I have often pondered how the Church has survived 2000 years. I have considered how long the Church could have survived without the promise of Christ that gates of Hell would not prevail, and without the Holy Spirit. I have concluded that we would have lasted about twenty minutes, max.
Yet here we are, a kind of miracle, so big, that no one notices. 2,000 years old, (longer if you ponder our Jewish roots). Empires and nations have risen and fallen during that time: The Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the great and expansive European nations with their widespread colonies: the British empire, the Spanish and French expansions and later contractions. It was once said, “The Sun never sets on the British Empire.” Now it does. And all Europe, as we know it, may be in the late autumn of its existence. Chinese dynasties have risen and fallen, more recently the Nazi and then Soviet regimes have come and gone. In the 7th Century the Muslims came on the scene, expanded, contracted and now, it would seem, are expanding again.
But through all this the Church has withstood. Sometimes stronger, sometimes weaker, but always, miraculously left standing, though all crumble around her. What other nation or organization can, as we do, trace its roots in an unbroken line of successors (Popes and bishops) back to its founder? It is true we have suffered some divisions within, some precarious moments, and it is true some have broken away from us. But the center has held, and the line is unbroken. Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia (where Peter is, there is the Church). The Church stands, while Empires, nations, movements, and fads have come and gone.
And this miracle shines forth despite significant human obstacles within her: often terrible scandals, poor preaching, bad example, abuse of power, poor priorities, disorganization, sweeping heresies, schisms, lack of faith, and just plain stupidity.
It is said that the Napoleon, threatening to destroy the Catholic Church, was scoffed at by the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris in these words, “Priests have been trying to destroy the Church for 1800 years and been unable!” Words sad, but at times true. Corruptio optime pessima (the Corruption of the best, is the worst). Yet here we still are.
An old hymn (though Protestant in origin) is true when applied to the Catholic Church:
Though with a scornful wonder
we see her sore oppressed,
by schisms rent asunder,
by heresies distressed,
yet saints their watch are keeping;
their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
shall be the morn of song.
Mid toil and tribulation,
and tumult of her war,
she waits the consummation
of peace forevermore;
till, with the vision glorious,
her longing eyes are blest,
and the great Church victorious
shall be the Church at rest.
Until that time, we shall endure and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against us. Though dismissed by many who predict our demise, it is a promise of Christ (Matt 16:18) and it has proved true despite many previous predictions of our demise.
This does not mean that the Church is not in need of purification and pruning. And we have and will continue to experience this. I am convinced that we are still in a time of pruning. The Lord has taken the tall and proud vine of the Church, so luxuriant, it seemed, fifty years and before in this land, and has pruned us, by allowing us to be tested. This is a time of purification. A time not yet complete. But, as I have remarked before, I experience the Church here in America to be in much better condition than the more terrible times of the 1970s and 1980s. The pruning may not yet be fully over, but there are signs of greater purity and intensity already in: fervent and orthodox younger clergy, fine and wonderful new religious, many new and superb lay movements, and many individual lay people powerfully dedicated, sober and clear about their faith and the need to be light, even to accepting a kind of martyrdom in this ever darkening world.
The Church is surely a miracle; one before our very eyes. The world, and even many of the faithful, may think we are on the ropes and ready to go down. But we will endure, by the promise of Christ. An old spiritual says, Get on board children, children, there’s room for many-a-more. Nations, cultures, empires, and ideologies, will come and go. But there’s one ship that’s going to make it through this old storm tossed world, and that is the Church. Get on board children, (and stay on board), there’s room for many-a-more.
Photo Credit: The Cardinal’s Portrait by Rosenthal – A wonderful diptych of sorts. On the canvas painted by the monk, we see an image of the Church as we want her to be. On the left is the all too human reality of the Church. Ah, but the Church endures, by God’s grace.
This video of the Church being (re)built in France inspired me to write this post. Enjoy the video as you see a sign of new life and a visual image of the church being (re)built.
There is a magnificent interview over at National Review Online of professor of philosophy at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, Christopher Kaczor. He is the author of the new book The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice (Available at Amazon HERE). The interview is conducted by Kathryn Jean Lopez, of National Review, and though she takes up the voice of a pro-“choice” advocate, she is not.
Professor Kaczor answers the most common questions and objects with great clarity. I would like to present a few excerpts of the lengthy interview here and encourage you to read the rest. I will excerpt it in the form of listing the question and the pertinent point he makes. And few minor remarks by me are in red. The Full article is here Pro-Life Aristotle
1. What right do you, a man, have to make such a case [against abortion]?
KACZOR: Legally speaking, everyone has a right to free speech, including speech about abortion….has the right and obligation to speak out in defense of the defenseless and in favor of a just social order. The question …seems to presuppose that abortion is simply and solely about women, but this is a false supposition. The majority of abortionists are men — more men than women describe themselves as “pro-choice” — and in the United States, men pay for abortions with their tax dollars. Aside from these considerations, every abortion involves the pregnant woman, the expectant father, the one who is aborted, and the society that allows it.
I would only add here that just under 50% of babies killed are male. I remember be “serenaded” at the last Pro-life march here in DC by pro-abortion counter demonstrators who I had witnessed to. They “sang” for me: “Hey, hey, ho, ho, pro-life men have got to go. Hey, hey, ho, ho, if you got pregnant then you’d know!” They also told me, that as a man, I had no right to speak on this issue and since I was a priest, I was even more disqualified. As you might guess, a few of them accused me of being a pedophile. Yes, yes, if you put yourself out there expect to get it with both barrels
2. No book [or law] will eradicate the fact that there are women who will feel the need to abort their unborn children and doctors who will provide the service. It was the case before it was legal and it will be after.
