A Blog greater than which none other...

Caelum Novum

2011-10-26T09:03:00.004-04:00

Lately I've been reading a lot about grace, salvation, predestination, etc for various classes as well as social justice. Additionally, recent conversations I have had have led me to consider also whether or not ethics are sufficient for salvation or whether piety or correct worship are part and parcel as well. In the end, this has led me to consider that perhaps heaven is not what we think it is.
First of all, I should like to suggest that there are no "hell" or "purgatory" as we traditionally conceive of them. This is by no means a novel assessment of my part. In fact, many theologians have suggested this. Most recently the pastor Rob Bell became quite famous for suggesting this, but the Catholic Church itself does not teach that there is necessarily anybody in hell and other theologians have suggested (such as Ed Vacek) have suggested that since God is love, God would not allow God's children to suffer for all eternity.
I do not mean, however, that I think there will be no suffering. I think there will be no hell. I think the concept of a firey pit and lake of brimstone might be a helpful heuristic for some, the same way thinking of God as a glowing person might, but by no means do I think there will be a place where the damned are literally dipped into molten pitch. Rather, I think those who "are in hell" will endure an eternity of self-imposed suffering.
Everyone who has ever lived will be there. Everyone from our ancestors, our close loved ones, the saints, the sinners, etc. This will be the first opportunity for people to inflict on themselves their suffering. Many people who are proud, pugnacious, self-righteous or easily-offended will find it intolerable to go through eternity with some of the other people. Thus, a man like Dante Alighieri, who ascribed all of his personal enemies various torments in hell, was probably shocked to see them all in heaven, as I'm sure they were shocked to see him. Here Jesus' "hard sayings" become especially applicable. The commandments to love our enemies, to forgive others, to make up with those who wrong us, etc, become particularly relevant when they all show up at the Lord's banquet. We can think of the parable of the workers of the vineyard who complained to the master when the people who worked the least got equal pay. God will save all of us, but that's because that's what God wants to do. If we can't accept that, then the problem lies in us.
This also has applications for those who have low-self esteem. Those who have a hard time accepting or forgiving themselves may stand in disbelief when they are in heaven. Those whose lives have been scarred by abuse, whether emotional, physical, verbal or sexual, might not think they deserve heaven. In the love commandments, Jesus commands us implicitly to love ourselves. This idea often falls on deaf ears within Christianity, but it is important for us to forgive and love ourselves just as we do for others. This is where the next important part comes in. In heaven, God's grace is freely given to all people.
God's grace has the power to heal and nurture. Those whose lives are marred and whose sense of self is broken will be redeemed by God's love as it rains down freely upon all souls. Furthermore, as we are filled with God's grace and love, we will share it with others. Thus, those who have an easier time accepting their position in heaven will share God's grace with others, especially those whose image of self is damaged. As others' lift these people up in God's love, their wounds will be healed and they will find it easier to love and forgive themselves. The same is true for those who have a hard time forgiving or loving others, thought it might take longer for this to occur as we are most in touch with ourselves. Only those with the most stubborn hearts (ie, with no will to change whatsoever) will endure "hell."
Because God's grace will be freely distributed, those whose lives were devoted to acquiring fame, power, money, or other limited commodities will find themselves shocked and offended that all of their "hard work" was for nothing. On the other hand, those who strove hard just to survive will be overly gladdened to find themselves in a place where they do not have to worry about scraping by. Those who have learned to give and share in this life will also find themselves in a state of incredible joy for they will be able to give God's grace to all without worrying about running out. In short, all the limits we have in this world due to limited resources will be removed and those who found themselves happy in that scheme will be miserable while those who found themselves miserable will be happy. Hence, "the last shall be first and the first shall be last."
Concerning piety and unbelief: I imagine that all of us, to one degree or another, will find heaven to be different from what we expected. Since I am a Christian, I imagine heaven will be a place where we spend time with the God, especially Jesus. However, I assume that since we all will be there, there will necessarily be different people from different religions. I assume that they may not all see God as we do. However, keeping in the spirit of Rahner's "anonymous Christians," I think that there will be some who accept their fate more easily than others, as I expect will be the case for Christians. Personal piety might help us become more ready for the beatific vision but only inasmuch as we do not neglect our neighbors. The dual love commandments do say that we need to love God, so I think even the most virtuous atheist will find himself troubled for awhile, but I also think that those who think God has very specific favorites (eg, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) will be shocked when they see Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, etc all in heaven.
So, to recap: I think that God will save us all. I think, however, that God will not alter our wills, or our dispositions. Those who find "happiness" in temporal things will find themselves lost. Those who think they have exclusive rights to heaven will find themselves offended. Those who cannot learn to forgive or love, will find themselves surrounded by enemies. Thus, our "works" in this life can help us prepare for heaven, but they will not "earn" heaven for us. Furthermore, our personal faith might help us prepare for being with God, but it will not determine whether or not we are. Thus, the teaching that those who are in hell choose it still follows, since those who will suffer in heaven will be those who choose to reject God's providence rather than embrace it.

Bonus et Malus?

2011-06-09T13:08:00.003-04:00

It occurs to me that today, we don't properly understand fully what "right and wrong" or "good and evil" mean. Without going into a lengthy discourse on the proper meaning of the terms (Jim Keenan defines actions as being "right" or "wrong" and people as being "good" or "evil"), and without going into questions of relativism (the endless debate among philosophers is what "good" is versus "evil" (Nietzsche says that "evil" is a cheap word to use in order to make what is "bad" universally so in The Genealogy of Morals)), I would like to discuss the simple fact of what seems to be ignorance.
In American culture, our obsession with the two-party political system dominates much of the rest of our lives. It used to be that Catholics were supposed to be good Democrats while Protestants though this has changed in recent years. People classify themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" (drawing from the old British party system) and often times allow themselves to be conscientiously defined as such or ideologically determined this way. People on the "right" tend to be more religious, and support more autonomy and less interference. People on the left tend to be more agnostic or atheistic and support more governmental interference. These stereotypes become so ingrained in people's minds that many Protestant Christians will be shocked to find Democratic Christians while anti-war protestors might be surprised to find in their midst registered Republicans. This is the problem of our system--we tend to polarize values and expect that people cannot be strongly in favor of one thing or another.
The very greatest problem with this is that our two political parties are full of blatant contradicting values. For example, Democrats tend to be against war and the death penalty, but are more likely to favor more relaxed abortion policies and even allow assisted suicide or euthanasia. Similarly, Republicans tend to be against increased taxation, but also tend to support military efforts which cost the nation billions, even trillions of dollars. This problem for the simple reason that political parties are comprised of politicians, each of whom has his own political agenda. The agenda upon which they agree is the basis for their party, but the remaining agenda on which they do not, they must compromise upon for the sake of party unity. Thus, though Catholicism's strong pro-life ethic had been a part of the Democratic Party's platform for many years, after Roe vs Wade Democratic politicians tended to favor looser abortion policies and Catholics, as a result, began to switch party allegiances. Because of many political decisions and compromises, neither political party represents a solid or coherent ethic.
Take, for example, Libertarianism. Libertarianism is a political stance closest to Nietzsche's philosophy. The main idea of libertarianism is "live and let live." In other words, Libertarians favor small government (or no government), and laissez faire economics, similar to Republicans. However, Libertarians also tend to oppose war and religion in political situations, similar to Democrats. Their stance draws from values in both parties, but is entirely consistent, unlike either the Republicans or Democrats. Similarly, Cardinal Bernardin, former archbishop of Chicago, proposed a theology many Catholics today embrace called "the Seamless Garment" or "The consistent Ethic of Life." The main focus of this ethic is that life is sacred and thus anything that attacks it, be it abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, or war, is evil. This stance draws from both political parties but is entirely outside of them and is, as the name suggests, entirely consistent.
Whether or not one agrees with the Seamless Garment or the Libertarian ideology, what is impressive is their consistency. Unlike the two parties which we follow now, which are riddled with contradictions. The critical observer will realize the incongruencies within the parties. Those with strong convictions will ally themselves with and vote for whichever politician best represents their beliefs while those with less conviction will ally themselves wholeheartedly with a party. Often times, however, we confuse our own beliefs and ethics with those of political systems. This is the case not simply with political parties but even with political bodies.
Consider for example, if I ask the question, "Is America good?" The patriotic reading this will answer wholeheartedly "Yes!" The subversive reading this will answer with just as much gusto, "No!" If I ask the follow-up question, "Why?" however, the answers will be more muddled. The first camp will say things like "Because we have freedom," while the second camp will answer "Because we're doing X (keeping out immigrants, going to war, taxing the poor, denying gay marriage, or whatever hot-button issue one wants to use)." I could ask further follow-up questions, but I think the solution lies in something more basic. Those who think America is good do so because America is a very powerful nation, one in which any person (theoretically, though not practically speaking) can rise through the ranks of society and even become the leader. Those who think America is not good do so because with the power America possesses, there ought to be more efforts to create more good in the world.
However, America is not necessarily "good" or "evil." Just now I labeled the US as "powerful," but power can be used in various ways. For most American citizens, life here is better than it would be in any other nation. For many other nations, America is not doing enough globally. However, even in the midst of all this, America itself is not a moral agent. The citizens of the country are. "America's policies" cannot be defined as all necessarily right or wrong. In other words, the United States is a conglomeration of compromising political figures, each of whom influences the nation in either a positive or a negative fashion. The US itself is not a moral authority nor a moral actor.
We often historically forget this fact. World War I erupted as a result of strong nationalistic feelings in Europe. The aftermath of both World Wars resulted in the nation of Germany twice being punished as if a moral agent, first by essentially bankrupting the country and second by dividing it. Similarly, when Muslim extremists attacked a few prominent American buildings, the nation went to war against the entire nation of Afghanistan. Since the rise of the nation state, "national values" have often been confused with ethical systems. I have mentioned before that positive law is not identical or necessarily based on ethical norms, but I think that it bears repeating. The policy of a nation cannot be confused with what is good.
Because of this, we are unlikely to see recognize the good when the good is presented to us. Jesus was killed by his own people. Martin Luther King, Jr was shot by an American. Dorothy Day was disliked by many Catholics. Harvey Milk was killed for his efforts to further gay rights. We tend to only be able to see goodness in the mirror. The same is true for evil. We recognize now that Hitler was evil, though we did not stop him before 1944. The United States and the Soviet Union built up massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons before anyone protested. We were in Vietnam for nearly ten years before pressure from both within and without convinced congress to stop. The point is, we are not always good at recognizing what is good and what is evil when it happens, though we are always good about seeing it later.
Thus, it seems to me that within our nations policies and cultural norms, we often ignore what is good and embrace what is evil.
Rather than seeking to follow party lines or obey orders, we should be willing to evaluate our decisions and our judgment calls based on the question, "How will this support the good?" Things that encourage life are good. Things that bring about justice are good. Things that encourage people to serve others are good. Things that increase oppression or poverty are bad. Things that prevent education or increase ignorance are bad. Things that cause harm or illness or increase the risk of such things are bad.
The world may not be "black and white," but individual actions can be evaluated as such, and personal action ought to be determined more on this criteria than on anything else.

My views as a moral theologian and Arabist

2011-05-02T13:44:00.003-04:00

Last night President Obama announced that Osama bin Laden, the FBI's most wanted (criminal?) terrorist had been killed in a raid. I was out at the time and only heard the news about an hour after the news broke. My first reaction was, 'Why does this matter?'
In the first place, I think Osama bin Laden has been out of America's popular imagination for quite some time now. With the 9/11 attacks, we promised to "never forget" but the super-patriotism that arose from the death of nearly 3000 American civilians (out of 300,000,000, that is, only .001%), but I would argue that by the 2006 we had, essentially forgotten. By 2003, our attention was completely focused on Iraq, where Osama bin Laden was NOT, and our efforts were focused on fighting the War in Iraq (which, by comparison, resulted in the deaths of 860,000 Iraqi civilians in a country whose population was only 7,000,000, that is, more than 10%). Once Saddam Hussein was tried and executed, the American people, for the most part, began to focus on our exit strategy. We needed to get out of the Middle East. People had forgotten about the War in Afghanistan. To date, that war has been the longest waged war in American history, though with a much smaller casualty rate than most (1,140 American troops, mostly killed by friendly fire).
All this is to say, when did we begin to care about Osama again? The number one thing that affects Americans on any sort of regular basis since September 11, 2001 is increasingly higher security measures at airports due to foiled, poorly planned terrorist plots. I normally only think about 9/11 out of frustration when I have to buy a smaller tube of toothpaste, or have to wait to stand in an x-ray machine, or have my bags "randomly searched" because I put my Arabic-English dictionary in my check-on luggage. As far as I knew, we had given up on bin Laden and were only still in Afghanistan for the same reason we were still in Iraq--we couldn't figure out how to get out correctly.
So it came to me as some surprise to hear about the death of Osama bin Laden. It was first of all a surprise because I did not know we were still actually trying to find him. Moreover, it was also a surprise because of the reaction of many of my friends who were reacting as if they had just found out that everyone was getting a massive tax rebate. Chants of USA!! were the norm, apparently, both at Notre Dame and at Boston College, as if we had won a sporting event and not simply killed a man. The attitude around the country was one of jubilation.
But why?
In the first place, killing Osama bin Laden has likely done nothing to stop the supposed "War on Terror." In the US, aside from some very poorly planned terrorist plots, there has been no terrorism activity since 2001. I have read posts by people mentioning the "climate of fear" that bin Laden has put the country in, but has that really been bin Laden? The TSA's increased security measures were not implemented by al Qaeda insurgents. The phone taps and email scanning of the supposed "Patriot Act" were not lobbied by Afghan anti-American lobbyists. And though, I would agree, the morale of the United States was very much affected by what happened nearly ten years ago, I think that the general feeling of Americans in the last few years has been one of security. I find it difficult to believe that the death of bin Laden was the morale boost that this country needed. Our attention since 2003 has been on Iraq, Katrina, Indonesia, the Recession, the BP oil spill, and lately Japan, Africa and other Western Asian countries and finally the tornadoes in the South. We've moved on, or so I had thought.
But furthermore, I do not see how this will end conflicts in the Middle East. In the first place, Osama bin Laden, and al Qaeda in general, represents a branch of political power in Middle Eastern politics that Westerners often don't understand. He represents the people, largely. He has followers that are very loyal to him because he addresses what they see as real problems. Bin Laden was not fighting "America." He was fighting the materialistic capitalism embodied by the US and other nations. That was his rallying cry. That's what his followers believe. If anything, we did not assassinate Osama bin Laden, we martyred him.
So his followers will rise up against us for what we've done. The war will likely escalate, as new energy has been given to those loyal to bin Laden's ideals. As we use various portions of the Middle East to suit our advantages in various wars (read: WWI, WWII, and most of all various Cold War proxy wars), it's hard to imagine that the peoples of these regions will not resist our efforts. We see them as the aggressors, but to them, we are. They killed 3000 people in 2001 on our soil. We've killed 17,000 Afghans since then on their soil.
Finally, the cheerful reaction of many young people is very inappropriate. In 2001, we were shocked and morally offended that there were people cheering in Afghanistan when the WTC buildings were attacked. We talked about standing up for righteousness and justice and truth. We responded that we were going to fight back for freedom. Instead, our government is responsible for putting the entire country into various states of panic, of making the citizens of both Iraq and Afghanistan constantly in fear of their lives and of killing nearly 900,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan (in other words, 300 times as many as they killed here).
What with the recent budget crisis and Head Start losing its funding, my only celebration will be that perhaps the United States will now devote much more money to social programs rather than military efforts. I will only take joy if bin Laden's death means we permanently leave Afghanistan. I will rejoice if the supposed assassination of this man means racism against Arabs (who, by the way, are ethnically distinct from Afghans). When the government gives us back our liberty, when ecumenical efforts for Christian-Muslim dialogue become more commonplace, when the blatant militaristic attitude that is synonymous with patriotism is erased from our minds, then I will rejoice. Until then, I shall take the events of yesterday as a sign of how truly we, as a supposedly Christian nation, needs to repent.

The Lord's Supper (Eucharist Redux)

2011-04-22T17:42:00.003-04:00

Thus far, we have established that, unfortunately for those who are ecumenically minded, sharing the table of the Lord seems more like a fantasy than a reality. We have established that between Catholicism and Protestantism the theology surrounding the Lord's Supper is too much for the different factions to be reconciled.
But the question ought not to be, "How do you view communion?" but rather "Who would Jesus eat with?"
Consider the following. We often talk about how Jesus went out to the poor, the despised, the sinners. We sometimes emphasize Jesus' work among the oppressed and Jesus himself says "I came not for the righteous but for the sinners."
However, when we look around our Churches, what do we see? I've talked about religiosity before, but that's not what I am going for today. How do we see the Lord's table?
Last post I mentioned the way the Roman Church treats the Eucharist. Our theology views it more of the Body of Christ, as a sacrifice. Until Vatican II our tradition was reminiscent of ancient Jewish practices, where only the priest was allowed to enter the sanctuary for the sacrifice and all the people were left in wonder and awe about what he was doing. Now, the priest faces the congregation, but we still treat the Eucharist with the same amount of sacred fear.
This, of course, is why there is so much emphasis on sanctity and holiness. In the Middle Ages, the peasantry were afraid of blaspheming by taking the Eucharist unworthily. The Church said that they needed to take it once a year, but the people were afraid of damning themselves. Thus the practice of lifting up the host became popular, as many of the common people were reluctant to partake but felt that at least seeing the host would be enough. This is also why the cup was inaccessible to people until after the Reformation. Were some of the Blood of Christ to spill on the ground, the person who spilt it would have committed a grave sin. The risk of damnation was too great.
Of course, Luther's understanding of Eucharist was very different. Luther viewed it more of communion, as the Lord's Supper. Thus, to deny people would be too exclude them, rather than to save them. Such a view of the Eucharist, I think, is more in line with Jesus' own teaching.
When Jesus gathered with his disciples for the Last Supper, consider briefly whom he did invite and whom he did not. At the table with him were Judas, his betrayer; Peter, who would deny him three times in one night; Thomas, who would not believe Jesus was resurrected until he was with his own eyes; and the two apostles who did not even recognize Jesus on the way to Emaus. Forget Levi the tax collector and the rest of the fishermen and shepherds, Jesus ate dinner with people who were not genuinely loyal to him. He did not eat with his mother, who would weep at the foot of his cross; Mary Magdalene, who would be the first to his tomb Sunday morning; Joseph of Arimathea, who would bury him; or any of the other disciples who were faithful to him when his apostles fled the garden.
Today, in the Roman Church, we tend to think of communion as a gathering of saints. When Jesus broke bread for the last time before his death, he was communing with anything but a gathering of saints. We restrict and shun and emphasize "worthy" participation. Of course, we do not limit it the same way that Mormons do, but nonetheless we do not allow outsiders to partake.
Jesus granted grace to any who had faith enough. The early Christian Church, because of their justified fears, restricted participation in the community to those who proved their loyalty (usually through a catechetical program that lasted three years). Today, we have no such fears. Today, the Christian Church is not in danger of spies or traitors, at least not from without. Perhaps Eucharist should be extended to any and all who have faith, and our scrutiny should not be to those who would sit at the table of our Lord, but those, namely the bishops and priests, who sit in the Lord's seat at the table.

Eucharist

2011-04-17T19:40:00.003-04:00

A friend of mine and I were out a couple nights ago and at some point, as we were waiting for a movie to start, the conversation came to the topic of the Eucharist. I had pointed out to her that since she is Presbyterian, she ought not to take the Eucharist at Mass. This deeply troubled her. She felt that taking the body of Christ, as the body of Christ, was important, and that since only a few Christian traditions, Roman Catholics among them, have theologies which make the Eucharist the real presence of Christ, she should like to partake of the Eucharist at Catholic Masses.
As Easter approaches, a look at the Eucharist and what it means is, I think, appropriate.
To begin with, I think examining the historical development of Eucharistic theology is appropriate. The word "transubstantiation," used primarily to describe Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology, was invented by Martin Luther in an attempt to critique Catholic theology. Luther proposed that the "actual presence" of Christ was not present in the Eucharist, but that it was merely the representation of Christ. Because of this emphasis, Lutheranism moved from a focus on the "Body of Christ" to the "Priesthood of Believers." This distinction is an important one because it reflects the Christology of Lutheranism versus Catholicism. Luther understood the importance of the Eucharist symbolically while the Catholic Church continued to understand it actually. Luther did, however, still emphasize the importance of Communion and saw it as one of the three sacraments, the other two being baptism and confirmation, that were essential for Christian life.
John Calvin, however, took an even more skeptical view of the Eucharist. Calvin did not see any real importance to it and argued that the only sacrament was baptism. Communion was a purely symbolic act of union with the rest of the Church and none of it reflected our relation to Christ. For this reason, some Protestant Churches, following in the tradition of Calvin, do not even have Communion available every Sunday.
Thus we have sharp contrasts between main stream Christian faiths in the West. Every other Protestant denomination has Eucharistic theology that usually lies somewhere between the Catholic understanding of the actual presence, to the point where spilling the consecrated wine literally means spilling Jesus' blood on the ground, to Calvinism, where Communion is a nice gesture, but nothing more than that.
Because of the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, the requirements for partaking in it are quite stringent. As a convert to Catholicism, I was not permitted (theologically, nobody was physically preventing me) from taking the Eucharist because I had not been properly initiated into the community. Since Catholics see themselves as the Body of Christ, and since they see the Eucharist as the actual physical presence of Christ, one may not partake of the Eucharist unless he or she is a member of the body of Christ. For those baptized into the Catholic Church (ie, baptized by a Catholic priest), the Eucharist is available, even before confirmation. For those baptized outside of the Catholic Church (ie, by another Christian minister) or not Christian (Mormons included), the Eucharist is only available after completing the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, a sort of catechesis. I went through this program myself two years ago, which culminated in my baptism, confirmation and first Eucharist. I am currently a volunteer for the Boston College RCIA program and those who are going through the program, with the exception of one of the candidates who was already baptized Catholic, must wait until confirmation for first Eucharist.
For those not in the know, the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and first Eucharist are considered the "sacraments of initiation." Catholicism is a "sacramental religion," meaning that the sacraments, or what we refer to as the sacraments, are given high priority. St Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa, lists seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, confession, last rites, priesthood and matrimony. Because priests in the Roman rite are required to be celibate most people will never receive all seven sacraments and the only ones that were ever considered necessary for salvation were the three sacraments of initiation. As a sacrament of initiation, however, partaking in the Eucharist is an act of intentional communion. First communion, then, is the final step in "becoming Catholic." It is a wonderful celebration for those participating and symbolizes a celebration of having new members in the community.
For this reason, then, issues of the Eucharist can be quite divisive. Consider, for example, the fact that some American politicians have been denied the Eucharist for their political stances concerning abortion. This is quite a "big deal" because the act of denying Eucharist is a symbolic act of denying communion or friendship in the Body of Christ.
On the other hand, since Vatican II, the Roman Church has extended a hand of communion to the Orthodox Church and to the various Middle Eastern Churches that over the years became separated from Rome due to various conflicts, both theological and political. Currently, a Greek Orthodox, or an Assyrian Catholic alike can come up for Eucharist at any Roman liturgy in the world. This extension of communion represents the Roman attempt toward reconciliation. Granted, shared Eucharist does not heal all wounds, but the act of joining together in the Body of Christ is a start.
This leads, finally, to the question of ecumenism with Protestant Churches. It is one thing for Rome to finally reconcile with Constantinople, but it will be quite another thing to be restored to Western Protestantism. As mentioned before, both Luther and Calvin had radically different views of Communion from Rome, so it will be difficult for the Roman Church to allow Christians who do not believe the host to be the actual Body of Christ to participate in the Body of Christ. The Christian Church in the West, then, is at an impasse. If Rome allows communion with Lutherans and Calvinists, it denies its Eucharistic theology and its Christology. If Rome denies communion with Lutherans and Calvinists, we remain a divided Church. And somewhere in the middle, we, the members of Christ's Church get caught. We are prevented from full communion with our brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Question of Authority Pt 2

2011-02-09T11:18:00.003-05:00

In the previous post, I described the overall phenomenon of authority as well as the specific context of academic or scholastic authority. In this post, I would like to examine political authority as well as ecclesial (Church) authority--specifically wherein the authority lies, who acknowledges this authority, what is good or bad about it and how we ought to be aware of these things.
The state has been the subject of much philosophical thought and writing. Philosophers from as far back as Plato to even contemporary political scientists and philosophers have taken up the task of understanding political authority. Most college students are familiar with, even if they haven't read, works such as The Republic, Leviathan, Treatise on Government, The Communist Manifesto, etc. Nearly every "Civics" student has read the Declaration of Independence as well as the US Constitution and probably the Magna Carter as well. It would be pointless and futile to attempt to discuss what all of these documents state, but let it suffice that they all treat of proper governance.
All history (written history) speaks of the existence of political powers. However, what is not made clear by much history is how or why political entities exist. What is much more clear, based on histories about wars or revolutions, is that governments are subject to overthrow or replacement if occasion arises and necessitates. Such occasions are usually a matter of unjust governing, though sometimes they are mere facts of more powerful entities entering into conflict with the powers that be.
Suffice it to say, then that no single government, as history has shown us, has been unimpeachable. The revolutions in France throughout the nineteenth century as well as the rise and fall of Communism in Russia in the twentieth are two recent examples of this fact. Our own nation seems stable and solid. It is, however, important to realize first that the United States is only 235 years old (give or take) and that if there is anything to be learned by assassinations, political protests and riots, it is that we do not live in a utopia. Granted, we are not undergoing political unrest like Egypt is currently, but that is no indication of the permanence of the relative peace we have.
It should be acknowledged, then, that political authority is arbitrary authority. The fact of it is that the people ruled by the powers that be accept it as authoritative. As previously mentioned, from time to time the people reject the forces in power. When this takes place on a large enough scale, revolution is the general course of action. Political authority, then, lies, in a certain way, in the complacency of the people.
However, in the United States, unlike many other nations, national identity is of chiefest importance. The notion of "being American" is one of the most widely touted virtues of our society. The War in Iraq was a highly controversial military campaign in which anti-partiotism was a chief charge used against those who would not support the invasion. Similarly, radio, TV, and billboard ads suggest that we ought to vote, join the military, pay our taxes and do other things that connect us with the state. We don't always realize it, but this subtle psychological manipulation shapes our attitudes and our dispositions. Being "un-American" is almost the worst thing a person can be in our society. The question we ought to ask, however, is why that is the case and what exactly it means to be such.
There is also a bit of intimidation in practice. Normally when we think of political intimidation we think of tyrannical "democracies" (such as the political structure in Iran) or fascist regimes.We should also think of any case of police or military brutality. Even without the brutality, is it not true that we often obey certain laws, not because we believe they're correct or just, but merely because we fear the consequences?
The effect of the state as authoritative can be seen most clearly in American culture. As I said above, patriotism is, perhaps, the highest virtue in American popular consciousness. Because of this, certain positions taken by the state or actions done by state agencies can be justified in the name of patriotism. The "Patriot Act," for example, is an instance in which Americans allowed their privacy and freedom to be restricted in exchange for a sense (note: no guarantee) of safety. Similarly, at US airports, passengers trade their sense of decency and privacy for an imagined peace of mind. True, there are some protests, but the voices are nearly muted.
Additionally, any skilled rhetorician can appeal to patriotism with the vigor of Cicero and use it to bolster his case, however unsound or irrational it may be. Take Glenn Beck, for example. This talk show host never attempts to provide real evidence or logical arguments for his positions, yet he constantly attacks "left-wing nutjobs" as being inherently anti-American (and often with the implication that some dramatic course of action ought to be taken against the targets of his rage).
Furthermore, we can lose sight of our other virtues or values if we attend to closely to our allegiance to political authorities. Take, for example, the Cold War, wherein the entire American psyche was focused on building more armaments than our supposed enemy, the Soviet Union. How many people questioned the fact that the US and the USSR were enemies? What was the ground for the dispute? Was an economic system really a viable excuse for threatening the debilitating and dehumanizing act of war? Finally, was there any viable excuse for building enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the entire world? Few were the voices of protest during this time, and often they were blacklisted or otherwise shunned. The rational mind SHOULD have realized that the political structures in place were a liability to not just Americans or Soviets, but to the entire human population.
The risks, then, of adhering too closely to political authority can range from a mere wrong order of virtues to the much more pernicious risk of global annihilation. Often a voice of dissent is in order. John Locke, one of the foremost thinkers on political theory suggested that should a government become a liability to the people, the people are obligated to overthrow it. On the other hand, for the time being, many governments help bring peace and order to certain regions. It is important to remember, however, as I have stated in previous posts, that anarchy itself is not necessarily an evil, though chaos, some of which exists within, and sometimes because of, political structures, is.
Much of what has been said about political authority is applicable to ecclesial authority. There are a few points to be observed, however. While history AND political theory agree that political power is subject to the agreement of the people, as far as ecclesial authority is concerned, history suggests it requires agreement while theology, canon law and ecclesiastical documents suggest otherwise.
Ecclesial authorities claim that their authority is divinely imbued. Religious figures, such as popes, prophets, caliphs, archbishops, high priests and dalai lamas all claim a privileged authoritative role granted by supernatural powers. The extent to which people follow a specific religion or at least adhere to the religious leaders of their faith shows how much they believe their specific ecclesial authorities have this divine call.
Ideally, a person will follow a specific faith because, after rational inquiry and investigation he finds that the faith provides for him whatever it is he feels he needs in his life. With his conversion, a person will also grant his religious leaders a certain amount of authority. One does not become Catholic if he thinks the pope has no credibility.
However, more often than not, people are born into a specific faith, and, because of their upbringing and the amount of indoctrination they experience, the authority of religious leaders will be a result of psychological manipulation. The unquestioning Catholic, for example, who thinks every word from the pope's mouth is the word of God, is a product of this psychological manipulation. Fortunately, many religions are increasingly emphasizing informed dissent and genuine investigation of authoritative positions. Thus, Catholics are encouraged to follow their conscience, even when it stands against official Church teaching, and are also advised to question any magisterial teaching. Unfortunately, some religions, such as Mormons and Evangelicals, believe that the leaders of the faith must be correct 100% of the time and to doubt their veracity is a grave sin.
Which leads to the use of intimidation in authoritative positions for religious leaders. While religions don't often use actual violence, especially in the last couple centuries, to reinforce authority, they do often use soteriological (salvation-oriented) intimidation. Points of faith that must be taken as undeniable or infallible for one's salvation illustrate the use of intimidation as a tool of retaining authority. The very notion that the pope can be infallible is enough to keep many Catholics from questioning magisterial teachings. No one wants to go to Hell. Some religious leaders, however, use the threat of Hell to give weight to their teachings or positions.
Of course, there are also many who are simply complacent in their faith. I've met many Jews who maintain their Jewish faith as part of their ethnic identity as well as a marker of who they personally feel that they are. Many Irish Catholics stay Catholic because of this, and many Utah Mormons also fit in this category. Family history and tradition can be a major influence on one's trust in one authority over another.
Religious authorities increasingly seek to promote rational thought and dialogue over unquestioned obedience. The Catholic Church, since Vatican II has encouraged questioning. The Dalai Lama has consistently promoted rational and informed decision making. Protestant churches, since the time of Martin Luther, have always questioned the notion of being unquestionably correct. There is nothing wrong with informed obedience. As followers of whatever faith we follow, it is our duty, as rational beings, to try to understand the tenets of our faith.
On the other hand, blind obedience can have detrimental effects. One has only to think of David Koresh, Jim Jones or the Heaven's Gate Cult to realize how blind obedience to religious authorities can have deadly effects, even today. Because of instances like this, or Imams encouraging their faithful to perform "suicide bombings," many have turned a skeptical eye towards religious authority in general, some even labeling it as wholly destructive.
It is important to understand that if we believe that God COULD have given authority to a certain person or institution, we also ought to believe that God endowed us with a spirit of discernment and rationality. If something seems to be counter-intuitive, it ought to be questioned. If something flat out rejects the precepts of reason, it ought to be rejected. If something seems right, it might be. Just like a political authority there are times when we ought to support the authority and follow it, and times when we need to realize the error of choosing such a path.

