Community in Mission

It is difficult to describe the decade of the 1960s as anything but a near complete disaster for this country, Western culture, and the world. Like a tsunami that sweeps in and out in successive waves destroying and reworking the whole landscape and setting loose subsequent disasters, the 1960s was a disastrous series of revolutions whose destructive aftermath is now breeding disease, broken families, addiction, sexual confusion, and social chaos. The sexual revolution, the revolution against authority and tradition, the promotion of contraceptive drugs and practices, the further unleashing of pornography, the drug revolution and widespread use of mind-altering drugs (think Woodstock, Haight-Ashbury, etc.), increasing and public support for abortion (leading to 1973 Roe v. Wade), radical feminism, and no-fault divorce have spewed their toxic fumes and waste everywhere. It was a decade of assassinations, war, controversy, social chaos, and decay. Urban centers rotted in the aftermath of riots and the rush to the suburbs.

In the Church, too, the venomous culture extended its stingers. A council that began in hope gave way in its aftermath to a hermeneutic of discontinuity, even rupture and iconoclasm. Bitter divisions and debates were set loose in the Church in 1968 over contraception and many other matters. There was an exodus of priests and religious and an emptying of the seminaries and novitiates. It is hard to imagine a worse period culturally than the 1960s.

Perhaps the solitary boast of that tainted decade was the Civil Rights Movement.

On this weekend and Monday holiday when we commemorate the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I often write of him with admiration. And usually I get pushback. Often it is from those with whom I have 98% agreement on other issues. I suspect this is because it is hard to separate Dr. King and his legacy from the politics then, but especially now. Others, too, express concerns that Dr. King had personal shortcomings. More on this in a moment.

But first let’s recall the context of the time in which he lived. Many of us look back with a certain fondness on the 1950s and, even though we acknowledge its imperfections and can recognize the seeds of trouble, can still admire its orderliness and the fact that families were still intact and things seemed more decent somehow. And in many ways they were. But to Blacks, to African-Americans, the 1950s and before were troubled years indeed.

I have served in the Black community for most of my 25 years as a priest and I have heard the stories, stories told not usually with bitterness, but surely with pain. Jim Crow laws enforcing segregation across the South and infecting even many Northern cities, had begun around 1900 and were still in rather full force much of the way through the 1950s. Many who are older can say they remember seeing the “Whites only” and “Colored waiting room” signs. Imagine the dismay when the man you looked up to and called your father was called “Boy” and your mother, whom you thought of in the most affectionate way, had to go “uptown” to U Street or Harlem to the Negro hospital to give birth to your baby brother because she was somehow too low-class to give birth in the neighborhood hospital.

None of this is that long ago. Most of my older parishioners remember the local theater they could not attend, the local school that was not for them, the water fountain that said, in effect, “not for you.” Many of us “White folks” regarded the recent troubles in Ferguson and elsewhere with skepticism. “Oh come on, get over it. All that stuff was a long time ago … No one is targeting you.” But even if there is a sensitivity that is too tender, you don’t just turn off years of experience. Trauma has a way of echoing down through the years. It is very hard for us to walk in African-American shoes, and though we may wish healing went quicker, it usually does not.

Looking back to the 1950s and before, there has to be for all of us a certain shock as we consider what things were like. How could we have been so foolish, so obtuse, so just plain mean? What on earth were we thinking? “Whites only? … Colored drinking fountain? … Are you insane?” But it wasn’t that long ago. I can only pray that we will experience the same shock in years to come when we look back and consider that we actually killed babies in the womb by the tens of millions. “How could we have been so cruel, so lost, so confused and selfish as a culture that we permitted this, speaking of it as a ‘right,’ and even pressuring mothers to abort?”

In was in the midst of the insanity of segregation, racism, exclusion, incompressible fear, and hatred that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other leaders like him stepped forward. And any of us who would like to criticize him should remember the context of those years and consider that the Civil Rights Movement was the solitary boast of the tainted 1960s. While almost every other movement of that era indulged either selfishness or some sort of disorder and rejection of biblical teaching, the Civil Rights Movement emerged from a profound sense of biblical justice and an insistence that God was not to be mocked nor His justice ignored. Dr. King and many others (though not all, such as violent radicals) drew deeply from the font of Scripture and  held our hypocrisy before us in the best of the tradition of biblical prophets.

Now I was not born yesterday and I can hear the gears turning in some (not all) of your minds. I have fielded many comments over the years, whenever I write of Dr. King with admiration. Permit me to address a few of the objections here.