KACZOR: I think you are right that abortions took place prior to legalization and abortions would continue if abortion were made illegal. The same point can be made for theft, child abuse, and assault, which have always happened in human history and which will always happen. Indeed, if people never did the act in question, making a law about it would be superfluous.
Exactly and I would add that i think laws do influence some people not to do certain things. I know that one of the reasons I never tried drugs in High School was that I knew they were illegal and the risk associated with such use helped to deter me. Many say you cannot legislate morality. To certain extent I agree and don’t lots of unnecessary laws, but my own experience is that law both reflects and influences moral decision making.
3. What’s the least compelling argument supporters of legal abortion make?
KACZOR: “It is my body, it is my choice.” [Actually], in abortion, there are two bodies involved, the body of the pregnant woman and the body of the human being in utero. [They] can be of different blood types and different races, and it can happen that one of them dies and the other lives and vice versa. If there were only one body involved, then absurdities follow such as that a pregnant woman has two heads, four arms, and, if she is carrying a boy, also a penis. Further, “choice” is a euphemism disguising the reality. Everyone supports good choices that are just and promote human welfare. The question is whether abortion is such a choice. Great answer, and humorous to boot, showing the thoughtless absurdity of the slogan.
4. What’s different about your Book and your argument?
My argument is not faith-based, but rather based on reason and evidence. There is no appeal to theological authority; there are no Scripture citations to justify conclusions, and no premises that come from ecclesial authority. The case against abortion is made to all persons of good will, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. As a priest I usually have recourse to Scripture. But it is clear that we must also make use of Natural Law arguments based on natural reason.
5. Is it just to tell a [pregnant] teen she’s got to have a kid…?
Of course, no one should ever be forced to become pregnant, but a pregnant woman already “has a kid.” After pregnancy has begun, the question is not, “Do we force her to have a kid?” but rather “Will we support this expectant mother and her child?” People of good will should answer “yes.” A wonderful turning back of the the phrase “have a kid.”
6. What does Aristotle have to do with the poor mom who feels as if she has no alternatives when she realizes she is pregnant? The desperate teenager? The single professional who can’t both do her job and have this child?
KACZOR: I believe that everyone, including the poor mom, the desperate teenager, and the single professional, desires to find true happiness. I also believe that Aristotle, and even more fully Thomas Aquinas, showed that the way to true happiness consists in activity in accordance with virtue. There can be, therefore, no authentic happiness found in activity that is unjust.
I can think of one case in particular: a young student, not yet finished with her education, who found herself pregnant with a man she did not know well. With so many responsibilities, both to her extended family and to her studies, she felt desperate, alone, and trapped. It was truly an act of heroism for that woman to decide to place that child for adoption. I know the woman in the story very well. She is my birth mother. I feel such an enormous debt of gratitude to her….I don’t think there is any woman who in the long term regrets, even in the most difficult of circumstances, making the choice for life. But I know there are many thousands of women who still remember and mourn, even decades later, the date that their baby would have been born.
A moving and wonderful story of how making virtuous choices, even when difficult brings happiness.
7. Are there myths about abortion you’d like to use this book to shoot down?
[One] myth is that there is a debate about “when life begins.” In fact, informed parties, both those opposed to and those in favor of abortion, acknowledge that the human fetus is a living organism. Notice the phrase, informed parties. I have met more than a few uniformed people who still buy into the “tissue” argument or have been convinced of it by a Planned Parenthood official. Still, I am convinced that, deep down, everyone knows the child is alive and is a human being.
[Another] myth is that the debate is about whether the “fetus is a human being.” Informed participants in this discussion, regardless of their views about abortion, understand that the living organism within the woman is a member of the species homo sapiens…..The real question in the debate is: Should all human beings be respected and protected, or just some?
The debate about “personhood” is really the debate about who will be included in the human community, who will be respected, and who will receive legal protection. This debate goes back over the centuries, throughout which various classes of human beings were excluded from the human family. Those excluded tend to change over time but have been at various points Native Americans, Africans, Catholics in Protestant-dominated countries, Protestants in Catholic-dominated countries, non-Muslims, Jews, the handicapped, and women. Every single time we’ve said, this or that class of human beings does not merit protection and respect, I think we’ve made a terrible mistake. Today, I believe we’re making another terrible mistake in excluding from full protection and respect human beings prior to birth.
Yes, those who deny personhood or full legal recognition to the infant are in some pretty terrible company and heir to so pretty awful chapters in human history. Any quick look at history reveals how ugly it all is.
8. So what if a mother’s life is in danger? What if she has cancer? What if she will likely die if she is not treated? And what if when she is treated, the child might very well die?
KACZOR: Any legitimate medical procedure that is needed to save the woman’s life — whether or not she is pregnant — may be performed, so long as the death of the unborn child is not sought as a means or as an end. Of course, a pregnant woman may choose, if she wishes, to decline such interventions in order to preserve the life developing within her. These cases are governed by what is called the principle of double effect….So long as the death of the unborn child is not sought as a means or as an end, and the procedure is necessary in order to save the life of the mother, it may be done even if it brings about the bad effect of fetal death. In a similar way, the death of the mother may not be sought as an end or as a means, yet she may choose to accept her own death as a side effect of protecting the life of her child. Innocent human life is worthy of respect and protection, but in some tragic situations, life will be lost whatever is chosen.
Again, the key point with double effect, is intent. There can be no direct intent to harm the child in the womb. One may forsee the possible or even likely loss of the the child, but does not wish or intend it. Further, the death of the child cannot be means by which the woman is saved. The death of the child is only the regrettable side effect of a procedure that is critically necessary to save the mother.
