning exists in the premise and the metaphorical or allegorical meaning in the conclusion.
Unfortunately today there is also and extended aspect of this problem wherein many miss the subtlety of language and fail to understand that words can be used literally, denotatively, connotatively, metaphorically, allegorically, euphemistically, hyperbolically and so forth. But not every word should be be equivocated to its literal meaning. Language is subtle and creative and care must be taken to examine the context and intention of the speaker or the message may be misunderstood. Offense is often taken when none is intended, error is presumed when in fact the word is used in a way other than the listener or reader understands. There is a tendency today to be crudely literalistic in interpreting many things and makes people quick to snap at what is meant in ways other than the merely literal.
Fallacy of Good intention – This fallacy says that something is good based merely on the good intention of the doer. Consider however if I place a key in a lock, thinking it is the correct key. Thus my intentions are good. But it does not follow that the lock will turn simply because I had good or right intentions. In fact that door will not open with the wrong key. Thus good intentions do not by themselves make an action good or right. Good intentions may speak to culpability, but not rectitude.
In the world as well many insist that things are good or right merely because some one means well. But it does not follow. Moral assessments must reasonably be made on what is actually done and how that act corresponds to what is reasonable, just, and in conformity to the truth.
Well OK, here are just a few fallacies that are common today. Remember, fallacies are a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid, but not always the conclusion. And thus, while noting fallacies like these above, we must also recall that not all of them are as egregious as others, and not all of them as devastating to the right conclusion as others. In inductive reasoning and and argumentation we are on a continuum wherein an argument may be said to be strong or weak. These fallacies obvious weaken an argument but they do not always render its conclusion absolutely wrong.
In the end we would discuss things among ourselves and also engage the world in argumentation ought to become more aware of fallacies such as these and more Here.
On the Day known as New Years Day in the secular world, there is a veritable feast of identities for this day on the Church’s calendar. It is the octave of Christmas, the Feast of Mary Mother God, the Feast that commemorates the Holy Name of Jesus and also of the Circumcision. Quite a lot to ponder actually!
In previous years I have commented on all these liturgical aspects, and even on the mystery of time.
But this year it strikes me to preach out of a text of St. Paul from the 3rd chapter of the Letter to the Philippians. The text recommends itself to a New Year’s theme, because Paul speaks and meditates on “what is behind, and what is before” him. And in his meditation he sets forth a kind of plan for a Christian to follow, a Christian who prayerfully reflects on the year that is passed, and the year that is about to unfold. Here then is the text from St. Paul, and a kind of four-point plan that follows.
But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, …I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. All of us who are mature should take such a view of things….Only let us live up to what we have already attained. (Phil 3:7-16)
I. Consider your Profit–in the text St. Paul says, But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him. …I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
At the end of one year the beginning of another, we do well to consider what it is that we truly value. Now we need to be careful when we make this consideration. For it often happens that we make answer the question, “What do I most value” in a way that speaks more to how we should answer the question, than what is really true. Most of us who are believers, know that we should value God, the Lord Jesus, above all things. But honestly, that is not always so.
So we ought to reflect, at the end of the year, what, or who, do we really value most. What, or who, is our greatest prize? Perhaps it is the Lord, but often other things compete for this title. Many idolize money, creature comforts, political outcomes, sports victories, career advancement, and many other things more than God, and the things of God.
Why is this consideration so important? Because, frankly, where our treasure is, our heart will also be (cf Luke 12:34). Thus, we do well at the beginning of the new year to ask the Lord to give us hearts that are more sure, more undivided, more single-hearted in our love for him.
But in order for us to receive this gift, we must also ask for new minds that become powerfully aware of just how great it is to know and love the Lord, and how comparatively passing the gifts and trinkets of this world are. Somehow, it has to get through our thick skulls that the things of this world don’t amount to much. They are but passing pleasures, mere trinkets upon which rust, decay and boredom soon descend. They are as St. Paul says, nothing but “rubbish,” compared to the glory of knowing God, and the glories he has waiting for us. Thus St. Paul says that he “wants to know Christ.”
One of the most common New Year’s resolutions is to lose weight. Well I have news for you, we’re all going to lose weight, a lot more than we think. These bodies of ours, when death has had its way, along with decay, will weigh little less than 5 pounds of dust and ashes. All our good looks, our big hair and youthful ruddiness will pass. We get worked up about secondary things. Perhaps losing weight is good, but knowing the Lord and valuing him is far more important. WHy not resolve to pray for a greater love and desire for God instead of just praying for less desire for food?