1. What about the reports that Dr. King was a womanizer and that soon, when FBI files are released, this will all come to light? Well, there are a lot of rumors, but for now they are hearsay and we ought not pass on hearsay. But let us even assume for a moment that some of the rumors prove to be true. God has often used sinful and imperfect men to proclaim His Word and lead His people. Noah was a drinker; Lot pitched his tent toward Sodom; Abraham pimped his wife out and slept with his slave girl; Jacob was a schemer and usurper; Moses was a murderer; Jephte killed his own daughter; David was an adulterer and a murderer; Solomon had a thousand wives … need I go on? None of this is to approve of wrongdoing but simply to note that if God waited for perfect prophets and leaders, we wouldn’t have any. In honoring Dr. King, we need not say that he was a perfect man. We honor what was best in him and what he did to call us out of our hypocrisy.

2. There are reports that he was a Communist. Again, these are rumors, hearsay. Be careful. Here, too, recall that Jeremiah, Stephen, and Jesus were all accused of being unpatriotic because they prophesied doom to the nation if there was not repentance. If Dr. King was in fact a communist, he was a lousy communist, since he gave strength to our country by uniting us and helping to end our pointless and foolish divisions. A nation that is divided cannot stand. But if we can find greater unity, then our nation is strengthened. This was not the goal of the communists, and certain not the goal of the Russians.

3. You say he was a prophet but in so doing you misuse the term, which applies only to biblical prophets. Well, terms can be used in a strict sense and in a wider sense. In the strict sense, the term prophet refers only to those who are listed in the Bible. In that very strict sense, the “Office of Prophet” died with John the Baptist. But the last time I checked, all the baptized receive the office of prophet as well. And of course the word “prophet” is being used here in a wider sense, but a true one nonetheless. You, dear reader, and I are supposed to be prophets even though we are living long after John the Baptist. I have been able to verify that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was baptized. As such, he attains to the office of prophet by that fact. He also well imitated the biblical prophets, who knew how to draw from God’s word and denounce sin and injustice.

4. He is not Catholic and therefore we should not treat him like a saint or mention him in our Masses. He is not a canonized saint and no one should pretend that he is. Yet his legacy is still to be honored and the necessary change he effected is to be reverenced.

5. This is all just a bunch of “political correctness” (PC) and you, Fr. Pope, are naïve. I don’t come to your blog to hear PC. Well OK, I don’t like PC either. But there is more here than that, for the reasons I’ve stated above. But even if you are right (and I don’t say that you are), even a broken clock is right twice a day. Recently, the PC crowd expressed outrage at the murders of Islamic terrorists in France. They were right, even if they are usually an irritating crowd.

6. This whole racism thing has become an industry and honoring King just fuels it. OK, but don’t blame King for things that happened after he died. I don’t know what King would think of the likes of Al Sharpton, et. al. But neither do you. And don’t tell me that Dr. King wasn’t fighting an obnoxious thing at that time, as detailed above. He found a good fight and got into it at great personal cost. Honoring him doesn’t mean we affirm everything the movement later became or is now.

7. Most Black wounds today are self-inflicted. When will Black leaders address the holocaust of abortion and Black-on-Black violence? This Dr. King holiday is a charade in the face of all that. Yes, it sounds like we need another Dr. King today. It is not clear where King would stand on abortion today. Perhaps if he had lived, things would be different. Who knows? His niece thinks he would be pro-life. But we cannot hold a man responsible for errors that came after he died. Certainly King did stand foursquare against any violence and may well have spoken forcefully against Black-on-Black violence as he did in his day, denouncing all movements that used violent means.

Ok, enough. But please, when it comes to these sorts of things, we must all be willing to make distinctions and give honor where it is due. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought against real and obnoxious realities in his day, and fought against them knowing full well he might get killed for it. And he was. He left this nation in a better condition than he found it in terms of race relations.

Yes, the 1960s was an awful decade. But there was one real light that shone in that period and that was the Civil Rights Movement. We have Dr. King, among others (including Catholic religious and clergy), to thank for that. May Dr. King rest in peace and may we honor his legacy by continuing to stand up against all injustice, especially the injustice that refuses to accord others their rights before God to life with equal dignity.

God’s truth will win. How long will it take? Not long. Fellow cultural warriors take heart; God will win.

The first reading today speaks to us of the call of Samuel. In examining it, we can see what it is that makes a great prophet. Put more theologically, we can see the ways in which God’s graces form a great prophet. Samuel was surely one of the most significant prophets of the Old Testament and lived at a critical time, as Israel  shifted from the time of the judges to the time of the monarchy. Ultimately, it was he who would see Israel through the difficult time of Saul’s reign and prepare and anoint them for David’s kingship to follow.

What then are some of the ways that God prepares Samuel and every prophet (this means you) for his mission? Consider these five.

1. The CLOSENESS of a great Prophet – In the first reading, we find the young Samuel sleeping in the temple of the Lord. In those days, the temple was not yet in Jerusalem nor was it a permanent building; it was a tent structure in Hebron. Samuel, as one in training for temple duties, is sleeping near the Ark of the Covenant, which carried the presence of God. Thus we see that a great prophet begins and remains so by staying close to the Lord.

