The word virtual has become, for most people, a euphemism for the Internet, or the computer world; as in “occurring or existing primarily online.” But the word virtual has an original meaning that is actually quite descriptive of a modern problem.
Prior to its application to the computer world, the word virtual meant: being something in effect, though not actually or expressly being such. In other words, it has aspects of the real thing, but is not the real thing. So, in the sentence. He is a virtual goldmine of knowledge on the subject one would be silly to look for physical gold mine or to think that he is either gold or a mine, or both. There is no actual, no physical, goldmine. Rather his knowledge has aspects of a gold mine (value, worth, depth) but he is not an actual goldmine.
The adverb, “virtually” means,for the most part, almost. In other words, it is close to the thing, but is not the thing or quality described. So in the sentence He was so exhausted, he was virtually dead; he is not, of course, actually dead but, rather shares in some of the qualities of the dead (unmoving, unconscious, lying down, etc). But he is not dead.
So virtual may mean “almost, like, or similar,” but NOT “is.” The virtual is not the full reality. It is lacking in existence and other important qualities of the actual reality.
And this is very important truth to recall in today’s “virtual” world of the Internet. Many people are substituting too much of the virtual for the actual. Many people spend more time interacting with Facebook friends than physically interacting with actual family members and friends. Many people digest large quantities of virtual Internet life, and only small amounts of real life. In an actual meeting with real people present, many will be seen to have their heads in their phone and be only vaguely present to the real meeting (see photo above right).
I have noticed some tourists here in DC so buried in their phones (perhaps studying about a particular monument), that they spend less time looking at the actual monument. Some fiddle so much to get the picture that they really miss the actual moment. A picture is not real (it is virtual, it shares aspects of the real thing but us not that thing). We spend a LOT of time with our eyes focused on a virtual world, and often neglect the real world among us.
A strange migration has happened for many today wherein we interact more “virtually” than really. As a result, old fashioned things like dating, marriage, meeting new people and just getting together with friends has declined.
Another problem with the virtual world is that it is, most often, self-defined. We select our favorite sites and bookmark them. We set Facebook filters, RSS feeds, twitter feeds, iPod playlists, and the like. In effect we create our own little virtual world. Meanwhile the real world with all its diversity and less desirable things is increasingly neglected and our world becomes smaller and our personal formation more stilted.
Even more so, our patience at listening and being a “captive audience” has declined and we are increasingly demanding that everything should appeal to us quickly. Otherwise I should be able to click on a new bookmark, change the channel, of skip to the next song in the shuffle. But the real world is not quite so accommodating. Patiently listening and working with what “is” seems more odious as we start to prefer the virtual to the real.
Well, let the following video make the point. Enjoy a humorous look at our obsession with the virtual while the real passes by.
One of the great losses to Western Culture is the increasing refusal to accept that there is a Natural Law to which we may commonly refer. This is especially problematic in pluralistic and secularist societies like the post-Christian West where reference to the sacred text of Scripture is not considered authoritative by many.
Hence, it has been the long practice of the Church, even before secularizing trends to base her witness to the truth not only on Scripture but also on Natural Law. The recourse to such a basis for discussion is now largely impossible for us, as most secularists have adopted a radical skepticism that our nature, and that the reality all around us, has anything to say to us in terms of the moral life. Thus, little discussion is possible between believers and secularists and the impasse is clearly on display in the comboxes of blogs such as this and others.
What is the Natural Law? According to St. Thomas, the natural law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law” (I-II.94). There are two reason we call this law “natural.” First, because it is set forth in our very nature itself, and second, because it is manifested to us by the purely natural medium of reason, rather than by supernatural revelation. The law, however, we observe does not rest on some particular element or aspect of our nature (e.g. only the physical). The standard is our whole human nature and also the special ends to which we are directed: e.g. justice, truth, rationality, and openness to the eternal.
For example, in observing our overall nature we rightly conclude, by the use of reason, that it is wrong to indulge the satisfaction of some lower need or tendency in a way that is not properly subordinated to the higher goods. We rightly conclude that reason should maintain a proper order and balance among our conflicting tendencies and desires.
– Thus, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our overall bodily health or spiritual life is wrong.
– Self-preservation is right and good, but there are times to accept dangerous and even deadly undertakings when the well-being of wider society requires it.
– A glass of wine may be good and relaxing, but it is wrong to drink to intoxication, for it is injurious to health, and deprives one of the use of reason, the guide and dictator of conduct.
– Theft is wrong, because it subverts the basis of social life and sows fear and distrust; so does lying; and man’s nature requires for its proper development that he live in a state of well functioning society.
– Sexual pleasure is good, but promiscuity of any sort undermines the family, spreads disease and endangers children in innumerable ways from abortion to being raised in less than the ideal setting of a committed, complimentary, and stable marriage of a mature mother and father. Outside of this ideal setting for children, a host of social ills follow as we well know today.
Note that in these examples, we have not referenced Scripture, which is supernatural revelation. Natural Law however is accessed through the unaided operation of reason. Founded in our nature and revealed to us by our reason, the natural law is known to us in the measure that reason brings a knowledge of it home to our understanding. The supreme and primary principles (e.g. not to steal, lie, commit adultery, murder) are known to every one having the actual use of reason and are held in every culture. Another class of conclusions or principles are those which are reached only by a more or less complex course of reasoning. This would be due to the more complex nature of the situation encountered. [1]
Thus, in effect, Natural Law is the law available to us by the use of natural reason. It presupposes that the existing world is intelligible, that it manifests order, and tends toward a purpose or goal (e.g. sustaining life). It presupposes that the natural world is steeped with meaning, and maintains a vigorous optimism that we, who are rational creatures, can learn from what the natural world and our own human nature testify to us.