The whole interview is wonderful and he even uses a Star Trek analogy at one point. Consider reading the article. I am interested in your comments. I also realize that the “double effect” scenario mentioned at the end is troubling and difficult for some who are not used to hearing it. But it is straight-forward Catholic moral theology. Nevertheless, I welcome questions about that and also that readers might also supply greater insight to that or any of the points made here.
When I was in High School, a school of 3,500 students, we had several academic tracks for the students. Some of us took the college prep track which emphasize the academic disciplines such as math, science, literature, grammar, writing, history etc. But back in those days (1970s) there was still a sense that college wasn’t for everyone. And so we also had some other tracks. On one side of the school there was a magnificent “industrial arts” lab where guys learned most of the trades, such as plumbing, basic electrical, carpentry, sheet rock, masonry, and car repair, even drafting. Another section of the school trained mostly the young ladies in licensed practical nursing, typing, stenography and basic book-keeping. There was also a culinary school.
Quite remarkable really.
Most of that is gone now, at least here in the Washington DC area. I say with some degree of frustration and sadness that I have heard that the drafting lab where I once learned mechanical drawing is now a nursery for the many young girls to have their babies watched while they go to class. Another sign of the cultural meltdown.
There was a lot wrong in the 1970s, but the insight of multiple tracks wasn’t one of them. Frankly not every one is cut out to go to college or needs to. There seems to be hyper emphasis on college. Many public and Catholic high schools like to boast that 98% of their graduates went to college. But why should 98% go? Is it possible that the pressure and increasing “requirement” that everyone go to college is an unjust expectation? Is it really necessary that everyone have a college degree to get, even entry level, clerical work or tradesman status? Why?
I wonder about “justice” here for two reasons
1. Tuition rates are disgracefully high. Many families and students incur enormous debt to jump through the increasingly required college “hoop.” There are some State Colleges and community college alternatives that are more reasonable, but even there, books are horribly expensive as are the increasing requirements for laptops, lab equipment, electronic readers and many other ancillary stuff. I am not asking for any regulation of tuition rates but I wonder about many of these college campuses which pride themselves on their “socially enlightened” views and then jack up prices like this.
Tuition has gone way out of sight. Currently over 60 colleges and universities in the country charge over $50,000 a year for tuition. Here in DC, Georgetown charges $52,161 and George Washington charges $51,775.[1] At some point, rates like this become unjust and drive up other more affordable schools as well.
Again, I am not asking for some Government agency to regulate tuition rates. What I am proposing is if we as a culture ought not step back and ask if “requiring” college for so many, is necessary and just. Perhaps it is time to reexamine trade schools and other avenues as entry points into our economy.
2. Time – A college degree used to take four years. Not exactly short, but manageable. You got your BA or BS, your ticket was punched, and you went into the workforce. Today, however, there are increasing requirements for the MA and even the doctoral degree to get “access.” So, add two, three or more years and, by the way, pay even more, and go deeper into debt.
In short, creeping credentialism is costly in terms of time and money. When things get this costly and time consuming, it is time to ask if it is necessary that we require such an elaborate and expensive system for people to “get their ticket punched.”
I have seen employment ads for car mechanics that listed a college education as preferred. Why? I have seen the same thing in want ads for chefs and cooks. College? Is that necessary? Closer to home, I have seen Catholic parishes list secretarial openings that strongly prefer college degrees. Why? Sure, for the parish business manager a degree and or significant professional experience is essential. But for a secretary who types, answers phones, keep records, and makes ordinary use of Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, is a college degree necessary? Why do we do this, and is it possible we are unnecessarily shutting out the poor or others who, for various reasons, could not have access to the college scene?
Finally, I am going to get really controversial and wonder if a College Education is not overrated as well. Years ago, College was an intense experience of the life of the mind where one sampled from the deepest veins of human learning; reading the classics, studying ancient languages, reading the philosophers, theologians and scientists. One emerged having drawn deeply of these, and being rather conversant in the great ideas that underlay the modern sciences, culture, economics and political theory.
Today college has morphed into a kind of trade school, but a very expensive and time consuming one. Students specialize quickly and sample far less of the foundations of learning and knowledge.
Further the lifestyle of college campuses (as we have discussed before) is poisonous to the moral life, and even the education of young people. Widespread drinking, fornication and drug use are usually unchecked by academic leaders. None of these help the life of the mind, and they surely kill the life of the soul. The college scene also devastates maturity and many leave college less mature and self disciplined than they entered.
I have talked with a few people in HR departments in both private and government sectors and they indicate that many college graduates are unprepared for the discipline of work. Many of them have short attention spans, a party-rock spirit, and are not used to hard work and showing up on time. Job one is for many of them to grow up and quickly, otherwise they do not retain employment long. While not all college students exhibit these problems it is enough of a trend to mentioned.
While this topic is not strictly a theological one, I have tried to couch my remarks in terms of justice, and also culture, which we comment on a lot here.
Please let me know what you think and what your experiences are. I do not want to be unjust in my own reflections, but at the bottom line I think we need to augment and open other viable paths into the workforce for high school students today. A college degree has its place, but is far less necessary than we make it; or so I think. How about you?
Here’s a classic comedy routine by Guido Sarducci called Five Minute College:
The Gospel from today’s Mass was of the familiar parable of the man with a big harvest who built larger barns to store his excess, but then was called a fool by the Lord for he would die that night and his riches profit him nothing. I have written before on the parable itself but would like to reflect here a bit more on the lines just before and after the parable.