We who would also be prophets must do the same if we wish to be great prophets to our family members and friends. How will a priest preach with authority and power if he does not stay close to the Lord? How will parents give prophetic witness to their children if the Lord is a distant God to them?

How do we draw close to the Lord? Daily prayer, daily and devout reading of Scripture, frequent confession, weekly reception of Holy Communion, and a spirit of wonder and awe. Ask for these virtues. Stay close to the Lord. Great prophets stay close to the Lord.

2. The CONSTERNATION of a great Prophet – The first reading depicts Samuel as struggling with some confusion as to what and whom he is hearing. God is calling, but Samuel doesn’t get it. He struggles to figure out what is happening to him. A look at the call of most of the great prophets reveals that most of them struggled with their call. Moses felt old, inarticulate, and inadequate. Jeremiah felt too young, Isaiah too sinful. Amos would have been content to remain a dresser of sycamores. Most prophets felt overwhelmed and experienced consternation.

Samuel, as we see, eventually figures out who is calling him and begins his journey. He had to listen for a while to to do it, however.

How about you? Many of us, too, would want to run away if God made it clear He had something for us to do. In a way, that is a proper response, for pride is a bad trait in a prophet. To experience a bit of trouble, consternation, and anxiety helps to keep us humble and leaning on the Lord.

What is the Lord asking of you? Perhaps, like Samuel, you struggle to understand at first. But stay close to God. Things will eventually become clear.

The great prophets struggled. But that is the point; they struggled with God for an answer and for a vision.

3. The CONNECTEDNESS of a great Prophet – Notice that Samuel does not discern alone. He seeks counsel from a wiser man to help him. Though Eli is not a perfect teacher, God does make use of him to help Samuel.

So, too, for us, who ought to seek good, strong, spiritual friends and clergy to help us discern. Scripture says, Seek counsel from every wise man (Tobit 4:18). It is a bad idea to try to discern alone. We should cultivate relationships with wise and spiritual men and women in our journey.

Great prophets are connected to spiritual leaders and teachers. Prophets read and consulted other prophets. God does not just call us to a vertical, private relationship with Him. He also directs us to a horizontal relationship with others. Seek wise counsel; great prophets do.

4. The CORE  of a great Prophet – Samuel is advised by Eli to say to God, Speak Lord, for your servant is listening. A great prophet listens to God. And God does not always say easy things. He often challenges in what He says and in what He wants to send them. But great prophets listen; they listen very carefully to God. They do not try to bury His Word or forget what He says. They take seriously what they hear and do not compromise God’s Word.

And what of us? It is too easy to avoid listening to God or to compromise on what we have heard. But great prophets listen carefully to God by reading and studying His Word, by looking at how He speaks in creation and in the events of their day, by studying the teachings of the Church, and by carefully, prayerfully listening to the still, small voice within.

Do you want to be a great prophet? Listen.

5. The CAPABILITY of a great Prophet – We see in Samuel’s life how be became gradually transformed into a great prophet, one who never compromised God’s Word. The text says, Samuel grew up, and the LORD was with him, not permitting any word of his to be without effect. Because Samuel was close to the Lord, faced his consternation, was connected to the wise, and had the core virtue of listening, he became a great prophet. The actual Hebrew text, translated more literally, says that not a word of his fell to the ground.

Being a great prophet is a work of God. But we, who would and should be great prophets ourselves, ought to pay attention to the way God works to make great prophets. Learn from Samuel; study all the prophets and you will see what God can do.

And while most of us wish our words had greater effect, it is less clear that we are willing to undertake the process to get there. Ask for the gift. Ask for the gift to stay close to God, to struggle and accept some of the consternation that comes with being a prophet. Seek to be connected to wise counsel; learn the core value of listening. And thus will God bring about in us a conversion such that none of our words will ever fall to the ground.

This song says, “The Lord gave the Word. Great was the company of the preachers.”

Some years ago, a priest friend urged me to return to a priest support group that all priests are encouraged to find and join. But as so often happens with everyone, priests get busy and we start missing the meetings. The leader of the group urged me to return. When I responded that I wasn’t sure I needed the group just then because I was supported in other ways, he said, “OK, then don’t return because you need it, but because we need you there.”

It’s not a bad way to think of things. Egocentrically, we tend to ponder what is best for us and forget that others may need us. We need to think of others, too.

The commercial below makes that point. It features a dog, and though I wish it had featured a person, I guess the dog is a good symbol for loyalty and need. Responsible drinking is important, not only for us, but for others who depend on us to be sober and to be alive the next day! Consider the message well, not only on the subject of safe driving, but also in other areas. Our lives matter to others, and even if we won’t take care of ourselves for our own sake, maybe we will for the sake of others.

There are a lot of “solos” sung by our Protestant brethren: Sola Fide (saved by faith alone), Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone is the rule of faith), and sola gratia (grace alone). (See the Protestant logo to the right.) Generally, one ought to be suspicious and careful of claims that things work “alone.” It is our usual experience that many things work together in harmony, that things are interrelated. Very seldom is anyone or anything “alone.”