But this optimism that creation shouts meaning and truth has suffered many serious blows in Western Culture, in the wake of the radical doubt and skepticism set in motion by the Cartesian revolution of the late 16th and early 17th Centuries. Increasingly, many influential Western philosophers came to articulate that things are ultimately, meaningless. Many scientists have taken up the notion that all the intricate order we can observe is only the result of random chance mutations and that the existing world ultimately has no real or ultimate meaning; it is just a chance accident. Materialists refuse to accept anything beyond physical matter, and reject metaphysical concepts such as justice, love, beauty, longing, and moral sense as mere emanations of brain synapses ultimately signifying nothing. Nihilism and other reductionists tendencies have plagued the West and robbed us, collectively speaking of the optimism that we, our lives, or the existing world have meaning and something to teach us.
Thus it is we who believe who are left holding the candle and who optimistically assert that the existing world is steeped with meaning, with teachings, with intelligibility. From the Christian point of view, God made all things through his “Word” (who is our Lord Jesus Christ). The Greek word Logos points to a kind of “logic” that permeates all things and is discoverable to our human reason. The universe was “thought into being” and thus we who possess reason are able to observe, to recognize, the Law, the reason, and the wisdom that underlies and permeates all things.
So, along with the supernatural Book of Sacred Scripture we also have the natural Book of Creation. The Church esteems them both as pointing to the one truth. Thus there can be no absolute or ultimate conflict between true science and faith. As Catholics, we are frequently considered together with our Fundamentalist and Evangelical brethren who do not often esteem the Book of Creation and Natural Law as we do. There are important distinctions that Catholics uniquely make that are often lost on atheists and secularists. We do not insist that our moral teachings and most of our doctrinal teachings are only available by Scripture, we also strive to show them and demonstrate them by way of natural law and that they are quite often accessible to reason.
Again we may note with sadness that this avenue is of late shutting down. Note because we have changed or moved, but because the world has become doubtful and cynical that the existing world or our bodies have anything to tell us.
One cannot judge individual hearts to be sure, but it is not without sobriety to suggest that some, if not many, who have rejected Natural Law have done so, not out struggle or doubt, but because the existence of any law above them is inconvenient to the moral life they wish to lead. Such judgements may be beyond us in individual cases, but collectively it seems clear that the wholesale abandonment of Natural Law has coincided with the declining West’s collective decision to take a moral holiday.
Perhaps as a prosaic conclusion to the Church’s optimism that the created world shouts forth meaning and truth we can end with the words of St Athanasius. Certainly he writes from the standpoint of faith and his words would matter little to a secularist or atheist. But to we who still have that “old time religion” it is a good reflection on how creation mystically manifests the immanence and wisdom of God.
By his own wisdom and Word, who is our Lord and Savior Christ, the all-holy Father (whose excellence far exceeds that of any creature), like a skillful steersman guides to safety all creation, regulating and keeping it in being, as he judges right. It is right that creation should exist as he has made it and as we see it happening, because this is his will, which no one would deny. For if the movement of the universe were irrational, and the world rolled on in random fashion, one would be justified in disbelieving what we say. But if the world is founded on reason, wisdom and science, and is filled with orderly beauty, then it must owe its origin and order to none other than the Word of God.
He is God, the living and creative God of the universe, the Word of the good God, who is God in his own right…. the Word that created this whole world and enlightens it by his loving wisdom….produced the order in all creation….and gives order, direction and unity to creation.
By his eternal Word the Father created all things and implanted a nature in his creatures. He…in his goodness he governs and sustains the whole of nature by his Word (who is himself also God), so that under the guidance, providence and ordering of that Word, the whole of nature might remain stable and coherent in his light. From a Discourse Against the Pagans by Saint Athanasius, bishop (Nn. 40-42: PG 25, 79-83)
Many of you have read the allegorical poem adapted by St, John of the Cross called Un Pastorcico (A little Shepherd). It is a poem about a shepherd boy who grieves that his beloved shepherdess has forsaken and forgotten him. In his love, and in his grief he climbs a tree, and there spreads his arms and dies, his heart by love torn open pitifully.
It is an allegory of Christ, indeed of God’s love for us, and for his bride the Church. Here is a translation of the poem by Mary Rae:
A little shepherd, all alone, is grieving,
a stranger both to pleasure and happiness,
thinking only of his shepherdess,
his heart by love torn open pitifully.
He does not weep because love wounded him,
it does not grieve him to be hurt by love,
although his heart has been hurt enough;
he weeps, instead, to think he is forgotten,
for only in thinking that she is forgetting,
he wanders far in his unhappiness,
and lets himself, in strange lands, be oppressed,
his heart by love torn open pitifully.
And the little shepherd says: ‘Oh, woe is she,
who from my love has left and gone away,
and far from my sweet company has strayed,
my heart, for her, torn open pitifully!’
And after a long while he climbed a tree,
and there he opened up his elegant arms,
and there he died, his arms held apart,
his heart by love torn open pitifully.
