Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

The Day Hawking Blew It

 Msgr. Pope did a great job introducing us to the pastoral letter on the New Evangelization and we will continue to write about it as it becomes a way of life for Catholics in the archdiocese.

One dimension of the New Evangelization is engaging people in conversation and not missing an opportunity to propose that the Catholic faith has the best answers to life’s biggest questions.

In the Beginning

This came to mind, when I saw the news about Stephen Hawkings new book. I started to write something about it and realized I would not be able to make sense of the argument in the space of a blog, but, I knew who could do it. Alfred Turnipseed is the Coordinator of Christian Initiation for the archdiocese and a former astronomy major. Alfred has a real gift for taking complicated concepts and breaking them down in a way that not only makes sense but that you can remember the next time it comes up in conversation.  So, Alfred is my guest blogger today. I will be happy to pass any questions along to him for answers.

From the desk of Alfred Turnipseed

That day began like any other workday: I arrived at work, turned on my desktop computer, and waited what seemed to be a thousand years for it to boot up.  Thus I began my daily “ritual”: After checking my emails, I opened Internet Explorer so as to peruse the headlines on Yahoo’s homepage.

That’s when I saw it: “God did not create the universe, says Hawking”.

At first, I thought it was a joke.  When I clicked the link, I fully expected to be taken to a page at The Onion.  And that’s when I discovered—this is for real.  “He finally did it,” I said to myself.  “He just had to go ahead and blow it all, dagnabbit…!”

He, by the way, is Stephen Hawking, British theoretical physicist and cosmologist, the recently retired Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge (a post once held by the great Isaac Newton), and author of the internationally best-selling A Brief History of Time—the Most Celebrated Scientist In The World.

My “dagnabbit” (or some such term denoting extreme irritation caused by grave scandal) spontaneously came to mind because Hawking is also a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who famously once wrote, “If we discover a complete theory [of the universe], it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we should know the mind of God.”

(It would seem that for Hawking, science has proved that God is so unnecessary as not to exist at all.  So much for “knowing the mind of God.”)

Okay.  So what did Hawking actually say during this, his most recent “declaration”?  His words, taken from his new book, The Grand Design—words which stir new passions in me every time I read them—are as follows: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.  Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.  It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

Now, I admit it: ever since I gave up my astronomy studies (at Cornell, no less) for philosophy (and eventually, theology), I’ve had a slight case of “scientist-envy.”  After all, theoretical physicists can get away with saying things that—were I to say them—would get me at least puzzled stares and at most laughed out of the room!  I mean, the most eminent cosmologist on Planet Earth has declared that our 13.7-year-old, goodness-knows-how-big universe just popped into existence (1) from nothing, (2) by itself, and (3) that this was all a result of gravity.  Let’s look at Hawking’s statement point-by-point.

1.          From Nothing:  These words should be familiar to all well-catechized Catholics.  The Latin term is ex nihilo.  Indeed, Catholics do believe that the universe and everything in it came into existence out of nothingness (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 296-298), or in the words of Bible, “I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things…” (2 Maccabees 7: 28).  So far, so good.

2.         By Itself: Now here’s where things start getting ugly.  There is an old saying in Latin—ex nihilo nihil fit—”nothing comes from nothing”.  Now, here, we must be careful.  As stated just above, Catholics clearly believe not only that something can come from nothing, but that everything comes from nothing; that’s what creatio ex nihilo (“creation out of nothing”) means.  For Catholics, then, “nothing comes from nothing” must express something (pun intended!) more sublime—namely, that by itself, only nothing can come from nothingness.  To speak somewhat more subtly—nothingness, in and of itself, does not provide sufficient reason for anything to exist.

3.         Everything is a result of gravity: Nevertheless, Hawking does seem to think that nothingness can provide sufficient reason for the universe to exist, and for him, this reason is “gravity”.  But here’s the rub: whatever gravity is (whether a force, a law of physics, a mathematical reality, etc.), it is definitely not nothing.  In other words, whatever Hawking means by nothing (physical nothingness) he can’t mean what the Catholic Church means by nothing (metaphysical nothingness).  For the Church, nothing doesn’t simply mean “no matter,” “no energy,” and “no forces”; nothing means nonexistence (once again, read 2 Maccabees 7: 28 above).  Now, even Hawking would have to agree that gravity possesses some type of existence.  So whatever Hawking means by nothing, he can’t mean nonexistence, since gravity exists.  What, then, is Hawking saying?  He seems to be saying that in the beginning, there was gravity (which, in Hawkingspeak, exists, but is also nothing), and from gravity, all things that now exist, exist.  Does this make any sense to you?  Yeah, I didn’t think so!