The Question of Authority Pt 1

2011-01-26T13:41:00.004-05:00

If there is anything that most non-Catholic Christians accuse Catholicism of wrongly being, it's excessively papal. The Magisterium is, for many Protestants and Orthodox, a stumbling block and a scandal. The fact that most Catholics believe that "infallibility" means the pope is never wrong and that everything that comes out of the Vatican is the word of God only helps make this problem worse. This raises, for non-Catholics, the question of authority. Many Catholics, myself included, even question the authority of a body of old, celibate, European clerics when it comes to life in the regular world.
It is my goal to look briefly at examples of authority and attempt to make sense of what really goes into them. This post will examine both the nature of authority and discuss intellectual authority. The next post will discuss political and ecclesial authority.
There are many factors that contribute to what exactly authority is. Different disciplines would even give different definitions and different explanations for it. The political scientist would provide an explanation of power dynamics. The social Darwinist could explain strength and how different attributes, such as brute force, intelligence and charisma affect authority. We will begin our discussion, however, with a look to political philosophers.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes place the authority of governing structures in the human necessity for protection. For Locke, the authority of a political structure only lies in its ability to successfully benefit the populace. For Hobbes, the political structure necessarily requires authoritative figures to protect us from ourselves. For Friedrich Nietzsche, authority is much more complex and is attributable to several competing factors. One such factor is brute strength and violence, an attribute he gives to the now infamous "blond beast" of ancient Europe. Another such factor is cunning and intellectual manipulation, which he attributes to the "weaker" faiths of Judaism and Christianity.
It seems to me that Nietzsche is partially right, at least when it comes to the intellectual portion. People see some agency or person as an authority because they see that person as well-versed and competent in whatever it is he or she is doing. This attribution may be due to intimidation, psychological manipulation, rational evaluation, or simply complacency.
Intimidation, or fear-based authority, is respect for a person or organization due to what one is afraid that person or agency might do. For example, I might consider the king's authority to be legitimate because he killed the previous king, and if I refuse to cooperate, he could kill me as well. Similarly, a child might be afraid of her parents' anger. This is often the authority that binds more vicious people to the law, but can also be seen in examples of harsh teachers, whom students might not respect intellectually but might fear poor marks, or some preachers, who might preach Hell and damnation for disobedience.
Psychological manipulation, it seems to me, is the most common form of authoritative respect. Buzz words to look out for in this style of authority are "brainwashing," "propaganda," "peer-pressure" and "coercion." While intimidation relies on threats and fear, psychological manipulation does better and relies on people actually believing the authority of a subject based mostly on words. The proper way to garner this trust in authority is rhetoric. Generally, a person we trust, one whose authority we already have established, shares with us her trust in another person or institution. Because we respect the judgment and the authority of the person who tells us this, we, in turn, begin to trust the authority of whatever it is she is promoting. Commonly, one hears, "Becky swears by it," or "Joe says she's a great professor," however it is not strictly limited to choosing an authority. Once we have placed our trust in an authority, the rhetoric of that authority, as long as we have no reason to doubt it, will only strengthen its authoritative power over us. This, then, is the arena that people often find patriotism, ecclesiastic loyalty, partisanship, and brand loyalty. Often the authority is not a person, but a group, thus, it holds more sway by sheer numbers.
Rational Inquiry is the most basic form of trust in authority and occurs mostly on the level of persons. As I get to know a person and his or her ideals, I begin to question whether or not he is worth my confidence. As happens sometimes, this could be prevented by my trust in other authorities, perhaps because I belong to a certain religious of philosophical school and he belongs to another, or because our political views are influenced by different political camps. This, then, is the tragedy of the psychological manipulation mentioned above. If our cultured biases interfere with our ability to rationally judge the veracity of a supposed authority, then we have failed to truly understand what authority is. Notable examples of this are Conservatives who dismiss the authority of Ecologists or atheists who dismiss Christian Ethicists. A truly rationally curious approach would examine the technique and the motivation of the authority. A talk-show host who utilizes irrational accusations, baseless claims and appeals to the Ethos is most often less trustworthy than the biologist who utilizes the scientific method and produces results open to scrutiny and replication. The problem, however, of rational inquiry is that it requires a discerning spirit as well as a hard work.
Then there are instances where people are not swayed by appeals to the Pathos, Ethos or Logos. Due to laziness, confusion or apathy, some people attribute authority to those whom they think "probably just know better." This is often the case with people like the lapsed Catholic or the discontent American. He might not agree with the Church on many issues, but because he feels a certain loyalty to it, he will follow regardless, and likely not attempt to reconcile the cognitive dissonance he feels. Similarly, he might regard the decisions and politics of the government as foolish and futile, but going to the ballot box he'll choose the candidate that he thinks will be less likely to make a mess of things. This is the trust of the pessimist. He thinks nothing good will arise, but he sees no preferable alternative.
These four sources, it seems to me, are the main ways in which we decide which authorities to listen to. They appeal, as previously mentioned, to the Pathos, the Ethos and the Logos and often struggle against other competing voices.
In the intellectual world, our trust in authority often depends on matters of psychological manipulation and rational inquiry. We trust a person or an institution as an intellectual authority usually because we have studied its tenets and found them reasonable. We distrust others because we have found them lacking, or because we have been convinced by other authorities that they are wrong.
In academia, this is most often found in the subjects of philosophy and theology. Theologians often have differing theologies, many of which are incompatible with others, but the average theologian will attempt to achieve "balance" by not decrying those of differing mindsets. However, due to the breadth of theological query, which covers two thousand years of thought and most cultures of the world, there are many times when theories compete. Philosophers, on the other hand, are less likely to gingerly talk about their opponents. Since philosophers are usually not operating under a pre-determined set of doctrines or rules, they experience much more freedom to outwardly deny other philosophies and to freely label other philosophers as fools.
Disciplines where one does not usually see competing schools of thought tend to be the hard sciences, though physicists often argue about string theory versus quantum mechanics versus special relativity. The arts and humanities, such as literature, psychology and linguistics often have differing and opposing views, but, at the end of the day their differences aren't of the same sort of soteriological (saving) or eschatological (end of the world) significance as philosophers and theologians tend to think of their differences.
Often times, when a person decides one school of intellectual thought is right for her, she normally decides so on the basis of what she is used to, what seems most rational or simple to her, or what seems to validate her experience. The mystic is less likely to embrace a purely rationalistic theology than he is an ascetically oriented one, and the existentially curious reader will be more likely to read Sartre than Jane Austen.
Of course, as mentioned before, there is also a great deal of psychological manipulation that influences our decision in intellectual matters as well. Someone raised in a staunch, conservative Baptist household is probably not going to give much credence to the radical Catholic theology of Michael Baxter. On the other hand, a student raised to value empiricism and scientific methodology is more likely to respect Thomas Watson and Albert Einstein as intellectual authorities than he is to respect Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham.

Verbosity as a tragedy

2011-01-20T14:33:00.003-05:00

If there's one thing I cannot stand about theologians, it's how removed they often are from ordinary life. On one level, it's easy to see that the priest, who is taken care of financially by the diocese, who is not married, who spends all day studying theology and whose every move is checked and instructed by the Church, cannot truly relate to most of his parish on many levels. But this is a topic for another day and, perhaps another rant (as a theology student, it can be extremely frustrating knowing that there's no money to be made in theology, so while I put myself in debt there's no financial pay-off while people in religious orders often get tuition and living expenses covered).
What I mean to say is that often the things we talk about in theology classrooms are so far removed from both comprehensibility and practicality that it seems like we're talking for our own benefits. I've had plenty of professors who seem to just enjoy the sound of their voices. So the problem is, I think, twofold. First, I think there's a problem of actually seeing how what we're studying has any real application. Luckily, since I study at the School of Theology and MINISTRY, there are a lot of ministers in my classes who make the professors aware of this problem. Additionally, in moral theology classes, at least, the very subject matter is of such a nature that it is supposed to be directly applicable. While there is a lot of talk of theory and formulae, moral theology is really where the aetherial musings of theologians materialize. Abortion, gay marriage, suicide, euthanasia, politics, work and wages, the plight of the poor--essentially the actual happenings in the lives of the faithful--are the real topics of moral debate.
The second problem, however, is much harder to address and fix. Theologians often like to use and incorporate language that is often confusing and usually unnecessary. Then, they often use the terms as if they're obvious when, in fact, they often mean different things depending on the person.
Take, for example, objectivity and subjectivity, two terms which, I believe, were started by the ever-so-confusing German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Objectivity, in one usage, means what is actually the case. Subjectivity, on the other hand, is "just your opinion." However, another usage of objectivity is looking towards the object, in other words "your perspective" and another usage of subjectivity is looking towards oneself, in other words "introspection." However, rather than using terms that are much easier to remember and follow, theologians often opt to interchange objectivity and subjectivity in such a way that one finds himself reading the same passage multiple times to tease out the meaning only to realize at the end that the solution was simple and just confusingly worded.
One of my roommates, in her zeal to show her enthusiasm for Systematic Theology purchased a fridge magnet with one of those quotes on it, the kind that normally are supposed to either inspire, comfort or amuse. On the magnet was a quote from Bernard Lonnergan, a Jesuit theologian, and the quote said, "Objectivity is the genuine fruit of subjectivity." While I would first rather have something like a quote about teamwork posted on my fridge rather than some out of context quote that means nothing to the average person, I decided to actually ponder the meaning. It seems to me that what is meant by this quote is that objectivity, according to my first definition, is the result of subjectivity, according to the second definition. In other words, seeing the way something is happens when we practice introspection. I don't know about the other readers out there, but I would rather read something like that as an inspirational quote over "Objectivity is the genuine fruit of subjectivity" any day.
but those borrowed philosophical terms aren't even the extent of it. Within theology, especially "systematics" (already NOT a self-apparent term) there are several smaller branches whose meanings are just as cryptic or non-apparent. There's ecclesiology, or the way the Church runs, soteriology, or how we're saved, christology, or Jesus and the Trinity, apologetics, or defending the faith, eschatology, or the end times, exegesis, or interpreting Scripture, and others. Most of the terms are fanciful but unnecessary. It's almost as if theologians feel the need to come up with specific terms for anything that they might find interesting just in order to give it more credibility as a discipline. The problem, of course, comes when one tries to actually relate it to anybody who hasn't studied theology for years.
Then, of course, the terms get put into buzz-word formulas. In business meetings one might hear, "We need to actuate more synergy by cooperative endeavors" but in theology it's even more confusing. One of my professors this week made a joke about St Paul and stated, "His christology is his soteriology." Would it not be much easier to simply say, "He believed our salvation was only through Christ?" Another professor of mine gave a homily today in which he stated we need to make the subjunctive into the indicative. Not only was that a reference that only a theologian would understand, but he would also have to be grammatically familiar with a language that has both subjunctive and indicative like Latin. It occurred to me that the priest, God bless him, was trying more to impress with his knowledge of grammar and the liturgy than he was trying to give an actual lesson.
Alasdair MacIntyre, no small name in his own right, once said in a class that one should not pretend to have mastered a concept until he can explain it to his grandmother who only has a third grade education. This seems quite applicable, as I can't even understand some of what these elite professors are talking about, even with a grad student's level of understanding.
The cultured despisers of the world often criticize theists for being ignorant and uneducated. Truth be told, most of the theologians I have met have been legions more intelligent than the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Charles Dawkins, Samuel Dennet et al. How, though, is anybody in the world supposed to know this when we theologians use overinflated language and tend to confuse rather than explain. I'm not saying the content needs to be watered down or lightened, heaven forbid, but rather that rather than using bombastic terms like "objectivity" or "soteriology," why is it that we cannot actually say what we mean?

The Published Article!!

2011-01-14T14:33:00.003-05:00

After waiting the better part of a year, my article is finally out! In December's edition of Interreligious Insights, under the title "The Mormon Godhead and the Christian Trinity" my research article was finally published.
Link to the article

Giftmas

2010-12-25T01:59:00.003-05:00

As much as I like that we have an entire holiday season (Advent-the Christmas season) to celebrate the miraculous birth of the Word Incarnate, I can honestly say that I have always been a bit of a "Scrooge" when it comes to Christmas. It isn't because of the emphasis on the birth, and it isn't because of the family. It is only partly because of the endless Christmas music being played right after Thanksgiving, the store ads encouraging everyone to buy, the crowds at shopping centers and the high running emotions of everyone else. These things don't bother me as much as one particular thing: the gift exchange.
The reason why I always dread the gifts is simple: It's not really a system of giving. For one thing, often times we get what we expect. We ask for certain things, thereby, what we receive is not truly a gift, but rather is the fulfillment of a request. I ask friends for favors from time to time, and if a friend fulfills this, I don't really understand the fulfillment of a request to be on the level of gift, but more closely related to the level of promise fulfillment.
This leads to the second point. Gift exchange is exactly that: it's an exchange. I hope to get something good from those whom I am close to who have more resources. Likewise, I have to give according to my own resources. However, I am expected to give to those who give to me and I, in turn, expect a gift from those to whom I give presents. Furthermore, though I fully intend to spend something appropriate to my means, I feel guilty if my gift does not approximate the value of the received gift, and likewise the giver feels slighted. This can lead to the exact opposite goal of Christmas, which ought to bring people together, rather than create rifts within them. For this reason, Christmas gift exchange is even more emotionally and socially disruptive than is birthday gift exchange, in which one person receives with no expectation to provide similar gifts.
Third, the gifts almost always are expected to be some material possession. The children need to have the brand new toy advertised on cartoons. Adult friends may expect a fine wine or liquor, or perhaps jewelry. The gift's worth is measured not in the uniqueness, or the emotional worth, but rather the economic worth. A six-pack of beer that I brewed might be nice, but ONLY if my brew itself turned out well. A handmade piece of furniture, or art is only a "good" gift if it measures up to my expectation of aesthetic appeal. If I write you a poem, it better be framed, or published. Even these gifts, however, have more appeal to them than a gift of time. If I swear a few hours of my time to you to talk or fish or see a movie, this is not considered an adequate gift, though, in all reality, this gift improves the relationship much more than does a shiny new computer, car or television.
For this reason, gift giving functions more as an economy than as gift. Jacques Derrida speaks of the "economy of gift" an economy of giving and taking. However, he argues, the true gift is the one that can not be returned.
I agree with this. Gifts, as gifts, are not given as a sort of promissory note for something of equal value. They are not vouchers guaranteeing future gifts. This mindset, this "economics of giving" mentality creates for us a selfish social system. What kind of gift are we giving if we expect a return? Are we merely making an investment? And, if so, what is our purpose in giving the gift? We say we give gifts to each other on Christmas to commemorate Jesus' life. Sometimes we use the rationale of the gifts of the Magi, other times we compare our gifts to Jesus' gift of life (or death, to use Derrida's words). What did the Magi receive for their gifts? Certainly it wasn't eternal life, for that was given to all of humanity. What did Jesus receive for His gift? He received death! How can we expect gifts if we say we are celebrating the Incarnation?
Gift giving is strange in this way, especially in contemporary Western society. In some cultures, like certain Asian cultures and the ancient Greeks, gifts were given from a patron to the object of his affection. The wealthier, more established men or women would shower their disciples with gifts, with no expectation of return, for the mentor would probably pass on before he could be repaid. In certain Native American cultures, gifts were given as a sign of respect, and those who received them only accepted them if she deemed them worthy of her. While this fosters a sort of tributary system, the receiving party never expected to repay the gift, and thus it was, in ways, a true gift. In other cultures, gift exchange demonstrates who has the dominant position in a relationship. Whoever gives the greater gift is the more powerful and the other person is indebted, though will not pay the debt off with another gift.
While these three examples don't necessarily demonstrate what Derrida and I mean by gift, they do represent the purpose of gift much better than does the Western style of giving. For one thing, in these systems gifts are not expected. Thus, the gift itself comes as a surprise and is not a request, nor an expectation. Second, the gifts are not meant to be repayment or to equalize parties. This is important because the relationship develops a sort of dependence quality to it. The parties are loyal to each other because one feels indebted to the other, and the other is loyal out of respect for the loyalty received. In the Western system, we try to achieve independent equilibrium, maintaining that we owe nothing to anyone and preventing true relational bonding. Third, if a gift of a certain value is not expected, the gift does not have to take the form of something financially quantifiable. I can freely give you unique advice. You can freely take time you would otherwise not to spend time with me. He can devote his weekend to making sure things go well for her on an important occasion. We already do these things, but we don't consider them gifts because we have become caught up in the notion that gift must entail retail value.
Derrida's definition of gift, then, is something that cannot be repaid, something that cannot be expected or requested and cannot be thanked. It must either be anonymous or circumstances must make it impossible for the donor to receive recognition. It cannot be out of request, otherwise it is merely fulfillment of promise and thus functions more contractually than beneficently. It must be of some nature that the receiver cannot make restitution, otherwise it is merely purchase or trade.
Jesus tells us not to give for recognition (Matthew 6:1). Those who "blow a trumpet" or otherwise make a scene of their donation do so only to gain something. It is not a true gift. It is an exchange for fame, patronage, favorable recognition or legacy. Those who "do alms in secret," on the other hand, don't receive earthly reward. Of course, the verse states that God will reward those who do alms which sets up the problematic situation of doing alms to get in heaven (read: Indulgences), however, the moral theologian realizes that while the Scripture states that God will reward those who do "invisible alms" the truly beneficent person will do alms out of a sense of the good and not for some Karmic reward. The point is not whether we receive God's blessings openly but rather that we learn to enjoy giving without recognition.
Jesus also tells us when we have banquets to invite those who cannot ever hope to repay (the poor and the handicapped) (Luke 14:13). Once again, there is the promise of some sort of supernatural reparation, but, once again, the point here is not that we receive some great reward in Paradise. Rather, the point is that we ought to have those who can never repay us owe us. This is not to lord it over them, but rather, it is to teach us not to require the repayment of everything. We give to those who cannot repay us because it is no longer a gift if we have been repaid for it.
Jesus, as a gift Himself, represents the way in which gifts do NOT need to be financially estimable. "God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son" (John 3:16). What monetary value is the crucifixion of Jesus? How does one calculate salvation? Is there a special box on our tax forms for the gift of Grace? One cannot put a price tag on a human life, especially if that life happens to be God become man. Thus, we see that God demonstrates this gift form best of all, for no amount of money can be equivalent to the gift of Jesus.
We see in Jesus, then, the ultimate, and true, gift. In Jesus' death, He gave us something that He could receive no personal recognition for. While we now venerate and worship Jesus, we cannot personally thank Him, and even as he hung on the cross, he received not so much as an expression of gratitude. Rather, he received scorn and abuse from most, and, at best, the weeping and wailing of a few. He also gave us something we can never pay back the "gift of death." Jesus died for us, and we cannot, in turn, die for Jesus in the same way. Jesus' death provides for us. The best we can do, in turn, is to die in His name, though it does nothing personally for Him, for He is already saved and is already risen (however, in the case of the martyrs, if it comes down to dying for Him and denying Him, much theology suggests right relation with Christ requires not denying Him). Finally, as previously mentioned, there is no monetary value one can fix for the Passion, death and resurrection.
Thus, if I might leave but one thing with you for this Christmas season, and indeed, for all year around, it's that the true meaning of Christmas is not found in the manger, nor the jolly red-suited saint and especially not in the public exchange of items of equal value. Rather, the true meaning of Christmas lies in Christ's ultimate gift for us, a gift of death and life, a gift that we can never repay and a gift that we can never thank Him enough for.

Nihilism vs Mysticism (revisited)

2010-11-23T17:23:00.003-05:00

This piece probably should have been written in September or October at the latest. Two months ago, a 35 year-old man dressed in all white on Yom Kippur, walked up the stairs of Harvard Memorial Church shot himself in the temple with a silver revolver in front of a group of tourists. This, however, was not some sort of spectacle or art piece. It was, in fact, a statement, but it was a statement that concluded his 1905 page Magnum Opus, a book he entitled Suicide Note. Essentially, the piece is a Nihilistic anthem, an explanation of why the world is absurd and why life is not worth living.
I find myself resonating with his words. I feel he found a truth. In that, I admire him. However, what I find tragic is not that he felt this way, but that while he found a truth, he did not find the truth.
The truth he found was follows thusly. He argued that if all value systems (moral theories, philosophies and religions) are equally plausible, than none have precedence. If none have precedence, then all are equally right, and just as equally wrong. If all have equal value to them, then there is no single truth and every attempt to explain life worth is just as wrong as any other. If this is the case, then life has no real inherent value. Thus, there is no value in actually living and the only truth comes in not living.
I find his reasoning and his logic completely valid. However, where he and I would differ is that I reject his first claim. I don't think all value systems are equal. As a Catholic and as a Theologian, I think that some (particularly Christian theologies) have more precedence over others. Thus, my argument for the value of human life stems from a Christian understanding of life, salvation, faith, hope, the eschaton and God's Providence.
Both his position and mine are very controversial positions to take today. Very few people today would agree with him in saying that human life is devoid of intrinsic value, but similarly, the upper echelon of society would also reject my premise that human value lies in our relation to God. The sister of Mitchell Heisman, the suicide, said that had she known her brother was intending to commit suicide, she would have tried to convince him otherwise. She would have tried to convince him to make his own value for life. This is a position I find that many people take up today. She went on to admit, however, that he probably knew she would do that and thus never told her. Heisman's choice was not made because nobody had tried to convince him to make value of his life. Rather, it was the ultimate realization that making value for oneself is lying. This would be well for many, but his goal was to find truth, and accepting a lie for truth would not have satisfied him. He had come to the critical Nihilism vs Mysticism moment, and found that the competition of differing mysticisms left him with only the choice of abject Nihilism.
At this point, I would like to try to reconstruct how it is that a position like Heisman's becomes possible in our modern culture as well as how his sister's position becomes socially acceptable though logically absurd.
Heisman noted the pluralism of value systems. In our post-Reformation, post-Enlightenment, globalized society, there is almost no end to the value systems appropriated by people around us. In Medieval Europe, all were Catholics, with the exception of the Jews who were relegated to a lower status in society. Even post-Reformation, regions generally remained homogenous with a sect rather than accepting multiple religions in the region. Today, in large cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles we often encounter on a daily basis people who are Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and even Taoist. People follow Kant's Universal Law or Utilitarianism. There is no end to the systems one can follow, including agnosticism and atheism, arguably non-systems (which, in itself, makes them systems, though not very systematic).
Furthermore, our society has lost the original sense of value. In place of quality, quantity has become the norm. Rather than speaking of inherency or universality, we have changed our view point to an emphasis on quantity and empiricism. Post-Enlightenment thought has led us to value not only what can be empirically proven, but what is popular. This Age of Democracy that we live in insists that something is right because we say it is. While I have decried the risk in place in this thinking in the last couple pieces, it should suffice to say that today we often think that something can only actually said to be right if there is unanimity, or at least something close to that.
At this point, we have enough to understand the situation. With value pluralism being a reality in our culture as well as the divergence of opinion and adherence to different systems, we wind up in a relativistic culture. The relativistic culture makes the following claim: "There are many ways that people follow for understanding value in their life. A definitive acceptance or rejection of a system would show that it is wrong. Very few systems are widely rejected (such as Satanism or extreme fundamentalism) and very few systems are widely accepted (such as patriotism and rights-based morality), thus most cannot be shown to be either resoundingly right nor resoundingly wrong. Thus, most have equal plausibility and their acceptance or rejection is a matter of mere personal preference."
Many people today live by a credo that mimics or mirrors the previously set out philosophy. Generally, it is the excuse adhered to for doing whatever somebody wishes to do. The excuse is that he or she did not see the act as wrong and the fact that someone else does is merely a matter of the value systems they both accept and reject. This eliminates universal right and wrong except in extreme cases (such as rape, and murder). However, this is a bad ethic. No good (not in the sense of morally good but in the sense of reasonable or rational) ethicist has ever taken a relativist stance, not even the antichristian Friedrich Nietzsche. "Pure relativism" is a sham, a cop-out for hedonism. It is the new opiate of the people--an seemingly rational philosophy that allows people to do what they please with no dire consequence.
Heisman realized that relativism is a sham. Perhaps we might declare him one of the few pure relativists. He plainly saw that if all systems have equally viable claims to truth, then there is no real truth and life has no real value except for a lie. The tragedy of Mitchell Hesiman was not that he did not understand the value of life as much as it was that he understood what few other relativists have the courage to admit--that if all is equal, then all is valueless.
This, then, is where I assert the value of Christianity. Though this is deserving of an entire apologetic, suffice it to say for now that even this claim is a difficult one to make. The Catholic Church, since Vatican II, has tried to acknowledge the inherent value of other value systems, but at the same time it has always maintained that it solely has claim to predominance. One might ask, "What gives you the right?" The simple answer to that is that someone NEEDS to claim that right. A look at apologetics, including Ss Thomas Aquinas and Augustine and Blessed John Cardinal Newman, will answer this question better than I can or will, but the point is that IF no one does claim the right, then, rationally, logically, we are forced to make the same tragic conclusion that Mitchell Heisman made.