For indeed, God’s love for us becomes a passionate love in Christ: who weeps, who suffers, who seeks, desires and rejoices over us. So often we forsake him, and yet still in love, and surely in sorrow, he climbs the tree of the cross and there dies, his arms held apart, his heart by love torn open pitifully.
The great love story of God’s tender and long-suffering love for us begins early in the Old Testament. Beginning there, God’s tender love and sorrow at our straying is manifest:
In the Garden after Adam and Eve had sinned and were now hiding, God moves through the garden calling out plaintively as it were: “Adam…..where are you ?!“
Deuteronomy speaks of the tender care of the Father as one who carries his son close to his cheek on a journey:
And in the wilderness (as you have seen) the Lord thy God carried you, as a man is wont to carry his little son, all the way that you have come, until you came to this place. (Deut 1:31)
In the Book of Hosea God laments how his beloved son Israel runs from him, though he stoops to feed his son and care for him, ye the more he stoops the more his son runs. God is sorely grieved and laments through Hosea:
When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more I called Israel, the further they ran from me. …Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love…and bent down to feed them….My people are determined to turn from me. [But] “How can I give you up, Ephraim?…My heart is moved within me; all my compassion is aroused. (Hosea 11:1-8)
In Zephaniah there is expressed the joyful love of God for us:
The LORD your God in the midst of you is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over you with joy; he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing. (Zephaniah 3:17)
In the later prophets the image turns to one of love and marriage between God and his people:
Therefore I am now going to allure her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There she will sing as in the days of her youth…In that day,” declares the Lord, “you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master.’…. I will espouse you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the Lord. (Hosea 2:varia)
Ezekiel speaks of how God lavishes his love, woos his bride and marries her. But she turns on him. And in his grief God cries out with anger, but renews his covenant with her:
I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign Lord, and you became mine….I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments. I adorned you with jewelry….a beautiful crown on your head….You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen. And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you, declares the Sovereign Lord…..But you trusted in your beauty and used your fame to become a prostitute. You lavished your favors on anyone who passed by and your beauty became his….Adulterous wife! You prefer strangers to your own husband!….Did you not add lewdness to all your other detestable practices?…This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will deal with you as you deserve, because you have despised my oath by breaking the covenant. Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you…..So I will establish my covenant with you, and you will know that I am the Lord. Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done (Ezekiel 16, varia).
Fittingly then, in the New Testament Jesus is called the Groom by John the Baptist (Jn 3:29). Jesus also speaks of himself as the Groom (Mk 2:19; Mt 9:15; 25:6; Lk 5:35). He works his first miracle at a wedding (Jn 2:9). And he tells of his coming as a great wedding feast announced by God the Father, and yet he bitterly laments how most reject the invitation (Matt 22). And, in the end, we turn on him and kill him: his arms held apart, his heart by love torn open pitifully.
Yes, God’s love for us is costly, we wound him grievously and cause him great sorrow. Tradition places the words of Lamentation on his lips (and that of his mother) as he hangs on the cross: Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by? Look around and see. Is any suffering like my suffering that was inflicted on me? (Lam 1:12). Yes, the one who loves most suffers most, and no one loves us more than the Lord.
He weeps: On his last ascent to Jerusalem looked upon the city from across on the Mount of Olives and Scripture says, poignantly and simply, He wept over it (Lk 19:41). Yes, he weeps:
A shepherd, all alone, is grieving,
a stranger both to pleasure and happiness,
thinking only of his shepherdess,
his heart by love torn open pitifully.
For the Lord has known the joy of heaven and the praises of the angels, yet now he is:
a stranger both to pleasure and happiness….He wanders far in his unhappiness, and lets himself, in strange lands, be oppressed, his heart by love torn open pitifully.
Looking upon his shepherdess, his beloved, He weeps saying,If you, only you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes (Lk 19:41). How often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! (Luke 13:34)
Yes, he weeps:
And the shepherd says:
‘Oh, woe is she, who from my love has left and gone away,
and far from my sweet company has strayed,
my heart, for her, torn open pitifully!’
Down the Mount of Olives he goes, and then, soon enough, up another, Golgotha on slope of Mt Moriah:
And after a long while he climbed a tree,
and there he opened up his elegant arms,
and there he died, his arms held apart,
his heart by love torn open pitifully.
The Lord’s love for us is unfathomable. It is a love for which he has suffered, a love for which he died. One day it will finally dawn on us that the Son of God died for us, for me.
I have waited a bit till the dust settled on the Supreme Court decision of last month to ask some questions of about healthcare, and more specifically Health Insurance. I waited because this is neither a political blog, nor a legal blog. I want to leave the political commentary and questions to others, and let the legal types parse the Constitutional questions.
My questions are more personal and directed to us who are consumers of health care, especially about Insurance and how we pay for healthcare than healthcare itself. It is also about the high costs of healthcare.
While we may all wish to blame others (HMOs, hospitals, doctors, government et al.) is it not also possible that we all share some of the blame for the “off the hook” costs of medical care and for the Insurance debacle we in?
I would like to state a few questions and ask your feedback because a lot of the Health Insurance landscape is puzzling to me.
1. Let’s start with the concept of insurance. Most of us have several kinds of insurance: Car insurance, homeowners insurance and medical insurance. And yet the word “insurance” with reference to healthcare has taken on a vastly different meaning than any other kind of insurance.