Hawking’s statement denying the existence of, and even need for, God, has caused something of an uproar among those who care about the (seemingly) competing claims of science and religion to explain everything.  In Great Britain, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, and prominent Jewish and Muslim leaders have condemned Hawking’s “scientific atheism” as yet another case of physics overstepping its bounds.  After all, as implied above, physics is the science (or philosophy) of matter and its motion, energy, and forces.  Metaphysics (“beyond physics”), on the other hand, is the philosophy (or science) of being and existence.  So, as soon as one starts making declarations about existence, one crosses the line from physics into metaphysics.  Given all this, it really makes no sense to apply the laws of physics—or the principles of mathematics—to questions of existence.  In fact, from the perspective of genuine metaphysics, there is Being/Existence itself, and that which comes into existence or derives its existence from Being/Existence itself.  The former is God, and the latter are the principles of mathematics, the laws of physics, and ultimately, the entire universe (including space-time and non-spatial/non-temporal reality).  The point: God doesn’t “set the universe going,” as Hawking seems to think believers believe.  Rather, God causes everything to be, including the mathematical principles and physical laws that “set the universe going.”

(Note: it makes no difference whether there are, in fact, many universes or even an infinite number of universes—all derive their being from God.)

What does all this demonstrate?  Only that Stephen Hawking has no more disproved the existence of God than he has proved the existence of the extraterrestrial intelligent life forms that he so firmly believes in!  (Talk about “blind faith”!)

A final thought: If you’ve been reading between the lines, you’ve realized that “proving” or “disproving” the existence of God is not like proving or disproving the existence of some thing.  God, after all, simply IS.  In other words, “proving the existence of God” is like proving the existence of Existence.  I mean, once you realize that for any thing to exist/be, there must be EXISTENCE/BEING, you simultaneously realize that any discussion about God puts you in a whole new territory of thought (theology … ha!).  In fact, if you start thinking (actually, praying) about this really hard, you might cross into deep spirituality­—and you’ll “see” why so many saints and mystics could say that “God is nothing,” because God is not “a” thing, because God IS … and since God IS, in him, we will live forever.  “Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shapes each man’s beginning, as he brings about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life…” (2 Maccabees 7: 23).

“The mathematics of the universe does not exist by itself, nor … can it be explained by stellar deities.  It has a deeper foundation: the mind of the Creator.  It comes from the Logos, in whom, so to speak, the archetypes of the world’s order are contained.  The Logos, through the Spirit, fashions the material world according to these archetypes.  In virtue of his work in creation, the Logos is, therefore, called the “art of God”….  The Logos himself is the great artist, in whom all works of art—the beauty of the universe—have their origin” (Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI).

Posted on

Back to school in an all new way

Are you the kind of person whose internal clock knows that it’s time to go back to school even though you are not a student. Does this cause you to treat yourself to school supplies for your home office? Or better yet, a new fall “back to school” outfit!

Happily, I am legitimately back to school as I am teaching a class this fall. I am also celebrating the opening of an exciting new Catholic school adventure in the archdiocese. St. Francis International School opened its doors this week. After beginning the day, the year and the new era in prayer, kids made their way to class. What makes St. Francis so special is that it celebrates the great gift that comes with the cultural diversity of our parishes and neighborhoods. St. Francis International was born from two parish schools—St. Mark in Hyattsville and St. Camillus in Silver Spring. Housed in the former St. Camillus school building, St. Francis “offers a Catholics, standard-based education with a global perspective that will equip students with a worldview and practical skills to fully and actively participate in a diverse world.” See my Catholic Standard.

Social Media at work

If school and Catholic school in particularly brings back good memories, I am  passing along an opportunity to support a really creative school initiative. From the world of a friend of a friend via Facebook, St. Pius X School in Lincoln, NE is trying to win $500,000 in a Facebook/Kohls contest. www.facebook.com/kohls and click on “Top Schools.”They need you to vote up to five times for St. Pius. I imagine you may find some other Catholic schools on the list, so hunt for your favorite and vote to support Catholic education. Having done that you can then head off to Kohls and pick up some new pencils and post-its!

Posted on

Who’s Your Daddy?

One of my favorite stages in the lives of my nieces and nephews is when they start putting the family connections together. That “Grand pop” is Dad’s father, that I and their dad are siblings who were once little kids. Of course, they find these ideas to be some of the craziest things they ever heard. Imagine, “dad” as a little kid! For days they will announce each relationship. The phone rings and they say “Dad, it’s your sister, Aunt Susan,” or they will ask someone who walks into the gathering, “Hey, did you know that when Mom was little, her mother was Grand mom?” They love tracing all of the relationships and it inevitably leads to questions about where we grew-up, where we went to school, who else is related to us. At some point, out comes the photo album and we marvel at how much Grand pop, when he was 12 looks like Daniel who is about to be twelve. It is these conversations that help a child find their place in the world; feel connected to a group of people who have influenced and them in ways that can’t always be seen. We are beginning to see a whole generation of kids who will never know their father or their father’s family. They may never learn that their passion for music has been shared by three generations of people before them, they may never know that their grandfather was also an all-star athlete or that their great-grandmother chose medicine as well. Dads, it seems are becoming optional.