Chaos, Anarchy, and the contemporary world

2010-11-20T13:24:00.003-05:00

It occurs to me that the term "Anarchy" has become synonymous with "wrongful disorder." It is seen not as simple disorder, the result of which can be something grand such as the American Revolution (certainly disorder) or struggles for civil rights. Rather, "Anarchy" is viewed as being inherently pernicious--it has been given an ontological polemical attribute. Other words that have such distinction are "defamation," "murder," and "robbery"--words which, as part of their definition, imply that they are wrong.
It is my contention, however, that 1) anarchy is not inherently wrong 2) what we often mean by "Anarchy" is "chaos," 3) this polemical label is, in large part, a product of our modern age and 4) finally, I would like to explain why anarchy might not be too bad.
What I would like to clarify first is what "Anarchy" means. A common definition is "lack of government" or rather "lack of order." This latter definition is certainly false. It is easy to understand "Anarchy" as lack of order since the prefix "a" in Greek often means "no" (such as Atheist, and Apathy) and "arch" often means "government" (monARCH, oligARCH). I would like to note, however that "arch" does not mean "crat" (theoCRAT, demoCRAT, aristoCRAT), which rightly means "ruling." Anarchy does not imply no ruling feature or sensibility, rather it means no central body determining what one does. In its purest form, anarchy means what democracy tries to mean, that is the people decide. In its most adulterated form, it means something like chaos.
Before I get to that part, however, let me first explain the position of a right-minded anarchist. The pure anarchist is not a deviant bent on the destruction of all society and culture. Early anarchists were often affiliated with Marxism, though not all have been. Essentially, the anarchist feels that the government is more interested in self-preservation and self-furthering than it is with the people. It follows the mantra "power corrupts" and the pure anarchist understands why Communism failed in the Soviet Union--because the party forgot the people it had originally promised to save. In this way, the anarchist is often more of a realist. He knows that campaign promises are idle talk and that as much as politicians discuss how to help the poor, they deliberate twice as much about increasing their own salaries and spend countless hours on the road fund-raising in order to maintain their position of prominence. In this way, many Americans today would agree with the original position of the anarchist, however, they disagree where the anarchist decides that having no government to lord over the people is better. This will be addressed more later on.
We often think of anarchy as "chaos" because we understand government as bringing about order. When we think "Anarchy" we think of a number of scenarios 1) the lawlessness of the French Revolution (or even the Soviet Revolution), 2) primeval tribal warfare and 3) post-apocalyptic social Darwinism. If we look at these three examples, we'll see why what we mean is chaos and not really anarchy. In example one, we need to realize that though, technically, revolution is a state of anarchy (because there is, quite literally, no one governing), it is only a transitional state. In the example of the French Revolution, the most gruesome and ghastliest part of the Revolution was the Reign of Terror, which was not anarchy in the least, but rather tyranny. In the second example, we ought to realize that establishing one's society is not really anarchy, and that tribal warfare has not really gone away. Rather, instead of killing a few men with bows and arrows, our advanced government has given us the ability to kill hundreds of thousands at an instant, which leads us to the third case. This, once again, is the crow magnon sense of anarchy. People inevitably in science-fiction, resort to forming tribes once again and the struggle to survive is only a primordial drive (that we still have today). In the first situation, what we fear is that the wrong people will seize power, so we wish to hold on to a government which we have a sort of control over (however Democracy should not be considered to be infallible, as the National Socialist Party was popularly elected in Germany). In the last two examples, what we are afraid of is a lack of resources necessary for survival. In a very real way, this is what a lot of human drama is still about today and people are shot on the streets of Boston, New York and Los Angeles everyday for resources. What we are really afraid of is the utter chaos of the Reign of Terror and the utter chaos of instability of resources.
Now, it must be understood that anarchy has been feared for literally thousands of years. One only needs to read the Book of Judges in the Bible, which most scholars date to pre-exilic Israel (around 800 BC), wherein the lack of a governing body ultimately resorts to the lawlessness of a community gang raping a man's wife, and the resulting near-genocide of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 19-21). However, though society has had this polemic against lack of governance, it must also be remembered that the rest of the Old Testament (TeNaK) warns against the abuse of power of kings.
The modern polemic against anarchy, as near as I can tell, begins with the writings of Hobbes, realistically. Thomas Hobbes wrote that people were inherently evil and needed government to protect them from themselves. This thought has been very influential in political science. Even his contemporary, John Locke, who took a much more moderate and optimistic approach, stated that though people were probably good, government was meant to serve the people. What is often forgotten, however, is that he also advocated revolution when the government fails (a very influential position for the Founding Fathers). Since Hobbes and Locke, governments have attained enough power to incur the nationalism that created the First World War, per Hobbes, and have been subject to many coups and revolutions, per Locke. In America, however, the note has been Nationalism since early on. Even when many states sought to reassert their own power in the War of Northern Aggression, the Union was reunited with the result of even greater governmental authority as well as the beneficial result of the end of chattel slavery. During the World Wars and the Cold War Era, patriotism was of utmost importance, and loyalty to the government we have was absolutely demanded. Even as the situation became more acceptable to be critical of the government, we had the events of September 11, 2001, which brought back the need for a strong national ethos. So it has been that ever since the late 1860s dissent has not been an acceptable option in this country.
Part of this has been the very propaganda spread by our own government, and much of this has been reinforced by national emergencies. Worrying about the invasion of the Japanese, the Russians or the Terrorists brings with it a certain amount of need for security, found in our government. Here Hobbes and Locke are proven right, and their position of anti-anarchy is only more strengthened. Being "unAmerican" has at times (possibly even today) been tantamount to being a cannibal or a Satanist.
Furthermore, the image of anarchists has been tainted by the counter-culturalists. The Sex Pistols' song "Anarchy in the U.K." became, for years, the anthem by which "punks" and other subversive, non-conformists rallied under. The chant "Anarchy" has been lifted high in punk concerts and other events which the more established and sophisticated of the populace see as pernicious and uncouth. Thus, since the 1970s, the very notion of anarchy has been taken up by those who incur a negative reaction from much of the population while at the same time being demonized by Cold War Era nationalism.
Finally, I would like to make my claim for the virtues (if I might be so bold) to be found in anarchy. Some of my favorite anarchists include Dorothy Day, Ammon Hennacy, and Daniel Berrigan. All of these people have been involved in the Catholic Worker Movement, a movement which seeks to eliminate poverty, sees the inherent worth of people, and stands against violence. None of these people ought to be considered the antichrist. I would argue the contrary. Dorothy Day was one of the founders of the movement and many have called for her canonization since she died in 1985. Ammon Hennacy, though he left the Church, picketed with the migrant workers in the 60s, often worked manual labor, put his two daughters through college, and took care of many of the poor in Salt Lake City for ten years. Daniel Berrigan, though most controversial, was a priest, and worked hard to fight war (often at the cost of damaging property) as well as set up his fair share of Houses of Hospitality. All of these people were for order, all of them were for discipline, but none of them were for the abuses that they saw the government bringing.
Additionally, looking at a few things government has done for us is in part helpful. With the exception of World War II, none of the major wars we have been involved in over the last 100 years have been necessary. We lost Vietnam, we're still in Afghanistan, we defended Saddam Hussein then ten years later deposed him and were involved in a war only about national pride (World War I). Additionally, even though health care has recently been re-evaluated, there is still no "public option." Roads are in disrepair and families are starving while congress men and women have multiple homes. People who are normally friends get in heated, and sometimes friendship damaging, arguments about why one thinks the president is doing a good job but the other disagrees. Politicians spend time that could be used to combat real issues campaigning. Congress itself votes along party lines, not on conscience lines, effectively creating a veritable deadlock. Since the development of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, and especially both our and the Soviet Union's stockpiling of them, we now have to face the very real threat that we could all very well die at a moment's notice. Tax cuts to the rich ensure that they get richer while the Middle Class and the poor have to bear the brunt of that burden.
Now try to imagine a world of anarchy. Without inserting the notion of chaos let me define: You will live according to your conscience, and you will do what's in your best interest. We often think that government dictates our morality, but the truth is that it does not. The rules that we agree with, we follow. If speed limits were an issue of morality (which they are, in reality), we would be a lot more hesitant to speed. The real place we get our morality is from those we most closely associate with--our parents, church leaders, other relatives and friends. If we break the law, it is likely because "we hang out with the wrong friends." If we are polite drivers, it is likely because our parents or teachers taught us to be polite. If we take care of the poor, it might be because a sermon had a great influence on us.
Government, in reality, does two things: 1) it enforces a certain brand of morality through the law and 2) it trivializes morality by making it an issue of punishment. Without government, we would not have these. In the first place, our idea of morality would be different. We wouldn't think that allowing people from a certain region come move near us because of opportunity constituted a grave injustice, nor would we think that taking care of the poor and elderly is solved by our paying taxes. We would have to come to grips with a new, more pure, brand of morality--one that transcends the legalism of politics. Secondly, we would have to follow morality for new reasons. We would not shoplift, not because we are afraid of being caught and being arrested but because we feel inherently it is wrong, or that we would not like that to happen to us, or that God would not like it. The speed we would drive would not be determined by our sense of whether we could avoid being pulled over, but rather by what we thought was safe. In short, we would live morally because we found some greater reason in doing it (whether it is religious, deontological, happiness or fairness).
For a more practical example, let us examine murder. It is easy to say that without government, everyone would go about killing other people. To begin with, this happens already. Furthermore, one of the excuses for using the death penalty is that it has deterrent force. Were this the case, after the first or second, or even third person was killed for murder, there would be no more executions. Unfortunately, the truth is that we still do execute people, that people still do commit murder. Death Penalty is no more of a deterrent than is life in prison. On top of this, people don't kill others for the same reason they don't violate all sorts of other moral codes. Either they think life itself is sacred, or they are afraid that someone will take vengeance, or they fear the judgment of God, or they just think that it's wrong. Government does not determine right or wrong, it simply determines legal and illegal.
To conclude, in a world of legalism and government, right is determined by numbers. We win a war if we lose fewer people than we need to. We adjust laws if a certain amount of people die. Our lives are merely a number that has no real significance by itself. In an anarchistic society, persons can truly be appreciated for who they are. We follow the Golden Rule. We adhere to Natural Law. We take care of people for who they are AND we don't have to worry about the threat of nuclear devastation or of paying the salaries of people whose concerns are not our own.

The Modern Pantheon

2010-11-18T21:47:00.004-05:00

In an age where "atheism" for once actually means the denial of a theos, of a god, and where people proudly where the moniker, it seems self evident that either one worships a god or doesn't. Of course, the question becomes exacerbated when people ask "Which god? The Christian god? The Jewish god? Allah? One of the Muslim gods?" And while the discussion of monotheism, deism, pantheism, is an interesting subject, that is not the subject of this post.
I do, however, need to treat of pantheism, at least briefly. I was informed some weeks ago by a friend that her husband considers himself a pantheist--that is, seeing God in everything, and everything in God. This is not pantheism, in the traditional sense, but rather universalism. My fear is that people do use "pantheism" in this way, or to say "worshiping all gods," a sort of religious relativistic pluralism. By pantheism, I mean the term that is related to the word "pantheon." By pantheism, I wish to mean worshiping all the approved gods. The pantheon of Rome, for example, included Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury, but it also included the Emperor, and even, according to Acts 17:23, to a certain extent the god of monotheism. These were all culturally and religiously acceptable gods to worship. By religiously, I mean that the official religion of Rome allowed that one could pray to any and all of these gods (at certain times, it was necessary, as with the martyrs not praying to the emperor). The concept of worshiping approved gods will be central to this post.
In contemporary culture, one may rightly belong to a specific religion, say Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sheikism, Taoism, Shamanism or any other worshiping body one might know of, and we consider this all fine and well. In America, especially, we say that one has a right, and it is a Constitutionally given right. However, there are still a significant number of people who do not consider themselves "religious." This list includes the skeptics, the atheists, the agnostics, the non-active believers, the "spiritualists," the "mystics," the Nihilists, the scientistic, et cetera. While these people may state that they don't participate in worship of a deity, my argument is that they do, and in fact, they often one of the following gods of the modern, or perhaps Post Modern, pantheon.
The first god I wish to mention is the god of mysticism. This is the god of divination, psychics, omens, good luck charms, astrology, and other quasi-mystical things. This correlates to the god Hermes or Mercury in the Greco-Roman pantheons. Today, we don't consider this god to be an actual anthropomorphic deity, but rest assured, many of us do believe in it. For the sake of the post, we'll call her Lady Luck. This is the goddess whom we think magically makes things work. "I didn't wear my lucky socks, that's why the Irish lost!" The realistic correlation of a pair of smelly socks and an entire football team winning is absurd, but we often posit such bad fortunes to our lack of properly divining. "A stranger smiled at me, that must mean I'll do well on my test." Another example of non-correlative, though perhaps coincidental happenings. I shall not beleaguer the issue, but I hope the point is clear.
Similarly, we consort her twin sister, Lady Fate. This is how "true loves" find each other. It isn't a matter of compatibility or openness to another person, but "the forces of the universe" bring it together. Lady Fate is considered to be a stronger deity than her sister, and is attributed with "if it's meant to be, it will be." There is a sense, tied with her, that we are incapable of forging our own experiences or controlling them. She is associated with Stoic-like people, the unambitious, and those who want follow Lady Fate. One might think of the Muses or the Fates (or the Norns if you follow Norse mythology).
Next we have the god of Chaos. The position of Chaos is randomness, unintelligibility, meaninglessness, Nihilism, disruption, the void, confusion, depression et cetera. This god may have the most followers up till now (though one should not pretend he cannot worship more than one of these deities). The Post Modern age has given rise to paintings, literature, philosophy, cinema, television, sculptures, music and many other media that pay homage to Chaos. The Existentialists hinted at him, but many atheists and agnostics also follow him. The Nihilists especially follow him. The main thing that this god conveys is a sense of confusion at meaning and a loss of hope for reality. One might think of any number of gods of Chaos from ancient pantheons: Loki, Hades, Pluto, and others.
In opposition to this god, we have the god of scientific certitude. Scientism is the position that many skeptics take up, claiming that nothing but what can be positively proven is worth talking about. There is no value to anything that cannot be quantitatively measured. This god, additionally, often exhibits a very jealous quality, demanding absolute adherence. Note well, though, that scientists may be Christian or Jew or Muslim, but they will not grant Science their religious devotion. Their is an ironic quality of this god, however, in that often it demands adherence to principles that have not yet been proven. I don't mean the Big Bang or Evolution, but rather String Theory, Multiple Universe Theory, and, of course, time travel. The only equivalent I might think of is Athena, though this analogy is incomplete since Athenian wisdom is not the same as Post-Enlightenment science.
Additionally, we have the goddess of Materialism. This goddess is worshiped by capitalists, economists, aesthetes, the rich and famous, and business men and women. Her rewards are the most apparent. Devotion to her brings real material wealth. One may devote her life to learning to make money, with priestess-like devotion, and so long as she's a worthy priestess, she will be richly rewarded. Priest-like discipline, found in investment bankers and stock brokers, brings its rewards, and if the market goes badly, it's likely that the goddess needs to be appeased. This consumerist god has no parallel in the ancient world, as capitalism is a modern phenomenon.
Then comes the god of Excess. This is the Bacchic god of college students, the famous and scandalous, alcoholics, narcotics, gluttons, and any other hedonistic devotee. Parties are the common form of worship, and those (I consider myself one of them, to my detriment) who follow this cult find themselves looking for chances to worship as often as possible. Often, devotion to this god causes disruption of family, legal consequences and humiliation. This god is the obvious parallel of Bacchus and Dionysus.
Finally comes the god of Patriotism. This god has more voice than any other god does. This is the god that tells us that the interest of the United States comes before our ability to help any other country. This is the god that tells us that if we do not support the war, we hate our troops. This is the god who tells us that if we don't vote, we have no voice to protest. His adherents are legion. And the worst part is that this god claims more adherents to other faiths, such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam, encouraging them to confuse their country obligations with their religious duties. The phrase "In God we trust" on our currency, for example, is an example of how Patriotism has overcome our Christian, Jewish, or Muslim sensibilities to tell us that being a Christian and a Patriot are synonymous. This god says civil disobedience, pacifism, and protest are all despicable, and that no good Christian should ever do so. This is the god of propaganda. This is the god of politics. This is the god of "American tradition." This is the most noxious worship, as it defines all our other practices. Consider, for example, the Messianic way people thought of President Obama's election, though as a president he has really done about average. This is not an attack on him, but rather a question of the idolization of political figures and national pride.
This concludes the pantheon. While we might not actually profess faith in any of these "gods," nor pray to them, we do pay homage to them (in the form of wearing symbols, devoting our careers to them, and other practices of religious devotion). There are undoubtedly more gods the average American, or simply Westerner pays devotion to, without thinking about. This is simply a brief summary. And while for an atheist or agnostic, devotion to these gods might be fine, if we consider ourselves monotheists, we need to seriously re-evaluate the religious devotion we pay to various things. As a Catholic, for example, if the United States declared war on the Vatican, what would my reaction be? Rather than trying to discern God's will, am I trying to divine, to find omens or just trust that the stars will align just right for me? Do I spend time trying to earn money at the cost of anything I hold sacred?
Perhaps the problem with the new pantheism arises from the rise of Christendom. After all, early Christians had to consider their faith in life and death terms, but what do we sacrifice for it today? Or do we rather offer up sacrifices to things other than what we profess to believe?

Democracy and Truth

2010-11-16T15:40:00.003-05:00

A common mistake people make these days is to suppose if the majority supposes X, then X must be true. A more common mistake people make is that since the majority has supported various different things over the years, then there is no truth.
The first of these two mistaken positions is what some, including Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, have called "The Tyranny of the Majority." This is a complex issue that ought to be fleshed out to a certain extent. To begin with, there are times when the most vocal become the easiest to follow. Those who are not settled upon a position are the easiest to sway and often strong rhetoric and heavy appeal to the ethos of people helps win over favor. This is precisely how the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire. Other times, the majority can be steered in a certain way. For example, in the last election, the majority of Americans were unhappy with the way politics had been decided two years ago. With a little crafty rhetoric, the Republican Party was able to win over Americans who two years ago had been won over by the rhetoric of the Democratic Party. Finally, the majority can be swayed to support something that honestly resonates with their emotions, but may not be completely right. Post World War I Germans were unhappy because of the terrible way in which the Wiemar Republic had handled the economic disaster, but their support for the National Socialist Party was very misplaced.
Because of this sociological phenomenon, repeated through history, the reigning voice of the majority cannot be viewed as fully true. Very few rationally-minded people today would support NAZIs, chattel slavery, female genital manipulation or witch hunts. Yet at some point in history, each of these had been the opinion of the majority, or at least, a certain stratus construed to be the majority.
It might be tempting to take an historical view and suggest that if these realities were morally true, morally right, options at the time, then perhaps all morality is is a relative function of the people. Thus, there is no "moral truth" or "moral rectitude." This is a very appealing approach and many contemporary philosophers and many more intellectually advanced persons have supported this notion. The problem is that in the most extreme form, this supports all manner of atrocities. If the moral laws we support are mere conventions, what is there to prevent me from killing people, or conning elderly ladies out of their money, or vandalizing property?
Let me quickly demonstrate an irony of this position. Many people, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins among them, support the claim of relativism. However, they both are quick to point the accusing finger at the Catholic Church for sexual abuse. While I myself support the claim that having sexual relations with small children is absolutely egregious, I could never consider myself relativist because of that. If it is egregious, on what grounds is it? The fact that we find it disgusting suggests either that we have been culturally conditioned to think this, or that it is objectively wrong. If we are conditioned, we cannot honestly say this is wrong. We say that cultures who practice cannibalism or clitoridectomies are in error, not because we think that our cultures are completely different, but because we think they share similar core values. If child sex abuse is objectively wrong, we cannot maintain a strictly relativistic standpoint.
Here is the point. As we become more enlightened (a word I am hesitant to use), we find more and more things to be objectively wrong. Genocide, sexual abuse, discrimination, torture and other acts we consider to be wrong. Yet our own culture has supported some of these, and some cultures still do. The fact is that we consider our views to be superior because of the long debates, philosophical treatises, theological teachings, and emotions to be correct. We still claim that bad things happen in our own culture, that we have more work to do and that there is still much we don't understand, but practically speaking, we don't support a relativist standpoint. Cultures evolve, and we hope, they evolve in such a way that they grow closer to the truth.
Consider the following: a hundred years ago, women were fighting for voting rights in the United States. Fifty years ago, African Americans were. Today, homosexual couples are fighting for the right to marry. Our culture is growing to a more perfect understanding of what it is to be human, and, we hope, growing into truth. Truth is not changing. Few would say that chattel slavery in early American history was morally upright. Few else would say that what the NAZIs did was permissible.
So we have to understand two things: One is that there is truth, and we're hopefully getting nearer and nearer to it. The second is that we must be careful to learn what truth is rather than necessarily supporting the voice of the majority. If we ignore the first principle, we cannot grow into a better society. If we ignore the second, we might be deceived into growing into a worse society.

Overkill

2010-08-12T11:42:00.003-04:00

Today I heard something quite strange on the news. President Obama and Premier Putin are discussing a new START (STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty) in order to improve the general safety of the world. I've been glancing over the treaty, and it really doesn't look all that drastic. It allows both the United States 1550 total nuclear warheads (a piece), 800 ICBM and SLBM launchers, and 700 deployed ICBM and SLBM launchers and bombers. The treaty is also supposed to require both countries to disclose the locations of their nuclear weapons.
This, in and of itself, would not be too noteworthy. Granted, one might comment that the fact that nuclear weapons are still around is scary, but because of the history of the world, I think it is not that interesting.
However, what I do find a bit intimidating is that this is a REDUCTION. Current estimates show that the US has over 10,000 nuclear weapons, and Russia has over 15,000. We may be planning on dropping down to a few thousand, but are we really fixing things?
Consider the following: when the first atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, it killed about 350,000 people. Bombs today are usually about twenty times as powerful. A bomb dropped on New York City would most likely kill the majority of the 9 million people there, and would cause long term effects (radiation poisoning and cancer) for the rest. Bombs sent to just New York, LA, Chicago, Boston and Washington would kill off about a tenth of the nation (five bombs). Think what 1550 could do.
We've tried to distance ourselves from the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine of the 50s and 60s, but we still cling to it. There is no possibly beneficial reason for having such great stockpiles of such malicious weapons. 1550 nuclear warheads would do just as much damage as 15000 (or, in the 70s, as many as 25000). It seems to me that even possession of nuclear stockpiles is a bad idea. As many satires and social commentaries of the Cold War taught us, the idea of MAD falls apart once situations get heated. Rather than turning to negotiation tactics, the fear is that hot heads and short tempers in moments of crisis would lead to the (rather easy) result of launching a few hundred or thousand nuclear weapons.
Generals and war tacticians told us that the threat of mutual destruction was the deterrent. Of course, this idea of "deterrence" is similar to the half-baked idea that executing criminals deters people from committing heinous crimes. Of course, crime rates have not really dropped since the death penalty was reinstated in 1985, and executions have actually risen. The main point is that the threat of violence does not really deter violence.
Terry Eagleton, a renowned literature critic and defender of theism, said once that if one nation launches weapons against the other, the other one has no duty to launch back, but in fact has an ethical duty to not retaliate. Destruction of all mankind is a dire price to pay in order to "get back." Simply because one country is obliterated, this does not mean that the ethical thing to do is to erradicate the second. Genocide is not an ethically viable option. So the threat of mutual destruction even proves to be a grossly unethical proposition.
But the truly, absolutely scariest thing is that this treaty is facing some controversy in congress. Republicans are loath to ratify the bill because, many of them argue, it will reduce our nuclear capability. It baffles me that we would elect men and women who would take such a position. I find it disconcerting and utterly nauseating that our fears would not be that we have too many nuclear weapons.
And then, many of these representatives have the nerve to call themselves Christians. Jesus, the man who said, "I a man strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the left also," and "Love your enemy. Do good to those who despitefully use you." How can someone claim to follow this teaching but still hold on to the idea of Mutual Assured Destruction? How can we, as American people, settle for such a slap in the face of decency?

Iures mores non est

2010-08-09T20:58:00.002-04:00

I've been thinking a lot lately about ethics (no surprise, especially because in a month I'll be in classes for my MTS in Christian Ethics (Not counting down or anything).
What has struck me as fascinating is A) the prevalence of Emotivism expressed by even a lot of people I know, and B) the all-to frequent confusion between jurisprudence and ethics.
To let me clear up, first of all, something being legal does not make it ethical, conversely, even if something is ethical, it is not always legal.
To be sure, laws are supposed to be based on ethics. It matters little what sort of ethics (Buddhist, Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Judaeo-Islamic-Christian ethics or what-have-you). All that is clear is that laws are based on ethics (hence, why certain countries have laws that parallel predominant religions' guidelines as well as differences in these countries correlating to this). Thus, we see laws related strongly to religious faith and ethical theories.
However, often times laws stray away from their ethical origins. Such situations include traffic laws, which, though they have life-protecting influences, are not based off of any acknowledge ethical code (some, such as yielding and stopping laws may, but speed limits are often arbitrary).
On a similar note, what is ethical is often illegal. For example, in the nineteenth century in the United States, slavery was legal, and rescuing people from slavery was illegal.
So the fact remains that there are many laws which don't reflect any ethical principle, as there are many ethical principles which don't factor into the law-making process. So, even though the legal system is predominantly based on ethics, it does not submit completely to ethical scrutiny. Similarly, ethical principles often escape or are ignored utterly in the legal process.
St Augustine taught that any law which does not follow truth and ethics is no true law. Thus, a so-called law, whether civil or religious, if it does not stand up to ethical criticism, is not a law that can be enforced, in good conscience.
Nietzsche, as well, in "Genealogy of Morals" (though, admittedly a controversial work) pointed out that what he saw as bad ethics, had affected the development of laws and were thus, (in his view of ethics) a result of bad ethical practices and ignored true ethics.
One might wonder how something like this comes about. The most obvious answer is that people who function as law-makers are motivated by the same things as regular people: money, power, love, salvation, etc. However, the ability to gain more power is easier in a ruling position, and, as the saying goes, "power corrupts." Thus, oftener than not, rulers and law-makers often cater to interests specific to themselves, which go against common ethical sense.
Because of this fact, Thomas Hobbes wrote that in situations in which the people's best interests are not being served, the people are obligated to remove the government. While I am not advocating any drastic measures, what I do mean is that one must not confuse ethics with laws. Often times what's ethical may not be legal, or vice versa. However, you have an ethical duty to follow the ethical over the legal, every time.

Qui bono si Deum esse?

2010-07-21T20:30:00.004-04:00

I have lately been contemplating a question about God and God's existence. I have not been contemplating whether or not God exists, but rather whether or not it matters if God exists. This train of though has been fueled by my constant interaction with Agnostics/Atheists as well as reflections on Pascal, Feuerbach, Heidegger and Dostoevsky.
To begin with, one must first understand how exactly this question is different than "Does God exist?" For starters, this question is not changed by the actual answer to that question, but the answer that we personally give this question does affect whether or not we think that it matters. Secondly, this question is a much more advanced one than the previous, and if one contemplates the latter rather than the former, he will achieve a greater understanding of not only human nature, but also the mechanics of religion, philosophy, and especially ethics.
To answer the question, we must ask what many cultured critics of our time have come near, but few have ever really grasped. We must ask the merits of the current system of beliefs across the globe and what would be the alternate (ie, if religions and philosophies of today were non-existent, what would be the effect?). Many critics proclaim boldly that religion is a blight and that humanity would be much better without it. Many state that religions provide faulty ethics and a faulty reasoning for accomplishing ethics. Many attribute the majority of conflicts to religious differences. So, to ask whether it matters if there is a God is to directly focus on these accusations and the overall consequences of siding one way or another.
Let us first remember that religions have been around for a very long time. Where there have not been "religions," there have been philosophies. This is still true today. The men and women who decry organized religion often ally themselves with some form of a philosophy, though we often don't recognize it since they are not preaching in the agora. Thus, they are still holding onto a set of beliefs. However, rather than asserting divine knowledge they assert some other principle, logic, for example, or scientific discovery, or simple observation or something else. Often, these people fail in similar ways to the fundamentalists and extremists of religion, and don't quite follow the tenets of their beliefs, but this will be addressed later.
As far as ethics go, one has to realize that our sense of ethics is, very much, derived from our culture and our religions and philosophies. In fact, to attack religion full on for it's ethics causes a logical contradiction. For most people who condemn the ethics of religions must take a morally relativistic stance, considering by their own words they don't stand behind a specific creed or guided set of principles, yet in this same stance, they cannot take a position against such sets of principles without betraying the single ethical idea of relativism, namely that nothing is wrong. However, it is also the case that to attack religion for its use of eschatology as a way to moderate ethics is also to take a stance more on religion's turf than one realizes. For the idea that "virtue ought to be done for the sake of virtue" is an Aristotelian idea, an idea which in the West was translated by one St Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of philosophers, theologians, universities and students. Even its promulgation today was a result of Catholic scholars in the early twentieth century returning to Thomistic Philosophy. Thus, even in condemning religion for eschatology, critics must borrow from religion to do this.
To think of all conflicts as arising from religion is plain ignorant. I have stated my reasons for thinking this way before, and to save space, I will simply state that many conflicts, especially wars in the previous 300 years, have had no religious component whatsoever, and those which did, were wars that were specifically twisted in order to appeal to the religious of an area. Wars have been fought for millenia.
So now that I've addressed several criticisms against the idea of the existence of God, or at least religion, I shall try to answer the main question of this post. It seems to me that it does not matter whether or not God exists. For if God truly does exist, then a lot of people have been right about a lot of different things. However, if God does not truly exist, then our sense of ethics, our ideas of compassion, etc, are pointless and nullified since it all amounts to nothing in the end, yet it still provides those who live religious lives a sense of fulfillment and happiness. Nietzsche said that Christian ethics were made up and derived, but he admired how effectively they worked, even so much that "the great politicians of Germany, brutes and terrible men, call themselves Christian." Feurbach himself saw that Christianity, though he had no faith in it, provided a means for relieving alienation that people feel, a way to feel real love and give us an ultimate example in Jesus for us to follow. Heidegger saw the lack of faith that humanity was experiencing and the consequent loss of humanity and famously said (as I have quoted multiple times) "Only a god can save us."
Though Pascal often gets a bad reputation from cultured critics, and is highly misinterpreted even among theists, his so-called "wager" lays out a fairly summary argument for the case. If there is a God, then righteous and virtuous behavior (and most certainly belief) can only do one good in the hereafter. If there is no God, and we cease to exist with death, then Christian living can do no harm to us.
Of course, Pascal was a notorious Jansenist who believed God would be angry at sinners. The average Christian, and especially Catholic, of today would not share the same sentiments as Blaise Pascal. Furthermore, the issue is even further complicated with globalization and the knowledge of other religions and their doctrines, practices and ethics. This, however, is a much different question from whether or not God exists, as well as whether it matters. The reality is that living a life that is truly in line with what one's faith teaches them is not only good in the sense of Christian and most modern understanding of good, but is also the easiest way to promote peace and unity.