The problem of the “solos” emerges (it seems to me) in our minds, where it is possible to separate things out. But the fact is, just because we can separate something out in our mind does not mean that we can separate it out in reality.

Consider, for a moment, a candle flame. In my mind, I can separate the heat of the flame from its light. But in reality, I could never take a knife and put the heat over on one side and the light on the other. In reality, the heat and light are inseparable, so together as to be one.

I would like to argue respectfully that it is the same with things like faith and works, grace and transformation, Scripture and the Church. We can separate all these things out in our mind, but in reality they are one. Attempts to separate them from what they belong to, lead to grave distortions and to the thing in question no longer being what it is claimed to be. Rather, it becomes an abstraction that exists only on a blackboard or in the mind of a (geeky) theologian.

Let’s look at the three main “solos” of Protestant theology. I am aware that there are non-Catholic readers of this blog, so please understand that my objections are made with respect. I am also aware that in a short blog I may oversimplify, and thus I welcome additions, clarifications, etc. in the comments.

Solo 1: Faith alone (sola fide). For 400 years, Catholics and Protestants have debated the question of faith and works. In this matter, we must each avoid a caricature of the other’s positions. Catholics do not and never have taught that we were saved by works. For heaven’s sake we baptize infants! We fought off the Pelagians. But neither do Protestants mean by “faith” a purely intellectual acceptance of the existence of God, as many Catholics think they do.

But what concerns us here is the detachment of faith from works that the phrase “Faith alone” implies. So let me ask, what is faith without works? Can you point to it? Is it visible? Introduce me to someone who has real faith but no works. I don’t think one can be found. About the only example I can think of is a baptized infant! But, oops, that’s a Catholic thing, since most Baptists and Evangelicals who sing the solos reject infant baptism.

Hence it seems that faith alone is something of an abstraction. Faith is something that we can separate from works only in our minds, but not in reality. If faith is a transformative relationship with Jesus Christ, it seems we cannot remain unchanged by entering into that relationship with him. This change affects our behavior, our works. Even in the case of infants, it is possible to argue that they are changed and do have “works,” it’s just that we cannot easily observe them.

Scripture affirms that faith is never alone, that such a concept is an abstraction. Faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Faith without works is not really faith at all since faith does not exist by itself, but is always present with and causes works through love. Galatians 5:6 says, For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love. Hence faith works not alone, but through love. Further, as Paul states in 1 Corinthians 13:2, if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

Hence faith alone is the null set. True faith is never alone; it bears the fruit of love and the works of holiness. Faith ignites love and works through it. Beware of the solo  “faith alone” and ask where faith, all by itself, can be found.

Solo 2: Grace alone (sola gratia). As for grace alone, this too is a puzzle, since grace by its very nature changes us. Again, show me grace apart from works. Grace without works is an abstraction. Grace cannot be found apart from its effects. In our mind it may exist as an idea, but in reality grace is never alone.

Grace builds on nature and transforms it. It engages the person who responds to its urges and gifts. If grace is real, it will have its effects and cannot be found alone or apart from works. It cannot be found apart from a real flesh-and-blood human who is manifesting its effects.

Solo 3: Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) – Finally, beware those who say, “sola Scriptura”! This is the claim that Scripture alone is the measure of faith and the sole authority for the Christian, that there is no need for a Church and no authority in the Church, that there is only authority in the Scripture. There are several problems with this.

First, Scripture as we know it (with the full New Testament) was not fully assembled and agreed upon until the 4th century. And it was Catholic bishops, in union with the Pope, who made the decision as to which books belonged in the Bible. The early Christians could not possibly have lived by sola scriptura since the Scriptures were not even fully written in the earliest years. And though collected and largely completed in written form by 100 AD, the set of books and letters that actually made up the New Testament was only agreed upon by the 4th Century.

Second, until recently most people could not read. Given this, it seems kind of strange that God would make, as the sole rule of faith, a book that people had to read on their own. Even today, large numbers of people in the world cannot read well. Hence Scripture was not a read text per se, but rather one that most people heard and experienced in and with the Church through her preaching, liturgy, art, architecture, stained glass, passion plays, and so forth.

Third, and most important, if all you have is a book, then that book needs to be interpreted accurately. Without a valid and recognized interpreter, the book can serve to divide more than to unite. Is this not the experience of Protestantism, which now has tens of thousands of denominations all claiming to read the same Bible but interpreting it in rather different manners?

The problem is, if no one is Pope then everyone is Pope!  Protestant “soloists” claim that anyone, alone with a Bible and the Holy Spirit, can authentically interpret Scripture. Well then, why does the Holy Spirit tell some people that baptism is necessary for salvation and others that it is not necessary? Why does the Holy Spirit tell some that the Eucharist really is Christ’s body and blood and others that it is only a symbol? Why does the Holy Spirit say to some Protestants “Once saved, always saved” and to others, “No”?