Life according to Hollywood

This summer Hollywood is all about celebrating that dads are really not necessary in a child’s life. In two movies with huge stars, Jennifer Aniston, Annette Bening, Julianne Moore and Mark Ruffalo, the theme is the lives of children whose father’s origin is a donated sperm. In The kids are All Right, a brother and sister born of the same donor begin a search to find and meet their “dad.”

From the time that the movie came out, I was struck by the title “The Kids are All Right.”  It seems to beg the question, “Might they not be all right?  Or, did someone suggest that the kids are not“all right?” As is often typical with Hollywood, these movies want to promote a new norm. It is just fine for woman to choose motherhood as a single adult. If a mother can provide for all the child needs—who needs a father? In a recent interview Jennifer Aniston comments “Women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child.”  While science makes that possible what science can’t change is that a child comes into the world with the imprint of a mother and father on his or her heart. It is not just that a child inherits certain physical features from Mom and Dad –I watched my brother and his son walk across a baseball field this summer and they walk exactly alike—they inherit a desire to be known by and to know mother and father.

 Exactly how do you explain the “donor dad” concept to a child?

Any parent can tell you this is the case. I wish we would see more about how difficult it must be for those mothers who have to explain the concept of “donor dad” to a child who wants a Dad like the other kid’s dad. What you don’t see too much these days is social science supporting the idea that the best environment for children is a stable home with a mother and a father. The evidence is there in studies. In the early 1990’s, France commissioned a 33 member group panel to examine issues related to same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex couples. The member organizations were not religious; they represented education, social service, mental health and government. The panel concluded that a child has a right to a mother and a father and so therefore laws ought to support the mother-father-child- construct as normative.

Studies paint a troubling picture

In a Wall Street Journal article dated June 18, W. Bradford Wilcox reports on more recent studies. Results of a study co-authored by Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval Glenn and Karen Clark, suggest that children are negatively impacted by the experience of being born of a “donor dad.” For example, 50% “feel sad” when they see “friends with their biological fathers and mothers.” In an article in the Washington Post, a few years ago, Katrina Clark writes about envying friends who have a biological mother and father. “That was when the emptiness came over me, I realized that I am in a sense a freak. I really truly would never have a dad. I finally understood what it meant to be a donor-conceived, and I hated it.”

 What about the future of “donor dads”

I wonder also about the “donor dads” who probably have many reasons for participating in such a program; easy money, genuine interest in “helping” a woman out, or finding the idea of offspring for whom they have no responsibility appealing. I wonder however, if they give thought to the phone call that might come one day from the child looking for a relationship or as in the movie The Kids Are All Right points out meeting up with these young children who share some of your quirkiest habits. As much as five years ago on a news program, I saw a feature story about a group of kids in Colorado who were all the children of the same “donor dad.”  They had formed a support group because they wanted to know their “siblings.” That to me is evidence of the innate desire to belong, to be family in a way they do not experience with a single-Mom. As much as I think being a sperm or egg donor is wrong, I feel for the “donor dads” and “donor-moms”. They did not sign-on to be in the lives of these kids, imagine what it must be like, twelve-fifteen-twenty years after the fact to be approached by a child who in their mind has called you “dad” or “mom.”

The wisdom of Catholic Moral Teaching

One of the beauties of Catholic teaching is that we do try to anticipate the consequence of moral actions on individuals and society, we say “no” in many cases because we see implications down the road that will be detrimental to everyone involved. In this case, we say “no” to protect a young person from an in the moment–seeing only an easy way to make quick and serious cash– (An Ivy League school alumni magazine posts want ads for donor eggs, offering as much as $10,000 dollars) and not really thinking about the child that will be born. We say “no” to protect a woman who may find at some point in her surrogate pregnancy that she does not want to give the child up, that she had no idea what it would mean to carry a child to birth for someone else. We say “no” to a decision that is so self-centered, it does not, in the moment, give full consideration to the still unborn child. How hard can it be to put ourselves in the position of a child who asks “who is my Dad” and imagine how crazy the “donor dad” answer will sound.

Posted on

An Ancient Bishop Rebukes His Emperor for Crimes Against Life: A Story of St. Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius

There is a remarkable event that took place between the Emperor Theodosius and St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. What makes it remarkable is that it shows an ancient Bishop interacting with an ancient politician over the dignity of human life. In this case the politician was the Emperor and he had the power of life and death over Ambrose the Bishop. St. Ambrose knew he had to correct the Emperor but also knew this might endanger his life or freedom. Nevertheless he did it and wrote a personal letter of rebuke to the Emperor. Let’s look at this remarkable incident, what Bishop Ambrose did and what the outcome was.