Insurance is normally used to cover catastrophic, or at least significant costs. When I need new tires, I do not call my car insurance company. When I need an oil change or a 30,ooo mile checkup I pay for these things out of pocket. Same with homeowners insurance. We do not ask or demand our insurer to pay for new light bulbs, or even more expensive things like a new roof or HVAC system. No, Insurance is for catastrophic losses.
So why, when it comes to medical “Insurance” do we demand that every little pill, every doctor’s visit, every medical device be almost wholly paid by “insurers?” How did this system evolve? Is it necessarily reasonable for us to expect third parties to pay for everything when it comes to healthcare?
2. You may say, “But Father, if money were a consideration, many might neglect their health.” And this may be true. Although many do that now. But this leads to my next question.
3. Are Medical prices artificially high because third parties pay the bills? On the patient side there is inelastic demand. We run to the doctor with almost no thought to the cost. But on the supplier side why should an x-ray cost $1,100? Why should a night in the hospital cost thousands? Why should a 15 minute office visit to the doctor or specialist be $90-180? I wonder if market forces had predominated all along, would prices would be this high?
4. When did prices start going out of range? I vaguely remember as a child in the early 1960s that my mother paid the doctor cash when we visited. Only later did insurance start picking up the tab. At one time a doctor visit was considered affordable. My Grandfather, who was a doctor, surely did have some patients who could not pay, and I know he still saw them, but most could afford a visit a few times a year.
5. What role does technology play in costs? I realize that in the old days there was far less expensive equipment either available or used. Technology is expensive to be sure, but in other areas where market forces predominate, technology is still affordable. Very sophisticated computers, TVs and electronic devices that start out expensive, become affordable to the average person quickly, when market forces kick in. Is medical technology really all that different? Has the lack of a natural market due to third party payers meant that things have remained overpriced?
6. Malpractice Insurance is surely a huge factor. Is there anything we can do to limit frivolous lawsuits or limit the damages that must be paid? Can we stop suing each other so much?
7. What part has insisting that employers and government (more third parties) cover healthcare insurance played in driving up costs? Would insurance be more affordable if we all had to personally write the check every month? Would insurance companies compete more for our business? Would they have more incentive to help keep costs low?
8. I am personally happy to see “urgent care centers” beginning to spring up. So many these days run to hospital emergency rooms for what is not really an emergency, it is just urgent. They are not bleeding out, having a heart attack, or trouble breathing. They are not unconscious. They just have a headache that won’t quit, or have turned their ankle and fear it may be broken, or have a severe cold. Perhaps their doctor is away or it is a weekend or holiday. Urgent care centers perhaps with a doctor and several trained nurses may be a less expensive alternative. Can we develop more creative solutions like this?
Please understand these are real questions I am asking, not rhetorical points.
At the moral level I do think it is important for all of us to ask if we have not personally contributed to the high cost and increasingly unmanageable nature of the healthcare system. We don’t care what it costs, we don’t even ask what it costs. Our demand for unlimited care seems itself to be unlimited. We are part of the forces that have driven costs up.
I realize that healthcare decisions can get complicated. How long should I wait before I see the doctor? Is my ankle just twisted or is it broken and do I risk permanent injury if I don’t attend to it? These are not always easy things to answer, and most of us err on the side of caution. Maybe we should. But is cost never to be a factor?
Our even recent ancestors suffered through things we barely tolerate for a minute. In the old days when you went to the doctor with bad knees he’d hand you a cane and say “No more tennis for you.” We on the other hand demand knee replacement surgery and that others pay for it. Perhaps that is OK, but are there no limits? What part have we played in driving up costs by insisting that everything has to be fixed with no share in the cost other than our premium? And when the premium or co-pay goes up, we nearly hit the roof and scoff at the high price of medical care.
I want to say that decent healthcare available for all is certainly a pillar of Catholic Social teaching. But are there no limits to be accepted? Is it never legitimate to try and reign in the costs? Are there any limits of what others owe me in terms of medical care or at least in what I expect them to pay?
And a final bevy of questions:
– Why do people demand that contraceptives and things like Viagra be paid for by me or others.
– And why is Viagra $15 a pill?
– What is truly urgent care that must be extended, and what can wait and be diverted to non-emergency settings?
– Is there anything that can be done to walk back the medical system from an entirely third-party payer system and reintroduce market forces such as competition to drive down the cost?
– Is there anything that can be done to make ordinary medical care affordable again and keep insurance for the catastrophic and big stuff?
Again, I am interested in your thoughts. I am not writing this post as an expert of any sort. I am asking questions as I try to formulate a moral point of view on the need to provide healthcare coverage to all but also to recognize necessary and reasonable limits.
I am also trying to start a discussion around the idea that we may have ALL had a role to play in driving up costs, and thus may have a role to play in bringing those costs down.
This video illustrates how third-party payments relate to escalating costs:
On the great virtues to cultivate in life is acceptance. And while it is true that not everything ought to be accepted, it is often a virtue and a step toward serenity to understand that not everything can be changed, and that unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments.
Acceptance, which is not the same as approval, is a person’s assent to the reality of a situation, wherein we come to recognize a situation (often a negative or uncomfortable) for what it is, without attempting to change it, protest, or leave it. The word is derived from the Latin roots ac (to) + ceptus (take or receive). The concept is also close in meaning to ‘acquiescence’, which is derived from the Latin ‘acquiēscere‘ (to find rest in). [1]
Again, note that acceptance does not connote approval. In fact it usually connotes that there is something in the situation that is less than appealing, less than ideal. Yet, for wider reasons, such as the overall value of a relationship, or situation, we tolerate or assent to the imperfection.