Pride

2010-07-01T00:39:00.003-04:00

"Proud to be an American," "The power of pride," "school pride," "gay pride," "national pride," "I'm proud of you," etc. The word pride, and it's variation proud, are often thrown about in colloquial conversation, as if something laudatory. We use the word pride often to describe something that we see as praiseworthy, such as when we say "I am proud of you," of "I am proud that..." However, I have come to the conclusion that either we greatly equivocate with the word "pride" or else we don't understand the true nature of the word pride.
For the sake of having something to write, I will assume that pride is often glossed over as being something more benign than it is. St Augustine, in the City of God, describes pride as the first sin, occurring almost simultaneously with creation (the full explanation takes care of the "God creating evil dilemma). Pride is also described as being the mother of all sins and the greatest of all sins by him.
Augustine's definition of pride was simply, "putting oneself before God." By this he means that in any instance, whether it be honor, devotion or service, we render to ourselves before we render to God, the universe, or else our fellow humans.
Later on, St Thomas Aquinas would list his "Seven Deadly Sins," a list of what he conceived to be the most vicious sins. The list includes several instances of pride, especially vanity. By applying Augustine's definition, we realize that not only vanity, but also at least gluttony, lust, sloth, greed and envy are also applicable, since they all depend on one putting himself above others.
Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to "Love God with all your heart, and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself." Thus we can see that the commandment of Jesus Himself is a direct opposite to the demand of pride. If we love God with all our hearts, and our neighbors as ourselves, we no longer have the desire to put ourselves above either one of them.
But aside from theological talk, I must make a personal confession. I have found for myself that the time when I am the absolute most miserable is when I think I am not getting what is due to me. Whenever I get self-centered I never find myself being satisfied, but rather, being upset at what I have been given and what I perceive that I am missing.
On the contrary, the rare occasions where I find myself being generous, charitable and humble, I find myself more happy than any other time.
I have also noticed this quality in a lot of my family and friends. They're never happy when they think about themselves and what they think they ought to have. I've seen plenty of family torn apart because rather than loving people for who they are, they prefer to try to impose their own personality upon others. I have seen friends grow apart when one has had to call the other to reckoning and the other, in his or her own pride, has been loath to do so, or to admit that he or she does not have the ability to repay the debt.
Truly, pride is the most divisive vice there is. If there is a more destructive sin, I don't know what it could be.
Thus we're stuck in a bit of a contradiction. When we think of ourselves as being all-important, we exhibit hubris, one of the ugly heads of pride. However, it is against our nature and our experience to think in terms of anything besides ourselves. Thus, we get a plethora of philosophies and theologies that try to combat this problem. Even the scientifically based proposition that since humans are a relatively young species, on an infinitesimally small sphere in the vast universe, we are nothing, is itself based on a philosophy not unlike Nihilism. Platonism, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism all try to deal with overcoming the problem of pride, but they all also stop short of their mark, in that they are unable to show what else we should venerate (Platonism and Aristotelianism both advocate philosophy, but does not philosophy serve the needs of man? Stoicism takes the Nihilistic approach).
Theologies, on the other hand, get closer to dealing with this problem. Paganistic rites have always maintained that the gods need appeasing in order to take care of our problems, thus, in order to actually help ourselves, we need to do homage and sacrifice to them. Buddhism and Hinduism maintain that since we are reincarnated after death, we must respect all animals in order to bring about good Karma and to show respect to those which may be our ancestors. Zen teaches that the universe is nothingness, thus, one must only learn to respect the emptiness of the universe.
Monotheism, on the other hand, proposes that there IS a God, and that this God does have power over all things. There are various strains among the Judaism, Christianity and Islam which maintain that it is necessary to try to win God's favor, and thus, supplication and humility must be shown to God in order for blessings to be poured out to theists.
Christianity, specifically the versions of it that I find more orthodox, realizes, with a sort of Nihilistic understanding, that there can be no true prayer but, "Thy will be done." If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then our supplications will not sway God unless God specifically wants our supplication. Furthermore, if bad things happen to us, they are likely, "God's will," or in other words, a lot of times out of our hands to do change.
It is important to note, however that Christianity should not become nor be confused with stoicism, wherein the highest virtue is apathy and the virtuous man realizes that he cannot avoid all the things that happen to him in life. Christianity believes that in the end, the way a man lives his life will affect his eternal destiny. Thus, a man may not have control over some of the good and bad things that happen to him, but he can decide how to respond to them, and he can demonstrate by his faith and (to me, more importantly) his ethics that he is a good person. Thus, he must pay homage to God first of all, for the good Christian understands that he is truly nothing, that God is everything, and that without the intervention of God Incarnate he is damned, but he also knows he must live a Christian life or he loses all of that.
In my estimation, the reason why this theology is superior is because it puts humanity necessarily in debt to God for something God has already done and that man must try to earn back. There is nothing like servitude to bring about a humble and pride-less attitude.

Longe Vite Bohemia!!

2010-06-17T02:14:00.003-04:00

So I've realized that among the anti-theists, there seems to be a running theme. It is the theme of Bohemianism. For those out there who may not know what Bohemianism is, or who want my personal definition (by which definition Bohemianism will hereafter (I've been working at a law firm too long) will be defined) then I would say that Bohemianism is a sensual, carnal, Epicurean way of life. In short, it is satisfying the wild, whimsical tastes of the flesh on the basis that "it isn't doing anybody harm who doesn't want it."
This is the lifestyle of excess, the lifestyle of rebellion, the lifestyle of the sensualists. All is fair as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights. Promiscuous sexual activity with consenting parties is fine, laudatory remarks about the base and carnal are the norm, wealth and indulgence to excess are permitted and discipline is frowned upon. This is not the stated position of such men as Dawkins, and Hitchens, but when there views are evaluated, one realizes they are as guilty of "moral relativism" as anybody, a stance which leads them to make comments that support a Bohemian lifestyle.
The irony of the Bohemian lifestyle is that though it is presented as the position of the sophisticated ant eh erudite, it has no philosophical standing, and, when rationally evaluated, falls apart under the smallest scrutiny. Consider the following: Alasdair MacIntyre, in After Virtue, states plainly that one finds the answers to morality in either Nietzsche or Aristotle. In other words, we are teleological creatures, as Aristotle says, or we are driven by the will to power, as Nietzsche says.
In my opinion, however, the analysis is easier. It boils down, in my mind, to a system of Nihilism or Mysticism. Either it is a mystical experience, and everything that we see, experience and do, has some form, some purpose and some grounding. This position holds up for more than a strictly Christian or mono-theistic standpoint. The average Buddhist, for example, would see the harmony, and the Taoist would support the idea of nature providing a cosmic balance. Ecologists as well tell us of the necessity for each specific organism to provide a necessary role for the specific ecosystem.
On the other hand, what is our role in the universe? The planet earth occupies an infinitesimally small part of the universe, and our lives are equally insignificant as far as overall effect and lifespan. In the words of Camus, like Sisyphus, all we can do is learn to love the rock. If not everything has some greater cosmic significance, than it can't be that any of it really does, otherwise it is a matter of arbitration, of imperfect judgment on our parts.
I, for my part, fall on the side of mysticism. I believe that there is harmony and purpose to all that is. For this reason, I cannot see the sense in the Bohemian lifestyle. While it is true that one must live in such a way that his life does not harm someone else in his actions, it is also true that his actions can inadvertently harm others. Engaging in debaucherous behaviors might not have immediately damaging repercussions, but they certainly do have an affect. The Bohemian can say, for all he is worth, that his actions have no far-reaching consequences, but the fact remains that the values he has retained are derived from the Christian/Islamic/Judaic/Buddhist/Hindu/Taoist society he is rejecting. He has picked and chosen his values. And for that reason, without religion his position would either be based on Confucius and Socrates or Nietzsche and Sartre.
But rather than taking these positions, he has hybridized Christianity with the things he does not like about it. For this reason, he has declared that Christianity is a blight, because it does not fit his standard, one which, he ought to admit, is arbitrary and only right based on a relativistic understanding of no positions being actually right. For this reason, the Bohemian is ridiculus (yes, the Latin spelling, not the English) when he declares religion to be the great evil, and when his position is scrutinized boils down to pure rhetoric and fails to withstand the gauntlet of rationality. Thus, it is more or less the antithesis of men such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh--it takes an opposite stance, but it is no better as far as being a reasonable position to hold.

The human question

2010-06-10T18:49:00.002-04:00

Lately, a lot of people have been asking me why it is that I want to go into moral theology. Many, who are secular, agnostic, atheist, or otherwise disinclined to view religion in a very high light, have balked at the idea.
But as I think about the facts of the way people view the world, it occurs to me that often times I am working on the same problem that philosophers, biologists, psychologists, anthropologists and others are trying to answer: that is, the human question.
The human question is, simply put, what does it mean to be human? The professions I just mentioned define it in their own ways: for an anthropologist, a human is culture and way of life; for a biologist, he's a kind of primate; for a philosopher, she is the ghost in the machine; to the psychologist, a human being is a result of his surroundings and genetics.
The theologian tries to answer the same question, but the theologian sees the answer somehow relating to God. A standard response is something like, human beings are made in the image and likeness of God.
Of course, the question is much deeper than it seems, because the way we answer it defines how we answer other questions like, "What does this mean as far as how we should behave?" and "What does this mean as far as what we should strive for?" and finally, "What does this mean in relation to the rest of the universe?" There are many ways to answer these questions, but from my standpoint, the answers are something like this: "We should behave as if each person we meet is a fellow creation made in God's image, no matter who the person is," "We should strive to better the world around us so that those who are like us, may be afforded the same pleasures that we have been, and that, regardless of whether we think we are saved, we need to work as if we have to earn salvation," and finally, "We are not as great as we think we are, but we are obligated to do as much good to facilitate harmony as we can."
I have a million more thoughts to share on this subject, but seeing as I should head home, I will save them for another post. Until then, suffice it so say that I think that the best answer to the human question is that though we often damn ourselves by our actions to everyone and everything, true, beautiful humanity lies in the capacity we have to do good, to bring our own and others' salvation.

Only a God Can Save us

2010-06-03T18:07:00.002-04:00

The famous (though controversial) German atheist philosopher Martin Heidegger once said, with regards to the human condition and the reality of alienation, "Only a god can save us." From a Christian standpoint, this statement seems ironic. An integral part of Christian belief is the doctrine that Jesus is God Incarnate, and that through Jesus we are saved, thus, God has saved us. However, Heidegger was an atheist. This rouses (in my mind at least) interesting questions about atheism and the true condition of humanity.
First, let it be noted that atheism is never simply atheism. Agnosticism can be true agnosticism, but atheism is almost always a rejection of a specific idea of God. One reads in Feurbach, for example, a different idea of atheism than one reads in Nietzsche. Both were compatriots and contemporaries, but Feurbach was raised in a Catholic household while Nietzsche was raised Lutheran. Thus, when they write texts that are profoundly atheistic in nature, one notes a sort of Lutheran or Catholic mentality, whichever the case may be. Thus it is that when a person decides for his or herself that there is no "God" they are almost always rejecting the version of "God" that some religion or another has pitched to them. Often times, the alternative to atheism is not agnosticism but conversion to a different faith. It's very easy for one to say, "I don't believe that there could be an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being who resembles a big white man with a big white beard" and either convert or reject theism altogether. Agnosticism, then, is what results when one decides he doesn't have enough information to make a call either way.
This is historically true and we can observe it all the way back to Socrates. Socrates is accused of being an atheist by the Athenians, but Socrates points out that he frequently mentions the "demigod" who directed him. Christians were charged as atheists by emperors such as Nero and Calligula, and now are regarded as the opposite. Heretics in the Church, including the Arians and Manichees have been regarded as atheists as well. Atheism is always contextually based.
The second thing is the state of the human condition. Heidegger was referring, in part, to the advent of new technology and how it's alienating us from ourselves. The piece I quoted from was written in 1969, after the first lunar landing. He was still years away from such technology as the internet and cell phones, and he was worried that we were becoming too alienated.
To show how much of an issue technology really is, one can note that there is much controversy surrounding the internet and it's many corrupt uses. I noted in a piece earlier that due to the anonymous nature of the internet, people have shown a very dark side of their nature. Without going into the nature of many of the different evils abundant, let it suffice to say that in my own opinion the internet has more on it of lesser value than of greater. I know this statement seems a bit of a nonsequitur because I am posting it on the internet, but the fact is that there is some advantage to this technology. Correspondence occurs faster, information can be quicker obtained, and people can exchange ideas better than ever before. However, when weighed against the evils, I am not confident that the goods outweigh. I, like Heidegger, am a bit reluctant to trust that all technology is a betterment for our race.
Take for a second example, the cell phone. While it is useful in contacting people who are not around, it can cause problems when one is interacting face-to-face with someone else. How often do people answer their phones in public, or talk about personal or private matters while walking down the street, with several different people in earshot?
But I digress. The point is that human beings are becoming more and more alienated from each other. Yes, we live in larger cities than ever before, but people are spending more and more time alone and less time with other people. One thing that I think all people, atheist and theist alike, can agree on is that interaction with our fellow human beings is by and large a good thing.
When we get to know other people, we see the human--not the "other"--but the person. We see that other people are like we are. We see that just because somebody is not the same ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation or religious creed does not mean that she does not feel the same feelings, think with the same method or have similar aspirations. Everybody wants to be happy. Everybody wants to take care of those they love. Everybody wants to have what they need to live. However, we often go about these things in different ways--ways that lead us to conflict and to de-humanizing people.
Thus, Heidegger thinks that there needs to be some kind of binding force, a god, if you will, who will bring people together. This god will transcend the differences of peoples and overcome what we think separates us.
This is where Heidegger's statement becomes ironic, for in the message of Jesus we see this. Jesus taught all people. He spread the word to sinner and saint alike. He commanded us to do likewise, to welcome the stranger and feed and take care of the hungry and sick. His words "Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me," "Do to others as you would have them do to you," and "The second commandment is likewise, you shall love your neighbor as yourself" all show us the way to overcome alienation. One doesn't need to convert the world to his religion to be redeemed with humanity. One doesn't need to convert to another's philosophy either for her to be brought to completion. All we need to do is follow those simple tenets. And then, wouldn't a God have saved us?

Objections to Previous Post

2010-05-25T17:12:00.002-04:00

So I promised that I'd provide some objections and my answers, so here I'll try.
Objection 1: If everything is in the past, excepting an infinitesimally small razor edge of time, referred to as the moment of action, or the true present, then what about emotion? How can we experience emotions? How can one "feel happy" or "be depressed" or "become angry" if the moment of action is fleeting and afterward all is past tense?
My reply: I believe that this reflects a misunderstanding of my philosophical proposition. Emotion is experienced in a time period. I am joyful for a few hours, say, or I am sad today and not yesterday. Experiencing emotion is like breathing: at a certain point of time, one is exhaling, and at another, one is inhaling, but simply because the moment of action is currently when I'm exhaling, it doesn't mean that I cannot be exhaling if I'm done moments later. Emotion is experienced over a time period, and, as such, emotions are quickly left behind; left in the past. One reading this might be angry, but as the moment of action moves forward, the anger will assuage, and soon it will be over.
Objection 2: Doesn't this mean that we cannot "be happy?" Does this mean that we are only happy for a limited amount of time, which is quickly left behind?
My reply: In a way, yes. We eventually die, and once we are dead, we cannot be happy, at least not in the way we conceive of happiness now. Yes, I admit that happiness as a theological concept is eternal and not to be passed over, but happiness in this life is limited. Once we are dead, we are no longer happy, in this life. However, we can strive to be happy for the rest of this life. As being an emotion, and as being contextualized in an ever-expanding past, the best we can hope to achieve is a life whose past has been mostly happy. We can be happy as the moment of action continues on, but eventually we die, and our mortal happiness comes to an end.
Objection 3: With no future, can we hope for anything?
My reply: Yes and no. I think that we cannot actually expect anything, as there are constantly new decisions affecting what we can and cannot do and what will or will not happen. Additionally, as the past grows, what we hoped for in the future quickly becomes part of the past.
However, I do think that hope has both theological necessity, and is necessary for maintaining human sanity. We can hope for the Coming of Christ. We can hope for a better world. We can hope to find an eternity of bliss after death. We can hope that all will be made well in the end. There is nothing wrong with this, and, in fact, there are many things right with this. However, these things mostly belong in the abstract future. We cannot expect Christ to come tomorrow. We cannot expect a better world at the end of the year. We cannot expect all will be made well within the next five years. However, we can hope that this will eventually happen, and for this reason, we ought to work to make it so. We ought to work for the world to be a better place. We ought to work to bring justice. We ought to "build the Kingdom in our midst." Hope gives us the motivation to do this. Hope gives us the reason to work for Christ. Hope gives us the happiness that we can experience in this life.
These are about the only objections I can thing of. If you think of another good one. Post it up, and I'll try to answer it.

A Philosophical musing

2010-05-20T16:12:00.002-04:00

Bear with me here. I've been doing some philosophizing and I think I've come up with something. I don't know that it's new or unheard of, but I don't know of anyone who has come up with anything quite like it. I have not yet fully developed this philosophy yet, so bear with me (this may come over in a few different posts). I've run this by Alexa, and she followed it, though I didn't fully explain it, so I think there's some factuality to it.
To begin with, let me state that we view time in a completely arbitrary and unrealistic way. We think of time the way we think of space: we can traverse it. However, we often view it as a river, where it's going one way, but given the proper tools (a boat for a river, a time machine for time), we could go against the current. I think that this way of viewing time ignores reality.
There is no future. By this I don't mean that there will not be a May 21, 2010. I mean that there is no such thing as the future, as a reality. It is all potentiality. No one exists in the future, because there is no way we can go into it. If we were in the future, it would be the present. Likewise, if the future is always going to be after the present, there can be no way to reach "the future" because it will always be the present when it is achieved.
In this way, the idea of "future" is merely an abstract concept that we use to define time that has not yet occurred. There will indeed be a May 21, but by the time it is May 21, it is the present, and no longer the future. The future is like what is undiscovered: we can say that it is, but when we realize it, it is no longer a mystery.
Thus, future is an abstract term that we should give no credibility to, especially in regards to traveling to the future or future dwellers traveling to the present.
Secondly, the most true thing about time is that there is an ever expanding past. The past only gets larger and larger. What had been thought to be the future rapidly gets subsumed into the past quicker than one realizes that it is the present. It is currently 2:22 as I look at the clock, and by the time I finish this post, 2:22 will be in the past. Today will be in the past by the time anyone reads this (probably) and by the time I finish talking about this theory of mine, all of this discussion will be in the past.
In fact, all that we know is in the past. Everything we learn, we learned in the past. Everything we experienced was experienced in the fast. Everything that makes us who we are is a product of the past. Our past is really what shapes us.
The scary thing about this is that we cannot prevent the past from expanding. Childhood is in the past, and the only thing we have from it is memories. My time at Notre Dame is in the past, and all I have there is memories. And the past just continues to expand. We cannot freeze it, we cannot prevent it from getting bigger, we cannot even delay its expansion. Before we know it, our entire lives will be in the past.
I just graduated from Notre Dame on Sunday, and as the day went on, I couldn't help but feel alienated that as I was experiencing all these goodbyes, ceremonies, and moments of celebration, they were all rapidly being added to the ever-expanding past. No sooner did I get my diploma than I was already done with that. No sooner was my degree conferred upon me than I was no longer a student. It is not something that can be prevented, delayed or resisted. The past only continues to grow and leaves us only with its memories.
Third. There is a present, but it is infinitesimally small. It is a razor edge. It is the moment of action. Whatever is occurring in present tense, must be occurring at the exact moment of action in order for it to be truly present tense. Thus, I can say I am aging, because that continues to happen at the moment of action, but if I say that I am working now, in no time at all, that is over and it is in the past. The moment of action is like the decimal point that prevents .999 repeating from being 1. It is so small it is undetectable. One cannot measure it in seconds, minutes or hours, because those are only lengths of time that are quickly subsumed into the past. The moment of action exists only on the edge of the ever-expanding past. It creates the past. It takes the abstract future reality and then past reality. This is the only present.
This is about all I have conceived of for now. My next post will probably answer objections to this theory. Thanks for reading.

The Great (?) Debate

2010-04-08T00:25:00.004-04:00

Tonight I went to a "debate" about "God" (really it was about religious belief in God) featuring two celebrated figures. One was Christopher Hitchens, Literary Critic and apologetic atheist, and the other was Dinesh D'Souza, Conservative Catholic apologist. While both of them were fairly masterful orators, and quite convincing, I realized as I was watching them that for one thing, neither one of them actually developed a rational basis to strengthen their points, and for another thing, they weren't even talking about the same issue. Hitchens, for all of his seething and hateful rhetoric, seemed to agree whole-heartedly with the majority of Christian ethics, but just had problems with very specific instances of the practice of religion. D'Souza, on the other hand, with all his witty banter, wanted to show how religion was as plausible an explanation of universal phenomena as scientific theory.
This illustrates, in my opinion, the biggest problem with public discussion of any topic. That is, people generally don't generally come from shared assumptions. Had Hitchens made assertions that all religious people were barbaric (during the debate), it's no doubt that many people would have lost respect for his position. Had D'Souza said science was all a crock of bull, he would have been surely ignored by other scholastics. The actual shared assumptions they had were on issues of what was moral, one example which they gave was giving blood. However, from this shared example, it would only be logical that their discussion and debate could grow out of this shared ideology. For example, they could talk about whether or not religion was the proper place to develop these morals. Of course, if that was the case, we would have had a discussion much more philosophical in scope and likely, less entertaining.
However, how often is this the case in our normal lives? Often times we get into disputes, too hot-headed rushing in, while the entire time we are disputing different things. I don't know how many times I have had "arguments" with people when we really had the same ideas or opinions but didn't voice them in the same way. Often times we come to discussions with different points of view that hinder us from having beneficial discussion.
It's these personal biases and experiences that weigh down our conversations. If we are able to strip ourselves of some of our prejudices, we often find that we agree on more than we are at first aware of. What was interesting at the God Debate was what both Hitchens and D'Souza shared. Hitchens, while being an atheist, was more likely to grant a Christian version of ethics over an atheistic, Nietzschean form of morals. Similarly, D'Souza provided a more strictly, rational and faithless account of God. When it comes down to it, they both agreed on what things were tragedies (though they both incorrectly attributed the cause of any great struggle to anything aside from, as Nietzsche so well puts it, "the will to power"), and for the same reasons.
Here we see the real problem: they both argued from the same premises for different conclusions. Hitchens can be summed in this way: the world is evil, and the only solution is to get rid of God. A theist (though not really D'Souza since this was not his apology) can be summed up thusly: evil exists in the world, and the only solution is to follow the commandments of God. The only thing that I can honestly add to the discussion is that if Hitchens truly understood the nature of evil, he would not assert that God does not exist because of it, but rather could only say that God does not exist because of moral relativism.
To sum up, let me just say that it is the hardest thing in the world to have conclusions that follow logically from everything, or to have everything in your life based on a logical, rational understanding. However, through discussion with other people, and keeping an open mind along with a small dose of skepticism, we can understand what is true and what is not.

News

2010-04-06T18:52:00.002-04:00

Sorry it's been so long. This isn't going to be a full length piece, just a little blurb. Next year I will be studying theology at Boston College in their School of Theology and Ministry. Also, I am relatively certain some of my research will be published in the periodical Interreligious Insights. I'll put more about that when it comes out.
Lastly, I will be presenting that same research at the end of the month at an undergraduates conference.

A Radical Transformation

2010-03-03T00:06:00.002-05:00

"...Thy kingdom come" we find in the middle of arguably the most recognizable prayer in history. "My Kingdom is not of this world" the same figure said towards the end of his life.
But do we really understand what Christ meant by His Kingdom? Augustine gives us a quite lengthy explanation in The City of God. Many theologians since Augustine, including Erasmus and Kierkegaard have also addressed the issue of being a member of this body politic.
The real question, though, is whether or not it should be a body politic. It is obvious in the way that Church was married to state pre-seventeenth century that Christians believed so. Even in the twentieth century thought, Catholicism was seen as needing political affiliation. In the most recent election the issue of abortion, an issue most Catholics see as tied to the Right to Life, was a more key issue to many Catholics voting than real politics.
However, to reiterate, Christ does not say that His Kingdom is of this world. It is NOT a political body. It is not a state nor is it fully realized in any form here. We would like to believe that the Church is the embodiment of Christ's Kingdom on earth. If this is the case, however, then why do we still pray, "Thy kingdom come" during Mass?
No, Christ's Kingdom is not here yet. It is an eschatological reality, not a contemporary one. We cannot expect to see Christ's Kingdom realized on earth yet while we live. However, as we pray for it to come, so we are obligated to work for its coming.
Thus, though His Kingdom is not yet realized, as disciples of Christ we are called to make it realized. In practical application, this means whatever things we imagine Christ's Kingdom as being, we ought to work for. If we are unsure of what this is, the Gospel gives us great insight to this.
Regarding those ostracized by society, do we not read that Jesus ate with the sinners and dwelt with the poor? Concerning distinctions and ranks among ourselves, does not Paul tell us that in Christ there is no longer "bond nor free, woman nor man, Jew nor Gentile but all one body in Christ?" Concerning our ethics does not Jesus present to us in the Beatitudes a basic recipe of Christian life? Blessed are the poor...the meek...the humble...the poor in spirit...the merciful...the peacemakers.
This then is our basic plan. Like any system which people utilize to better themselves, this program takes real application. Rather than simply blessing the poor, we ought to embrace poverty. Rather than defending our harmful distinctions, we ought to embrace our singularity in Christ. Rather than reviling the wicked (and this is often the hardest) we ought to reach out to them.
Verily, the truth of the Gospels is that if we seek to be Christlike we should find no surprise in being ourselves ostracized by those who we think to be our own kind. Christ was warmly accepted by the Samaritans, outcasts of even Judaean life, and Roman officials while hated by the Jewish elite, those whom we walked among and whom he identified himself with. If we follow the example of Christ, then, we should not be surprised to often find ourselves friends of the atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims sometimes before other Christians.
This is the critical distinction in Kierkegaard's mind in being a member of Christianity and Christendom. To be truly Christian, one must be ostracized as Christ was; must suffer and find himself abandoned by those from whom he expects support while members of Christendom often inherit privileges in state and society, a position that Christ Himself refused.
Thus, bringing about the Kingdom of God requires us to step out of our comfort zone. "To mourn with those who mourn" and "to be christs for one another" is the calling that St Paul teaches us the Christian is given. "Strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life." It is not an easy call, nor should it be. But this is what it is to be Christian, to be essentially human. We cannot ignore the cries of those who suffer around us simply so we can live in the lap of luxury.