 The Offending Incident –Theodosius, Roman Emperor from 378 – 392 was in many ways and extraordinary Emperor. He had successfully dealt with the Goths and other tribes and brought greater unity to the troubled Empire in the West. But the Emperor  was also famous for having a bad temper. In 390 AD in Thesolonica, a bad riot broke out which resulted in the death of the Captain of the Roman Garrison there. It seems a certain charioteer  had become very popular with the crowds. Now he also lived a rather debauched life. This offended the Captain  of the Roman Garrison, a Goth,   and also a very upright and disciplined man. The  name of the Garrison Captain was   Botheric. He had the charioteer arrested for debauchery .  The crowds in turn rose up in favor of the athlete and rioted. In addition to the arrest there may also have been ethnic jealously involved on both sides since the Roman Garrison was comprised largely of Goths and the town was largely Greek. In the riot Botheric, the Captain was killed.

 When Theodosius  heard of this he was incensed and his temper flared and he ordered  the Roman Army to round up the whole town and place them in the stadium  and have them all killed.  7000 were killed that day!  The day after issuing the order when his temper had cooled Theodosius regretted his decision and sent another messenger to try and stop it but it was too late.

 Theodosius  was mortified and went to Milan to seek solace from St. Ambrose. But Ambrose, fearing the Church was  just be used as a political prop or fig leaf left the city before Theodosius  arrived and in effect refused to meet with the Emperor.  This surely endangered Ambrose for it risked inflaming the Emperor’s infamous temper once more.

Ambrose then wrote  to the Emperor a private letter (now known as Letter 51). You can read the whole letter here:  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/340951.htm   The Letter is a respectful but clear call to public repentance by the Emperor and a refusal to admit him to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or to celebrate it in his presence until such public repentance had occurred. Here are excerpts:

 The memory of your old friendship is pleasant to me, and I gratefully call to mind the kindnesses which, in reply to my frequent intercessions, you have most graciously conferred on others. Whence it may be inferred that I did not from any ungrateful feeling avoid meeting you on your arrival, which I had always before earnestly desired. And I will now briefly set forth the reason for my acting as I did…..

 Listen, august Emperor. I cannot deny that you have a zeal for the faith; I do confess that you have the fear of God. But you have a natural vehemence [i.e. temper] , which….if any one stirs it up, you rouse it so much more that you can scarcely restrain it……Would that….no one may inflame it! …. restrain yourself, and overcome your natural vehemence by the love of piety….

  This vehemence of yours I preferred to commend privately to your own consideration, rather than possibly raise it by any action of mine in public…..

 There was that done in the city of the Thessalonians of which no similar record exists, which I was not able to prevent happening; which, indeed, I had before said would be most atrocious when I so often petitioned against it, and that which you yourself show by revoking it too late you consider to be grave, this I could not extenuate [i.e. minimize]  when done. When it was first heard of….there was not one who did not lament it, not one who thought lightly of it; your being in fellowship with Ambrose was no excuse for your deed…..

 Are you ashamed, O Emperor, to do that which the royal prophet David, the forefather of Christ, according to the flesh, did? ….he said: I have sinned against the Lord. Bear it, then, without impatience, O Emperor, if it be said to you: You have done that which was spoken of…. say: I have sinned against the Lord. If you repeat those words of the royal prophet: O come let us worship and fall down before Him, and mourn before the Lord our God, Who made us. [I]t shall be said to you also: Since you repent, the Lord puts away your sin, and you shall not die.

  Holy Job, himself also powerful in this world, says: I hid not my sin, but declared it before all the people…..

 I have written this, not in order to confound you, but that the examples of these kings may stir you up to put away this sin from your kingdom, for you will do it away by humbling your soul before God. You are a man, and it has come upon you, conquer it. Sin is not done away but by tears and penitence. Neither angel can do it, nor archangel. The Lord Himself, Who alone can say, I am with you, Matthew 28:20 if we have sinned, does not forgive any but those who repent….

  I urge, I beg, I exhort, I warn, for it is a grief to me, that you who were an example of unusual piety, who were conspicuous for clemency…, The devil envied that which was your most excellent possession. Conquer him while you still possess that wherewith you may conquer. Do not add another sin to your sin by a course of action which has injured many.

 I, indeed, though a debtor to your kindness, for which I cannot be ungrateful, that kindness which has surpassed that of many emperors…. but have cause for fear; I dare not offer the sacrifice if you intend to be present. Is that which is not allowed after shedding the blood of one innocent person, allowed after shedding the blood of many? I do not think so.

 Lastly, I am writing with my own hand that which you alone may read….Our God gives warnings in many ways, by heavenly signs, by the precepts of the prophets; by the visions even of sinners He wills that we should understand, that we should entreat Him to take away all disturbances, to preserve peace for you emperors, that the faith and peace of the Church, whose advantage it is that emperors should be Christians and devout, may continue.

 You certainly desire to be approved by God. To everything there is a time, Ecclesiastes 3:1 as it is written: It is time for You, Lord, to work. It is an acceptable time, O Lord. You shall then make your offering when you have received permission to sacrifice, when your offering shall be acceptable to God. Would it not delight me to enjoy the favor of the Emperor, to act according to your wish, if the case allowed it….when the oblation would bring offense, for the one is a sign of humility, the other of contempt.  For the Word of God Himself tells us that He prefers the performance of His commandments to the offering of sacrifice. God proclaims this, Moses declares it to the people, Paul preaches it to the Gentiles. ….Are they not, then, rather Christians in truth who condemn their own sin, than they who think to defend it? The just is an accuser of himself in the beginning of his words. He who accuses himself when he has sinned is just, not he who praises himself.