While perfection and improvement are surely ideals for which to strive, inordinately demanding them in every situation or instantly is usually a recipe for resentment, frustration, disappointment, and even strife.
Last week on the blog we meditated on the value and virtue of stability, one of the four vows taken by the Benedictines. We do well to recall the following insights from the manual of a Benedictine community:
We give up the temptation to move from place to place in search of an ideal situation. Ultimately there is no escape from oneself, and the idea that things would be better someplace else is usually an illusion. And when interpersonal conflicts arise, we have a great incentive to work things out and restore peace. This means learning the practices of love: acknowledging one’s own offensive behavior, giving up one’s preferences, forgiving [2].
For it frequently happens that when one seeks that which is ideal, if there is any ordeal, they seek for a new deal. And the process tends to repeat and repeat, such that a person like this never attains true and deeper relations with real people in a real world, but is ever off seeking that which is unreal, which does not exist. In effect they miss real life, in search of fantasy.
In the Gospel from this past Sunday Jesus counsels:
Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. (Mk 6:10)
In other words, stay put, don’t looking for a better meal, better lodgings, better company. Work with what you’ve got rather than waste time constantly looking for a better deal.
Acceptance is the capacity, to work with what is, and thereby make modest improvements. It is the resourcefulness to discover gifts in the present, and imperfect moment, and use them lovingly and skillfully. It is the ability to rejoice and delight in the quirkiness, even the inconsistency of the people we know, and to realize that many of the struggles they have are strongly related to their strengths.
For, yes, competent and organized people are often anxious and controlling, artistic people are often moody, intellectual people are overly analytical, and kind people may make too many compromises. But acceptance rests in the insight that we are all mixed bags and that strength and struggles are often intertwined. Thus, search and destroy missions regarding negative traits are usually less effective than identifying the nearby gift and helping to refine and clarify it.
Acceptance also means working your own stuff. For while we often demand perfection or the ideal outside of ourselves, we easily forget how difficult we can be to live with. Too easily we fulfill the old saying: Faults in others I can see, but praise the Lord, there are none in me.
Beyond this we also go to the other end of the spectrum and unrealistically demand perfection of our selves. We can be our own worst critic. It’s all just a strange twist on pride wherein we implicitly presume to be above imperfection. The fact is we’re a mixed bag just like everyone else.
I can hear some of the objectors now: “Are you saying we should just settle for the mediocre?!” No, there is an important place and time in life to strive for improvement and increasing perfection. But along the way, accepting what is, right here and now, is a very important virtue. For if I cannot bear to live in what is now, I cannot ultimately inherit what could be better. If I will not stay put to improve and grow what is how can I reap what might be better? What can be better later, must be built on what is now. Acceptance helps me stay put and work with what is, rather than endlessly wait for something better to come, something which almost never comes.
A couple of sayings from the Desert Fathers (I know not who) :
To a disciple who was forever complaining about others the Master said, “If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth.”
(For acceptance and serenity are deeply interior gifts. And when I get better, other people get better too).
A disciple once said to the Master, “How can I be a great man like you?” “Why be a great man?” said the Master. “Being a man is a great enough achievement.”
(For it sometimes happens that, in seeking what is great, we neglect what is most real and essential, our very selves. Greatness is not so much achieved as it is received when we come to accept ourselves as we really are, from the hand of God. Simply becoming the man or woman God made us to be is great enough. To compare is to despair and no matter how tall your father is, you have to do your own growing).
Here is a silly video that illustrates a woman who simply cannot accept her family as it is, so she creates a virtual family instead.
Like many of you I often use Google Alerts to stay in touch with what’s going out out there. One of my search parameters is “Catholic” as you might expect. But what I get back from Google would really be described more as “anti-Catholic.” Well over 80% of the articles and posts that are highlighted are not only hostile to Catholic teaching, but downright hateful.
This suggests two possibilities. First that the Google search algorithm is “off” and that it fails to really search for what I want, and that somehow Google likes or prioritizes the anti-Catholic stuff. Perhaps. It IS odd to me that most of the blogs I regularly read NEVER make the Google cut.
The second possibility is that there simply is a lot more anti-Catholic stuff out there than I’d like to think, and though we Catholics like to think we’ve really got it going on in the blogosphere etc., perhaps those who hate or oppose us just have a bigger footprint.
I don’t know, you decide. CARA recently did a study (HERE) that concludes that we faithful Catholics have a LONG way to go in really making an impact on the Internet, and that most of the faithful do not really frequent Catholic sites for Catholic info.
All that said, (as a challenge to us all to grow the footprint of faithful Catholicism), I want to comment on a typical article that Google alerts generates and make some comments on how the author of the article fundamentally misunderstands the Church and yet exemplifies even what many in our pews think the Church should do and be.
The author identifies himself as “the Friendly Atheist.” Frankly he doesn’t seem all that friendly, given what he writes, but lets take a look, and also at a comment. As usual the original article is in bold, black, italic text, and my remarks are in plain red text. The full article is HERE, these are excerpts.
Friendly Atheist writes:
The Catholic Church is Now Pissing Off the People Who Actually Like Them
Sorry, those are his vulgar words, not mine. Refined language does not seem to be the forte of our Friendly Atheist.