So it seems clear that Scripture is not meant to be alone. Scripture itself says this in 2 Peter 3:16: our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, Our Brother Paul speaking of these things [the Last things] as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. Hence Scripture itself warns that it is quite possible to misinterpret Scripture.

Well then, where is the truth to be found? The Scriptures once again answer this: you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Hence, Scriptures are not to be read alone. They are a document of the Lord through the Church and must be read in the context of the Church and with the Church’s authoritative interpretation and Tradition. As this passage says, The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth. The Bible is a Church book and is not meant to be read apart from the Church that received the authority to publish it from God Himself.  Scripture is the most authoritative and precious document of the Church, but it emanates from the Church’s Tradition and must be understood in the light of it. Further, faith is not alone but works through love. And grace is not alone but builds on nature.

Thus the problems of “singing solo” seem to boil down to the fact that if we separate what God has joined, we end up with an abstraction, something that exists only in the mind (but in reality cannot be found alone).

Here is a brief video in which Fr. Robert Barron ponders the Protestant point of view that every baptized Christian has the right to authoritatively interpret the Word of God.

There is a great reverence for science in our culture. On the one hand, rightly so. Science has made enormous strides that have changed life as we know it. Profound discoveries have eradicated diseases, improved health, increased the world’s food supply, led to a computer revolution, drawn us higher into outer space and deeper into inner space, revealed hidden mysteries of nature, and produced technologies unimaginable to even our recent ancestors.

On the other hand, the reverence of science has tipped perhaps too far in the direction of a religious substitute. Indeed it is arguable that the robes of the priest, once admired and revered, have now been replaced in our culture’s esteem by the lab coat. Many regard the findings of science with an almost blind faith that many (often unfairly) attribute to religious believers. “Scientists say … ” has become a kind of mantra wherein all dissent must stop and a slight bow of the head might also be appropriate. The matter is settled since “scientists say … ” And while religious believers base their faith on some connection to unchanging Divine utterances, “believers” in science too often couch their belief on the utterances of mere human beings, learned to be sure, but fallible and subject to changing their theories (rightly) when new evidence comes in. Hence the sort of religious reverence that many today give to scientists is problematic, both for them and for science.

While many will deny they have such religious adherence or reverence, try questioning (not even outright disputing) a pet theory like Darwinian evolution or global warming and observe the religious fervor of their anger and their shock that you have the nerve to question “settled science” (read “dogma”). Rival thoughts must be scoured from the public schools and from newscasts with as much zeal as the Inquisition ever had (at least the inquisition involved an extensive questioning of dissenters)! Threats of legal action and ridicule, exclusion and defunding, boycotts and loss of professorships, follow the mere questioning of whether the scientific data really support such dogmatic conclusions.

I love science and have great respect for the scientific method, which is why the reactionary tactics of the last paragraph are so objectionable to me. True science should crave peer review and the challenges that help harden the data or refine the theories. New information is always coming in; there is no “settled science.” There are few if any permanent dogmas (other than to respect the data and method),  and a consensus achieved in this decade may melt away in the next (see photo top right – click to enlarge). Vive la différence!

Further, 100% of scientists are human beings. And it pertains to a certain percentage of any collection of human beings to be corrupt and to betray the very institutions they serve and the principles they uphold. The vast majority of scientists respect their discipline and the scientific method, but there are some who “fudge” the data and some who outright lie. Most of us remember the scandal (Climategate) related to the skewing of data at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. It was a huge blow to the science on this issue whatever your view of anthropogenic global warming.

Consider too another blow about the time of climategate, this time to anthropology, wherein significant and celebrated claims that the “missing link” between primates and man was being filled in, were found to be a hoax. Consider some excerpts from a column in The Guardian in which the debacle was described. These are excerpts; the full article is here: History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud.  My comments are in red text.

It appeared to be one of archaeology’s most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old – and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.  This, at least, is what Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten – a distinguished, cigar-smoking German anthropologist – told his scientific colleagues, to global acclaim, after being invited to date the extremely rare skull. However, the professor’s 30-year-old academic career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on this and numerous other “stone age” relics.  Yesterday his university in Frankfurt announced the professor had been forced to retire because of numerous “falsehoods and manipulations.” According to experts, his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man’s development will have to be rewritten. Notice, “entire tranche…rewritten.” 

“Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago,” said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. “Prof. Protsch’s work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish.” Again, notice, “completely revise … ” Parents, call your school board …

… a crucial Hamburg skull fragment, which was believed to have come from the world’s oldest German, a Neanderthal known as Hahnhöfersand Man, was actually a mere 7,500 years old, according to Oxford University’s radiocarbon dating unit. The unit established that other skulls had been wrongly dated too.  Another of the professor’s sensational finds, “Binshof-Speyer” woman, lived in 1,300 BC and not 21,300 years ago, as he had claimed, while “Paderborn-Sande man” (dated at 27,400 BC) only died a couple of hundred years ago, in 1750.