…..But thanks be to the Lord, Who wills to chastise His servants, that He may not lose them. This I have in common with the prophets, and you shall have it in common with the saints….If you believe me, be guided by me…..acknowledge what I say; if you believe me not, pardon that which I do, in that I set God before you. May you, most august Emperor, with your holy offspring, enjoy perpetual peace with perfect happiness and prosperity.  

 Assessment – So here is a Bishop speaking the truth to the Emperor and calling him to repentance. Remember there were no laws protecting Ambrose from execution or exile for doing this. An Emperor could act with impunity doing either. Yet St. Ambrose speaks a rebuke meant to provoke sincere repentance. Neither would Ambrose allow the Church to be used as a prop for some false and flattering acclamation. What was need was sincere and public repentance. He rebukes both with the Emperor’s salvation in mind as well as the good of the faithful. He used the Shepherd’s staff (which is a weapon used to defend the Sheep) to defend the flock from damnation, error and discouragement. He insisted on truth when it could have gotten him killed by the wolf.

 So what did Emperor Theodosius do?He went to the Cathedral of Milan and brought his whole entourage. Ambrose agreed to meet him there. The emperor walked into the door of the Cathedral and shed all his royal robes and insignia and bowed down in public penance. One year later in 391 he personally went to Thessolonica and asked forgiveness. He died in 395 at the age of 48 and likely saved his soul by listening to Ambrose and placing his faith higher than his civil authority.

 A remarkable story of the power of the gospel to transform the hearts of all. A remarkable story of what risking to speak the truth can do. May God be praise.

Disclaimer – I do not relate this story to critique the modern struggle of some bishops (and priests) to speak the truth to those in power. I write rather to encourage us all by an epic tale from the past. It remains true that every bishop has to make prudential judgments in each situation based on the individual politician or prominent person involved, what is best for the faithful, and the common good. Some have judged to speak forth as Ambrose. Others in different circumstances are still pursuing quiet measures. Still others judge that public rebukes in the circumstances they face will only make heroes of the one rebuked.  It is a prudential judgment that every bishop has to make. A bishop in the Midwest may face one set of circumstances, a bishop in the northeast another set. The faithful do well to encourage their bishops and priests and pray for them to make good judgments in this regard.

 Finally, I am indebted to Rev. Michael John Witt, Church History Professor at Kendrick-Glennon Seminary in St. Louis for the background on the this story. He has a wonderful Church History site here: http://www.kenrickparish.com/michaelwitt/  The site includes hundreds of mp3 lectures on Church history that are engaging and inspiring as well as manifesting a love for the Church.

Priests too face challenges in speaking forthrightly to their congregations and need to courage to announce that which may not always be popular or may be out of season. In this clip the famous preacher Vernon Johns (who preceded Dr. Martin Luther King in Birmingham) seeks to rouse a sleepy congregation to realize its own role in perpetuating injustice. Even as bishops and priests are called to speak up, so too are the laity. The clip is an remarkable glimpse at what a prophet often must sound like.

Posted on

What are You Going to Believe….Your Eyes or Your Ears?

I have found myself in recent years insisting that people believe their ears and not their eyes. Now our flesh demands to see by its own unregenerate power, only then will the flesh say it believes. But the truth is our flesh does not often believe even when it sees. We usually figure, “they have some way of doing that” or perhaps we’ll say, “This is a trick, an illusion.” And illusionist can do some pretty amazing stuff! (See the video below).

But the Scriptures are clear to say that Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17) . It also says, Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen (Heb 11:1). Even Thomas who is said to believe because he sees is really confessing  something he cannot see, that Jesus is Lord and God (Jn 20:29).

For example, when it comes to the sacraments we have to believe our ears for our eyes cannot see the reality that faith declares to be so. St. Thomas Aquinas in the beautiful hymn Adoro Te Devote says:

    • Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur, (Sight and taste and touch in thee fall short)
    • Sed auditu solo tuto creditur; (But only the hearing is safely believed)
    • Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius, (I believe whatever the Son of God has said)
    • Nil hoc verbo veritatis verius. (Nothing is truer than this word of truth)

And thus I must often remind people when it comes to sacraments:

  1. Though your eyes may still see bread and wine, believe your ears: “This is my Body, This is my Blood…..” (Matt 26:26 inter al). The Bread I will give is my flesh for the Life of the world….(Jn 6:51).”
  2. Though your eyes may still see a newly married bride and groom as two separate distinct individuals, believe your ears: “They are no longer two, they are one. What God has joined together let no one divide.” (Matt 19:6)
  3. Though your eyes may see a newly baptized baby as just the same, believe your ears: “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased….(Lk 3:21) If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation (2 Cor 5:17)…..We who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death so that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of God the Father we too might live in newness of life (Rom 6:4)
  4. A person who emerges from a confessional may appear just the same, but believe your ears: I absolve you from your sins..…Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them (Jn 20:23).