Veritas Invenere

2009-12-21T15:47:00.004-05:00

I apologize, first off, for my long absence. The last few months have been fairly hectic, and what with writing papers, organizing club stuff, being an RA and applying to grad schools, I haven't put much effort into keeping this up.
I came back into Vernal yesterday. And while I'm not going to comment on Vernal right now, on the three hour car ride home, I had a lot of time to think about whatever it is that I wanted to contemplate. I utilized the ride to think about why it is that there are so many differing belief sets in the world.
It occurs to me that there must be a certain appeal to any given philosophy or faith. There must be some aspect of it that attracts men and women to it. I feel, then, that any given practice of beliefs must have some truth within it. I believe, as Socrates, that humans can recognize certain truths. This, of course, would be why there are similar beliefs in remote parts of the world--similar in how they conduct themselves and even, to a certain extent, what they believe about our final ends and the governing powers of the universe.
However, we observe that there are also a great deal of differences between the various beliefs. I would submit that this is because, as Aquinas says, it is possible to come to a fullness of truth, but not everyone could come to the truth, and it would only be done by long and arduous labor. So, often, when someone comes upon some great truth, he synthesizes doctrines based on this, though often erroneously.
Of course, these sets of beliefs get propagated because man eventually feels the compulsion to find the truth. As Blaise Pascal said, every man, eventually, comes to the realization that death is coming hurtling at him. When we come to grips with our temporality, we realize seek to find some kind of reason for our being. So often, men turn to philosophies or faiths, especially those wherein they see a truth that they recognize.
But it cannot be the case that every single philosophy or religion is right. So many of them openly contradict each other, that it would be utterly incomprehensible to have a pantheistic or panphilosophic attitude. So the task lies on us to figure out which ones we can embrace and which ones to reject.
Of course, with the differing doctrines within each one, it is impossible to take a look from any perspective of the schools of thought to examine what we should do. Plato thought we should seek to live virtuous lives. Luther taught that we are saved through our faith by Grace, and that our works cannot achieve heaven for us. Hedonists and Nihilists claim that nothing we do has any moral or eternal bearing. If we are already attached to one thought, we cannot fairly judge any other school.
So I will not lie and say my opinion is unbiased. But I will try to demonstrate what I think the correct answer is and why. If the Hedonists, Nihilsts, and even some of the Existentialists are right, then we have no moral obligation to anythin. However, this is not the case, because it is obvious through the ways that societies work that at some level, we have a moral obligation to fulfill. If Locke and Hobbes, and for that matter Caesar and all the current talk show hosts, are right, then our moral obligation is only to the state, and that is wherein our salvation lies. However, this cannot either be the case, since states rise and fall all the time, and oftne men outlive their own body politic (read: in a relatively recent example, East and West Germany, the Soviet Union, etc). So it must be to some greater force, for some greater good. If we follow Luther, then salvation requires faith. My biggest problem with this doctrine is not that we are saved through Grace, but rather that our faith is necessary. This seem ridiculous when there are people in parts of the world who have no access to the Gospel, nor did our ancestors if we go back far enough. Thus, salvation excludes a significant portion of the population, and Grace doesn't really seem like Grace.
So, I find myself taking on a more Platonic ideal. I will not say that we need to try to embrace every single virtue in either a Socratic or Aristotelian method, but we do need to live our lives with a sense of what it is to be a good person. Righteous living is the key to our salvation. Even Vatican II made provisions for the "virtuous pagan" an idea that suggests that morality is actually universal, though faith in Christ Jesus is not.
So, I think that whether or not we devote our entire lives to honoring God is irrelevent, but living our entire lives as if we were serving Him or His children is absolutely relevent. Our salvation lies not in how many times we pray, nor in how often we attend church, but it absolutely depends on how we see our brothers and sisters and how we honor the light of God within them.

Aquinas' University

2009-10-28T00:55:00.003-04:00

In 13th Century Paris, St. Thomas Aquinas proposed a curriculum for the university which offered a hierarchical view of studies. The newer students would study the liberal arts, including language, history, logic and geometry. After completing this, those students who wished to continue their studies would learn philosophy, including Aristotle. Finally, students would be taught theology. Theology was saved for last because, in Aquinas' mind, it was the highest discipline and therefore should not be taught to those who were not willing to learn all the other disciplines they needed to. Of course, this system sets up a highly educated caste of theologians, such that their intellect and knowledge would surpass the philosophers of the day.
Today's university has discarded of the practice of hierarchically ranking studies. Accounting is as valuable as philosophy and English as worthwhile as theology in our schools. This practice does not make for well-versed students. I do not say this because I think that theology is the best subject, but rather because we do not emphasize how all of these subjects can be connected to form a comprehensive understanding of the world. That being said, I will propose that theology does a great job out of all subjects for doing this.
Consider the following: a history class' objective is merely to report the facts of the past. The ramifications of these actions is not within the realm of history to determine, but rather for philosophers, politicians and strategists. A literature class seeks to understand specific literary works, which sometimes requires an understanding of time, and consequently history. However, rarely does this, unless it is a philosophical work, require an understanding of philosophy to understand the work. Rather, language devices and literary nuances are required.
If we follow this trend we can observe several other things. In sciences, for example, it is necessary to have an understanding of mathematical concepts, but math does not necessitate the understanding of science. Linguistics requires an understanding of at least one language. Engineering requires an understanding of physics and advanced math is only understood after simple math is learned.
As we follow this line of thinking, we discover philosophy incorporates several of these studies. As a philosopher, one has to understand a history that dates back to Pythagoras. Literary devices, including allegory, allusion and equivocation are important parts in philosophical discourse. As Socrates demonstrates in the Crito, even mathematics is important. In short, learning more and more about the world can only help one in the philosophical field.
Theology, then goes one step beyond this. Theology often incorporates philosophy and engages every other field of study. Evolutionary biology is constantly in direct dialogue with theology. Neuropsychology has implications for the nature of the soul and what it means to be human that theology must also engage. Even Quantum Mechanics, with its focus on elementary particles, has something to say about the universe that God created and the way that we understand the matter therein.
As we realize this, we discover something shocking and unsettling. We cannot intelligently engage in theological discussion without understanding a large amount of what is going on in the world. If we idly spout out uninformed opinions about God and the universe, we are little more than babbling fools. For how can we expect the world to take us seriously as believers when we respond to challenges to our faith in the most uninformed and baseless manner? If we want to enter into real discussion with the world, then we necessarily need to be aware of the matters in which we engage others in conversation. Laying baseless claims against the charges of unbelievers does not increase our credibility, but rather it makes us look like fools and yuppies in the eyes of our critics.

Too Pious?

2009-10-21T23:48:00.003-04:00

I attended a Protestant service today. It was a departure from the way Mass is celebrated.
Rather than genuflecting, we just sat down. There was no holy water to cross ourselves and no one bowed at the altar. We began, not with a blessing or a song, but with a rockin' rendition of some hymn I'd never heard before.
I was reminded just how different Catholicism was practically from Mormonism. Mormons show up for meetings and just sit down. and talk to people around them. They don't really stand up or sit down a whole lot and there are no responses during the service. There really are no readings to speak of, and the communion, though lauded as being the central focus of the meeting, is carried out in so quick a manner that nobody really pays attention. Two to three lay people will be asked to deliver sermons, and they will, usually to the best of their ability (or with only five minutes of prep time before the meeting). All manner of church business will be conducted before communion, usually distracting people. Kids will be crying, old men will be snoring, children will be drawing or texting or some other activity, and everybody will be hot because the AC doesn't work. Any music numbers consist of an organ, or possibly a piano or choir number between speakers.
Catholicism, however, is very big into its ceremony and sacramentals. We cross ourselves walking into the church. We genuflect before sitting down at the altar. We stand and sit and give responses. The readings are often read by lay people while the gospel and homily are done by the priest or deacon. The Eucharist is done at the end of the service with fully half of Mass devoted to the mystery of the Flesh and Blood of Christ. People are less likely to doze off because of all the constant position changing, though a few will snooze during the homily. Mass is only an hour, as opposed to Mormon's three hours of church meetings, making it more endurable for the unwilling attenders. Music is usually more traditional, with either a piano or organ, or possibly a small band, though with only accoustic instruments.
Even the more traditional Protestant churches I've attended place much less emphasis on ceremony and tradition. People just walk in, talking and sharing with each other. There are no procedures for bowing or sitting, but people do rise for readings and sermons are usually done by the minister. But the minister is not a priest, and the Communion is not viewed with the same reverence and respect as the Eucharist. Usually there's a full band, including electric guitars and basses and keyboards. Where the crossing and genuflecting is absent, however, other forms of worship are present. People stand during songs, hands outstretched and eyes closed in worship. People shout glorious alleluias and amens during sermons.
So I wonder what it is to be pious and reverent in worship. Is it dancing in the aisle? Is it Gregorian chanting? Is it abject silence as a peer reads a pre-written sermon? In my mind, worship needs to be somehow disconnected from the mundane world we live in. Our individual actions and habits we associate with worship need to be seperated from what we do at parties.
Do we talk too loudly at our services? Do we distract ourselves with the gossip of our friends and neighbors? Does the worship music distract us? Are we conducting ourselves in such a manner that we know we are in a worship service?
I find it quite fascinating to see the ways in which worship has changed over the last 2000 years. In the early days, as detailed by writers like Egeria, services would last hours, sometimes all day long. While I seriously doubt that many people today have the patience to sit through such a long liturgy, it is interesting to note that they did back then. However, we can also infer that aside from strict worship, the service also sought to entertain. We also read from Paul that when members got together for the Lord's Supper, they often gorged themselves as if they were strictly there for the food (1 Corinthians 11:21-22).
Over time, the Church moved from lengthy, entertaining services to shorter, worship focused liturgy. With developing theology, Mass shortened to focus more on the liturgical, worshipful aspects rather than the grandiose rhetoric and theater.
Then, during the Reformation an interesting thing happened. The Roman Church changed its liturgy to a more Baroque style with ornate art and gothic architecture. Many of the Protestant Churches, the Reformers and Anglicans especially, traded the ornamentation for simplistic, bare-walled worship, often with no music. The Protestants sought simplistic worship, with the scripture being the beginning and end. The Catholics, with their tradition and Tradition, held onto the images of saints and the writings and songs of the doctors and theologians.
As time went on, Catholicism made few changes, until Vatican II. Then, the liturgy was changed to vernacular, the priest faced the congregation for Eucharist and hymns were modernized. However, even these changes couldn't parallel the radical changes American Protestantism. In exchange for the melancholy tones of yesteryear, Christian rock bands take the stage. Where hellfire and damnation were once preached from the pulpit, today it's love for Jesus. Shame has been traded for ambition and the angry preacher for the happy-go-lucky minister.
It can be hard to decide what form of worship to adhere to. Do we stick to the old ways of yesteryear, full of bowing, crossing, genuflecting and chanting? Do we get with today's contemporary worship with rock bands, bible study, youth ministers, and interactive sermons? Or do we go with the silent adoration with no signals, no prostrations or ornamentation? Whatever way we decide to worship, the most important aspect of it is our understanding it as worship and our utilizing it as such.

Whose fight is it?

2009-10-15T00:52:00.005-04:00

I read today that Mormon Church leader Dallin H Oaks spoke to the student body of Brigham Young University Idaho on the gay rights movement. In his talk, he compared what was going on to the Civil Rights Movement.
As if that wouldn't be a controversial enough statement, the way in which he compared it was laughable at best. He claimed that the Mormon Church, due to the (sometimes violent) backlash of those against Proposition 8 in California, was synonymous to the African-Americans who fought for their rights. This is hilarious on several levels. 1) The gay community at large are the ones seeking civil rights, not the Mormon Church. 2) The Mormon Church are the ones responsible for holding down the homosexual movement, thus more the aggressors here than the victims. 3) The Mormon Church was also not on the side of African Americans in the Civil Rights Movement because they denied Black men the priesthood until 1978, a full decade after Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated.
It's hard to not view the whole picture of this without laughing, or at least chuckling. 119 years ago the Mormon Church had to officially stop allowing their men to have multiple wives (some as many as twenty) in order to gain statehood. Now, one would imagine that because of their past non-conventional style of marriage, they would be more merciful to those seeking to have their marriages recognized as legitimate. On the contrary, though, the Mormon Church either seeks to act out in pure spite against those seeking legalization of their marriages or wishes to be more conformed with other conservative evangelical faiths.
Perhaps to understand the emphasis the Mormon Church places on heterosexual marriage we need to understand a critical document called The Family: A Proclamation to the World. In it the Mormon leaders set out that the "traditional family" is the only one that is worth upholding. This document presents very few beneficial patterns for family life and many backwards minded constrictive and regressive models. Among the positives are the emphasis of father interaction with children. However, among the negatives are a call for women to stay in the home, for the man to have sole financial burden and for the prototypical model to consist of a man born with an X and Y chromosome, and a woman born with two Xes who are lawfully married.
Which brings me to a final point. Marriage, in the way that we speak of it, has three different definitions. First is the legal definition. This is the fight going down in the ballots, in the courts and in the marches. Legal definition gives rights for insurance, inheritance, financial co-ownership, children custody and last rights and medical decisions. In the event of divorce, the fight is generally over property and children rights.
The second definition is the social definition. This has no clear boundaries and is only displayed insofar as both parties demonstrate consent. A couple that lives together and shares all things is for all intents and purposes socially married. A child can be raised by a man who is not biologically or legally his father if he is in a social marriage with the child's mother. This definition often coincides with the legal definition, but over and against it, if parents are "separated" they are legally still married, but socially divorced. This form of marriage is not generally recognized by most conventional organizations, but is the most practical and has the most far reaching consequences for familial structure and development.
The third and final definition is the religious definition. This is a marriage officially recognized by a specific faith group. For Catholics, this is the sacrament of marriage. For Mormons, this is marriage in a temple. For other faiths, these are the traditional marriage ceremonies unique to each one. Often times these are coincidentally legal marriages as well, but from time to time, religious marriages have not been recognized by the state. Similarly, in divorce, for religious marriages, a special "divorce" is often required, as in the case of annulments. Religious marriages have consequences in spirituality. They impact the nature of the religious family and the value of the marriage in an eternal perspective.
The important distinction here is that the Mormon Church is a religious organization. They meddle in the religious sphere. Their authority is over religious marriages. They can deny or allow marriages in their temples for whomever they wish. But the homosexual community is not currently vying for religious marriages in Mormon temples. No, they only seek legal marriages. Yes, the Mormon Church views it as their specific duty to ensure that the "traditional family is upheld in every sphere." However, I think it is important to note where they're jurisdiction ends and begins. So it is, whether or not we agree with the idea of homosexual religious marriage, the desire for legal marriage is merely seeking a civil right--one that we as a people have given to every race and religion and owe to the homosexual community

Cynicism

2009-10-10T03:33:00.002-04:00

I feel as if I've brought this topic up once before, but in looking at the previous post, I realize that it does actually address a slightly different topic of discussion.
I've realized (with more than a little help), that I'm a cynic. I do not take great pride in this fact, nor do I take shame in this. It is what it is. But I shall attempt to explain why this is and from whence it comes.
To begin, I start with St Augustine's theology about Original Sin. St Augustine states that all men are born with the sin of Adam. Though I don't know that he ever explicitly mentions this, many theologians have derived from Augustine that this means that humans' souls are stained with sin. Of course, with the theology of the Passion, Cristology tells us that through Jesus all are alleviated from the sins of Adam. However, many disagree with the way in which this is done, and even still, no theologians have ever allowed this to mean that any men (aside from the Blessed Mother and Jesus Himself) were ever born without the sin of Adam still on them.
I take this to mean that human beings are innately evil. Yes, this is a very dismal view on the human condition, but I accept this to be only an extension of Augustine's theology. If we have been born with the sin of Adam, and our souls are inherently stained, then we are automatically sinful and inclined to sin. Thus, we are wicked and bad people by nature.
I do not think that all people are bad, however. I have continually been shown that there are, in fact, many good and great people in this world. I have known many philanthropic and self-sacrificing people. All the saints were great people. Many mentors and instructors are and were great people. Philosophers and philanthropists have blessed the world with their virtuous ideals. The world is not completely evil, in other words.
However, this makes me take on the idea of people being bad unless proven innocent. Worse is when I negatively associate many occupations without knowing the people necessarily. While I will not make more specific what occupations I view as contemptible, suffice it to say any position in which I believe people are unduly rewarded for something which doesn't merit such benefits I regard in negative fashion.
However, to be more all-encompassing in my general biases (which have been variously pointed out to me), I would state that any industry, organization or social trend that promotes vice over virtue is despicable in my eyes. Our pop-culture is heavily laden with bad morals and unethical practices. The dominant image in media portrays an image of vice and sin. It is as the serial killer (Spoiler Alert) on Se7en states, "Only in a world this sick would we consider these [sinners] to be innocent people."
This doesn't mean that I think there should be any destructive or mean repercussions enacted to combat this. On the contrary, meanness only begets meanness, while kindness leads to kindness. The only way in which I think these ideals could be reversed would be through promotion, especially on our own part, of virtues. Only through this, do I think, anything will be accomplished to better us.
When I close my eyes, the world I see is one quite unlike this one. Parents are most concerned about instilling their children with virtue and view sports and other activities as secondary. Prisons are replaced with rehabilitation programs to help prisoners learn of the errors in their ways. Schools teach virtues first and expound on them to all other studies (including wisdom, which consists of the bulk of our curriculum). Men and women pursue activities that will bring them true happiness rather than temporary pleasure. Virtue rules the culture and dictates what we do.
However, I am no fool. I don't foresee this happening soon. I know the world is full of corruption, and that complete virtue is a goal far off. However, I believe it negligent of me to not try to instill any virtue on those I meet. Not to force it, mind you, as this would also be inconsistent with virtue, but to try to enlighten whomever will be receptive.
This is where I come to my final point about my cynicism. While I consciously will virtue to be pervaded throughout the world, I know that it isn't. And unless I acknowledge this, I cannot hope to change it. I perceive of the world as being corrupted and in need of change, because I feel that in acknowledging this fact, I am opening myself to the possibility of changing or trying to change what I see that is wrong. Taking a completely optimistic view of the world will only prevent me from allowing anything that I perceive to be already working to be fixed. Thus, a healthy dose of cynicism allows us to make improvements in our own lives.

Unanswered Questions

2009-10-01T01:25:00.004-04:00

So Alexa and I had a long discussion today which involved several different things. However, there is really one which I would like to expound more. Anybody who has paid much attention to controversial issues of the day knows that a chief topic is Creationism versus Evolution.
Concerning the topic of Creationism, there are several big objections I have against it. The timing makes little to no sense, nor does the order of creation. Additionally, I have a hard time with the idea that God, being a god who is thought to work inside the confines of nature would create the world in such a strange manner, ignoring matter and universal properties rather than creating the sun with light, and land with the sea. Additionally, there is the simple matter of logistic errors. Why is there water in the sky? Why is woman pulled out of the side of the man? Why is the sun created after the earth? Finally, there is the contradiction in stories. Yes, storieS. Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis provide two different stories of the creation. In one instance, God creates everything, and in the end creates humans. In the second, God creates man, then creates everything else in order to be used by human. Both stories supply woman as being created after man, in one instance being drawn from his actual body, and in the other being created almost as an after thought.
However, even with these many objections, I do think that the Creation has some merit to it. It is a scriptural story that has lasted through thousands of years, a claim that NO OTHER origination idea can claim. Also, There is the simple fact of human telos and God's glory in us. Whether or not we believe the stories to be literal, they demonstrate for us God's love in a very basic way. God loves us from the beginning, makes us in God's image and watches out for us and takes care of us.
Also, there is a lot to be gained from the story allegorically, as Origen, even in the second century, admits. We learn a basic pattern for human labor. We learn a metaphysical truth that Aquinas would verify in the hierarchy of being. We learn the connection between all things and the divine origin of the universe. Finally, we see that all that God has created is GOOD.
Evolution has several problems with it as well, however. Human achievment, intelligence and sentience is discounted if we are little more than a step on the evolutionary ladder. Identity and purpose is void if we are simply mutated simians. Thousands of years of philosophies and theologies are invalidated because the true answer to human existence lies in random chances and chemical reactions.
Furthermore, the truth is that the idea of human origin through evolution is not a scientific principle, though thought by many to be so. Evolution is cited as a principle, insofar as we have observed it in lower life-forms (bacteria and insects, ie). However, the idea of humans being descended from primordial primates is NOT a principle, but merely a theory. Granted, it has valid implications and has plenty of basis, but as there is no definitive proof, one cannot state that evolution of human origins is a proven principle.
Also, Evolution is an idea only 150 years old (this year!). Science continually disproves itself. The physics of Aristotle's time were disproven by Cartesian physics, which were disproven by Newton, who was shown to be wrong by Einstein, which even today is considered incorrect by Quantum physics. Biological origination has come a long way since pre-Pasteur. Even evolutionary theory has moved a long way since Origin of Species. Thus, to assert the absolute correctness of modern evolutionary theories would be to deny any possibility of a better theory in the future.
I have no problem synthesizing the two ideas, however. If we imagine for ourselves a God who operates in the natural world, one can posit biological development as if God were working in a petri dish which we term "earth." Thus humanity can emerge from the natural world, a world which even the Genesis account deems to be "good." Human diversity, awareness, sense of telos and natural curiosity can be accounted for by God's creation of us, whereas our animal bodies can be explained by the evolutionary aspect of it.
It is important to note that science does not and has never disproven God. Furthermore, true theology should never conflict with scientific truths. Thirteenth century Muslim philosophers understood this idea better than most Christians do today. Muslim thinkers like Averroes and Avicenna taught that if a scientific principle conflicted with theology, either we misunderstand the scientific results or we misunderstand our theological truths. God cannot create a universe that disproves Him. This is essential for us to understand as believers. For those skeptics out there, it is important to remember that modern scientific method is derived from the Golden Age of Islam.
Finally, we must cede that we do not actually understand or know where it is that we come from. As believers, the best we can truly say is that we believe we are made in God's image and likeness. As scientists, the best we can say is that our physiology, anatomy, and DNA suggests a close relationship between us and other primates which suggests a common ancestry. But whether an idea is three thousand years old, or only a hundred and fifty, we do not know definitively what the real answer is. Thus, I think it is wrong for either side to discount the other completely. Being completely ideologically opposed to the propogation of the other idea is just as bad as the accusations leveled against whatever group we support.
Best of all we need to understand that as believers, we must be willing to accept what science tells us and seek to understand God better through this rather than denying whatever new ideas may come at us. The theology introduced in the Torah is radically different from the theology of the Gospels, which is added to and explained over the course of the proceeding two millenia. To follow the mantra of evolutionary theory, if we do not adapt with our theologies, we shall find that we whither and die.

The language of God (linguam dei) (لغة الله)

2009-09-30T02:05:00.002-04:00

I have grown up for the most part in Protestant-oriented (or Mormon-oriented if we want to differentiate) America with English as my only language for many years. After coming out to Catholic Notre Dame, I was exposed to a very different religious ideology. However, it was in studying theology in tandem with different langugages where I discovered that a lot of ideas and thoughts we have in American Protestant culture are very skewed and mistranslated ideas.
For example, as a Mormon, I always heard the name of Jehovah being tossed around among other Mormons. Later, I realized that Jehovah is really derived from the Latinized iehovah (like in Indiana Jones) which is really better transcribed in today's modern alphabet as YHWH (thanks to the incorporation of the Greek Epsilon and the invention of the W). The vowels we incorporate are purely functional since Hebrew can be read without vowels, and they for sure would not have been incorporated into the tetragramatron. In the Old Testament, the name appears like יהוה and would later have been given vowels as translators (most likely Jerome or those who compiled the Septuagint) would have seen fit.
Likewise, there are many ideas used in Greek that do not translate neatly into English. For example, the opening lines of the Gospel of John use the word "Logos" where it says "In the beginning was the Word." The Greek idea of Logos can be used to mean word, but furthermore it means something more related simple cognitive movement, but especially those movements that are communicative in nature. Thus, Logos can also refer to ideas, thoughts, and, in contemporary usage, even study. Thus the word Logos doesn't just mean the Word, but God's own thought.
There are other controversies that have arisen because of language ambiguation. The Nicene Creed for those from the Roman heritage, for example, says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son," whereas in the Greek tradition he "proceeds from the Father through the Son." This seemingly slight difference changes the entire Trinitarian formula depending on whether the Holy Spirit descends or is emitted. Likewise, the early Church councils debated on whether the Word and the Flesh were of one nature or one likeness depending on the placement of a single Greek iota.
Even in these early Church councils, such as Chalcedon and Ephasis, because of the wording of certain theological principles, the Christian Church was schismed against itself and the Oriental Church was broken off from the Church at Constantinople. This division caused such a rift that even until the last fifty years, the Churches had not been in communion with each other.
Perhaps this is why the Catholic Church maintained Latin as the official Liturgical language for so long. Even now, post Vatican II, all official proclamations from the Vatican are written in Latin. And other Churches, such as the Caldeans and the Assyrians practice their liturgies in their native tongues rather than in the common tongue of the area.
But even against this, it is interesting to see the various different languages God's word has been handed down in. The Old Testament, the oldest of the various scriptures adhered to by Monotheists, was originally written in Hebrew. When God speaks to Moses, it's all in Hebrew, and when Isaiah and Jeremiah write poetry, that's also in Hebrew. It would not be incorrect to say that God speaks Hebrew first and foremost.
Then comes something rather peculiar. Due to Alexander the Great's occupation of Israel, many Jews found themselves outside of the former Kingdom of Judah. The TNK (Old Testament) was then recompiled by seventy Jewish scholars into Greek, which we know now as the Septuagint. As far as translations go, there are few big differences between the TNK and the Septuagint, aside from the presence of deutero-canonical (or "apocryphal") texts in the Septuagint. However, with the Bible being in Greek, this took off any claim that could be made that Hebrew is God's language.
Christianity comes along and makes things even worse. Christian scriptures are all written in Greek. The apostles who wrote wrote their epistles in Greek. The Apocalypse is in Greek. Even the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are written in Greek. All of a sudden, there's a new religion claiming to be in right standing with God which writes completely in Greek. However, there's a bigger catch to this. Jesus didn't speak Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Traces of this can be seen even in the Gospels, especially in scenes where one of the Evangelists (John mostly) clarifies his words by saying "....meaning..." or "...that is to say..." Historical critical exegetes see these quotes as being evidence of the historical Jesus.
Now the Christian finds himself in an odd standpoint. His scriptures are in Greek, and, except for the fact that the canon was formed using the Septuagint, have some Hebrew origins, but their founder and the object of their worship spoke Aramaic. Thus we can see why above all the monotheistic faiths, Christianity puts the least emphasis on liturgical language. Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Armenian, Coptic and Hindi were used for centuries as acceptable languages of the faith, with German, French and English developing as acceptable languages in the sixteenth century and all common languages being used today.
Islam enters the story about five hundred years after Christianity. However, the قورئن was handed down to Muhammed in Arabic as the very Word of God. Thus, there is no room for variance. To vary from Arabic in liturgy, or exegesis is to stray from God's actual word. Even the احدث are preserved in Arabic, though they are not official words spoken by the Angel Gabriel. Thus, in Islam, it is very clear that God's language is nothing other than Arabic.
This poses an interesting question and certainly a point for consideration. If so many theological points are untranslatable, how are we to expect all people to know them? Likewise, if God only speaks one language, are we to expect all men and women world-wide to learn this language? To take a passage out of the Bible, one which all three monotheistic faiths recognize, the tower of Babel story demonstrates to us the dangers that can arise when we all speak the same language. Had God wanted us to be able to communicate simply and universally with each other, perhaps it would have been better if our communication were limited to the moans and shrieks of whales, dolphins, dogs and cats. Thus, we are struck with the paradoxical question of "what language does God give preference for?" and likewise "if God had a preferential language, would not we all speak this?"