“It’s deeply embarrassing. Of course the university feels very bad about this,” Professor Ulrich Brandt, who led the investigation into Prof. Protsch’s activities, said yesterday. Prof. Protsch … had simply made things up … At the same time, German police began investigating the professor for fraud, following allegations that he had tried to sell the university’s 278 chimpanzee skulls for $70,000 to a US dealer.

The article goes on to describe three other frauds perpetrated this past century in the area of archeology.

OK, now let’s be fair (in a way that many critics of the Church are not). What this scientist has done is a betrayal of science. But the scientific method is not thereby repudiated. On the contrary, it is needed all the more! There are likely a lot of human layers to the hoax here (lack of proper peer review, too much human respect, ideological credence, and a lot of money in the mix). But again, the scientific method remains valuable and necessary. Had it been followed more carefully, this might not have happened. But scientists are men and woman, sinners, and mere mortals. In our fallen condition such things do happen.

And this is all I ask as a mere observer, a scientific amateur: that we remember that science is not a substitute for God or religious dogma. Science is useful and helpful, but it is not infallible; it is not settled; it is not perfect or pure. Scientists, like any group of humans, are affected by every human glory and every human vice. Yes, even among the “white lab coats” there are crooks, liars, the greedy, those enamored of fame, and ideologues obsessed with forcing a particular conclusion no matter what the data really say. But those who do such things betray science and undermine the work of many good scientists who work hard and follow the data and the method.

Many who criticize the Church are not so fair, insisting that the fact that a few priests and religious have betrayed the Church indicates that the Church and the Faith are bad. But despite bad priests and unfaithful members, the Church and the Faith are not thereby repudiated. They are needed all the more! Had the Faith been followed more carefully, the evils might not have happened.

The few who stray, whether in science or faith, are countersigns to what the reality should be. The Church, faith, and science should be accorded due respect, even when some leaders from their number betray their very principles. It is popular to point to the failings of the Church, but less popular (in fact downright unpopular) to point to the failings of science. But yes, dear reader, even some scientists stray, and “objective” science is not without sinners in its ranks too, no matter what the “white lab coats” might lead you to think.

Rebuke all betrayals, but respect what is good and true.

Here’s a humorous commercial about learning from the experience of others. It’s a kind of hat-tip to tradition and the scientific method all at once!

In the secular world, a “mystery” is something which baffles or eludes understanding, something which lies undisclosed. And the usual attitude of the world toward mystery is to solve it, to get to the bottom of it, or to uncover it. Mysteries must be overcome! The riddle or “whodunit” must be solved!

In the Christian and especially the Catholic world, “mystery” is something a bit different. Here, mystery refers to the fact that there are hidden dimensions in things, people, and situations that extend beyond their merely visible and physical dimensions.

One of the best definitions I have read of “mystery” is by the theologian and philosopher John Le Croix. Fr. Francis Martin introduced it to me some years ago in one of his recorded conferences. Le Croix says,

Mystery is that which opens temporality and gives it depth. It introduces a vertical dimension and makes of it a time of revelation, of unveiling.

Fr. Martin’s classic example of this to his students is the following:

Suppose you and I are at a party, and Smith comes in the door and goes straight away to Jones and warmly shakes his hand with both his hands. And I say, “Wow, look at that.” And you say, puzzled: “What’s the big deal, they shook hands … so what?” And then I tell you, “Smith and Jones have been enemies for thirty years.“

And thus there is a hidden and richer meaning than merely what meets the eye. This is mystery: something hidden, something that is accessible to those who know, who are initiated into the mystery and have come to grasp some dimension of it; it is the deeper reality of things.

In terms of faith, there is also a higher meaning that mystery brings. And thus Le Croix added above, It [mystery] introduces a vertical dimension, and makes of it a time of revelation, of unveiling.

Hence we come to appreciate something of God in all he does and has made. Creation is not just dumbly there. It has a deeper meaning and reality. It reveals its creator and the glory of Him who made it. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psalm 19:1).

Indeed, there is a sacramentality to all creation. Nothing is simply and dumbly itself; it points beyond and above, to Him who made it. The physical is but a manifestation of something and Someone higher.

In the reductionist world in which we live, such thinking is increasingly lost. And thus we poke and prod in order to solve the mysteries before us. And when have largely discovered something’s physical properties, we think we have exhausted its meaning; we have not. In a disenchanted age, we need to rediscover the glory of enchantment, of mystery. There is more than meets the eye. Things are deeper, richer, and higher than we can ever fully imagine.

Scripture, which is a prophetic interpretation of reality, starts us on our great journey by initiating us into many of the mysteries of God and His creation. But even Scripture does not exhaust the mystery of all things; it merely sets us on the journey ever deeper, ever higher. Mysteries unfold; they are not crudely solved.