What are you going to believe….your eyes or your ears?

  • [For] we look not to what is seen but to what is unseen; for what is seen is transitory, but what is unseen is eternal….for we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 4:18, 5:7).
  • And to the Pharisees who claimed they could see (but still refused to believe) the Lord said, “If you were blind, you would not  be guilty, But you remain guilty because you claim you can see. (John 9:41)
  • And to those who do believe the Lord says through Peter: You have not seen him, yet you love him; and still without seeing him you believe in him and so are already filled with a joy so glorious that it cannot be described (1 Peter 1:8)

What are you going to believe, your eyes or your ears?

Your flesh demands to see. But I promise you, even if you do see, your flesh will explain it away. Consider this video. Illusionists can do some pretty amazing things. But notice how quickly your flesh is willing to explain it away. And this case it should for these are illusions. But what if you saw a real miracle? What do you suppose your flesh would do? What do you suppose?

Faith comes by hearing.

Posted on

I am having a "Fifth Station Moment"

When they led Him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, coming in from the country, and placed on him the cross to carry behind Jesus. – Luke 23:26

Many Catholics have a devotion to a saint or a particular prayer. Over the past ten years or so, I have developed a devotion to the 5th Station of the Cross. In fact, I refuse to have a “bad day.” Rather, I chose to call those times “Fifth Station Moments.”

Simon the Cyrene is pressed into service

The Fifth Station recalls the moment Simon the Cyrenian is pressed into service to carry the Cross of Christ. Simon was a bystander who probably had no interest in helping. In fact, he probably thought of Jesus as a common criminal and was angry when the Roman soldiers forced him to carry the Cross.

At times, we are all pressed into service

I have a special devotion to this station because in my life there are many times I feel like Simon. In others words, there are times when I feel like a relatively innocent man who has unwillingly and unfairly had a Cross thrust upon his shoulders. Sometimes it is the Cross of one of my students, fellow parishioners or teachers. Other times it is the Cross of another member of my family. I have even had a Cross of two that was purposefully thrust upon me by the calculated and sinful actions of another Christian. Finally, I must admit that very often, it may a Cross of my own making that I am forced to carry.

When this happens, I try hard not to lament my circumstances, though I often do exactly that! Rather, through prayer, I try to turn to the Fifth Station and the example of Simon. Simon is mentioned only briefly in Holy Scripture but he is mentioned by name in the three synoptic Gospels. Therefore, his example is worthy of some contemplation.

Simon was clearly a reluctant participant during this pivotal moment in salvation history. If this were not true, he would not had been “pressed” into service. Nonetheless, it is easy to imagine that Simon eventually realized that he had been given a privilege to carry the Cross of Christ. Furthermore, in carrying the Cross he did not walk away or go ahead. He was still following Christ. And, more profoundly, maybe only after Simon recognized Jesus as the Redeemer, Jesus eventually took the Cross back and proceeded up Calvary on his own.

Bad day? No, just a “Fifth Station Moment”

When I am having a “Fifth Station Moment” it helps me to remember that in the end, the Cross is always taken away from me, by God himself no less! I have to bear it for a while but it is Christ alone who died for my sins. He still has the hardest part of the deal. The Fifth Station also helps me to recognize the redemptive power of suffering. Christ said, “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.” – Luke 14:27.

Let us remember that all of our burdens can and will be carried by Jesus, but only as we too recognize Him as our Savior.

I hope you have a good day today.  But, if not, I pray you have a “Fifth Station Moment” instead.

Posted on

The Feminie Genius: "Living after the manner of the Holy Gospel"

Today we celebrate the feast of St. Clare (1194-1253), perhaps best known as friend and follower of Francis of Assisi. Like Francis, she was raised near Assisi in a noble family, unlike Francis, who was not so much interested in the things of  God as a young man, Clare was known to be prayerful and pious as a young girl. It then doesn’t come as a surprise that she would be attracted to Francis and inspired by his preaching. In fact, it is said, that when she first met Francis her request of him was to help her” live after the manner of the Holy Gospel.”

A Living Charism

Clare chose the monastic life and founded the community known as the Poor Clares who to this day live in community, practice perpetual adoration and serve the needs of the poor. If you live near D.C. you can share a taste of the charism by visiting the Poor Clare chapel in Brookland at 3900 13th St., NE.