Intelligent debate

2009-09-28T19:12:00.003-04:00

Though I claim to be no expert, I have recently concluded that there is a rather high percentage of internet users have no sense of reality.
Firstly, it seems that there is an abnormally high rate of atheism on the web. Not to say that all atheists are idiots, but there is most certainly a difference between informed atheism and ignorant atheism. There are plenty of atheists who stand behind Richard Dawkins without ever reading his The God Delusion or being aware of the real issues behind atheism. Scientific evidence or theories are touted as definitively disproving God. Theists are ridiculed and harassed to no end.
However, one must also understand that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. As of yet, God's existence has been solely relegated to the realms of philosophy and theology. There are evolutionary biologists with strong convictions in God. Likewise, many astro-physicists and various other scientists are known to have theological beliefs. At the same time, not all those who we would consider to be simpletons or of little intelligence are theists or even Christians. Barring the blatant example of many of the internet "trolls," atheists can be found in even the most backwater hollows and uneducated villages. Thus, atheism and theism cannot be strictly assigned to those we view as "educated" or "uneducated" without revealing a bias within ourselves that denotes simple prejudice and ignores reality.
Regarding the high occurrence of i-atheists--what causes this, I wonder? It seems that polls suggest that most of the country identifies with being theist, Christian, in fact. If this is the case, why does the bulk of internet literature provide a very antichristian message? Perhaps the answer lies in the sort of people we find on the internet.
So I come to my second point. It seems that the internet, or at least much of the posted stuff on the internet is relegated by the base and grossly immoral. When pedophilia, cancer and the Holocaust can be used as objects of comedy, one must seriously question the ethics of those making such jokes and those laughing at the same jokes.
Given real world situations, these jokes would find themselves limited to very few instance of acceptance, all of which involve the immature and the unrefined. This is where the internet shows reveals a dark secret: identity thereon is by and large anonymous. One can easily access the internet under any given guise he chooses for himself and can access it in any given place. There are no real world repercussions, provided that actual information is not supplied. Thus, the geeky kid who sits quietly in class can become a god among his peers without them knowing who he is.
I feel that this tells us something very shocking about human nature. Due to the anonymous nature of the internet, as I've hinted at, some of the most heinous and ethically wrong things have been posted and made fun of. There is no taboo on the web. Thus we are given a pure glimpse into the nature of human beings. This is a discussion for another day, but the question arises as to whether or not humans are good simply because of social pressures or whether the social situation determines ethics.
This leads to a third point. The internet is the medium of the up-and-coming generation. Our parents and grandparents live by the ethical standards of their generations. Rarely do you find a middle-aged or senior person who is as proficient at navigating the internet as their younger counterparts. Thus, we see that the children of today are being raised in a dual setting: one in which they are given a basic set of morals, customs and beliefs and another wherein those are attacked and mocked. We see the youth of today being taught by their peers at 50mbps that the entire system of morals and ethics they've been raised with are decrepit and outdated.
Thus we are beginning to see what seems to be the fulfillment of the Bible's prophecy that "the hearts of the children of men will wax cold," or even Nietzsche's prediction that "the peasant shall dance with satyr-like gyrations." What was heralded as wrong or taboo is swiftly being undone in such a way that the ethics of the old world might very well be on the brink of being completely abandoned.
I abandon my point, however. I would like to emphasize that the internet is rapidly producing some of the most unscrupulous and unintelligible rubbish ever to be seen in history. My fear is that the ability to engage in intelligent, rational conversation is being lost as memes, lolcats, and unintelligible webcomics and blogs take over the entirety of people's lives. Perhaps the solution, then is to try to engage those who post in forums to use real language and debate with logical discussion.

Glittery prizes

2009-09-21T21:47:00.002-04:00

I feel obligated to disclaim this post by stating upfront that this will be more graphic and mature-oriented than ever before. I do not mean that I shall entertain gratuitious sexual themes or violent ideas, but merely that I will address sexuality with much greater attention than every before.
It occurred to me today that there is and always has been something inherently wrong in our society when it comes to sexuality.
We are taught by every theologian that sex is an issue of serious nature. Promiscuity is never religiously accepted. In fact, most faiths preach that sexual activity without the bonds of marriage is strictly prohibited. Even in faiths where men are allowed to have more than one wife, the justification that allows that is that the man is still faithfully committed to each of his wives and that those marriage unions will be used to build families.
Catholicism takes an even more extremist approach than other faiths. Not only is it impermissible to have sex outside of marriage within the Catholic faith, but religious must take on a vow of chastity. Furthermore, divorce isn't allowed, and if one wishes to remarry, he must have previous marriages annulled, or made to not even exist.
While this may seem like a highly constrictive view of sexuality, consider the counter society poses. In contemporary American culture, not only is sex outside of marriage considered to be ok, but even "casual sex," or uncommitted sex is fine. It is even the case that many go specifically to bars and nightclubs for the sole purpose of hopefully meeting a stranger that he/she can take home for a "one night stand."
While I'm not willing to go into the logistics of why this is wrong, suffice it to say that contemporary American culture has a very laxed view on sexual conduct and what is permissible in the realm of sexual experiences and encounters.
However, I would like to discuss more the idea of sex as a prize. This might sound ridiculous or heinous, but in all actuality, it happens more often than not.
Most modern cultures readily admit that prostitution is disgraceful and that the practice is quite shameful, both for the women involved and for those who patronize as well as the culture that encourages it. However, I have heard it reported that prostitution is the oldest documented occupation. Thus we see that granting sexual favors for some kind of gain is one of the oldest vices of humanity.
One would have to be ignorant to suppose that prostitution is outlawed today. Rather than being outlawed, it is thriving in some places. In addition to this, with the publication of magazine such as Penthouse and Playboy, and with such easy access on the internet today, being paid for sex doesn't even necessarily involve having sex with the client.
To add one more, and in my thinking, the most despicable, sexual practice is that of awarding sex to those who we think merit it. This sounds very odd, but let me explain what I mean. There are members of society who achieve renown and fame. In addition to paying them gratuitous sums of money and showering them with undue attention, we further them along in their egotism with sexual favors. This I would call the "Rock N' Roll" ideal of sex.
This is more common than we might imagine. Think, for a second, how many times in recent memory somebody expressed in so many words that they would enjoy sexual relations with insert celebrity here. Yes, it is true that many people might fantasize a celebrity but have no real intention of ever wanting to engage in sexual activity with said person, but there are those who would and do.
While for some reason this doesn't seem to be as big of a thing in Hollywood, consider music artists. How often does a rock band, or a hip-hop artist, or even a pop star come to town and seduce some of the local women while they're in town? Gene Simmons, the famous bassist of the rock band KISS reportedly has had sex with over 4500 women. That is more than the entire female population of Notre Dame undergrads. That is one woman per night for 12 1/2 years. Granted, Gene Simmons is probably the high end of the spectrum, but imagine how many other musicians have pulled off similar stunts where they sleep with multiple women while on tour.
Athletes are no exception to this either. Think of such fiascoes as the one Kobe Bryant went through a few years ago. Many other athletes do the exact same thing. Similarly, so do politicians. In reality, nobody that has achieved celebrity status is above the ability to seduce people.
This angers me for one specific reason: it seems to me that this is the most obvious way in which sex is shown to be cheapened. What bond is there between the star athlete and the fawning fan who will undoubtedly be forgotten the next day? What relationship can be built between the star-eyed groupie and the rockstar who is on tour? What kind of emotional support is the secretary who drags the executive away from his family and into public scandal?
While sexuality in the religious world is often a controversial issue, I think very few who are engaged in the debate would readily state that there is nothing in sex. Sex builds and destroys families, it strengthens relationships often and often times, in the wrong setting, can ruin relationships.
Thus, while it is often a controversial subject, and the chief object of censorship, we must admit to ourselves that our culture is structured, and indeed our own lives in many cases, on the principle of sexual meaning and significance.

Good God!

2009-09-16T02:44:00.004-04:00

I've been very slothful in my updating responsibilities. I hope those who read this will forgive me, as RA duties/school work/Korean/being sick/club duties/grad school stuff/friendship/relationship/Korean/research have all been in que before my blog has.
A few weeks back (yes, I've been thinking about this for two full weeks), my philosophy professor asked how we can believe in an omnibenevolent God who is also omnipotent if we live in a world with evil. For if God is all good and all powerful, then He should prevent any evil.
To face this challenge, however, we first need to look at what it means to say "There is evil in the world." What do we mean by this? I take it that most of us would agree that by "evil" we mean something that is universally bad. Something might seem unfair, but if it generates net good (in a direct way) we cannot label it as evil. Likewise, even though someone might gain some advantage from some choice of his, if it creates a net negative reaction in a direct way, we might label this as evil. To illustrate this idea: Bill forgets to give his brother Steve the hundred dollars he promised and instead sends it to his favorite charity. Steve might think Bill's action was mean or unfair, but few of us would label a generous act, especially if it was in genuine forgetfulness, as evil. On the other hand: Rich embezzles money from his company. Rich benefits from this, and his workers suffer a bit, but overall we term this as evil.
Even with this sophisticated notion of evil, we haven't yet said anything about its origins. The idea of evil is not one that pervades every society, nor is it one that has been readily available to all peoples. According to Nietzsche, evil is a notion that can be traced directly back to monotheism in general and Judaism in particular. He says that most nations embrace an idea of "good" and "bad" wherein bad is simply "what we are not," and not anything more or less. In this way, something is good because it is widely accepted in society. However, Judaism introduces the idea of "evil" leading to an emphasis in evil over good. In this sense, evil means "what you are" with the you being other nations. Thus the emphasis is not a negative one (what isn't like me...) but a positive one (what is like you...). In this way the idea of evil is one that includes more malice and the idea of good is changed from a positivist spin to a negative one (even now we think of good as being without sin).
Is Nietzsche right, though? In Zoroastrianism as well as sects such as the Macabees and the Gnostics, the view of the universe has been a dualistic one. There is no "good and evil" but rather a "light and dark." This presents a less malicious view of what is seen in a negative light (evil/bad/dark) because by the very nature of dualism, the light and the dark are two parts of one reality. They almost exist in synchronicity, though usually only until the great and final battle where light conquers darkness (though only barely).
Similarly, in paganistic cults there were always gods of the dark arts. Hades is the god of the underworld and is always full of malice. Loki is the god of mischief. Anansi is the spider god who plays tricks on people. Toth is the deceiful god who tries to trick the dead. Cerberus and Fenrir are vicious dogs of godly power. But these figures are also countered by gods with more benevolent tendencies. However, whether it be Olympus or Asgard, the gods always seem to be more morally relative than in any sort of determinate ethical stance.
Hinduism and Buddhism also seems to see good and bad more as pathways through life. Good will lead us to Nirvana. Bad will send us circling around through various incarnations.
Even philosophy only speaks of things in terms of virtuous and vicious.
So we see that the idea of evil is inalterably connected to the idea of a good God. We cannot view there being any evil unless we come from a standpoint where we compare it to the absolute good (God). So we can't even speak of evil from an atheistic standpoint. We can talk of Nietzsche's will to power and people's selfish drives and immoral tendencies, but we can't use evil to describe it. For if we use the term "evil" that denotes that we are comparing it against something, presumably "good." And thus we must have some standard of good, otherwise our view of evil has no real basis. Thus, our standard of good must be the highest good, thus God.
But I have not yet answered the question. All I have shown is that we have locked ourselves into a paradox. With an omnibenevolent God, there should be no evil. However, without an omnibenevolent God we have no standard of good with which to talk about evil. So now I am forced to either answer the question to the best of my ability or remain silent on ethics until I can.
I take Augustine's view on sin and evil. Evil might be equatable to sin, since both are in opposition to God, and none should deny that evil is always sin. Thus, if sin and evil can be spoken of in this instance unequivocally (which I hope to show is the case), then my case might be made. Sin, to Augustine, is simply a turning away from God. If we concede that evil is the opposite of the ultimate good, then it follows as well that evil is a turning from God. Original sin, then was the first turning away from God which introduced sin and evil into the world and stained our human souls. However, original sin is not the subject of this discussion, though it is most certainly a part.
I further hold, as Aquinas does, that in order for something to become it best good (its telos, per Aristotle), it must be fully made through, or perfected. However, something that is created without the ability to reach its best good cannot grow or be perfected. It is a good thing to undergo growth and perfection, thus it is better to develop into the best good rather than be created in it. Thus it would seem that it is better to grow into our telos rather than being created in it. So we can see that humans can derive greater good from being imperfect and growing into perfection.
Part of not being made through, and growing, is the process of making choices. Many choices we make are ethical or moral choices. In choosing something good, we turn toward God. By being able to turn toward God, we must also be able to turn away from God. Thus, a necessary part of our being able to grow is to be able to sin.
If we admit all these things, then it follows that if God is all good, and part of His good is our perfection, then there must be evil in the world. This does not make the reality of evil any easier to understand or to accept, however, it shows that perhaps there is more to what's going on than a simple matter of what we think God should do and what God does. Simply because we see evil around us does not mean that God has abandoned us. What it might mean is that God wants us to help make a difference.

My God loves me more than your God does

2009-08-26T00:15:00.003-04:00

I believe I've said this before, but perhaps the hardest thing for me about becoming Catholic was the idea of Saints. It's not that I think these people weren't great, I just have never been comfortable with the idea of praying to them. I have never really been able to fully reconcile the idea of praying to somebody who I think will relay the message on to God because their voice is better, but as I believe I've also stated before, praying to saints is more of an act of working as a community than anything else.
What I do find to be also problematic is what Peter says in Acts 10:34, that "God is no respecter of persons." If the Saints were to have more sway over God than we do, then God automatically plays favorites. Here we have to ask ourselves if this is really the case.
The Romans and Greeks believe their gods to be favortists. Aeneas had the favor of his mother Aphrodite. Odysseus angered Hera and Callisto, but had the favor of Athena. Apollo was often invoked before war in both epic and tragedy, and Zeus was often found meddling in the affairs of mortals as well.
But we are not Pagans. We do not believe in gods, or a God who plays favorites. We believe in a God who does not respect people. This does not mean that God doesn't care about His children. What this does mean, however, is that God doesn't give precedence to anybody simply because of piety, status, wealth, achievement or even righteousness.
We believe our God to be a fair God. We believe, as Barth says, that Christ's death saved not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles. We believe that no people are damned simply for being who they are. From the Catholic perspective, we don't even believe that any specific people will be going to Hell (with the notable exception of Dante's Inferno, in which he lists people who are in Hell).
In fact, we as Christians explicitly state that Deus Caritas Est (God is love). What this means from a Christian perspective is that our God embodies love. If there is anything that is love, it is of God. If there is anything that is hateful, it is most certainly not. As St. Paul states, "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing" (1 Corinth. 13:13). It is very much against the nature of Christianity (in its purest form) and the way we view our God to even endulge malicious feelings for other people.
So as part of this, Vatican II recognized that all people who lived righteous lives, regardless of their faith, were likely going to be saved. After all, if God truly doesn't afford privelege based on creed, then why should Christians be saved while all others are damned, especially those living in remote areas of the world where Christianity is not a viable option? To me, this is what it truly means to say that God is love. God loves the Buddhist who worries that he may be walking on his ancestors as much as He loves the Christian who decorates evergreen trees in the winter time as part of some heathenistic tradition Christianity adopted hundreds of years ago. God loves the Muslim who prays to Him five times a day as much as God loves the Hindu who prays to many different gods, and countless avatars. God loves the Jew who will not eat pork out of respect as much as God loves the Mormon who won't drink coffee out of respect, or the atheist who parties all night with no respect.
Our perspective is radically shifted when we start to believe that we worship love. How can we afford to cast judgment on other people? How can we condemn other people's religious choices when God loves us no more than He loves them? How can we praise and glorify war if war is not a love-born response?
Furthermore, this should also put into perspective what lots befall us in our lives. Some believe that living righteously yields blessings while wickedness only renders sorrow. However, joy falls to the good and bad, as do the sorrows. Many people blame God when something bad happens. How can we blame God when we know that when bad things happen to us, it isn't a sign of disrepect for us, but possibly a chance for us to truly be in solidarity with others, or better yet, a chance for some great thing to come about from it? Furthermore, how can we gloat and boast of our fortunes when God could have easily and can still easily take them away?
We are at the mercy of an unbiased God. However, this should be a comfort to us. We believe that God is merciful. If God will reign down His mercy on us, as we believe, then He will also be merciful to the wicked or unjust. We are God's children, and with the parental metaphor comes the parental love that God exhibits for each of us. We may not have VIP seating in heaven, but if we're all at the same place, what is wrong with sitting with a Hindu, or a Taoist, or an agnostic? If we truly believe that Paradise is a utopia, then why would it lack diversity when the world that God created (which was good) is so full of different kinds of people?
So now we must ask, "Why Christianity?" I am reminded of the motto of the Congregation of the Holy Cross, "Ave crux, spes unica" (Hail, the cross, our only hope). As Christians, we have the unique theology of a universal redemption. We believe that our God took on the sins of all mankind in order to save all mankind. Thus, in my opinion, it makes more sense to posit faith in a belief system that theortically, and becoming ever more practically, openly embraces other faiths. If we can learn to look on all the people of the world as brothers and sisters, as Thomas Merton did, then perhaps we can all live in peace and harmony. With Christianity, we are able to look on others in love and acceptance. If we truly understand what love means, this means we pray for those who believe not as we do, not that they convert, but that we will all be together after this life in a happier state of existence.

Humanity vs the robots

2009-08-23T11:29:00.003-04:00

No, I'm not speaking of some cheesy sci-fi B movie. I'm speaking of what it means to be human.
Normally I wax Theologic, but today I fear my tone will be more philosophical than anything else.
What does it mean to be human? Are we, as Aquinas defines us, the "rational animal?" Are we simply the most intellectually developed biological system? Are we evolution's greatest accomplishment?
We erect monuments and towers. We write books. We have history. All of these things I have noted before. And as I have noted, this denotes that there is more to us than the systems of organs and bones.
Psychology, which many accept as a branch of Philosophy, has long tried to unlock the real mystery behind that one organ which denotes us as superior to our animal cousins, the brain. While there are several schools of psychology, some of which are highly controversial and others which are more concretely scientific, there are a few which strike me for their approach to the human mind.
Gestalt theory, which comes from the German word for "whole" believes that 1+1 does not equal 2 but equals 3. There's a heavy emphasis that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Thus, the human mind is so much more than neurons firing impulses and neurotransmitters relaying signals. Their approach is to examine the person as a whole and prescribe treatment that emphasizes a holistic approach. A human then, is not simply a rung on the ladder of evolution nor is it a mass of biological material. A human is a human, and the definition of that is more than one can easily grasp.
Then comes my personal favorite psychological school. The humanists. Carl Rogers is often cited as the founder of this particular school. His theory of human sanity and the human mind was a system of needs. He believed that we must fulfill a certain set of needs, such as basic survival needs, before we can move on to more advanced needs, such as emotional needs. Eventually, when we have fulfilled all of our needs, we will find ourselves self-actualized. His list of self-actualized people reads like a list of "Who's Who in Philanthropy." To Rogers, self-actualization was the pinnacle of what it means to be human.
I take a lot of stock in the Rogerian system. However, it must be noted that many of the people on his list, such as Mother Teresa, were on that list despite not fulfilling some of their more "primitive" needs.
So it is that I have come to understand humanity as taking a two-course route through life. There are those who, as Rogers suggested, go through life seeking to fulfill some basic needs. These people often get caught up in some basic desire. They seek money, a survival asset at minimum. But they do it to excess. They become misers. There are also those who seek love too greatly. And rather than finding love they find cheap company and no sense of security. There are those who seek seek recognition and spend their lives working for the approval of others.
Most all of us are guilty of these things in some way or another. We all want to be able to feel like our needs are fulfilled. We do not want to feel as if we're lacking something. Worse yet, we don't want to feel deprived of something we need.
Then there are those who go straight for self-actualization. Some of these people are self-sacrificing. Others are simply philanthropists. Their needs are not as important for them to fulfill. They seek, rather, to fulfill the needs of others. These people are the ones who truly make the world go round. Their love and generosity are the warm fires by which all of humanity either stands or perishes in the cold.
Thus we come to another topic. The idea of human happiness and how it relates to the human person. Humans, at worst, are emotional, reckless, feckless, beasts which have the added disadvantage of questioning their purpose in the universe. It can be truly easy to be lost in the sea of humanity, wondering how to find happiness or to fulfill our destinies.
Those who genuinely seek to be happy and make others happy, seem to me to be true humans. They seek to fulfill their telos as humans. They seek to rise above the mechanical, simple biological functions passed on by millions of years of evolutionary instinct. They love more deeply, and they live more fully. These are the fortunate few who love life with a fulness that others who seek simply to survive lack.
Then there are the robots. These are the people simply trying to fulfill a basic need. Their evolutionary programming dictates what they do with their lives. They live by the pleasure principle. These people are like machines that have a basic programming that they seek neither to exceed nor to leave unaccomplished. They store money like squirrels for the winter. They mate like rabbits in the Spring. They preen and pout like peacoks in mating season.
How then are we different from the rest of the animal kingdom if we do not at least look at our direction? Socrates stated that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Have we examined our lives? Are we striving to fulfill biologic instincts or are we rising to our place among the heavens? Have we simply made our lives more convenient or have we truly contributed to this world?

Job and Hosea

2009-08-22T01:35:00.004-04:00

As a theist, I have often encountered the Atheistically-aimed question of "Why do bad things happen to good people?" to which all I can truly answer is, "Why the hell not?"
I don't seek to demean personal problems nor the faith crisis of "Why won't God deliver me?" but I think our faith is exhibited, as well as our general character, in how we respond to the difficulties in life. If we are bellacose and pugnacious for every insignificant problem or conflict we encounter, we display that we really don't believe what we preach.
So I suppose one reason why we have difficulties, and I realize how very cliche this will be, is to test us. If we really believe in turning the other cheek and blessing our enemies, how can we abandon God when He doesn't want us to be miserable? Our true faith is often displayed not by the world being at peace, but by our own peace while the world rages in chaos. Can we truly stand at God's right hand while the world goes to Hell in a handbasket?
But I truly believe that there is more to the story than this. I realize stories like Job and Hosea portray hardship and trial as object lessons for us to learn from, but I do not believe that this is the case for us by and large.
This isn't to say that we should embrace a Kierkegaardian view on suffering. We should, indeed, suffer cheerfully. However, we need not seek out suffering. And indeed, much of our suffering is not due to anything that we could have or would have avoided. Any suffering that involves the decisions of another person, or even naturally occuring activities, cannot be voluntarily assumed by us. We can, as Kierkegaard did, abandon romantic relationships. However, we cannot induce heart attacks nor can we single-handedly destroy the economy, eliminating much needed jobs. So it is safe to say that this kind of suffering is much different than the voluntary kind.
I would submit that often times there is some kind of secret gem in store for those who patiently wait out the storm. Job was given more than he had after the great trial of his faith. I cannot guarantee this kind of grandeur, but perhaps we will be blessed greatly. Perhaps a rough time is necessary for us to receive some greater blessing. Perhaps being laid off will provide the ability to get a better job. Perhaps a death in the family will enable us to learn to mourn with those who mourn and teach us to be more sensitive to grief and more aware of our own feelings.
I do not mean to say that we should expect something amazing to come from the ashes of our heartache. However, I will suggest that neither can we know the will of God, nor can we dictate our terms with Him. Perhaps we are to be martyrs and die so that others can live. Perhaps we are to sacrifice all of our time and money to be buried in a pauper's grave but to raise up those who are disadvantaged. Maybe we must suffer many losses to learn how to comfort those who stand in need of comfort.
One might further wonder, "Can't God teach me this lesson in an easier way?" Aquinas demonstrated why there needs to be bad things happening to good people. If the world were just, then any injustice committed must be fully restored. However, there are countless injustices committed which have none to punish, whether by accident or intent. And punishment does not truly rectify an injustice as much as it seeks to replace what was lost with something that will equally be lost. Thus, if everyone were justly compensated for what they had lost, there would inevitably be some kind of great cosmic debt owed to all citizens of the world, which would yet be an injustice.
So, the good people will necessarily suffer. However, the good people, be they truly good people, should, in fact, be able to handle the suffering. Our faith should not falter, though it often does. Our belief should be strengthened instead of being weakened. We should seek God more and praise Him more after the trial than to blame Him and turn from Him.
As a closing thought, I would like to imply that a cheerful and faithful outlook in dire straits will leave us feeling happier after the dust has settled. Whether or not God will reward us directly for our faith is somewhat debatable. However, whether or not we feel good about our own reaction to it is not.

Serenity

2009-08-18T01:33:00.002-04:00

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things that I can; and wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time; enjoying one moment at a time; accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it; trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will; that I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him forever in the next."
I know this prayer simply for one reason: my grandfather is an alcoholic. He has been sober for nineteen years, but he still regularly attends AA meetings. The Serenity Prayer was obviously written for alcoholics, however I feel that there is much to be learned from both the prayer itself and the Alcoholics Anonymous credo.
To begin with, alcoholics admit a truth that we as humans are loath to admit. They admit that they are weak, undisciplined and therefore are in actual need of help. While society looks down on them and visually condemns them by agreeing, we fail to acknowledge how much we tend to be like them. However, the scary truth about the world is that alcoholics are self-diagnosed, meaning that the ones who are in really bad shape are the ones who don't even fit under the category of alcoholic.
If we realize that these people whom we condemn on a regular basis are no different than us, we must listen to what they have to say. Once we realize that alcohol is as much of a drug as any pleasure or selfish pursuit, we realize that we have the same problems they do. Granted, an over-eager businessman is not as at risk as the drunk when either are put behind a wheel. The single man who trolls bars and clubs to pick up women may not drink himself into poverty either. And even the laborer who indulges in a simple vice every now and then shares in common with the alcoholic.
However, as the AA program clearly states, acknowledging you have a problem is step number one. But admitting we have a problem is seldom an easy task. We live in a society that embraces an anarchistic view of dependency rather than acknowledging the age-old truth that man is, in fact, a social animal. We live in a society where "getting ours" is more important that providing for the general welfare of the community. Men like Donald Trump and Bill Gates are lauded as examples of what we should aspire to, rather than the mundane civil servants who provide us with life-giving and life-saving graces. At the risk of sounding cliche, the fireman is more socially beneficial than the entrepreneur.
But I seek not to disuade people from entrepreneurial endeavors. Rather, I would encourage us to examine our own consciences. What do we feel about our interactions with our fellow men?
So often, we seek to get as much as we can. We want to take what we think is due to us. However, as Aquinas notes, if everyone were to demand just treatment, the universe would be unable to supply for the demand. Not everything is fair, and not everything can be fair.
And so, against many, and probably most, of my friends and family, I have come to realize something. We are not in control of much of our lives. We are at the whims of those who surround us. Certain branches of psychology, behaviorism most especially, espouse the idea that we are who we are based on what circumstances we have been in. Our minds are set by the events and people who affect us. I would venture to say that much of this is true.
However, I diverge from the behaviorists and state that we are shaped and the form of our personality determined by how we react to these situations. It is true that there is little we can verifiably control in our lives. We cannot force people's minds, nor can we create something from nothing. We are mostly left to the good or ill favor of those who surround us and make themselves our friends.
And so I take strength in saying the serenity prayer. For there is a great amount that I cannot change. It does take courage to change what I can. And sometimes I fail to see the difference. If I can but achieve the gifts asked for in this prayer, I can, in fact, find myself reasonably happy in this life.
On top of all of this, I have also adopted the alcoholic credo of "One day at a time." By this ideology, I shall not try to force the future or be daunted by it. If I can but live my life for the now, trying my hardest to make the future bright based on what is before me in the present, I can stop worrying and feel less anxiety.
I feel that we, though we claim not to be alcoholics (for most of my readers), can learn a lot by the AA system. I don't wish to force it on anyone, but serenity is not the worst prayer a person can pray. And if we can truly find the blessings asked for in the prayer, I cannot see how this world would be anything less than a paradise as nobody will seek to try to force anyone's hand nor will we find ourselves upset at what we have no control over.