For the Christian, then, mystery is not something to be solved or overcome so much as to be appreciated and reverenced. To every person we know and everything we encounter goes up the cry, O magnum et admirabile mysterium (O great and wondrous mystery)! Now you’re becoming a mystic.

Here is Fr. Francis Martin speaking briefly on mystery:

One of the most overused terms in modern speech is the word “absolutely.” As in, “Do you want some gravy with those potatoes?” “Absolutely!” Or, “Would you agree that solution ‘X’ is the best solution to problem ‘Y’?”  “Absolutely!” What to call this … an expression? A semantic substitution for “yes?” A logism? A hyperbole? A grandiloquence? A periphrasis? Why this obsession with saying “absolutely” or its strange step-sister, “exactly”?

It is a strange paradox that in an age of relativism, an age that emphasizes personal opinion and subjective feelings over objective truth, so many people substitute for “yes” words like “absolutely,” “exactly,” “precisely,” “positively,” and so forth.

Perhaps we subconsciously seek certainty in an age of uncertainty. Or perhaps, in an age of hypersensitivity, we seek to overemphasize to people that we are “100% on board” with what they have said.

And now you may ask, “Why do you keep saying ‘perhaps’? Are you indicating a lack of certainty in your conclusion?” Absolutely! I have no idea why people use this word so much today. And NOW you ask, “Why do you say you have NO idea? Is it not really the case that you have some idea and that your saying ‘NO idea’ is reflective of the tendency for people to use hyperbole (exaggeration) for emphasis?” Yes! Absolutely! Exactly! So perhaps people are using “absolutely” merely as hyperbole.

Well, as you can see, we humans use a lot of rather excessive and categorical ways of speaking, even while at the same time using qualifiers such as “perhaps” and “sort of.” We are very strange. Which is really (or should I say perhaps) another way of saying that we are somewhat strange.

But, back to “absolutely.” Avoid saying this word for three reasons:

1. It’s getting annoying. I think it has surpassed “you know” and “like” on the annoyance meter. I want you to know that I never use any of these terms. 😉

2. You don’t really mean it. It’s more likely that you just mean “yes” or “I’m generally on board with what you said.” So say what you mean and own it.

3. Even for those of us who do not come from an “everything’s relative” mindset, affirming things “absolutely” is not usually recommended. There’s an old saying (playful in its own way), “Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish.” In other words, most statements, positions, views, rules, etc. admit of exceptions, need context, and/or require distinctions. Few things are “absolutely” the case. The road sign at the upper right is not absolutely true. If it were, there would be nothing to indicate, nothing to point at; there would be no next 22 miles at all.

Even commandments like “Thou shalt not kill” require some distinctions and context. Thus, in the commandment, “kill” is used more in the sense of “murder.” For in rare cases, one is able to kill as a last recourse if it is necessary to save one’s own life (self-defense) or the lives of others. Further, “killing” is often distinguished to mean premeditated, intentional killing (first degree murder) and other lesser degrees such as accidental killing due to irresponsibility (manslaughter), etc. So even if someone asks, “So would you agree with me that killing people is wrong?” it should not usually produce the answer, “Absolutely!” or “Exactly!”

Now, there ARE absolute moral norms such as “Never kill the innocent” and “Never blaspheme God.” But most things admit of exceptions (even if rare) and are not in fact “absolute.”

Does my correction seem dangerous to you? Of course it does. But we who live in an age of excessive relativism ought not overreact by insisting that more things are absolute than actually are, or that the only certainty is absolute certainty. Most rules, norms, and teachings do have exceptions and most of what we know has varying degrees of certainty. Most of us who have faith can be most certain about what God has definitively revealed. But even here, simply pulling a quote from the Bible or the Catechism is not enough. We need to understand a given truth or line from the Bible in the context of the whole of revealed truth, which sometimes qualifies, balances, or distinguishes it.

Many today who oppose the moral teachings of Scripture and the Church do this by reducing everything about the Lord to a “God is love” argument, as if the fact that He loves us means He would never say anything that might upset us. And thus one concept from Scripture is absolutized and read without understanding or referring to anything else. Yes, God is love, but He also loves us too much to lie to us. God loves us enough to tell us the truth and, if necessary, to hit us over the head with it.

The bottom line is, avoid saying “absolutely,” though I don’t mean this absolutely. Jesus gets the last word: Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one (Matt 5:37).

Can I get an “Absolutely!”?  err … I mean, can I get an “Amen!”?

One of the great illusions under which we labor is that if we just get one more thing from this world, then we’ll be happy. Perhaps if we just had a little more money, or a better job, or the latest iPad, or if we were married to so-and-so, or if we just lived in a better neighborhood … then we’d be satisfied and content at last. But “at last” never comes, even if we do get some of the things on our list. As Ecclesiastes puts it, The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing (Ecc 1:8). Or again, Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income (Ecc. 5:8).