So, step one in the four-point plan is to get this through our thick skulls: the glories of this world are passing away, they last but a moment. Our only true and lasting treasure is the Lord and the things he helps the store up in heaven. Step one, in our four-point plan is to consider our profit, to consider what is truly valuable, truly lasting in our life.
II. Chase your prize–St. Paul goes on to say, Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect,but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it.
Having considered our true treasure, and asking and experiencing that our heart be supernaturally directed to what we most value, it becomes easier by God’s grace to walk a clear path in the new year ahead. There may be things in our past that we regret, mistakes that have caused us setbacks. But with hearts renewed in what is truly valuable we are enabled increasingly, to forget what is behind and to press forward to what is ahead, the great glory of heaven, union with God, and all the saints.
The Greek word here is διώκω (dioko) which means to aggressively chase, like a hunter pursuing a catch,or a runner seeking a prize. Do you get the picture? The Christian life is not to be a tepid and boring, reluctant slouching towards God and heaven. It is to be a joyful, focused, earnest pursuit of God, and his kingdom. It is to be an eager pursuit of his will, his Word, and his Sacraments, like a starving man who sees food in the distance and runs with joy and zeal to devour with zesty delight every morsel he can claim!
It is clear, that we will only vigorously pursue things which we value highly. That is why step one in the four-point plan is so critical. Consider the kinds of sacrifices that people make for careers, for things like the “American dream.” People spend many years, and vast amounts of money pursuing the dream that lasts less than 80 years, maximum. But they make this pursuit, with zeal, even with joy, because they value the large home, the creature comforts, and the prestige of having “made it.”
To the degree, that we value Jesus and his kingdom this way we too will pursue it with joy, and be willing to make any number of sacrifices. Thus, having considered what truly profits us, would truly is our treasure, we will naturally chase our prize with joy and zeal.
III. Confirm your Priority– the St. Paul says: But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Note the expression, “this one thing I do.” When something is truly our passion, and our focus it tends to order everything else in our life. Consider that a runner in a race does not stop to have idle discussions, or go to shopping malls and movie theaters when in the race. Rather, the runner in a race focuses on running, winning the race. Only those things that assist him in that task this year will he do. For example, a distance runner may reach out to receive a cup of cold water that is offered along the path, for that helps his goal.
If, to use another example, a person is driving from Washington DC, North to New York City, they will ignore signs that say South, Atlanta. If it is necessary to pull over and get gas, that makes sense, and they will do so. If directions or other provisions for the trip are necessary, they will do so. But the destination, New York City is the goal that determines everything else. ANd only those things that assist the goal make sense.
And so it must be for us. Our life must be increasingly about one thing, and one thing only: knowing, and loving Jesus Christ and earnestly running to his kingdom. Anything that distracts from that one goal is to be discarded. And things that help us are embraced.
Thus note this, for our life to be ordered, and not confused and chaotic, we must have our one goal, always consciously in mind. Our priority is Jesus Christ and whatever hastens us to his kingdom.
IV. Claim what is promised–St. Paul says, All of us who are mature should take such a view of things….Only let us live up to what we have already attained.
Here St Paul, in speaking about is living up to what we have already attained, is essentially saying that we must live with Hope, that is, with confident expectation that what is promised is ours.
People only strive for what they can reasonably possess. And thus, the Theological Virtue of Hope, which defined is “the confident expectation of God’s help in attaining eternal life,” is an essential virtue for the Christian, both to have an cultivate.
When we know that what is promised is attainable by God’s grace we are all the more encouraged to strive eagerly for it, even if there are temporary setbacks and hardships involved. Thus, St. Paul says to us that we ought to live as those who have already attained, even though we are not yet at our goal.
In Christ our Head, we, the members of the Body, have already attained to the glory that is promised. And if we but run with him the race that is set before us, we will surely meet our goal. Thus as we enter this new year, we must renew our confidence in God’s providence, and in his grace.
The only ultimate obstacle, is our very self. We must neither surrender our confidence, nor conviction. Doubts and discouragement might cause us to veer from the path. Thus Paul counsels that we pray for vigorous Hope, a Hope that will strengthen our wills to endure, no matter the cost knowing that if we remain in Christ we will win.
Here then is a kind of four-point plan for the year ahead. We must consider what is truly our profit, what we value most. Chase our prize with a zeal that comes from that fact that it IS our prize, confirm our Priority by focusing like a laser on our Prize, Claim already what is our and live out of it.