But note the premise of his statement seems to be that anger is an argument. In other words if I make you angry, somehow I must be in the wrong. The argument seems to be that anger has the upper hand. Yes, if I am angry, somehow I must be “right,” and if you caused me to be angry somehow you must be wrong.
It is, perhaps, a specific version of the more general trend of our culture to exult feelings over reason. Thus if a person is crying, or if there is anger, somehow they gain authenticity over someone who is more sanguine. If the mother of, say, a crime victim is crying, the cameras roll and she makes the opening of the TV news. If one is more measured and “logical” they get moved to page B2 of the paper, and don’t even make the evening news.
But again, note, anger is not, per se, an argument. Just because you are angry at me does not mean that I necessarily did anything wrong. In fact, it may be that I did something right, that I struck a necessary nerve. Jesus made a lot of people angry, so angry they killed him; the prophets and martyrs too. Anger is not a argument, it’s just a feeling.
We know Catholic leaders are mostly a bunch of men who don’t want to hear any legitimate arguments as to why they’re wrong on issues like contraception usage and gay marriage.
Note that he says we “know” this. I do not cede this point as a premise. Frankly, most Catholics I know, think the Bishops far less decisive than our “friendly atheist” presumes. They experience them, as a group, to be far more open the the “spirit of the age,” to collegiality and to “dialogue” than they would wish. I personally disagree with either extreme (i.e. too open vs. too closed), but the point here is that what our friendly atheist stipulates as a fact we “know,” is far more disputable than he presumes.
Further he speaks of them not being open to “legitimate” arguments as to why they are wrong on contraception and Gay “marriage.”
Again note the logical fallacy: we are first supposed to stipulate that they are “wrong” on the said issues. No, Mr. “Friendly Atheist,” you are supposed to demonstrate that.
He further implies that the arguments against the Bishops are “legitimate,” which presupposes that arguments for these positions are “illegitimate.” Here too, a logical fallacy since he has failed to demonstrate the presupposition of “legitimacy.”
Now the word “legitimacy” comes from the Latin legis, meaning “law.” In the Catholic realm we find the sources of our law in Scripture and Tradition. Now, if there are “legitimate” arguments that the “friendly atheist” wants to advance, let him attempt to do so. But, frankly, the attempts to advance any argument from Scripture or Tradition that Gay “marriage” or contraception are good, and of God, will be hard to come by, since, at every stage of Scripture and Tradition these practices are consistently condemned.
Some argue that Scripture is largely silent on contraception (but remember, NO ONE wanted small families in those days, contraception was unthinkable except perhaps in relation to prostitution), but Tradition is not silent. And as for Gay “marriage” any attempt to validate homosexual activity of any sort is fanciful. Scripture unambiguously and at every stage, condemns homosexual activity, as well as illicit heterosexual activity. Hence it is unclear what “legitimate” (i.e. based in Law) arguments the bishops should be listening to on either topic
Perhaps our friendly atheist thinks that arguments from the world are the legitimate arguments. But “the world” is not a “legitimate” (i.e. “legal”) source of the moral Law for the Church. We draw from sources of Scripture, Tradition and appeal to the Natural Law both to confirm the rectitude of our beliefs and to demonstrate to unbelievers the rectitude of our positions.
We also know that most Catholics who are not part of the hierarchy don’t buy into what their “superiors” tell them. Catholic women use birth control. Many Catholics support gay marriage. The list goes on.
Here too there are a list of misunderstandings as to the nature of the Church. We are not a body politic that determines what is right based on polls or how conforming people are. It is a tragic truth that the faithful, down through the centuries, have not always lived or upheld what is taught. That goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden.
And even to this day, it is not merely the “conservative” sexual morals of the Church that the faithful often ignore or dispute, it is also more “liberal” notions. For example, we are to love our enemies and not seek to retaliate against those who assail us. But most Catholics, most Christians, liberal or conservative, do not live this very well and even openly live contrary to it. Should the Church simply jettison this call to love our enemies and now sanction, approve and encourage hating enemies? Should we recognize “covenants of hatred” and seek to supply encouragement and provision and rituals for retaliation? Should we affirm those who have a “right” to hate since, after all, God gave them the capacity to hate? Is the mere fact that people don’t live the moral law reason to jettison it?
Well, let these absurdities illustrate the truth that the Church cannot allow sinful human behavior, no matter how widespread and “celebrated” be the norm for our teaching. Taking votes and simply observing human attitudes is not a good source for moral norms. We must look to reveled truth for a more sure source, a source that does not merely pander to what we want.
And note that what the “friendly atheist” calls “Most Catholics” may be statistically true, but it fails to distinguish between church-going Catholics and merely nominal Catholics. It remains a sad fact that most people who call themselves Catholics are not really practicing Catholics in any sense of the word. Perhaps they will return, but non-practicing Catholics cannot set the norm for what it means to be a believing and practicing Catholic.
So when the Arlington Catholic Diocese sent Sunday School teachers a “Profession of Faith” they needed to sign, some of them balked at the idea that they have to “firmly accept” anything the Church teaches about faith and morals.
Ditto with being forced to adhere to the “will and intellect to the teachings” of Catholic leaders.
It is not clear to me how many of the teachers actually balked at the idea. But, not having been born yesterday, and knowing the secular media’s usual approach, lets say 97% say fine, and 3% say “Hmm…” Just guess where the cameras and mics will be found. The dissenters get the attention, the faithful are either ignored or get a little line at the end of the piece.