Sacrificio

2009-08-13T13:02:00.002-04:00

The idea of sacrifice has been laying heavy on my mind. Literally, sacrifice comes from Latin. Sacer, the root whereby we get words like sacred, sacrilege and sacrimonious, means holy. The ficio part is actually dervied from facio, or to make. Thus, to sacrifice is to make something holy.
This is particularly important in noting where we come to understand sacrifice as we do today. We described the ancient blood offerings of the Israelites as sacrifices because they were actions made, often times quite literally, to sanctify themselves. However, our understand and lexicon began to focus on the idea of giving something up, ie a newborn lamb, calf, or dove.
Fast forward many thousands of years. Now we connect sacrifice not to sanctifying, but to giving up something. However, we still retain the connection that sacrifice has a purpose. Thus we can say, "I have sacrificed a lot of family time to secure their financial future," though we have, in all reality, made nothing holy thereby.
Sacrifice, in the sense of abstaining from something for a greater purpose, has been a great factor in religions around the world for ages. Monks of all faiths and orders give up having families and social interactions in order to sanctify themselves. Certain carnal acts are generally given up to achieve a higher sense of holiness. Certain foods are banned in some cultures, certain rites are practiced in others and certain dress styles are embraced as well. Nowhere can you find a religion that doesn't ask for some kind of abstemious practice and yet is revered as a truly gratifying and respectable faith.
As Christians we have many examples to look at for how to sacrifice. We have the martyrs of days of old, especially those who lived during the reigns of Domitian and Diocletian, wherein Christians were legally persecuted and life and death hung by confessing Christ or not. We also have great saints to admire. St Francis of Assisi abandoned a wealthy life to embrace the mendicant lifestyle. St Augustine abandoned the sensual lifestyle he had embraced to follow Christ. St Paul went from being a respected scholar among the Jewish community with the added advantage of being a Roman citizen to losing his life for his conversion.
Even those who are not saints have provided examples for us. Thomas Merton left the luxurious and leisurely life of being a recent Columbia University graduate in New York to living in a small monastery in the heart of rural Kentucky. Mother Teresa left her family in Albania to help the poor in Calcutta India. Others, whom I feel that I've exhausted in their praises, also make this list.
These men and women were often times called upon to give all that they had for God. Not only did they "give away all that they had to the poor" but, in many cases, even gave their lives to God. Often times this is what we are asked to give. Sometimes we are not. Sometimes we are blessed with great fortune, ample opportunities and a luxurious lifestyle with little to no heartache.
However, I think it is important to be prepared to sacrifice. Bonhoeffer says that we must climb up on the cross of Christ, but perhaps it is more important that we be prepared to endure the sacrifices rather than giving up all that we have.
I have been reminded recently of the mysteriousness of God's movements. Often times God blesses us beyond what we think we deserve, and often times inflicts hardships on us that we think unfair. However, we do not know to what purpose we have been given the allotments that we have. Perhaps we are meant to be an example to people. Perhaps we are meant to encourage and directly impact someone's life. Perhaps our trials are merely to make ourselves stronger. To second guess God's purpose and goals would be to presume we are greater than God is.
And perhaps the greatest thing I have learned about sacrifice recently is that while self-sacrifice is often times a great blessing for those it benefits, we must also be mindful of ourselves. If we are too busy serving others to notice our own failings, we have failed as servants. As the Gospel says, if there is a problem in our own lives, we must seek to rid ourselves of those before we help others with their own (this is paraphrased, I realize). Self-sacrifice that prevents us from providing more service to others is, perhaps, also a form of disobedience and another example of not doing the best we can for the Kingdom. Yes, we must endeavor to build up others and build up the kingdom, but we are told not to run more than we have strength.

religio fidesque populis

2009-08-12T01:26:00.002-04:00

The true Christian faces an unfair attack. Firstly, he must deal with the harrassment from the pugnacious non-believer. This includes not merely atheists and agnostics, but also those from other faiths as well. This isn't to say all people who are not Christian are bellacose, but there are those who attack Christianity from an outside perspective. Secondly, the Christian must also face the infidelity and persecution from other so-called Christians.
I shall address the issue of the so-called Christian first. Kierkegaard pointed out that not everyone who was under the banner of "Christianity" really followed Christ. For this purpose, SK preferred to refer to the Christian world, specifically Christian Europe, as Christendom.
I agree with this idea. Christianity has become too much of a world power. Granted, the Papal States are now reduced to simply the Vatican, but in America you can only get so far without claiming Christianity. Granted, Europe has lost it's Christian fervor, but here in the states, the name of the game is Evangelism and a great power lies behind it. However, the issue is not Christianity having a growing number of followers. On the contrary, the issue is Christianity relaxing the definition of what it means to be Christian. It is, however, the issue of abandoning basic Christian principles such as humility, charity, and patience while still claiming our actions to be the will of God. No person can take us seriously while we declare our selfish and destructive behaviors to be those of good Christians.
On the other hand are the non-believers. The true Christian faces ridicule from them precisely because of those so-called believers, Christendom. A person of good faith with works to support it and a true understanding of Christ's message is not the same as the person who attacks biological study on the basis of a message that doesn't align with the Genesis account of the beginning of the world. If we are truly working as Christ's messengers, then what atheists say should not become an issue for us to crucify them.
I am reminded of Islam from about 1000 to 1200. Muslim scholars endeavored to be scientifically minded and our own modern "scientific method" was devised by Muslim scientists. However, they didn't question their faith, no matter what results were found. A Muslim whose scientific data seemed to contradict his faith would normally choose one of the following options: either he was wrong about his experiment and misinterpreted the data, or he misunderstood his own faith. Never did they assume that their faith was completely incorrect. Nor did they ever question the empirical evidence before them. What they faced was a synthesis of science and faith, one that theologians and philosophers have been attempting to continue, but also one where the screams of the confused masses are heard loud and clear over the whispers of those who would seek to ease the tension.
Perhaps truly where Christianity started to go wrong was where every religion has. Historically speaking, religions tend to be ok until they become nationalized. Islamic theocracies tend to exhibit policies that are justified only because one امام (Emam) interpreted the اهدث (ahdith) and the قورأن (Qur'an) a certain way. Hindus in India exhibit violence because they are the national religion. Christianity went sour when Constantine made it the official religion of the empire. All of a sudden, what had been a way of life for those who truly believed in the teachings of Christ, now became a civil advantage to those in the Roman empire. A Christian, or at least someone who claimed to be such, had a measurable advantage over a pagan or a Jew. For Christianity in the rest of the world at the time, there were no such disadvantages. Thus, in the Middle East, Christians were a non-violent people, who still resembled their predecessors while those in Europe became increasingly more self-serving.
The same can be said for even sects of Christianity. A Lutheran in Germany had an advantage over a Catholic, to the point of blood, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In Northern Ireland today, a people who are officially protestant (the Northern Irish) are up against a people who had traditionally stayed Catholic (the Irish in general). And voters were surprised in 1960 when a Catholic was elected into the highest seat of power in a predominately Protestant nation.
But this even transcend the border of simple faith traditions. Nations that are officially atheist demonstrate this same kind of forced bullying with their ideals. The former Soviet Union took over many territories and nations that had been Christian and outlawed religion and atheist China went to arms against peace-loving, Buddhist Tibet. So we see that even the ban of religion is itself a national religion.
But the Christian man must overcome all this. He must truly be the Christian. He must not only be a martyr, but also an apologist. As Simone Weil said of her life, he must stand at the crossroads. He must be willing to bridge the gap that the human race is tearing into itself.
As men and women of faith, we ought to know that science cannot disprove our God. We cannot prove Him, but we cannot either disprove Him. Furthermore, we ought to know that because of this, we should net let our faith be shaken by this. We must stand firm in our faith, but must also be able to withstand the buffets of those who stand against our faith and those who parade about and make a mockery of it. The tragedy is that we are the minority trying to stand out against a majority that claims our name and another large group that associates us together. It is our duty to reach out to the world and show love and wisdom in our faith and lives.

Last Day in Il Inferno.

2009-08-07T15:26:00.002-04:00

Today will be the last full day I will spend in Vernal. It's already half over. In the forefront of my mind I'm thinking constant thoughts of "Il hamdu l'illah!" (I'm on my parents' computer otherwise that would be in Arabic).
Honestly, though, living in Vernal gives me a lot of perspective. I know that many students coming back to Notre Dame this fall will complain about South Bend's lack of size, while I have only positive things to say about it. People from New York, Chicago and Los Angeles will all find the lack of diversity frustrating, while I will find the difference between the Vernal and South Bend to be refreshing.
I have also been wondering if my time living here will serve some greater purpose. Will the interaction with a people who are intellectually stunted and politically reactionary enable me to better interact with people who would normally be detestable to me? Will living in a town where the climate ranges from nearly a hundred in the summer to negative twenty in the winter make me grateful for any slightly more temperate region? Will being from a town that subsists by sucking the oil from the land as a tick sucks blood make me more aware of environmental problems?
I have also thought that perhaps this town is good for my soul. Living in unpleasant circumstances seems to purify and refine souls. Dorothy Day lived with the poor. Mother Theresa lived with the outcast. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was imprisoned. Simone Weil lived with the laborers and refugees. Monastics live in inconvenient settings. Hermits isolate themselves and Priests sometimes live alone in rectories. All these things help to cleanse the soul.
So I am also reminded of a silent retreat I went on over a year ago. It was conducted not in the Buddhist fashion, but rather in the Ignatian style. The silence could be overwhelming at times, and with no school work, or trips to do things, one had to learn how to be more comfortable with himself. I grew a lot spiritually over those five days.
I think Vernal has been similar for me. I have been confronted with what is uncomfortable for me. I have been a stranger in a strange land. Due to this, I feel that I have had to be more assured of my own thoughts and beliefs than ever before. I have felt isolated and alone, but I have emerged from it triumphant.
But lest I sound too proud, I must also admit that I have learned much from the people here. And one of the most important things I have learned has been to see people as people.
So I leave this town and move onto other things. What has happened here this summer will be a guiding influence for much of my life. What I have learned both academically and experientially will help me in life. And perhaps I will be a better person for what I have experienced.
I remember in high school a quote we had to memorize about attitude. The final thought of it was that life is 10% what happens to us and 90% how we react to it. While the whole percentage thing might not be true, what I can say from personal observation is that while we have little control of individual events in our lives, we do control our reactions to them and whether or not we will be affected by them.
On a more humorous note, I have also been hoping that my time here in Vernal will allow me to get out of a few hundred years of purgatory.

Solo vir in terram

2009-08-06T12:12:00.002-04:00

Over the course of the last few days, I have felt more alone than I have ever felt. I won't go into all the details, but let me just assure you that being a liberal Catholic in a rural, eastern Utah city is not the easiest thing to do.
Today I went to Mass. Yes, normally I don't spend too much time telling about my own personal experiences, but what I heard was very reassuring. Today is the Feast Day of the Transfiguration. All the readings had to do with Discipleship. Father Albert's homily, though, was most especially helpful. He told us that, as the Disciples, we must learn to stand with Christ especially when we are on the mountains of our life, both the good ones and the bad ones. It was an especially well-timed message about how God will never desert us and how we must, in turn, not abandon Him.
And so I am thinking about Discipleship. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whose name appears in this blog quite frequently, is my ideal model for Discipleship. Bonhoeffer was a devout Christian who was abandoned by his faith (the Lutherans), his country, and seemingly his God. His family never did abandon him, but his life was nonetheless nowhere near perfect.
In about 1930 he published a work entitled The Cost of Discipleship, in which he basically told his readers how difficult being a Christian can be. No, it didn't smack of the same self-sacrificial language that his fellow Lutheran and predecessor Kierkegaard embraces, but it did include plenty of self-denial. To him, we must be ready to "climb up on the cross with Jesus." This is a hard request, to deny ourselves of our comforts that we so often think are ours to take. It is a hard request to take upon ourselves shame and sorrow. It is hard to deny all that we have for Christ's name sake.
This is all very well and good to write about safely from the Seminary which he had founded. However, the true test of his Discipleship would come more than ten years later when he was imprisoned by the NAZIs for instructing his students to not enlist in the army. Now, it is important to understand that he had plenty of chances to avoid this. He had been to New York a few years prior and his friends there had asked him not to return to Germany, but to stay in the states where he would be safe. Even when he had returned to Germany, when rumors of his arrest began to circulate, his friends offered to help him escape. However, humble and submissive, he allowed the NAZIs to take him. He had many students, loving parents, a fiancee, and a group of faithful disciples that he left behind. His contemporaries, like Karl Barth, escaped NAZI persecution in other countries. Eventually, he was moved to a Concentration Camp and days before Allied relief, was hung by the SS. This is a man who never backed away from his principles and truly lived a Christian life.
Another figure I think of is the one of Job, from the Bible. He was a man who lost literally everything. He lost his children, his lands, his wife, his livestock and even his health. He had nothing going for him. Eventually, he did murmur against the Lord, but in the end he is taught a valuable lesson about how the Lord works.
Others have done the same. There are many, many Christian martyrs whose faith was sealed with their blood. Ss Perpetua and Felicity, St Joan of Arc, Justin Martyr, and countless others have stood by their Christian faith as others killed them.
Whatever reason we are put through trials and hardships, I firmly believe that our character there is a reason. Perhaps they will test our faith. Perhaps they will test our character. Perhaps they will strengthen us as people. Or perhaps others will watch and judge us by our actions. Do we suffer all things willingly, as Kierkegaard tells us to? Do we take on Christ's cross? Do we stay with our faith, rather than abandoning it?
Rather than getting overabundantly preachy on the subject, I offer this simple question: will we find ourselves more happy in life if we do not lose faith than if we do? We might feel like a shipwrecked sailor alone in the squall at times, but will we truly find peace by succumbing to the tempest? So perhaps, Christian or not, believer or atheist, we might find ourselves enjoying our lives a little more if we learn to accept difficulties gracefully.

Mercy

2009-08-04T19:56:00.002-04:00

"Master, when did we see you hungry and give you food, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you naked and clothe you, imprisoned and did visit you, sick and did administer to you? And in that day the master shall say, 'Inasmuch as you did it to the least among you, you did it to me." (Matt 25:38-40)
The Corporal Works of Mercy are these: feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick, shelter the homeless, visit the imprisoned and bury the dead. As Christians we should work to carry these seven things out.
The ironic thing about our faith is this: we place more emphasis on the ten commandments than anything else that we should. The ten can be found within the two great commandments: Love God above all and love our neighbor as ourselves. In following these, things such as "Thou shalt not kill" become obvious. So instead of the emphasis on what we must not do, perhaps the seven Corporal Works should tell us what we should do.
We have a great many figures in our history to tell us how to live a merciful life. St. Francis of Assisi, and St. Therese of Lesieux. The Dominicans and the Franciscans were Mendicants who took on the life of the poor. In the twentieth century, Dorothy Day and Mother Theresa administered to the poor and wretched of the earth for all to see. And above all, we have Jesus himself whose entire life was a great act of mercy for the entire earth to see.
Even with the great works of those who came before, we have work to do still. There are still those who are poor and wretched. There are still the sick and diseased. There are those whose lives were miserable and their deaths are more so.
Perhaps we, who are generally speaking better off than we need to be, should impart our substance. The young man, whom Bonhoeffer likens to us, who was asked to give all of his stuff up to follow Jesus wasn't asked to destroy it, but to give it to the poor. We live in such a wealthy place, and most of us are priveleged to have enough.
However, when working with the poor, it is important to note, as Dorothy Day states, that it is not the most rewarding or the most enjoyable work. It is demeaning, disgusting and difficult. Yes, it is a job that will be rewarded in heaven, but it is not a job for the fainthearted.
But perhaps there are others in the world who deserve our attention as well. What of those who are persecuted simply because they were born differently? Do we act indifferent as we see on the news struggles for simple human rights? Do we walk by with our noses in the air, or worse, do we shun those who are standing for human dignity? Do we politely take the leaflets they hand us and trash them as soon as we find a garbage can?
Mercy. This is a fundamental Christian attribute, and a fundamental Christian challenge. We are to live merciful lives. We are to forgive, to give aid, to bless and to lift our brother up to where we are. We cannot afford to live lives of anger, hatred, or malice. And we cannot afford to declare justice and chance as the ruler of the universe.
I believe it was Aquinas who pointed out that if every man demanded what he thought was fair recompense, there would be no fair recompense. For every man is afforded injustices by those who don't know that they're committing injustice. There is not enough in the world to all be given "what's ours." Thus, we need to be forgiving and giving. We need to take as much or less than what we need. We need to give more than we think is necessary. And we must be ready to "suffer all things for [Christ's] name sake."
It is a hard thing to ask people to be selfless. It is hard because we know ourselves how difficult it is to do. But mercy should be our mantra. Mercy is often the action expressed by our love. If love is our life, then mercy is our duty. So let us be merciful. Let us do to others what we do for ourselves. Let us show our Christianity by our action and our mercy.

Kierkegaard's Masochism

2009-08-02T18:42:00.005-04:00

I really think the title of this post wins "Best title of a blog post ever" award.
The truth of it is, the topic of suffering is one that I see haunt Christian Theologians of every time period. But why?
Kierkegaard, the father of Existentialism and great Theological writer of the eighteenth century, had quite the maochistic view when it comes to suffering. To Soren Kierkegaard, we are not only to suffer gladly, but we cannot call ourselves Christians unless we absolutely seek out suffering. And not suffering alone, but we cannot count ourselves among Christ's flock unless we have suffered like Christ has suffered. SK, not being a man to give simple lip service, was once engaged to a Miss Regina Olsen, but broke off the engagement, even though he still absolutely loved her. He spent the rest of his life in agony because he never married her, nor would he because he thought that having a partner in suffering was unChristian.
However, many others have had other things to say. Schleiermacher agrees that the way we suffer defines our Christianity, but he does not encourage us to seek out punishment. Augustine defines his own suffering as being necessary for his conversion. Von Balthasar seems to think that Christ's suffering is more to be in solidarity with us, and that we have no need to heap on ourselves more suffering. Dorothy Day and John Paul II both took on the idea of solidarity, or suffering with other people in order to be in communion with them.
Whatever specific theology you follow, what seems to be the case is that the way in which we suffer defines how Christian we are. As Christians we must learn to suffer. Perhaps we don't need to voluntarily seek out suffering, as Kierkegaard tells us to, but we do need to accept it. After all, our Christianity is not defined by how great our life is to ourselves, but to other people.
Perhaps Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of my favorite Theologians and a martyr of World War II can shed some light on the subject. To Bonoeffer, we must be prepared to, as Jesus asks the young rich man, "give up all that we have and follow [Christ]."
Giving up everything is not easy. As Tyler Durden, a character from a cult classic Fight Club states, "Hitting rock bottom isn't a weekend retreat." But, we don't have to give up everything necessarily. We do, however, need to be ready to "suffer all manner of affliction for [Christ's] name sake."
And so I think that we are not defined by how much suffering we voluntarily induce on ourselves. However, we are surely defined by the way we face it. Are we willing to forgive those who do us harm? Are we willing to accept unfair punishments? Will we comfort those who grieve themselves and take on their burden as well?
Kierkegaard may think that voluntarily submitting to pain and suffering is necessary, but as Christians are we not also to lift others spirits? Would Regina Olsen (who did marry later on, by the way) have been happier if they had married? Is not the Christian to suffer but all the while to do the work of God?
If then, we find happiness and joy in our work, how can we murmur against our lack of suffering? If we bring others peace and rest and our satisfied by our actions, I do not think that God will condemn us for having joy. After all, why would God create man if not to be happy? What purpose would our lives serve if there was no true joy to be found in this life?
Yes, the world we live in is full of grief and sorrow. There is much suffering, and we should work to eliminate it. But weeping and wailing in sackcloth and ashes will not build the kingdom.
Here I think Dorothy Day's preaching and example trumps Soren Kierkegaards. Day spent her days serving the poor. She worked among them and took no money for herself. She protested unfair conditions, poverty, war, the death penalty and other things. Truly, she carried about the corporal works of mercy. Did she suffer? Undoubtedly. A mind like hers, so in tune to the cries of humanity cannot but suffer. However, in her suffering, she alleviated the suffering of other men. Her protests brought about change. Her Worker Houses dot the country and provide aid for all those who are underprivileged financially.
And so it is that I say, yes, our suffering will demonstrate our allegiance to our Lord and God. Yes, by how we react to afflictions and trials we show the world the true nature of Christian spirit. And yes, we must not murmur in our toils nor complain about our lot. But at the same time, we should not seek out pain and suffering at the cost of other people's happiness.

To die from a broken heart.

2009-07-30T15:32:00.002-04:00

"Deus caritas est" we are informed in Masses on Sunday. Furthermore, back in the 80s and 90s people would proudly hold signs at sporting events that, rather than coming up with clever acronyms for ESPN, would have simply John 3:16 written on them. "God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son. That whosoever should believe on Him, should not perish but have everlasting life."
What a powerful message that is. I sometimes wonder how it was that God the Son was able to endure all that He did. For our sins He was nailed to the cross. For our iniquities he was wounded. By the very hands of a man whom Jesus forgave, his side was pierced by a spear. To the two robbers, men rightfully convicted of their crimes, Jesus told them to "be of good cheer," for they would "be at [His] right hand in paradise [that] day." He asked for forgiveness for the very men who had crucified Him. Barth tells us that Jesus' death reconciled all men, that the Jews, who had been God's promised people, were now joint heirs with the Gentiles in the Kingdom of God. Von Balthasar tells us that in His death His true empathy and love is shown as He took upon himself the greatest of all human suffering, willingly.
But I wonder what God thinks when He sees one of His people fall? I wonder if God can experience a broken heart? Did the Father ache to see the Son crucified in Golgotha? Did the Fall cause the Father to weep? Was the flood just rain water, or was it God weeping for the state of humanity?
I realize in exploring this question, I am openly granting to God a very human-like demeanor. And why shouldn't I? Are we not made in God's image? Athanasius even attests that we are made in God's likeness. Therefore, when we feel sorrow and heartbreak, is that not a sample of the kind of heartbreak that God must feel? I feel that this is the case.
Victor Hugo so poetically writes "There will be more joy in heaven over the tears of one repentant sinner than the white robes of a hundred good men." The power in this sentence is overwhelming. What good is the Christian if he can only get the attention of the 99 sheep? The 99 already will do good. The 99 are fine by themselves. It is not for the righteous that we should seek blessings, but for those who are lost.
We live in a loveless little world where hatred, greed, and envy abound. Let us reach out with open hearts and loving embraces to those who are in most need of a loving word, or a kind hand. If God is love, and we worship the very same God, than love should be our motto and our main virtue. We must show the world the true Christian spirit by our good will. A favorite hymn of mine states in the refrain, "And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love, yes they'll know we are Christians by our love."

Humanum veritatem videre

2009-07-29T19:31:00.002-04:00

Terence once said, "Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto," or "I am a human: I consider nothing human to be alien to me." Generally speaking, I try to take the opposite approach.
As a Christian, or at least someone who takes Augustine's view on Original Sin very seriously, I tend to view people as scum unless they redeem themselves. I've written here plenty of tirades against what we do to ourselves as people. The human condition is not one which I am thrilled to claim, most of the time. However, I do see all around me hope for a better future. I see people who are genuinely interested in making the world a better place, rather than just making a buck. I see Nietzsche's "will to power" ideal being broken by many selfless men and women.
However, this is the exception to the rule, by and large. I do not consider most human beings to be genuinely philanthopic or amicable in general. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the human race, I just think that the human part needs to be transformed.
Enter Existentialism. I always thought it was weird that such a devout Christian as Kierkegaard would be considered the father of a movement that spawned Nietzsche, one of the most famous (or infamous) antichristians in history. But what I've come to realize is that these men who are lumped into this movement all share is a common ideal to change our lives or at least perspectives to be more than we are. For Kierkegaard it's his "knight of faith" in Fear and Trembling. For Nietzsche, it's his "ubermensch" in Thus spake Zarathustra. They both emphasize overcoming the base human to become something greater, something that sees beyond the disguises and false images we so readily put before ourselves.
I guess this is what I hate about living here in Vernal. I hate that the people here refuse to reach beyond what they've been given.
I was in Park City over the weekend. Aside from being a more affluent community than most of Utah, it also boasts being more educated and more liberal. Summit County is one of the few counties (maybe 2 or 3) that votes Democrat consitently. While I was there, I was not only associating with people who are more educated than the averge Utahn, I was with people who are more educated than the average Park City resident because I was with Notre Dame alumni and students.
When I came back to Vernal, I actually didn't talk or associate with anybody outside of my family until today at work. And it was at work that I realized just how backwards people here in Vernal can be. Many of them are barely literate high school dropouts who make their living by destroying the environment in order to sustain our energy greed. But I realized that I look at these people not as humans, but often times as animals. This is actually inaccurate. I view animals with more respect for being more responsible with their ecosystem. After work, I realized this is a real problem for me.
Why is it that I look so far down my nose at these people? While it is certainly true that we have different political ideologies and our priorities are placed in different fields, we do share a certain amount of attributes that should force me to look more highly on them. We are all human beings. We share 99% of the same DNA. We all survive on the same basic biological processes and share the same resources.
This is even more significant from a Theological perspective. We are all God's children. He doesn't favor me over any of these other humans. I am not more special to God because I attend Mass weekly or pray nightly or write a blog that reflects my theological thoughts. No, if anything, being in this position means I have a responsibility that they do not have. I need to try to make them more aware of who they are and what they do. I need to try to educate them. I need to try to open their eyes, rather than shake my head at them.
This, then, is the conclusion I have made. We so often rule people out from being human. It's how we are able to fight wars. It's how we are able to enslave entire races. It's how we can still have lingering epithets that attack us based on the person we are rather than on the crimes we have committed. It's how we have such strong ethnic boundaries. We need to be as Terence and consider all humans to be human. We need to learn to see the true human, instead of our selectively chosen favorites. There should be nothing alien to us that is human.

Logos (parvae animae III ex III)

2009-07-25T13:52:00.004-04:00

Now we come to my favorite part of the soul. The Logos. Logos is the word from which English words like logic, and every single ology comes. Literally, Logos means word, but it also incorporates in its definition all cognitive movement. So, apparently in ancient Greece, speaking and verbal communication was tied to thinking. How ironic that in today we often associate too many people as speaking without thinking.
The word Theology was originally translated not as the study of God, but as speaking with God. Thus, the logy part was not originally seen as studying. Similarly, we might view other sciences and areas of academic inquiry as dialogues rather than as "studies." Of course, this is not a fail-proof system. We can't call Biology and Zoology speaking with life and speaking with animals, respectively. In these instances, it is much more appropriate to define them as the study of life, or the study of animals. So, once again, we see again that even though Logos is speaking, it is tied with studying.
Logos is the highest function of the soul. Intellectual movement, to Socrates, is the greatest ability our souls possess. Logos is what gets us out of sticky situations, it's what prevents us from making rash decisions, and it's what advances us as humans and as a society. The Logos should reign in the soul over the Ethos and the Pathos, much as Plato's philosopher rules the Republic, over the protectors and the workers.
This is not to say that we should completely block out Ethos and Pathos, but we should make efforts to regulate them. Logos by itself in the soul is similar to a computer; soulless, emotionless and cold. We should have emotions. We should feel joy, sorrow, love, euphoria, dysphoria, emnity and all other emotions that we feel. However, we cannot let fleeting feelings regulate us as people. We must be able to differentiate between the good and the bad emotions and let our intellect regulate them. We should also embrace our loyalties. We can be religious, or patriotic, or devoted lovers. However, we should also not let the appeal to these attributes be unchecked by our own reasoning.
Unlike the Pathos and the Ethos, our Logos is not as appealed to by rhetoricians. If we want to be logically appealed to, we have to go to a library. We have to read academic journals, encyclopediae, and textbooks. We hear logical appeals from teachers, professors and tutors. We rarely see movies that appeal to us intellectually. If we do, it is not for entertainment value, generally it is for intellectual development. The documentary is the Logos' response to the drama of the Pathos. However, as movie sales show, documentaries never do as well as the action movie or romance playing at the same time.
The reason why we are not appealed to logically by rhetoricians is simple: it is not in their realm to appeal to us logically. A professor I had once told my class that in the ancient world there were three ways to tell somebody something they didn't know. There was rhetoric, which was what was convincing, philosophy, which was demonstrating, and theology, which was revealing. As shown by this example, the Logos' realm is that of philosophy. Rhetoricians, as such, do not try to convince people with concrete facts. Otherwise they would likely be scientists, and not rhetoricians.
Theologically speaking, Logos is the most highly valued part of the soul. Theologians of times past and present seek to talk about God in an academic fashion. St Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of philosophers, theologians, students and universities, spent his entire life devoted to demonstrating how being a Christian makes sense. Professors of theology in universities world wide teach students how to be a believer in the most academic ways possible. They teach us how to confront a world that increasingly relies on science and Logos to refute faith. Priests, as well, are trained not only theologically, but also philosophically.
But the most well-known use for the term Logos in the theological world is for Jesus. The opening verse of the Gospel of John read thusly: "In the beginning was the Word (Logos). And the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Much theology has arisen from those few verses. In Mass, we call Jesus the Word made flesh. St Augustine told us that Jesus' relationship to the Father is that of the Logos. In this way, since God is pure action, and His action is brought about by His thought, then the Logos has been around since the beginning, and the Son has been with the Father from the beginning.
If we view this as the order of God, then we can see for ourselves that we should also make efforts to embrace our Logos over our Ethos and our Pathos. Furthermore, as God's Logos provides a way for all mankind to be saved, then perhaps it is our own Logos that will allow us to save humanity.