When I used to be a math tutor, I helped elementary school students who were struggling with arithmetic. As a physicist, I was knee deep in very difficult and advanced mathematics and realizing that some children had difficulty with addition and subtraction initially took me aback. Basic arithmetic had become so familiar to me that it took some time to figure out how to teach and explain it. I took it so much for granted that I forgot how odd it must seem to a child coming across it for the first time.
In a similar way, we could look at today’s “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader” question: “What does the word ‘Incarnation’ mean?” The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “the Church calls ‘Incarnation’ the fact that the Son of God assumed a human nature in order to accomplish our salvation in it.”(CCC 461) While this is not easy language it is something that most Catholics are used to hearing and may not think twice about. When we realize that most of the disagreements in the first five centuries of the Church revolved around this doctrine, we may be surprised. What, exactly, is the big deal? In these arguments, the big deal was our salvation.
Since the original sin, mankind had cut itself off from friendship with God. Jesus Christ came to save us from our sins and restore us to communion with God. The theological question was this: if Christ came to save us, what did He have to become in the Incarnation? Jesus Christ saved us by becoming like us in all ways but sin.
The first major Christological heresy, Arianism, claimed that Jesus Christ was not really God, just a very godlike creature. Arius didn’t want to admit that God could become man—it might imply that God wasn’t perfect and transcendent. But St. Athanasius argued fiercely against him. Only God can bridge the infinite gap between us and Him. If Jesus wasn’t really and truly God, then Jesus couldn’t save us from our sins. This is why we say in the Creed that Jesus is “God from God, light from light, true God from true God, consubstantial with the Father.”
The heretic Nestorius split the unity of Christ’s Person. Can we really say that Mary is the “Mother of God?” Nestorius thought this was pious nonsense. How can the eternal and perfect God have a mother, or be born in time? It seemed safer to say that two persons existed in Christ. This, of course, is deeply wrong. The same Person who died on the Cross had to be God, for us to be saved from our sins. God died on the Cross. Only as God did He offer something infinitely worthy to God, and only as man could He suffer on our behalf. By splitting the unity of Christ’s Person, Nestorius would tear asunder the unity of Christ’s saving work. Thus the Church found itself confessing that Jesus Christ was “True God and True Man.”
When we dive into the details, we find that the mystery of the Incarnation is far from straightforward, and sorting out the details takes a lot more than simple arithmetic. But the mystery of the Incarnation opens up to us the mystery of divinization, “for this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might becomes sons of God.”(CCC 460)
Join us on December 27th for our next “Are You Smarter than a Fifth-Grader?” post.
Our faith begins with God. We sometimes forget that. For all the discussions and debates that Christians can get lost in, we sometimes forget that our belief is rooted in God.
Blessed Pope John Paul II once proclaimed that our generation engages in a fundamental struggle, which is whether we believe in God or not. Love, as it is said, requires a self-emptying.
A teacher I know once asked this question to a student who wondered out loud whether he believed in God or not: “Do you believe that life is more than meets the eye?” she asked.
People of faith – and even atheists – are captivated by the fact that there is one Being who is the creator and the sustainer of the entire universe.
That same teacher said it this way: the first step to believing in God follows closely the second step, which is realizing that you are not God!
Today’s “Are You Smarter than a Fifth-Grader?” question asks: what is the central mystery of the Catholic Faith?
While (A) Grace, (B) the Incarnation, and (C) the Hypostatic Union identify something unique about Christianity and of Jesus Christ, (D) the mystery of the Trinity, is the central mystery of our Faith, which speaks of the very life of God in Himself.
The Trinity is the mystery of one God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We know about the Trinity because God has revealed Himself to us.
The Trinity can only be distinguished according to the Persons. It is false, for instance, to replace the identification “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” with “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.”
The Trinity reveals how God is in Himself. Our God is a Living God, who exhibits both knowledge and love. His inner essence is dynamic, we might say, in that this knowledge and love exists in His inner Being. God knows Himself in the Son. The Holy Spirit is, we might say, the love that exists between the Father and the Son.
The Incarnate Son of God, who is Jesus Christ, fully manifests God. Jesus says in John’s Gospel, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” (Jn 14:9 ff.)
We can know and love God by the grace given to us in Christ Jesus. The grace of faith joins us to God such that we are joined, in heart and mind, to His inner life. Faith accomplishes this in this life, with the goal of heaven – the Beatific Vision – where we may one day see God face to face. To know and to love God now and in heaven fills the human heart with greater happiness than we can ever imagine, which is like unto God Himself.
Join us on December 20th for our next “Are You Smarter than a Fifth-Grader?” post.