The passage begins as such:
Someone in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, tell my brother to share the inheritance with me.” He replied to him, “Friend, who appointed me as your judge and arbitrator?”
The Lord then tells the familiar parable and how the rich man dies surrounded by his riches, but a fool and unprepared to meet God because he thought somehow that his wealth could sustain him for years.
Then comes the memorable line:
Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich in what matters to God.
While this line may invite a post describing at length a list of what matters most to God, I’d like to limit the reflection more on how, what we are usually most anxious and concerned about is not usually what matters to God.
Look at how the passage begins. A man is concerned about money and that he should get some share of the family estate. Surely Jesus who cares about justice will side with him! But the reaction of Jesus indicates a kind of irritation with the nature of the request. In effect he says, “Look, this sort of stuff is small potatoes. You’re all concerned about the wrong thing. You have far bigger issues in your life you ought to be thinking about (like greed, and a host of other sinful drives that will destroy you) than money and fair share. I have not come to be a banker, a real estate attorney, a probate judge, or a financial adviser. And as for you, you need to get your focus and priorities right.”
Here of course is a kind of paradigm (or example) of a common human problem, and that is, that we often get all worked up about the wrong things and pay little attention to things that matter far more. Consider a few examples:
I. In listening to people pray, including myself, at public gatherings it is interesting how most of the prayers (almost 100%) deal with worldly matters. “O Lord, fix my finances, fix my health, fix my spouse, fix this or that situation so I am more comfortable and better situated, help me get a promotion at work.” None of these things are wrong to pray about, but notice the worldly and passing quality of most of it. It is almost as if we were saying to God, “Just make this world a better and comfortable place for me. Give me enough health, friends, money and creature comforts, and that’s all I need, I’ll just stay here forever!” In a way it’s a terrible thing to say to God and surely there are things for which we should ask that matter more to God.
I am sure God waits for the day when we will finally say from our heart, “Lord give me a closer walk with you….help me hunger for your justice, righteousness, truth and holiness. Help me repent of my sins and desire greater holiness. Help me yearn for the day when I can come and live with you and grant me the grace to be prepared to enter your presence. Take away my sinful attachments to this world and make my heart’s truest desire to be You and the joys waiting for me in heaven with you.” I am sure God’s waits for the day, for these are things that matter to God.
In the end, nothing matters more to God than you, yourself, and that you be made ready to be with him forever. Money, who cares? Health? That passes anyway, as does the body, and worldly glories. But the soul? Now here is something that matters particularly to God. But we go one praying for money, health, greater comforts, etc. Not wrong per se, but not the true priority, a priority which is often wholly neglected by us.
II. What then is our greatest problem? Lack of money, health or resources? No! Our greatest problem is our sin. Jesus says, If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better to loose part of your body than to have it all cast into hell (Matt 5:30).
What is Jesus saying? He is saying that it is more serious to sin than to lose your hand, or your eye, or your foot.
Now we don’t think like this. If I were to lose my hand in some terrible accident, I would hate this day for the rest of my life. Indeed, it would be terrible. But why don’t I think this way about my sin? To God my sin is a far greater problem than a financial shortfall, or even bodily loss.
My sin matters to God, because he sees what it does to me, and that it is a far greater danger for me than any other worldly danger or problem. And yet, most of us pay little heed to this and are un-alarmed by it. But we sure know how to hit the panic button if we lose our job or get a diagnosis of cancer.
Our priorities are wrong and we are not rich in what matters to God. That is, we are not rich in repentance, cries for mercy, and a sober understanding of our truest and deepest problem, our sin.
III. And look how we too often raise our children. Almost all the focus is on worldly success. Johnny might know little or nothing about God, the Mass, Scripture or Sacraments, but let Johnny bring home a bad report card, and the reaction is quick. Here is a problem to get to the bottom of, because if Johnny doesn’t get better grades, he might not get into the premier local High School, and then, might not get into the best college, so he can make a killing, (oops, I mean a living).
So, the parents go into action. Perhaps a tutor is hired to help with math etc. Meanwhile Johnny barely knows the Our Father, doesn’t have a clue at Mass, his moral life is heading south, and all he knows about Adam and Eve is that they were “in the Bible or something.” Finally Johnny’s scores are better and he proceeds apace to the finest local High School.
One day his father proudly says to the Catholic pastor, “Great news! John has gotten a full scholarship to Princeton.” And the pastor says “Great!” When what he should say to the father is “OK fine. Now let’s find out who is going to preach the gospel to him up there. You know that it will be, (like most college campuses), a moral cesspool of fornication and drinking. So, if we’re not serious about John’s spiritual life, he may go in there, come out a big-wig lawyer, and yet be heading straight for Hell. So what’s the plan for his spiritual welfare and growth?”
But do the pastor or parents really give any thought to this? Usually not.
And so John climbs the ladder of success but it’s leaning up against the the wrong wall.
Too often parents, pastors, families and parishes are not rich in what matters to God. Our children hear that they should study hard, get good grades etc., to make it in this world. Of itself this is not wrong. But their souls are more important, and matter more to God. How well do we teach and equip them to care for the vineyard of their own soul? How does this compare to worldly preparations? And do we conform to what matters more to God?
Well, perhaps this is enough. But the point here is that too often, too many of us are not rich in what matters to God. We too easily resemble the man in the crowd who was asking Jesus, the Savior of the world from sin and hell, about money. A sad demotion of Jesus to be sure, but also highly disclosing of a basic human tendency of caring more about passing worldly things, than eternal lasting things or God himself. Too easily we store up riches for ourselves but are not rich in what matters to God.