Though we know this, somehow we continue to buy into the lie again and again: that just one more thing will do it. So we lay out the money and spend the time, but the delight lasts only twenty minutes, tops. The world just can’t close the deal.

There is a little preacher’s parable that illustrates the endless treadmill the world has us on, and shows how the world endlessly seduces us to want “just one more thing.” In the end, this seduction leads us to neglect the one thing most necessary. Here is the parable, followed by some commentary:

There was a man who was lonely and thought, perhaps, that buying a pet would help his loneliness. At the pet store he looked at many animals, and found himself drawn to one in particular. The sign over the cage said, “Talking Parrot: Guaranteed to talk!” “This will surely solve my problem,” thought the man, “For here is an animal that can even talk!”

“That’ll be $250,” said the merchant.

One week later the man returned saying, “This parrot isn’t talking!”
“You mean to say,” said the merchant, “he didn’t climb the ladder and talk?”
“Ladder? You didn’t tell me about a ladder!”
“Oh, sorry,” said the merchant, “That’ll be $10.”

One week later the man returned saying, “This parrot still isn’t talking!”
“You mean to say,” said the merchant, “he didn’t climb the ladder, look in the mirror, and talk?”
“Mirror? You didn’t tell me about a mirror!”
“Oh, sorry,” said the merchant, “That’ll be $10.”

One week later the man returned saying, “This parrot still isn’t talking!”
“You mean to say,” said the merchant, “he didn’t climb the ladder, look in the mirror, peck the bell, and talk?”
“Bell? You didn’t tell me about a bell!”
“Oh, sorry,” said the merchant, “That’ll be $10.”

One week later the man returned saying, “This parrot still isn’t talking!”
“You mean to say,” said the merchant, “he didn’t climb the ladder, look in the mirror, peck the bell, jump on the swing, and talk?”
“Swing? You didn’t tell me about a swing!”
“Oh, sorry,” said the merchant, “That’ll be $10.”

One week later the man came to the shop and the merchant asked, “How’s the parrot?”
“He’s dead!” said the man.
“Dead?” said the merchant … “Did he ever talk before he died?”
“Yes, he finally talked!” said the man.
“Well, what did he say?”
“He said, ‘Don’t they sell any birdseed at that store?'”

Lesson 1: Promises, Promises – And thus this parable teaches us in a humorous way that the world and the “prince of this world” are always promising results. Yet when those results are lacking, the practice is simply to demand more of the same. First the bird, then the ladder, then the bell, then the mirror, and then the swing. There’s always something more, and then the perfect result will surely come! This is a lie. The lie comes in many forms: just one more accessory, just go from the free to the paid version, just buy the upgrade to solve the difficulty, just one more drink, one more diet, a newer car, a bigger house, a facelift, bariatric surgery, etc. It’s always just one more thing and then you’ll make it; happiness is just past the next purchase.

Jesus, in speaking to the woman at the well, said of the water of that well (which represents the world), Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again (Jn 4:13). And that is the sober truth about this world: it cannot finally quench our thirst, which is a thirst for God and Heaven. But time and time again we go back to the world and listen to the same lie, thinking, “This time it’ll be different.”

Surely it is sensible that we make use of the things of this world insofar as they aid us to accomplish our basic duties. But they are not the answer to our deeper needs. The big lie is that they are the answer. And when they fail, the lie just gets bigger by declaring that just a little more of the failed product will surely close the deal. It’s a big lie and it gets bigger.

Lesson 2: The One Thing Most Necessary – In the pursuit of the ladders, mirrors, bells, and swings, the one thing most necessary was neglected: the food. And this is true for us, too. We seek to accumulate worldly toys and trinkets that pass away, and we neglect eternal and lasting realities. There is enough time for TV, sports, gossip, shopping … you name it. But prayer, Scripture, Sacraments, Liturgy, worship, and developing any kind of relationship with the Lord are most often neglected or even wholly forgotten in our pursuit of ladders, mirrors, bells, and swings. We are staring into the mirror focused too much on ourself. The bells of this world summon us to countless things, mostly trivial in the long run, and we are climbing the ladder of success with little care as to what wall it is leaning against.

And all of these less important matters divert us from the one thing necessary: to feed our souls on the Lord. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … the one who feeds on me will live because of me ... (Jn 6:56-58).

Ah, but no time for all that. Getting to Church, praying, receiving Communion? No time! I hear a bell summoning me to just one more diversion, one more meeting. I’m too busy climbing the ladder of success. I’m too busy looking at myself in the mirror to make sure I fit in and that everyone likes me.

Did [the parrot] ever talk before he died?”
“Yes, he finally talked!” said the man.
“Well, what did he say?”
“He said, ‘Don’t they sell any birdseed at that store?'”

Just a little parable on the lies of the devil and the false promises of this world.