The Gospel from Monday the second week of Advent is the gospel of the paralyzed man who is lowered through the roof. It is presented to us in Advent because, among the many prophecies about the Messiah, would be that the lame would walk. But the Gospel also helps us to focus on Jesus’ central mission for us, and it is very provocatively expressed in this Gospel.
The Gospel passage contains a rather peculiar and somewhat awkward moment. Jesus looks at a paralyzed man and says to him, As for you, your sins are forgiven (Lk 5:20). What a strange thing to say to a paralyzed man.
The Pharisees and scribes of course are all worked up for other reasons, but their reason is not ours, we know that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins. Let us stay focused on the strange thing to say to a paralyzed man, your sins are forgiven you.
One of us modern folk might be tempted to tap Jesus on the shoulder and say, “Ah excuse me, Lord, this man is paralyzed, his problem is paralysis, that’s what he needs healing for.”
Of course Jesus is not blind or unintelligent, knows this. But looking at a paralyzed man he does not see the paralysis as his most serious problem. The man has a far more serious problem, his sin.
Now most of us, who live in the world, have the world’s priorities, and we do not think like this. The Lord sees something more serious than paralysis, and we think, “What can be more serious than paralysis?!”But not as man sees, does God see. For God, the most serious problem we have is our sin. But again, we don’t think like this, and even being told we should think like this, we still don’t think like this.
For most of us, influenced by the flesh, are far more devastated by the loss of our physical health, or the loss of money, or the loss of a job, or some large worldly asset, than we are by the fact that we have sin. Threaten our physical health and well-being, or one of our larger physical assets, and we’re on our knees begging God for help. Yet most human beings have far less concern for their spiritual well-being. More often than not we are not nearly so devastated by sin that can deprive us of eternal life, as we are devastated by the loss of our health or some worldly thing.
Even many of us who have some sense of the spiritual life struggle with this obtuseness, and misplaced sense of priorities. Even in our so-called spiritual life, our prayers are often dominated by concerns that God will fix our health, improve or finances, get us a job, etc. It is not wrong to pray for these things, and we should. But honestly how often do we pray to be freed of our sins, do we really and earnestly pray to grow in holiness and to be prepared to see God face-to-face? Sometimes it almost sounds as if we are asking God to make this world more comfortable and we’ll just stay here forever. This attitude is an affront to the truer Gifts God is offering.
And so it is that Jesus, looking at a paralyzed man, says to him, your sins are forgiven. In so doing he addresses the man’s most serious problem first. Only secondarily does he speak to the man’s paralysis, which he almost seems to have overlooked in comparison to the issue of sin.
We have much to learn hear about how God sees, and what really are the most crucial issues in our life.
Joseph and Mary were told to call the child “Jesus,” for he would save his people from their sins. Of this fact Pope Benedict speaks in his latest book, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives:
…Joseph is entrusted with a further task: “Mary will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).… On the one hand, a lofty theological task is assigned to the child, for only God can forgive sins. So this child is immediately associated with God, directly linked with God’s holy and saving power. On the other hand, though, this definition of the Messiah’s mission could appear disappointing. The prevailing expectations of salvation were primarily focused upon Israel’s concrete sufferings–on the reestablishment of the kingdom of David, on Israel’s freedom and independence, and naturally that included material prosperity for this largely impoverished people. The promise of forgiveness of sins seems both too little and too much: too much, because it trespasses upon God’s exclusive sphere; too little, because there seems to be no thought of Israel’s concrete suffering or its true need for salvation.
Pope Benedict then cites this same story of the paralytic and says,
Jesus responded [to the presence of the paralyzed man] in a way that was quite contrary to the expectation of the bearers and the sick man himself, saying: “My son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5). This was the last thing anyone was expecting this was the last thing they were concerned about.…
The Pope concludes:
Man is a relational being. And if his first, fundamental relationship is disturbed–his relationship with God–then nothing else can be truly in order. This is where the priority lies in Jesus’ message and ministry: before all else he wants to point man toward the essence of his malady.
Yes, God sees things rather differently than we do. There is much to consider the fact that Jesus says paralyzed man your sins are forgiven you.
Along with many of you, I am reading Pope Benedict’s latest book, volume 3 of Jesus of Nazareth, on the infancy narratives. I was very moved at a very brief reflection that he made on Mary, as the Angel Gabriel left her. His remarks consider on her faith in a very touching manner. I must say that I have always been moved by the faith of the Blessed Mother and intrigued too, for she is a woman wrapped in silence. The Pope’s words capture both her faith and the mystery of her.