Help Lord! We need a new mind, but even more, a new heart.
OK I admit it, I am likely making up a word. But, by the term “noninfallibilist” am I referring to those who, in the discourse of matters of faith and morals, are dismissive of any teaching by the bishops and Pope that is not infallibly defined. Now as you may have guessed, those of this school, not only wish to exhibit a lot of freedom in what they have to believe, but also will define downward what qualifies as infallible.
Back when I was in seminary, thinkers of this sort were predominantly, if not exclusively on the theologically liberal end of the spectrum, and generally they used as their starting point their dispute with Humanae Vitae. Of course they insisted that it was not infallibly taught and, hence, they were free to dissent. They also appealed to the “spirit of Vatican II” which they claimed among many other things, had liberated us from from child-like obedience to the magisterium. The only problem was that the actual letter of the documents of Vatican II were not quite as “liberating” as the so-called “spirit” was.
For example, Vatican II in Lumen Gentium spoke of the Infallibility of the ordinary magisterium when it said:
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine in- fallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among them- selves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held [definitive tendendam]. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith. (LG, 41)
Further, it also said,
Religious submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authoritative Magisterium (authentico magisterio) of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra; indeed, that his supreme Magisterium be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, according to his manifest mind and intention.” (Lumen Gentium 25.2)
Oh Yeah? As you may remember, if you’re a bit older, or may suspect even if younger, the dissenting theologians of the late 60s and 70s parsed every word of these paragraphs, not to richly understand them, but to be done with them. And, as you may have guessed, they could find almost no instance in which the criteria set forth for the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium or submission to the non-infallible teachings of a pope, actually or ever applied. Reams and reams of papers were published trying to minimize or neutralize the notion that we should open to being taught in faith and morals by the ordinary magisterium, and that if something wasn’t infallibly declared by the Pope (a rare exercise of the extraordinary Papal Magisterium), we were simply free to go our way, confident that the the ordinary magisterium or the the local bishop was no wiser that we in just about anything, including faith and morals.
Docility (teachableness) and obedience were on vacation.
Further, those were the times in which the great indoor sport of most prominent theologians was to show how nothing really applied, and how what seemed to have been quite plainly stated, did not mean what it actually said. Scripture was diced and sliced. Apparently Jesus never really said or did most of what Scripture sets forth. And plainly stated biblical morality didn’t really mean what it apparently and rather plainly stated. And, as we have seen, the actual texts of the Second Vatican Council had to yield to the spirit in which they were “obviously” intended. Actually quoting the texts was “indelicate,” “reactionary” and indicated “rigidity.” Ah, such were those heady days.
But today, I am concerned that such an attitude is not the sole mindset of dissenters on the theological left. The attitude is becoming increasingly widespread among most of the faithful, whether theologically liberal or conservative. Further, the attitude is less theologically considered and more just an unquestioned, even unconscious assumption, to wit: if something is not infallibly taught, I am free to wholly disregard what the bishops and even the Pope is saying. Of course what is meant by “infallibly taught” is a concept only vaguely understood by many, and very narrowly defined and interpreted by others. At some point, infallibility, a valid theological distinction, can become a sort of legalism.
Imagine a child explaining to his parent why he is ignoring them: “You didn’t threaten me with significant punishment, so I just ignored you.” But frankly a parent shouldn’t have to threaten a child, a child should be willing to be taught even without official threats and pronouncements. And yet many Catholics exhibit just this sort of attitude when it comes to the Church, our Mother: an unwillingness to be taught unless very stern and strict pronouncements are forthcoming or very specific formulae are iterated (As one theologian opined: mater si, magistra no! – Mother yes, teacher, no!).
Pervasive – As I have said this attitude was once the domain, largely, of the theological left. But now many on the theological right, irritated by a few decades of Bishops who, according to them, have strayed politically left, or have not towed the line tightly enough on liturgy, pro-life, etc., are also adopting an attitude, that they can wholly ignore the Bishops, who have a teaching office, unless we are dealing with something “infallibly” taught.
Last week on the blog I posted the issue of Capital Punishment, and while granting that the death penalty was not intrinsically evil, wondered if it wasn’t time to allow our shepherds (the Pope and the world’s bishops) to lead and teach us in the matter that, given our struggle with the culture of death, we ought to stand against the use of the death penalty in all but the rarest cases. The answer I got back from most readers was an emphatic “no.” And many reasoned that, since the matter was not definitely taught they had no obligation whatsoever to consider or stand with the Pope and the Bishops on this.
Many of the same Catholics are shocked and angered at the decision of some bishops and liturgists to simply ignore or withstand the Pope’s Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, encouraging more widespread use of the Traditional Latin Mass. But such are the times in which we live, where the climate of camps and the rigid refusal to be taught or be open to even non-infallible issues is common throughout the Church.
Some will argue that the Bishops have strayed beyond faith and morals when they issue letters on immigration, the economy, healthcare and the like. Possibly, but in all these areas there ARE important moral issues, biblical teachings, and Catholic social teachings that OUGHT to be brought to the discussion. Bishops do have duties to keep Catholic and Biblical teaching part of the discussion. And Catholics especially, ought to be more open to being taught, even when the matters are non-infallible and even if the view is at odds with their own political, economic and scientific views.
Consider the following quote from the Catechism:
Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. (Catechism 892)
Now, some will want to endlessly parse the words, and so strictly define everything, that the statement above almost never applies.
But pastorally what # 892 says to me is that I should be willing to be taught by my Bishop and that what he, and especially the bishops as a whole teach together, ought to be a very important part of my thinking. What the Republicans or Democrats or talking heads think may be an influence, but how much more so my Bishop, in matters local, and all the Bishops and the Pope, in matters more universal.