Clare leaves us a rich collection of prayer and reflection in the form of letters she wrote in a capacity of spiritual director. To a woman called Agnes of Prague, she writes “I see that you are embracing with humility, the virtue of faith…I consider you someone who is God’s own helper and who supports the drooping limbs of his ineffable body.”  What  a powerful image of what it means to be a disciple, to support the arms of our Lord as he gives himself for us on the cross.  To Agnes, Clare offers this advice to remain a steadfast and steady co-worker of the Lord:

“Place your mind in the mirror of eternity; Place your soul in the splendor of glory; Place your heart in the figure of the divine substance; And through contemplation, transform your entire being into the image of the Divine One himself, So that you, yourself may also experience what his friends experience when they taste the hidden sweetness that God alone has kept from the beginning for those who love him. “

Wisdom for the Ages

One way I like the keep the feasts is to read something written by the person being celebrated. Always, it seems that I find something that makes sense for me today. Sometimes, like this excerpt, the language is just enough different that I have to read carefully and ponder more seriously.

Standing the test of time

I’m sure you read Msgr. Pope’s blog about Anne Rice’s declaration of separating herself from organized Christianity . I found her reasons for leaving rather curious given that the church has not changed its teaching on the issues from the time when she belonged as a child nor when she returned as an adult, it seems that she wants not faith on God’s terms, the giver of the gift but rather faith on the terms she dictates. Let’s see how that works out for her.  I have one question to ask. 756 years later, the writings of Clare inspire and delighte me on this day, August 11, 2010. Will somone be picking up any of Anne Rice’s work in the year 2766 and be delighted and inspired?

Posted on

Sizing Up a (Silly?) Christian Slogan and Listening to a Very Angry Man

The video at the bottom of this page is a rather angry discourse by a non-believer. Watch it with care and caution as he uses some profanity and a degree of uncharitable discourse, and unfair stereotyping  that is hard to take if you haven’t prayed prior to viewing it. He does disclaim at the beginning that “Not everyone who has religious faith is a complete idiot” but then goes on to so fundamentally attack the very notion of faith that he ends up saying we’re “complete idiots.”

I call the video to your attention however because it is valuable at times to hear and then address criticisms leveled at us. What sets this non-believer (I don’t know his name) off is the use of a common slogan among some Christians: “God said it. I believe it. And that settles it.” I’d like to assess the slogan that we have all heard and then address some of the criticisms leveled in the video about the act of believing.

God said it. I believe it. And that settles it.– Like all slogans, there is some element of truth here and yet, because it is a slogan, refinements and distinctions are necessary that are lost in the sound-bite quality of a slogan.

Let’s look at what is true about the statement.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.”  (CCC 1814) The Book of Hebrews says, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1). There is an old definition of faith I memorized years ago where faith is defined as: The theological virtue by which one, through grace, adheres in the intellect to a truth revealed by God because of the authority of God who reveals rather than the evidence given.

Now what seems to unite all these definitions is that the Theological Virtue of  Faith is rooted essentially in the grace given for us to believe something on the authority of God. That is the acceptance of a truth revealed to us rests not so much on extrinsic evidence but on the fact that God has revealed it. There may be,  and most often are,  motives of credibility in regard to the truth of faith. God has given us minds and proposes himself and his truths to us in a way that respects our mind. But many of the truths of faith surpass the capacity of the mind to fully comprehend and material evidence is often not present in regards to spiritual truth. Hence the grace of faith enables us to accept the truths of faith on the authority of God revealing.

So the slogan contains an element of the truth: God said it, I believe it. This is the gift of Faith, rather simply stated, to be sure but accurate in what it says. The gift of faith does not require that God supply vast amounts of evidence and explanations that appeal to us. The Gift of Faith as Hebrews states is its own evidence for God gifts the individual to accept what He reveals by his authority.

The problem with the slogan seems to come more with the final phrase: “and that settles it.” Now in itself the phrase is not problematic if by “settle” we mean that it is enough that God has revealed something for me to believe it. But the expression “that settles it” usually carries other connotations as well that are problematic. Consider for example:

  1. “That settles it” could be interpreted as a discussion-ender with some one as in: “God said it, I believe it and I am not going to discuss this with you any further.” Hence our opponents hear an arrogance and unwillingness to discuss something and this is problematic for a Christian who ought Always be prepared to render an account for the hope that is in you. (1 Peter 3:15)
  2. “That settles it” could be interpreted as meaning, “I don’t have to think about this any more.”  Here too our opponents may interpret the phrase to refer to a blind, unthinking, marching in thoughtless lock-step kind of faith. But of course God has given us a mind and wants us to come to a deeper understanding of our faith than mere creeds or scriptural phrases may contain. St. Anselm spoke of theology as fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). St Augustine said, crede, ut intelligas (believe that you may understand).  While faith may gift us to accept the truth of what God reveals, this is not the end of thought, but it is the beginning of it as we connect the dots of our faith and grab a deeper hold of the full meaning and implication of what is revealed. Catholicism is a smart and thoughtful religion in that we have pondered and prayed over the meaning of what God reveals for centuries. Our rich theology and tradition is testimony to a deeply thoughtful intellectual discipline and treasure. That theological tradition began with Mother Mary who, treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart(Luke 2:19). It continued with the Fathers of the Church, the great philosophers, theologians  and doctors of the Church and stretches down to this very day. The deposit of faith may be said to be “settled” but its understanding and depths continue to be sounded.
  3. “That settles it” could be interpreted as a mere dismissal of one’s opponent in a conversation. In this sense it amounts to an ad hominem argumentum (an argument directed to the person rather than to the issue). Such arguments are disrespectful of the unbeliever or the one who struggles to understand. Again quoting the text from Peter: Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Pet 3:15)

So the slogan, like any slogan needs to be properly understood. And, frankly most non-believers and those outside the Christian Tradition see the slogan as a mere rebuke and a conversation stopper. We may do well to use this slogan sparingly and carefully, if at all.