Here too, our Friendly Atheist misunderstands the nature of the Church which is not a human club wherein the members get to vote on by-laws and determine what seems right according to their thinking. We are a community of believers who gather around a revealed doctrine that we do not get to determine, but are required to give assent to.
It is not so extreme to ask those who do not merely sit in the pews but actually take positions as catechists and who claim to teach in the name of the Church to publicly attest that they actually believe what they are teaching and to promise not to teach anything contrary to it.
No one is required to be a catechist, and thus, if one is struggling to assent to some teaching, they are not required to make a promise of any sort. Perhaps they can discuss their struggle with a member of the clergy or another believer and clarify or come to some understanding. Perhaps not. But that is a personal matter.
When, however, one steps forth to teach the faith in a formal way and to take the office of catechist, it makes sense that they be asked to certify that they assent to Church teaching and are striving to live it.
Every employee of the Federal and most State governments are asked to assert under oath that they will respect and uphold civil law in these or similar words:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
If even secular governments and businesses expect their employees to affirm loyalty and allegiance to a basic set of norms, how much more the Church which proposes not only passing human norms, but what we believe to be eternal and divine norms?
The “Friendly Atheist” then goes on to quote outraged catechist (four of them) an then concludes:
I’m loving this implosion from the sidelines. The Church isn’t going to back down from their awful ideas and the decent people who actually like the Church are finding more and more reasons to get the hell out of there.
I am sure he is loving it but he doesn’t seem very “friendly” when he says this 🙂 .
He’s right that we are not going to back down, not with the Holy Spirit in charge any way. For God is not “no” yesterday and “yes” today and the moral law does not morph with our wishes. The truth does not change just because the world rejects it or even if most people choose to violate it.
So again, the “Friendly Atheist” fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Church which is not a clubhouse, but is a lighthouse. And to be lighthouse we have to be a light, even when the world prefers darkness.
And as for those who are “getting the Hell out of there,” it is fairly problematic to argue that the Catholic Church would have greater numbers if we were towing the line of what the modern world expects and demands. For, the Mainline Protestant denominations have largely taken this path and their numbers are far worse, indeed one can only marvel at the mass exodus from the denominations who have embraced the spirit of the age. And, the Evangelical denominations who have resisted such modern notions are growing.
In the end, Catholicism is holding her own, and even growing on a worldwide basis. We do not grow by defining ourselves. Our only hope and prayer is to remain faith to the gospel in season and out of season.
One of his commenters named “Moctavius” says, Nothing says, “I’m on the wrong side of history,” quite like a loyalty oath.
Well Mactavius may have pronounced an end to the Church, or to her influence, but he will do well to consider that the Church has outlived all her opponents and confounded the predictions of all who have announced her demise. Where is Caesar, where is Napoleon, where is the Soviet Socialist Republic? Movements too have come and gone, some remain and recast themselves as “something new” but are really just the same old tired heresies. You think you have a new idea, go back and see how the Greeks put it.
But through it all the Church has remained. She has outlived every enemy and every movement. And though her numbers may rise and fall, she is, by God’s promise, indefectible.
So pronounce away Mactavius, but the Church is not on the wrong side of history, she IS history.
And to the “Friendly Atheist,” and to all who think the Church should learn to “tow the line” and come into conformity with “modern” (actually old, rehashed) thinking, I am mindful of a saying of Jesus:
Jesus Said, “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: “‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.”’ But time will prove where wisdom is” (Matt 11:17-19)
Yes, wisdom is proved true by her works and by her lasting vindication in the parade of erroneous or foolish ideas.
It would be easy if Satan came as he is often portrayed, with horns and a pitchfork. We would naturally flee this ugliness.
Alas, he often comes cloaked in beauty, in sheep’s clothing:
He claims to offer us freedom and autonomy from an unreasonable God and Church, liberation from rules and being “told what to do.”
He cloaks himself in the false righteousness of being “tolerant” and “not judging others.”
He exalts us by telling us we have finally come of age and can disregard the “hang-ups” and “repression” our ancestors had of sex and pleasure.
He flatters us by extolling our scientific knowledge and inflates us by equating it with wisdom and moral superiority over our “primitive” fore-bearers.
He reassures us by insisting we are merely the victims here, victims of biological urges, bad parenting, economic injustice, that we are not depraved, just deprived.
He humors us by making us laugh at sin, making light of it in comedian’s routines, sitcoms, music and otherwise turning sin into a form of entertainment.
He anesthetizes the pain of guilt and sin by sending us teachers who tickle our ears and assure us that what we know deep down to be wrong is actually fine, even virtuous.
He affirms us by insisting that whenever shortcomings in us have been called to our attention it is simply unfair since other people are surely worse, that self esteem is something owed to us and others who lessen it are unkind.
He sings to us the lullaby of presumption assuring us that consequences and judgment will not be our lot and, with this lullaby, we drift off into a moral sleep of indifference and false confidence.
But in the end, there is a wolf under the sheepskin. Satan is ugly. He enslaves, condemns, ridicules and ensnares. His “reassurances” bring pain and grief as the awful effects of sin unwind: hatred, fear, resentments, revenge, suffering, disease, addiction, bondage, strife, divorce, estrangement, war, insurrection, disloyalty, scorn, bitterness, depression, anxiety, depletion, poverty, loss and deep, deep sorrow.