Why should a newspaper editor, or political party influence me more than the the bishops of the Church? At bare minimum I should seriously consider what is taught by the bishops, and, even if I come to a technically different conclusion on some policy matter, I will at least take seriously the Catholic and Biblical principles they enunciate, and seek to include them in the policy considerations of the temporal order.
Having quoted this Catechism paragraph to one of the interlocutors in the Capital Punishment combox they (in effect) sniffed and said, that # 892 is not an infallible teaching and “I am free to disregard it.” I will not even argue the question of infallibility here, but the point stands that we ought to be more willing to be taught.
To conclude we might reflect on two virtues that are critical to having faith: docility and obedience.
The word docility is scorned in the modern world and caricatured as causing one to be a pushover, easily brainwashed etc. But docile in Latin means to be “teachable.” Hence, to be docile means to be teachable, to be open to the wisdom and knowledge of others. Like it or not, our Bishops do have a teaching office and, like it or not, they are the bishops God has permitted and intended for us. We ought not simply dismiss what we do not like, but remain open and teachable. Docility, though often maligned, is the door to deeper knowledge and faith and it better disposes us for wisdom.
Obedience too is maligned by the modern age. But here too there are Latin roots that disclose the deeper meaning: ob + audire means “to give a hearing to,” “to listen with open ears.” Hence obedience too implies that we are willing to listen, to be taught, and to strive to understand what someone in authority is teaching and setting forth as a course of action. Like it or not, our Bishops have authority and, unless they are setting forth evil or error, we ought to give careful consideration to what they teach and the vision they set forth.
I wonder if the “noninfallibilists” of our time will have anything to do with these notions. But my question remains, are we really free simply to ignore the bishops, and the Pope except when they clearly teach infallibly? Are we not in fact defining faith and Church-life downward by this attitude? What of docility and obedience in more ordinary matters? Is it really an all or nothing scenario, or are we on more of a continuum here where the default setting ought to be a listening ear and a teachable spirit?
I am sure many of you will have responses and distinctions to make. Remember I am starting a conversation not issuing an edict (as if I could). But I only ask this, that you might be careful not to so distinguish docility and obedience that they cease to exist as real categories. I know there are distinctions to be made and scenarios to consider which I have not set forth here, but there is also a general norm to be followed of docility and obedience, of religious assent of mind and heart. So have at it, and remember: caritas, caritas!
This video is a lot of fun. I have often thought of the aging of dissent in the Church, and still see a lot of hope in many younger Catholics. But given the reflection here, I am not so sure that dissent has had a few grandchildren. Anyway, the video is a hoot.
Back when I was in Mount St. Mary’s Seminary some twenty-five years ago, Rap music had burst on the scene. But the thing about rap in those days was that it was more clever than today (if you ask me). Rap at that time was supposed to rhyme. Today, it sounds just a lot more like rambling soliloquies and a little too unintelligible. Again, just my opinion. But “back in the day” Rap had to rhyme and so you had to be very creative.
Some of the guys in the seminary were working in the inner city of Baltimore and they developed the “Jesus Rap.” I was amazed at how creative it was and have kept it all these years. Living in working in the inner city I would take it out and dust it off every now and again and I’ve adapted it over the years, a little change here and there, but it’s basically the same. I wish I could give credit by name to the seminarians (now priests) who wrote it but their names are lost in the dust bin of my memory.
But enjoy this (Old Fashion) “Jesus Rap” You’ll need to provide your own rhythm by tapping on the desk as you read. And please! Read it with a little rhythm! If you can’t do it ask a fifth grader.
NOW THE THING ABOUT JESUS, HE’S HIGH ABOVE THE REST,
THAT’S WHY I WEAR THIS CROSS ON MY CHEST.
HE LEADS ME TO THE FATHER,
I’M SO GLAD I COULD CLAP!
SO WON’T YOU JOIN ME NOW TO DO THE JESUS RAP!
PRAY TO JESUS,
WORSHIP JESUS.
I WAS DOWN! FEELING DEPRESSED!
MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE MY LIFE WAS A MESS.
IN DESPAIR! SO FULL OF DOUBT!
WELL I TURNED TO JESUS AND HE HELPED ME OUT!
NOW MY LIFE IS DANDY,
EVERYTHING’S A SNAP!
DO YOU WANT THE SAME?
THEN DO THE JESUS RAP!
PRAY TO JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS
PRAY TO JESUS
WORSHIP JESUS (Fade)
– – – – – – – –
Now here’s a video that “so bad its good.” Here are three suburban teenage girls trying to rap and, well, lets just admit, sometimes we white folks are a bit “challenged” in this area 🙂 They surely do a better job than I could! Actually they are quite creative in rapping several gospel stories such as the water made wine and the walking on the water. Enjoy!
And here’s another rap that’s a little more “hip.” It’s an interesting blend of rap, freestyle and call-response. I am NOT recommending this for Mass! Save it for the Church hall. Warning:This video was made using well-trained rappers, do not try this at your Church hall without proper supervision and safety gear.
In the video below there is a fascinating demonstration of what is known as the McGurk Effect, wherein what we hear is strongly influenced by what we see. Though the sounds heard in the experiment are exactly the same, when the visual cues change, we hear another sound. Even knowing the “trick” does not change the effect.
And this is a paradigm for faith, if you ask me.
Scripture speaks often of the fact that faith is a matter of hearing and not seeing:
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Rom 10:17).
For we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Cor 5:7).
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face (1 Cor 13:12).