Here is what the Pope says:
I consider it important to focus also on the final sentence of Luke’s Annunciation narrative: “And the angel departed from her” (Luke 1:38). The great hour of Mary’s encounter with God’s messenger–in which her whole life is changed–comes to an end, and she remains there alone, with a task that truly surpasses all human capacity. There are no angels standing around her. She must continue along the path that leads to many dark moments–from Joseph’s dismay at her pregnancy, to the moment when Jesus is said to be out of his mind (cf. Mark 3:21; John 10:20) right up to the night of the cross.
How often in these situations must Mary have returned inwardly to the hour when God’s angel had spoken to her, pondering afresh the greeting: “Rejoice, full of grace!” And the consoling words: “Do not be afraid!” The angel departs; her mission remains, and with it matures her inner closeness to God, a closeness that in her heart she is able to see and touch. (Jesus of Nazareth, The Infancy Narratives, Kindle edition (loc 488-501))
I am moved by this picture of Mary there all alone, perhaps wondering how it would all unfold, and if what she just heard was real and an accurate memory. The angel depart, and there she is, all alone (yet never alone).
I would like to say by background, that I have at times read accounts of Mary’s life that placed her in such rarefied air that I could no longer relate to her. I vaguely remember reading some accounts of various visionaries, a few of whom said that Mary did not even have to do housework, for the angels swept the house but, did dishes and so forth. Some other accounts spoke of how she had detailed knowledge of everything that would take place in her life and in that of Jesus. I even recall one purported visionary as writing that Mary had extensive theological discussions with Jesus, even while he was still an infant.
I do not remember who all these alleged visionaries were, by name or even if any of them were approved visionaries. And yet it was common in the early 1980s for quite a large number of books to be published containing the utterances of various visionaries.
Such utterances often left me cold and made me feel distant from our Blessed Mother. They also did not seem to comport with the Scriptures which present mother Mary is a woman of great faith, but a woman who, like all of us, had to walk by faith, not by perfect site. She wonders at Gabriel’s greeting, is troubled and does not understand how it will all work out (cf Luke 1:29).
Yet she presses on and we next see her having made haste to the Hill country, now rejoicing in ecstatic praise with her cousin: My spirit rejoices in God my savior! She still does not know how it will all work out, but though not knowing what the future holds, she is content to know the One who hold the future. It is enough for now.
Years later when she finds Jesus in the Temple after agonized days of searching for the “missing” Jesus, she does not fully understand his explanation (Luke 2:48-50), but must, and does ponder these things within her heart (Luke 2:51).
At the wedding feast at Cana, Jesus seems almost to rebuke his mother. And though the text leaves many of the personal details out, there must have been something of the look only a mother can give her son. By now, her understanding of her son had surely deepened. She had known him, and pondered and reflected in her hearts of him for over 30 years now. She simply looks at him, he looks at her, as a look only the two would have known. But something passed between them, a look of understanding. Whatever it was remains wrapped in silence, none of our business, something only she and her Son could know. But what ever it was, she turns, and with confidence, knowing it will be well handled, she simply says to the stewards, “Do whatever he tells you.” (Jn 2:5)
Of the three years to follow, we know very little. We know she is not far off. We see her in Mark 3:31 as she asks after Jesus, seemingly concerned that others are saying “He is beside himself!”
And we find her gently, and supportively present at the foot of the cross. Now, at length, the sword which Simeon had prophesied (Lk 2:35) was thrust through her heart. Some thirty years before, she could only marvel, and wonder what Simeon’s words meant that her child was destined for the fall and the rise of many in Israel and that a sword would pierce her own heart (Luke 2:33). But in the years that followed her faith had surely deepened, and now, here she was, at the foot of the cross. It was her darkest hour, but surely all those years of pondering and reflecting on these things in her heart now sustained her.
Yes, Mother Mary is a woman wrapped in silence. We know so little, for she is reflective, quiet, saying little, silently standing by, silently supportive in Jesus publicly ministry, and now, again silently, at the foot of the cross.
Yes this is the Mary, the mother that I know. A woman of faith, but a woman like you and me. And, as the Pope suggests, she is a woman who had to make a journey of faith, not necessarily knowing how everything would work out. Not with the omniscience that some visionaries ascribe to her. She knew what the angel said, but it seems clear she did not know how it would all come to pass. She like us, walked with faith, not with earthly sight.
She is the perfect disciple, the woman of faith, the one who presses on, not know all, but pondering and reflecting everything in her heart.