That leads to the rather angry video below where the author of it lets loose with a rather unkind description of faith. I’d like to isolate a few things he says and then carefully invite you to view it. I will list his quotes and then offer a brief response. The italics are his words, the red plain text is my response.

  1. Believing is easier than thinking. It takes time and effort to acquire knowledge whereas any fool can acquire faith instantly and effortlessly – Well, our interlocutor is wrong to divorce believing from thinking. Faith is a way of knowing, faith supplies knowledge. When God draws us to faith he imbues our mind substantial truth that summons forth a thoughtful response. Believing involves a great deal of thinking. I have spent years, decades, pondering my faith and striving to understand what God is teaching me. As regards his statement that any fool can acquire faith instantly and effortlessly, he has surely not discussed how faith is experienced with a believer. While it is true that God could just zap us with doctrine, it seldom works that way at all. Faith is something in which we must grow. Grace builds on nature and most people who have faith have it at great cost and experience it’s growth incrementally. There is nothing effortless about it at all. Most all of us who have faith have struggled to grasp it, accept it and submit to it. Often faith comes through suffering which causes us to reflect more deeply on the truer meaning of life and things. Understanding deepens in the crucible of real life with its joys and losses, it happiness and its hardship. There is nothing effortless or instant about true faith.
  2. Faith is all about lazy stuff: submission, surrender, don’t ask questions, let your moral values be handed to you on a plate like a baby – Well again, there is nothing lazy about submission and surrender, it is hard work. It is much harder than just going off and doing what I please. Obedience is hard, disobedience is easy. As for not asking questions, again, I wonder where he gets this vision of faith? Christians struggle all the time to understand and often ask, “Why?” I suppose there is a stereotype out there of the unquestioning believer, but I have seldom met one. The scriptures are filled with believers who asked questions. Many of the Psalms begin with words and phrases like: why, how long O Lord, when. The disciples and apostles were asking Jesus questions all the time. Paul asked questions of God, once three times in a row (2 Cor 12:8). Most of the Scriptures are dealing with the questions of faith and the whys and wherefores of God’s ways. As for my moral values being handed to me on a plate – I wonder how he got his moral values handed to him? All of us receive what we know from others (on a plate or otherwise). Someone has influenced this man. With me it happens to be God and the Church. Not sure who it is with him but some one influenced him as to his thoughts and values. This does not make him a baby any more than it makes me one. So really his last point is moot.
  3. The expression “God said it, I believe it and that settles it” means to me “This mind is closed for business. We are not currently accepting any new ideas here” – Well as I said above, our interlocutors often interpret this slogan just as this man states and for that reason we do well to limit or end it’s use except in restricted places where fellow believers can interpret it as we intend. That said, his notion that belief closes the mind to new ideas is in need of distinctions. First it must be said that every discipline has some boundaries wherein it cannot admit certain premises. For example Science deals with the physically measurable and observable phenomena. For me to insist that science accept and include the God of the Bible in its discipline and attribute every unknown cause to the Trinity is to ask science to do what is beyond what it can do. Hence Science would rightly reject my insistence that the Trinity be accepted as a premise in a scientific conclusion. It is outside the discipline of science. Now the same is true for a believer who might, in certain circumstances indicate that a proposed idea is unacceptable. For example, the “new idea” that the only reality is the material and that the spiritual is thus unreal and non-existent is rejected by the Christian since it contains an a-priori assumption we cannot accept. So, it seems unreasonable to demand that anyone ought to be open , without stipulation, to any “new idea” by itself. That said, Christians and non-Christians generally ought to be open to discuss new ideas and I think we Christians usually are. The whole field of apologetics seeks to engage the modern world, a world full of new (or recycled) ideas (If you think you really have a new idea, go and see how the Greeks put it). It is the very purpose of evangelization to go forth into the world and engage it. The best evangelizers and missionaries make use of the culture, affirming what is good and critiquing what is problematic. There is an old Dominican saying, “Never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish.” In a way I find his notion that we don’t accept new ideas funny since one of the critiques of the modern Church is that we have accepted far too many “new ideas” and lost our traditions.

Well then here is the video. Pray before you watch it. I invite your comments as always. If you comment PLEASE do NOT do what this man does. Do not call names, ridicule, use profanity etc. As angry as this man may make you, remember he is known by God who sustains and loves him. Perhaps we can pray that his anger at us will abate and that he might be able to receive the gift of faith. So pray, watch and, if you wish, comment. Warning, there are some profanities toward the end.