For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? (Rom 8:24)
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen (Heb 11:1).
Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy (1 Peter 1:8)
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed (Jn 20:29).
So while it is true that many say, “Seeing is believing,” it really isn’t so. Seeing is just seeing. Faith comes by hearing.
Now this principle is very important for many of the truths of our faith are “mysterious.” The word “mysterious” here does not mean spooky, or strange, but rather, that what we “see” or intellectually grasp, is but a small part, and that the greater part of it is hidden from our sight and intellect. Since this is so, we must be taught the faith through hearing, and receiving the faith by hearing, gives us a prophetic interpretation of the reality we perceive by the other senses.
Consider especially the sacraments. What we see is often very limited. We many see, merely, water poured in baptism. But with the faith, granted though our hearing of the sacred words, we grasp the deeper meaning, that sins are being washed away, that new life is being conveyed, and a heavenly inheritance is being bestowed.
At a wedding, our eyes see a man and a woman, but as we hear their vows proclaimed we must disregard what our eyes see (still two) and grasp through faith, what our ears tell us from the very Word of Jesus: They are no longer two, but one and what God has joined together, let no one divide (Matt 19:6). Faith comes by hearing.
Regarding the Holy Eucharist St Thomas lovingly wrote in the hymn Adoro Te Devote:
Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur, (Sight, touch, taste, in thee falter), Sed auditu solo tuto creditur. (But the hearing alone is safely believed). Credo quidquid dixit Dei Filius; (I believe whatever the Son of God has said); Nil hoc verbo veritátis verius (Nothing is truer that this word of truth).
So again, the eyes deceive, and we must believe through what we hear. The world and the flesh are always demanding to see, but Faith comes by hearing. There may be some motives of credibility that seeing can give, but, frankly, the eyes are too easily deceived, we are often misled by what we see.
And that brings us to the video. As has already been mentioned, the sound in the video remains unchanged, but when the visual cue changes, we insist that the sound has changed. But it hasn’t. Yet, even knowing this, we tend to trust our eyes more than our ears, and insist on what we see not what we hear.
But then comes the strangest thing of all. The BBC announcer, almost in a subconscious illustration of the McGurk effect, comes to precisely the WRONG conclusion. She says, “The McGurk effect shows us that what we hear may not always be the truth.” Wrong! And exactly backwards! The McGurk effect demonstrates that what we SEE may not always be the truth. Stubbornly, she then reiterates, “So we can’t always trust what we hear.” But again, wrong in terms of this experiment, and exactly backwards! It is what we SEE that we cannot trust in this instance. Indeed a very strange error on her part, and almost Freudian in its psychological significance.
In the end, I hope you “see” what I mean: faith comes by hearing. And it is a very important dimension of faith to not let our eyes or other senses merely override our ears. The eyes and other senses can supply us certain data, even motives of credibility. But in the end, it is through hearing, and by the Word of God heard, that we have a prophetic interpretation of the reality perceived by our other senses. Faith which comes by hearing, is a prophetic interpretation of reality: Sed auditu solo tuto creditur.
Enjoy the video, it’ll mess with your mind but it confirms an important truth.
An interesting article appeared the in the Wall Street Journal on the Saturday after the passing of Steve Jobs. Written by Andy Crouch, it does a good job (pardon the pun) of distilling the philosophy of technology that is common today. Steve Jobs, a master at technology and business, articulated and exemplified many of its tenants. We do well to examine this philosophy for it is a strong rival to the Christian outlook and has growing numbers of loyalists who see technology as a kind of saving god which has over thrown the older paradigm of the Judeo Christian heritage. It is a kind of substitutional philosophy that deserves so analysis.
I want to present excerpts from the article which is excellent. The full article can be read here: Steve Jobs: Secular Prophet. The text of Mr. Crouch is in bold, black italics, my comments are in red plain text.
Disclaimer: I am a fan of Apple products. I use them and will probably use more in the near future. I respect what Steve Jobs has accomplished and that what he has done has provided benefits for many to include good products, employment and the promotion of excellence. In responding to the philosophical claims of Mr Jobs and others, I am using a form of response that is akin to “rant.” I mean no personal disrespect to Mr Jobs (de mortuis nil nisi bonum). I disagree with his outlook and philosophy but personally respect what he has accomplished. I regret he did not have faith, yet still I hope to see I hope to see him in the great parousia.
Further, If I seem to be disagreeing with Mr Crouch, I am not, for he is but reporting the philosophy of technology and in the ends raises many of the same questions I do. Remember, to some degree I am using “rant” here in order to pull memorably in the other direction. It is a form of speech that requires context and some degree of appreciation for hyperbole (exaggeration).
Steve Jobs was extraordinary in countless ways—as a designer, an innovator, a (demanding and occasionally ruthless) leader. But his most singular quality was his ability to articulate a perfectly secular form of hope. Nothing exemplifies that ability more than Apple’s early logo, which slapped a rainbow on the very archetype of human fallenness and failure—the bitten fruit—and turned it into a sign of promise and progress. That bitten apple was just one of Steve Jobs’s many touches of genius, capturing the promise of technology in a single glance.
To be honest, I never really connected the Apple logo with a shot across the bow of the Judeo-Christian vision of our fallenness. I recently bought an iMac, which I like very much. But frankly the world of Apple and Mac have not been on my radar that much until recently.
But to be clear, I want to personally testify, that neither Macs nor PCs have made even a dent in the problem of sin. Any look at the typical combox of a blog will show that. If anything we’ve become more coarse and divided in our dialogue, as we tend to retreat from real interactions to virtual ones.