Beware, Satan has many disguises and he seldom presents as he really is. The movie The Passion of the Christ brilliantly presented Satan in the Garden. At first there was almost a strange beauty. But a closer look revealed increasingly hideous details: cold, fixed eyes, sharp and discolored nails, sickly pale skin, suddenly androgynous qualities, and a disgusting maggot crawling in and out of the nose. An audible moan came from the audience in the theater where I first saw it. Would that, beyond the movie, we could sense this revulsion and clarity as to the evil of Satan and his truest reality.
Here is a very powerful video on the disguises of sin:
Around the end of the nineteenth century a tourist from the Untied states visited the famous Polish Rabbi, Hafez Hayyim. He was astonished to see that the rabbi’s home was just a simple room filled with books. The only furniture was a table and bench. “Rabbi, Where is your furniture?” asked the tourist. “Where’s yours?” replied the rabbi. “Mine? But I am only a visitor here.” “So am I,” said the rabbi.”
But for most of us, Just too much stuff:
Big house, big car, wide screen, full bar
Great room, new boat bank won’t float the note.
Too much stuff, there’s just too much stuff.
It’ll hold you up, dealin with too much stuff.
Hangin on the couch, puttin on the pounds
walk, run, jump, swim, try to hold the weigh down
Eating too much stuff, just too much stuff,
It’ll wear you down carryin round too much stuff.
Go here, go there, runnin round to everywhere
gettin this gettin that, clutter only leads to rats
Too much stuff, just too much stuff.
It’ll mess you up, piling up too much stuff.
Yes, just too much stuff.
But where to begin to live more simply, and to stop running after stuff? Perhaps only God can effect the change we need. Our addiction to “stuff” knows almost no limits. And the more we get, the more we want. Yet despite supersizing, we are not more fulfilled, indeed we seem emptier. Some of the houses I bless these days have “great rooms” as big as the entire house I grew up in. Yet our families do not seem any happier.
But still we want the stuff! More stuff!
Now, of course, we do need some stuff, but what and how much? In my own life I try to set some priorities around my essential tasks. Thus, in the celebration of the sacraments, my first and most essential task, I own a few decent albs, and a cassock and surplice. I don’t need to own many personal vestments since the parish supplies them, but I do, as pastor make sure we have decent vestments on hand for sacred worship. My clergy clothes (aka “witness” clothes) ought to be decent, clean and in good repair, as well since public presence and witness are important for a priest.
One of my essential tasks is to be a communicator and to be “out there” in the conversation. Thus I place a high priority on a good, fast, and working computer, with a display that won’t ruin my eyes. I also have a high end iPhone and iPad that link to my MAC, and are essential to my Internet ministry when I am away from my desk. Books and access to intellectual resources via the internet and Kindle are also important so that I can research and stay intellectually fresh.
Beyond these basic priorities however, I don’t need much more. I don’t need a fancy new car. My old, outdated “late model” “Crown Victoria” inherited from my father, runs just fine and still looks reasonable. And did I mention it is paid for? I don’t own furniture, the good people of the parish provide that. I do get gifts of statues and other such things, but I often leave a lot of these behind when I must move. I own a few pictures to hang on the wall, but many of these too are left behind when I must move.
But that’s just my story. Yours will be different. What is most essential for the biggest priorities in your life. Perhaps it is tools of your trade. Perhaps it is things that help you parent effectively. Surely a reasonably nice home for your family to live and grow in important. But is a 1200 sq. ft. Great room really needed and are granite counter tops really that essential? Is a sixty inch wide screen, and television in every bedroom really necessary? For some families a good family van that is safe and easy to get in and out of, is important
I don’t know, you decide. But something has to give for most of us, there’s just too much stuff. Many of us live way beyond our means, credit cards are maxed out, mortgage payments for houses that are way too big weigh us down, we eat too much, buy too much, spend too much, have too much. Clutter is a huge issue in many lives and in many homes. Obesity is rampant, even in children (almost unheard of 30 years ago).
It’s just too much stuff.
Ask the Lord for help. Less is more, but discernment is needed. There are things we need to have in order to accomplish our most important tasks and its often a good idea to spend a little extra and get something good, rather than go with poor resources that end up costing more in time and even money in the long run.
And remember the poor and needy. With much of the frivolous and unnecessary spending we do buying a lot of “stuff,” injustice to the poor is a very real possibility. If I have two shirts, one belongs to the poor. And while “two shirts” need not receive a literal interpretation, it remains true that hoarding and careless, frivolous spending becomes a form of theft if there are poor and needy members of our families, churches and communities who go without while we just pile up “stuff.” We do have obligations in justice to the poor if we are possessed of excess.
Too much stuff! Lord, give us the grace to simplify, to be satisfied with what we have and to consider poor before we just go out and spend. Help us prioritize too, so that, having constrained our appetite for a thousand things, we can focus our spending on what will most help us to accomplish the tasks to which you have summoned us. Help us Lord, were drowning in too much stuff.
Enjoy a little boogie and blues on the theme of too much stuff!
ead the allegorical poem adapted by St, John of the Cross called Un Pastorcico (A little Shepherd). It is a poem about a shepherd boy who grieves that his beloved shepherdess has forsaken and forgotten him. In his love, and in his grief he climbs a tree, and there spreads his arms and dies, his heart by love torn open pitifully.