Granted, many new connections can be made, and some of them very beneficial, but not all of them are good. Internet porn sites are by far the most visited sites on the Internet, most them completely blowing away the nearest competitors.
Viruses also shout sin. Imagine some one sitting at home writing code to infect my computer and crash the hard disk. Talk about evil.
If there is a rainbow over the bitten apple, it’s a hologram, not real at all. The promise of technology to save or redeem us seems hollow, indeed, empty.
The philosopher Albert Borgmann has observed that technology promises to relieve us of the burden of being merely human, of being finite creatures in a harsh and unyielding world. The biblical story of the Fall pronounced a curse upon human work—”cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” All technology implicitly promises to reverse the curse, easing the burden of creaturely existence. And technology is most celebrated when it is most invisible—when the machinery is completely hidden, combining godlike effortlessness with blissful ignorance about the mechanisms that deliver our disburdened lives.
To say that our lives are “disburdened” is a stretch. It is true that there are many creature comforts today and many once tedious tasks have been eliminated.
But honestly, the more we have, the less satisfied we seem to be. Stress and living at 90 mph with endless interruptions, e-mails, text messages, voice mails, tweets, and Facebook pokes, ain’t no paradise. Psychotropic drugs are sold at record levels to help manage the stress and depression that often results.
The wealthier and more well apportioned we have become, the more anxious we become. Frankly, we have too much to loose and so we are fearful. And, all our many possessions breed a kind of addiction to them.
Steve Jobs was great at showing us how that phone he just sold a year ago us is no longer enough. In fact, since his new phone came out, the one he sold us last year is now a piece of junk. You ain’t nothing until you get the latest iPhone 5! And there is something sad and pathetic, seeing people lined up for three days in front of a store to buy a stupid phone (oops, I mean “smart phone”), especially when the one they just bought a year ago, is working fine.
Further, the promises of advertisers et al. to make life peachy, also breeds unrealistic expectations, which in turn breeds resentments and disappointments.
Don’t get me wrong, I like technology and use it, but I am not sure it has “relieved me of the burden of being merely human.” The basic contours of life remain essentially unchanged, and that is, that life has its pleasures and pains, it’s joys and disappointments. Technology hasn’t changed that.
In the end, nothing in this world can fill the God-sized hole in our hearts. This world is not home and we’re always going to feel that we’re living out of a suitcase, because we are.
Politically, militarily, economically, the decade was defined by disappointment after disappointment—but technologically, it was defined by a series of elegantly produced events in which Steve Jobs, commanding more attention and publicity each time, strode on stage with a miracle in his pocket.
But wait a minute, I thought technology was supposed to relieve us of the burden of being merely human! What this I hear about military political and economic disappointment? Isn’t there an app for that? Looks like we need more than a miracle in a pocket.
He believed so sincerely in the “magical, revolutionary” promise of Apple precisely because he believed in no higher power.
Well, this “magical promise” that replaces the “higher power” has a lot of work to do. We still ain’t back in paradise, no matter what the holographic rainbow over the bitten apple says.
In his celebrated Stanford commencement address (which is itself an elegant, excellent model of the genre), he spoke frankly….”No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It’s life’s change agent; it clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now, the new is you. But someday, not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away.”
Sad really. The human person’s dignity reduced to “doing something,” and then, when your usefulness is over and you get in the way of “change,” you need to be cleared away. Sounds like the voice of pure utilitarianism, wherein we are reduced to human doings, rather than human beings. It is clear that, by this philosophy, you do not exist for your own sake. Rather you exist for the purpose of being a “change agent.” And when you start getting in the way of blessed “progress,” holy “change” and other utopian notions, you need to be cut down and cleared away.
[Mr Jobs went on to say] “Sorry to be so dramatic, but it’s quite true. Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice, heart and intuition.”
Of course dogma is a “no-no” in techno-religion, since it tends to block blessed and holy “progress” and “change.” For, “dogma” is actually more than “other people’s thinking,” it is the wisdom of past ages, and we can’t have any of that around here. That would get in the way of holy and blessed progress and change. And remember, as soon as you get in the way, you too must be cut down and carried away. Imagine! Learning from the past. No indeed, we certainly can’t be “trapped” by dogma for the reasons stated. Change is all, progress is the pearl of great price. Away with any wisdom from the past (a.k.a “dogma”)!
This is the gospel of a secular age….but the gospel of self-fulfillment does require an extra helping of stability and privilege to be plausible……
Exactly, a philosophy like this can only emerge among the comfortable and well healed, those who are most insulated from life’s often shocking turns. The “do your own thing” dictum is simply not possible for most of the less privileged who are not as free and privileged as Mr Jobs. I wonder if Mr Job’s own employees felt free not to let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice, heart and intuition. It would seem he did give a lot a freedom to some on his staff, but I doubt the guy in shipping, packing boxes, felt free to ignore Mr Job’s opinion and follow his own inner voice, heart and ambition. I suspect he felt very obliged obey Mr Job’s thinking (i.e. “dogma”).
Is it possible to live a good, full, human life without that kind of hope? Steve Jobs would have said yes in a heartbeat. A convert to Zen Buddhism, he was convinced as anyone could be that this life is all there is. But the rest of us, as grateful as we are for his legacy, still have to decide whether technology’s promise is enough to take us to the promised land. Is technology enough? Has the curse truly been repealed? [Technology] works wonders within its own walled garden, but it falters when confronted with the worst of the world and the worst in ourselves. Exactly
OK, so there’s my rant. How say you?
Portrait above, by Tim O’Brien
I don’t know that I agree with the final line of this video, but it does bring home the point that there are a few thorns and thistles in techno-paradise.