Ethos (parvae animae II ex III)

2009-07-22T18:54:00.004-04:00

The appeal to the Ethos is partly one of the most shameful tactics that is widely used today, but also one of the most popular. I, myself, have appealed to the Ethos in some of my blog pieces.
The Ethos is the part of us that is who we are. It is our character, our morals, ethics, what we identify ourselves with and as. The word ethics is derived from Ethos. And our Ethos is called upon every day when we make decisions that demonstrate our loyalties and the groups with whom we associate.
Radio talk show hosts are some of the most Ethos oriented rhetoricians around. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage all call on their listeners to adopt certain beliefs and attitudes based on their political standing. Their particular brand of conservatism is recommended to all conservatives based on their identification as conservatives.
Patriotism too, is definitely an area of great Ethical appeal. We watch movies and read books about how great being America is. We justify our belacose actions by stating that those who don't like war are un-American. We have bumper stickers that tell us to support our wars and our corrupt politicians. Country artists tell us that putting "a boot up [terrorists' (or possibly just Middle Easterners')] ass is the American way."
Rhetoricians of ancient days did the same thing. King Leonidas appealed to the Spartans as Spartans to stand against the Persians. The Crusades appealed to Christians' sense of Christianity to wage war against the Muslims. Cicero himself often started his speeches with the phrase "Friends, Romans, country men" appealing to their national identity to attract their attention and sway their opinions.
Preachers and ministers today use Ethos as well. We rally upon people's sense of Christianity (which I myself have done), and ask them to do things unquestioningly because of this (which I try to avoid). When the phrase "as Christians" is used in a sermon or homily, we automatically feel duty-bound towards it.
But, this, of course, can have many negative implications. Last night, as I was speaking with Alexa on the phone, we discussed Evangelism and the many implications that have arisen with it. Many are the Christians who view themselves as Evangelicals and who unquestioningly follow the commands of their pastors. Jerry Falwell will say something like "as Christians we must prepare for the final days by preparing Jerusalem," and his congregation will send money to extremist militant Zionist factions for this exact purpose. Other congregations will protest anything that aids in the homosexual rights campaign because they're leaders tell them to "as Christians."
Truly, the worst part of Ethos is that it is mindless devotion. Pathos is served by our instincts and feelings, but Ethos is only defined by who we think that we are. As an American I might think that it is most important to support our battles. Even though it may not make sense to say that our soldiers who are in a completely foreign, far off country are fighting for our freedom, as an American I am appealed to in order to garner my support. My sense of Americanism is greater than my sense of logic.
Similarly, the question of ethics arose during the Englightenment. When Christianity lost its control of some peoples (the French most specifically), then on what authority should we follow the morals and ethics we have been taught to follow? Our sense of Christianity no longer applies, so why should we love our neighbor or do good to them who abuse us?
I think, as many philosophers, including Kierkegaard, Hume and Kant, that our sense of morals is not rooted in our belief, but in something greater.
Similarly, I think that we should not let ourselves be told to follow certain idealogies because of with whom we associate, but rather that we should apply more logic to our decisions and actions. If we truly identify ourselves as Christians, we should, in fact, follow the teachings of Jesus, but not without logical discussion and inquiry. Otherwise, we are liable to be swayed by any man or woman who claims to be an authority on Christian duty.

Pathos (parvae animae I ex III)

2009-07-21T20:22:00.004-04:00

Humans have always seen themselves as more than simply bodies. We often talk about our social, psychological, emotional, and physical needs. We separate our souls from our bodies. In the Classical period, depending on whom you asked, you would hear a different set-up for who we are. The Romans saw us as corpus (body), spiritus (life-essence), and anima (soul). The Greeks devided who we are as people even further: pathos (emotion, and base feelings), ethos (character and morality), and logos (intellect).
The Greek divisions are still obvious in our common dialectic. We speak of logic, a purely intellectual faculty. We speak of ethics, those things that tell us who we are as people. And we use words such as sympathy (feeling the same), pathetic (something emotional), and telepathy (distant feeling).
Today, I should like to investigate the idea of pathos more fully.
As previously mentioned, pathos would be what we would label today as emotion. Ancient rhetoricians, and even rhetoricians of today, often appealed to pathos in their speeches. Orators appealed to the people's emotions, striking into them fear of their opponents, pity for themselves and pride for what the speaker is referring to.
The great Cicero often appealed to the Pathos of his listeners, conjuring up such stirring anecdotes that his audience, often the senate or other politicians, would feel compelled out of emotional duty, to side with him. After reading countless speeches about how evil and menacing Cataline was, it was obvious why the Cataline conspiracy was such a big deal in Roman history.
Similarly today, we are appealed to pathetically by our entertainment we enjoy. We watch a movie where a character faces insurmountable odds and comes out on top and we feel elation. No person back in 1976 who saw Rocky could have watched the dramatic ending without feeling inspired. Movies like Rudy, Remember the Titans, and Radio all make us feel a certain sense of euphoria and determination to fulfill our own possibilities. Stories such as Romeo and Juliet, Antigone, or Oedipus Rex, on the other hand, make us feel miserable and give us a sense of dysphoria.
Elementary, Middle and High Schools, corporations and other social groups hire "motivational speakers" who speak strictly to our pathos, inspiring us by giving us feelings of our own possibilities.
Similarly, in Ministerial circles, the pathos is commonly evoked (as are the ethos and logos, but more on those later). A priest, pastor or minister often times preaches sob stories, or inspiring tales to get us to make a change in our behavior. Does this work? Of course it does. Who, when reading about the faithful servant who worked all his life and felt unaccomplished was revered by large masses post mortem, or the disadvantaged child whose faith was rewarded, can help but want to be a better person?
Is this wrong? Should our sermons and homilies draw us to change based on our easily swayed emotions? Personally, I should think that we ourselves can make ourselves more immune to this kind of rhetoric. However, I do acknowledge that if the world is already driven by pathetically inclining people to adhere to one's specific ideologies, then those who are in the congregation are just as viable subjects for pathetic rhetoric as any other people.
So, yes, we are often swayed to be better servants because of our emotions and feelings. However, this is not wrong. In fact, I would argue that the tool of pathetic rhetoric is aptly fitted to reach out to those who are highly inclined to pathological suggestion.

Artificial Selection

2009-07-20T20:37:00.002-04:00

I wonder if it crosses any body else's mind how far from nature humanity has strayed. I don't mean to say that we violate our basic instincts, but it is peculiar to note how certain characteristics found in the animal kingdom have been abandoned in our own species.
For example, clothing. It is peculiar enough that we adorn ourselves with artificial skin (but this can be attributed to the relative little amount of hair that we have and our ability to manipulate our surroundings to suit ourselves), but it is even more so that the style of our garb has changed so much. We always portray ancient man as wearing animal skins in unflattering fashions, a style which would ideally simply function as utility, and not as ornamentation. However, today, so many of our fashions serve so little purpose usefully, (such as high heels), but they work as natural attractive features.
Similarly, we've gone from emphasizing being well-fed to being nearly emaciated. We have gone from having normal-looking skin to considering excessively burned skin to be beautiful. I highly doubt that we would ever see a dog or a lizard voluntarily take on a diet to lose weight, or bask in the sun only in order to darken its color.
Of course there are a million other different examples of our deviation: procreation, recreation, relaxation, shelter, tool manipulation, commercial advancement, lack of survivability skills, and the increase of the importance of healthcare in order to prevent otherwise naturally occurring deaths.
It seems that there is good reason why we often differentiate between what is "natural" and what is "man-made" or "artificial." Man is, as the zoologists and biologists reassure us, an animal, but we are one that is so unique that we often don't consider ourselves as such. Over against the animal kingdom, we have a highly developed sense of morality, intelligence, and discipline, while we have very little stress on instinct, and base impulses.
Perhaps this is why the first chapter of Genesis states that we are made in the image of God. For if there is a God, what other shape could He be other than that of the one animal that is able to even comprehend the idea of a god?
Additionally, I think the reason why we have such strong faith is obvious at this point: every animal fulfills basic instincts for the sole purpose of furthering the species and balancing the ecological niche. Mankind has far surpassed the ability to "simply survive" and must therefore seek out a new purpose. So we find faith in God as a viable focus.
According to Aristotle and MacIntyre, mankind moves towards a specific purpose or goal. This is said in reference to our human ethics and morals. I think that in combination with the above stated conclusion, it is safe to assume as well that mankind's focus and goals are not truly in furthering the species, but rather in fulfilling our duty to a superior being.
Whether or not this seems accurate, it is also important to keep in mind that the human, though defined in Aquinas' time as the rational animal, in his normal life does not interact with the ecosystem as an animal normally would. We act as removed entities, independent of our specific ecological niche and place in the food chain.
In this, the 150th aniversary of Darwin's famous expedition, it seems quite applicable to note that despite our animal natures, we also have transcended the limitations and laws that bind every other creature in nature. Our destiny is not among the swine, but perhaps among the stars.

Sanctes immortales

2009-07-16T17:10:00.003-04:00

I love epic. I know that's probably not surprising if you know me very well, but it's true. I loved The Oddysee, The Aeneid and Beowulf. I loved reading The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and the Teban Saga. The myths and legends of days of yore fascinate me. The heroes and demigods of lore have captured my attention. I suppose it's the grandeur and honor attributed to them. The human condition is very clearly manifested in the ways that Homer, Vergil and Sophocles shape their characters and story lines.
What seems more incredible to me is how they've lasted throughout the ages. Achilles, the fiercest warrior of the Trojan War, has given his name to a tendon in the body that was made infamous in his death. Ajax, another warrior, was given a constellation and a household cleaning product. Odysseus' name has become synonymous with voyages. Hector is a name still given to our children today. Paris is the most famous city in France and one of the most famous in the world. And we don't even know that all of these people actually lived, or if Homer was just fabricating an elaborate fairytale.
In the Christian World we have similar legends and great figureheads. These, though, are the Saints, and with the exception of Ss George, Joan of Arc and Michael, and others, were not generally warriors. In fact, the most notorious and blessed of our honored were those who gave their lives for their beliefs, not killed others for them.
But the idea of Saints has never been an easy one for me. In the old Greek polytheistic system, it was believed that mortals could become gods, like Hercules and Ganymede. Then once could pray to them, just as he would pray to Zeus, Hera or Athena. But as Christians, I have been uneasy about praying to Saints the same way that I pray to God.
Perhaps this is why, even after I was baptized, I have yet to lift a prayer to any Saint besides Mary, even my own patron. One of my mentors, and I would argue a chief catalyst for my conversion, Father Tom Gaughan, once told me that in praying to a Saint, we are not actually praying to the Saint as if he or she was God, but rather petitioning the Saint to send our prayers to God. This idea still didn't satisfy me. God is said to be no respecter of persons (Rom. 2:11), meaning that all men and women of all races, creeds, ethnicities and sexual orientations are all His children and He loves them all equally. Why, then, would a Saint's prayer be more valuable than the own prayer uttered from my very lips?
Then I realized something. At Mass, we all stand together after we recite the Creed and we lift our petitions to God. All people in the congregation repeat after the specific request "Lord hear our prayer." So, in our prayers, we ask for more people to pray for us, not because we think God will hear certain people's prayers more than others, but we believe in the power of prayer, and the power prayer has to bring people together. So we pray to the Saints in communion with them, to have the favor of all of God's people.
It is true that sometimes Saints become almost idolized, but when we understand first and foremost that, as the Muslims state "لا اللاه ال الله" (No gods but God), then we know that even if we pray to our Saints, we are not asking them to do what God will not, but only praying so that they can lift up their voices with us. Perhaps also, we should use the Saints as examples to us, just as Greek warriors of the Classic period looked to warriors like Achilles and Hector, we can look to the Saints for courage, for wisdom, for example and for a model how to live our own lives. If we need to know how to help the poor, we can look to St Francis. If we need to know how to grow in wisdom and knowledge, we can look to St Thomas Aquinas. If we need to know how to stand up for our faith in the midst of tyranny and intimidation, we can look to Ss Perpetua and Felicity.
In our faith, we have our own Epic heroes and heroines. In our faith we should look to them as great examples of living the truly Christian life.

On being jaded

2009-07-15T20:30:00.003-04:00

Alexa and I tend to have hour and a half to two hour long conversations at night since she is currently two thousand miles away. Recently a lot of our discussions have been about what she deems as my extreme opinions. Admittedly, I harbor several opinions that are not only shocking, but far from main stream. However, it seems to me that in the course of my life, there have been many instances that have left me feeling far from comfortable with the world I live in.
I remember once hearing from my dad that some study showed that Conservatives, on average, were a lot more satisfied with their lives than were Liberals. I remember trying to come up with some kind of reason as to why the evidence there might be a little biased, but since then I've realized that it seems quite reasonable to me that it is the case that Liberals are less happy.
The cliche goes something like this, "Ignorance is bliss." This seems to me to be the case. Those who are happy with what they have and where they are tend to not have as many problems that they worry about and think about.
I remember discussing the issue of death with some people at a bar one night. I mentioned that it is morally impossible to kill another man without severely deranging one's mind in such a manner that he no longer believes that what he is doing is wrong. A quite drunken Penguin's fan who was celebrating their recent Stanley Cup victory replied that he knew a Vietnam War veteran who had told him that while fighting in the Jungles of Vietnam, it was impossible for them to kill the VC soldiers if they had looked them in the eyes. As long as they didn't look at the person and let themselves realize it was a person they were shooting at, they were able to do it.
My point with this little anecdote is this: When we are aware of what we are doing, it is impossible for us to do it a lot of times in good conscience. When Rachel Carson warned the country about DDT, we stopped using it. When Upton Sinclair wrote about the conditions at meat packing plants, Teddy Roosevelt established the FDA. When the plight of the Jews in concentration camps was made known, the world made up for it by establishing a homeland for them.
It is true that we can live our lives ignorant of what the world is really like and be ok with it. But once we know what's really going on, we cannot afford ethically to go back. Once we are aware that children in China, Bangladesh, and Malaysia work 13 hours a day for our benefit, in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are forced into prostitution, in Ethiopia and Kenya are struggling to survive, in South Africa are the orphans of AIDS, in other countries around Africa are forced to become soldiers and in Mexico, India the Philippines and countless other countries have to beg for their food, we can no longer look at our own children in the same light.
And even aside from all the suffering that people endure in this world, there are also the little dreams that we sometimes see die as we learn the sad truth. When we know that there are people who cross the border every day for the chance to experience what we have, it is a grim testimony to what we take for granted. When we learn that people are people, no matter how they were born, we have to learn anew what it is to be kind and live the Golden Rule. When we realize the carnage and destruction that we have caused so much of, we must learn in our hearts to atone for these things.
The fairytale life that we wish we could live is really only a dream, and the truth does not set you free, it only makes you obligated. However, I believe that when we die, we will not be judged by God based on what Sacraments we have had, or whether we had enough faith, but whether we executed the commandment to love our neighbor properly. And our love is demonstrated by what we do and how we help.

A sacrifice to be made

2009-07-13T21:58:00.003-04:00

I hope to not offend too many people with the nature of this post. I've been thinking back on a lot of Christian apologists/theologians and their reasoning why Christianity makes sense.
In all reality, there does need to be some kind of explanation, because Christians have to answer to the question why we worship some guy who the Romans crucified two thousand years ago.
So the explanation usually goes that Jesus had to die in order to sanctify humanity once again. St Augustine said that humanity was stained with the sin of Adam, or original sin, and thus every one needed saving, no matter how good they are. This leads to the Christian emphasis on baptism and more especially the Catholic defense for infant baptism. Karl Barth re-emphasized Augustine's words and said that Christ was almost like a second Adam, but that His sacrifice by far overshadows Adam's sin. Athanasius said that Jesus had to die in order to reconcile us with God, and St Anselm said that a God-man needed to pay the price for our sins. Hans Urs von Balthasar said that Christ had to endure all things that humans endured in order to have lived a truly human life, including death.
All these men, I think, were right. It is true that humanity needs saving. However, I will respectuflly disagree with Barth and Augustine and state that there is a lot more than the fall of Adam that needs reconciling.
I think of where man is now, and where man has been before. We consider animals to be sinless, but this is because animals are innocent and stupid. We humans have gained great stores of knowledge, but what have we done with it? We possess the ability to destroy all life on the planet several times over. We have long histories of bloody wars, some lasting many, many years (the forty years' war and the hundred years' war, for example). We take away people's freedom and put them to work as slaves, or in internment camps, or traffick them, or put them to work in sweatshops. We take revenge for our perceived wrongs. We take more than we need, limiting how much others can have. We elevate ourselves above other people or debase ourselves below them. We steal, cheat, lie and take no heed for the damage we do.
And that's only what we do to each other. We also have many sins against nature. As the most intelligent of all species on the planet, we alone have the ability to help maintain the natural balance of the earth. But instead we build polluting factories. We kill off native species and introduce foreign ones. We spray pesticides and herbicides into fields, killing off naturally occuring life and poisoning the ground water. We deplete forests, ore reserves, oil fields. We drain wet lands to build mini malls. We clear out rain forests for cattle grazing. We take and take from the earth and never think to give back. Man is the only animal that can prevent ecological disaster, yet it seems that all we do right now is cause it.
So, while the weight of Adam's sin might be a heavy burden for Christ to bear, I think it is nothing compared to the many thousand times since then that we have damned ourselves as a species.
This, then, is why I am a Christian. I think with the damage we have done and the sins we have committed, it would take nothing short of a miracle, and no one else but God alone to pardon them all. If there's any hope for the human race, I think it came about two thousand years ago in the backwater regions of the Roman Empire.
And as a Christian, I think the command to help build the Kingdom is a very real command. And this command does not simply mean proselyting to the non-Christians, but living in a way that shows that we are willing to live without the sins that we have for so long embraced.

A product of our times?

2009-07-07T20:13:00.002-04:00

Being as faithfully religious as I am, the question of the legitimacy of other faiths has occurred to me quite frequently. In fact, Alexa and I often discuss the ecumenical nature of faith, and the exact reason why I find Catholicism to be validated against this principle (Vatican II).
However, I would be remiss if I pondered these questions without asking the question: Are my beliefs truly as valid as I think that they are, or am I merely a product of Christianity's two thousand years of history and theology?
As it stands, that question is a very legitimate question, seeing as Christianity does only have two thousand years behind it and religion in general has been traced back at least five thousand years (and by the Old Testament standards, six thousand). If my beliefs about God become man only go back to the early Christians and theologians such as Athanasius, Origen, Jerome, Augustine and others, then what am I to say about those who lived before?
Not only that, but some of the most popular religions in the world predate Christianity by quite a long time. Buddhism has five hundred years on Christianity, while Hinduism has at least six hundred. Judaism can be traced at least another thousand years before Christ. Where does that leave those people? If we might state that the proof of Christianity's validity is in its longevity than what do we say about these faiths? Or what about Islam which is only six hundred years younger than Christianity?
Questions such as these give some people a reason to doubt their faith. Others claim that God did simply not reveal himself to these people. Some see other faiths as stumbling blocks and scandals in the way of Christianity (specifically those who read the Apocalypse of John literally).
However, I find my faith validated in various other places. As a bit of a Classics scholar, the Romans and Greeks fascinate me. Of course both of these nations worshiped a plethora of gods, and neither one of their religions have survived the test of time. But what seems peculiar to me is not their faith, but those who were not of their faiths.
One of my favorite philosophers of all time, Socrates, was accused of being an atheist. However, peculiarly, in nearly every dialogue I've ever read of his, he mentions deity, or Providence or some kind of reference to a God. Furthermore, in his Apology, Socrates talks at length about the spirit that always spoke to him. From a Christian perspective, a lot of Socrates' philosophy seems to mirror Christian thought (which is not surprising considering many of the Christian theologians and philosophers were trained in the Greek style). So I find some encouragement in Socrates' Christian-like thinking.
Furthermore, it seems to me that faiths such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Islam started more or less as national faiths. Hinduism, Islam and Judaism all filled in religious vacuums in the cultures where they started. Buddhism came around in a Hindu setting, but it migrated East to more accepting climes. Christianity blossomed in the Jewish region of the Roman Empire. Christianity had to fight against two strong religions, and yet still grew, even when it became outlawed in the empire, and Christians were killed for sport.
So it is that I have faith in the Christian faith. By this I mean not only that I have faith in the guiding principles of Christianity and in the Divinity of Christ Jesus, but also in the faith itself. I believe that Christians can relearn to love. I believe that Christians can relearn to accept others who are different and reach out to those marginalized by society. I believe that Christians can help the poor, protest war, and stand as real witnesses of the love that God gave us. We preach Christ crucified. A doctrine whereby we profess that God's mercy and love were so great that he forgave us all our follies. As Christians and followers of this God, it is our duty to show that Christianity's strength lies not in the power of its followers, but in their love.

Blind Faith

2009-06-29T17:46:00.002-04:00

My last real post was on the irrationality of atheism. I feel in fairness, I need to address blind faith as well.
The funny thing about faith is that true faith necessitates that all you can honestly state is "I believe X." Faith, as faith, is different than knowledge. And from a purely philosophical and psychological point of view, the concept of knowledge is even a bit shaky.
But before I delve too much into that, I think it is important to note that faith should not be blind. No one should ever take the word of their parents or teachers as the word of God. Faith is the kind of substance that continually needs to be tried. This is how theology evolves.
It is all very well and good to believe in something, but it is important to know what it is that you believe in, and why it is that you believe that. For this reason, theology has changed in every single century for the last two thousand years. And within the last century, when humanism presented its case before faith, many theologians stepped up to greet the challenge and the emphases of the twentieth century reflect this.
Also, it is important to have people to look to for faith. Augustine makes it clear that the authority that Christians look toward helps direct them and gets them through the more puzzling aspects of being a believer. Authorities show the way and answer difficult questions. However, in today's world, there are so many different authorities saying so many different things, that it is important to be aware of what they are actually saying.
The biggest problem that I do see in people's faith is that they often take faith itself as the authority. It seems that many people follow the mantra "Well, I believe it, so it must be so." This is one of the greatest follies to which we as believers can fall. Simple belief in something does not make it so. It makes it even less so if there is no evidence to reinforce one's beliefs. I might believe that little leprechauns are stealing my socks from the dryer, but unless I can offer a plausible explanation, or at least one that is not completely preposterous, then my faith has no merit. Belief in a god, however, is plausible, as illustrated by Aquinas' defense from Sufficient Reason, which states that if something is, then there must be a cause for it. The cause for our universe can be a god, especially the way that philosophers and theologians account for the creation.
A quick anecdote will illustrate my point about faith. Growing up Mormon, my friends and family always encouraged us to "develop" what they called "a testimony." Essentially, a Mormon's testimony is his specific set of beliefs, most of which have very specific properties to them, such as the belief that Joseph Smith was God's prophet, and most of which are stated as matters of fact. The way a Mormon will usually present his testimony is like this, "I know that X" where X is something like "Joseph Smith was a prophet," "The Book of Mormon is true" or "Jesus is God's only Son." None of these things are reasonable to know, the way that most people talk about knowing anything. I can neither vouch for Joseph Smith's conversations with God, nor can I verify the authenticity of the Book of Mormon or even Jesus' actual life. All of these things must be taken on faith. However, Mormons not only generally state these beliefs as facts, but they use them as arguments for their positions.
But they are not alone. There are several faiths which encourage strict adherence to faith and reject normal methods of questioning or investigating. These groups discourage me. These faiths make me depressed about the state of faith in America. If we blindly follow what our leaders say, no matter how horrific it truly is, then we are no better than many of the nonbelievers say that we are.
But, I do also believe that we need something to believe in. It is perfectly fine to believe that in the hereafter, there will be a glorious reward for those who live righteous lives. It is normal to hope for a greater future, or a justification of souls. However, we cannot allow this faith to cause us to lose track of what it really is that we believe in.

New Survey

2009-06-24T19:22:00.002-04:00

I would greatly appreciate if you guys all took this survey I wrote up for some theological research I've been carrying out over the past few months. It should only take a few minutes.
Thanks.
Survey

Atheism from the perspective of a theist

2009-06-24T17:53:00.003-04:00

In my experience, true, abject atheism is hard to come by. The reason being is probably because we live in such as theistic world that fully being able to deny any God existing has some kind of logical contradiction associated with it.
This isn't always the case, but I will try to explain it as well as I can. Pascal (whom I've already written about) stated that only the truly irrational deny any existence of a God, because in this existence they are inevitably damning themselves to either non-existence after life (if they are correct), or to eternal damnation. In Pascal's mind, the rational person will either believe in a God, or, failing to have enough faith for that, will at least seek some kind of God, not being content with the idea that there is no God and not being content with not knowing (an agnostic who stopped searching for God would be irrational).
And, in fact, in the world of philosophy, when atheism became a real factor, it was represented by Nietzsche, whose denial of God was so complete that he even completely denied the ethics of believers as having any real value to them.
But we have lost that sense today. We live in a morally relativistic world where we often forget that many of the basic fundamentals we follows (those not found in the universal law that all humans follow) are the result of our Christian heritage. But Nietzsche understood this. Furthermore, he understood that a lot of these basic guidelines we follow are the only things restricting us from being utterly and completely base and selfish. He understood that all humans have the "will to power" which he hypothesized governs our lives.
So, for Nietzsche, the fear of an imaginary God was a silly one, and the inhibitions that normally prevent us from trampling everyone in order to further our own desires was a silly list of pointless rules.
However, in today's world, the atheist finds himself often following these rules. Upon questioning, I find that I rarely get a coherent response as to why we, as selfishly driven humans, would ever sacrifice anything great for little or nothing (like the martyrs for example). Of course, the promise of a glorious afterlife seems to be the basic reason for a lot of people's ethical choices. In fact, I would go so far as to say most of Christendom follows many of their principles for that reason. Likewise, many other basic components of decency are lost because of their lack of emphasis in Christendom.
However, the one thing I am most perplexed about is how someone can fully deny the existence of a god. I understand that one can not believe in God, just as someone else can. However, while God is not provable, at the same time, God is not disprovable. I can claim to feel God's presence, or have a mystical experience, or see miracles or appeal to the order of the universe and our bodies, and someone else can just as easily call my experiences psychological, the miracles to be chance events and the order to not be order, but just the result of a chaotic explosion billions of years ago. However, in these refutations, my opponent has never shown how his thoughts prove no God. After all, God could have caused the big bang, evolution, chance events that continue to happen today and could have altered my psychological state to experience His presence.
So in my thinking, it makes more sense to state that one is an agnostic. It is clearly easier to say that one does not think that there is a God because he has never seen proof enough than for someone to claim that there is no God because he has apparently come by some knowledge that clearly demonstrates that there can be no God.
And so I rest with my first statement: atheism, as atheism is irrational. However, I must also add that dogmatic belief as unquestioned adherence to an unexamined tradition is also irrational.

Ex iusticia

2009-06-22T17:55:00.002-04:00

I had kind of an insight earlier this week. One reason why I believe in God, and why so many other people have believed in God in this world, has to do with the notion of justice. I know, I've said before that we can't prove that God exists, but I'd like to think that there must be one.
I guess the main reason for this goes back to my last post. We, as humans, tend to be so corrupt. We shamelessly attack each other and often have no apparent sense of dignity. I wonder why we are like this, and many an atheist has used the evil world we live in as direct evidence of there not being a God.
However, many disciplines, chief amongst which are physics and philosophy, have taught us that every action has an equal recourse for it. Why is it, then, that there seems to be no real justice in the world? A thief breaks into a family's home and in the ensuing process kills a family member. All the rehabilitation or prison time, or community service won't bring that family member back.
Then I think of all the other atrocities we have seen in this world. We have so many people who commit so much injustice that seem to get away with so much of it. It is, needless to say, discouraging. But what is there to make up for it?
In Jewish theology, there is often times an apocalyptic motif. In fact, the entire Jewish view of history is one of a corrupt and fallen world being restored to a glorious and heavenly place. After being conquered by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans, I don't blame the Jews one bit for thinking that their God must grant a just future to them.
Christians have latched onto this idea as well. The Apocalypse of John is full of imagery of the wicked being punished and the righteous being saved. The rapture is supposedly the saving of all the righteous Christians on the earth and their delivery from the hands of the wicked. The Millenium is supposed to be a time of peace following the greatest battle in the history of the world.
I don't know that I would necessarily plan on some kind of glorious end of the world. However, it helps me sleep better at night trusting that there will be some kind of justice for the oppressed, food for the hungry, haven for the persecuted, clothing for the naked, reward for the meek, blessing for the poor in spirit, etc. It doesn't have to come in this lifetime. In fact, if history shows us anything, it's that the big things only happen after long and toilsome efforts. However, i do hope and fully believe that in the end, God will take care of those who had no one to take care of themselves.
I'm reminded of the power of the Church in the Middle Ages. A lot of people wonder why it is that Christianity had such great control over all of Europe during the Medieval Era. The truth of the matter is that the Church was able to procure the favor of feudal lords. But the reason why it was so successful among the peasantry is simply this: because of the nature of the lives the peasants lived, having a glorious hope to look forward to after they die was, essentially, the only thing they really had to look forward to.
Similarly, African slaves in America became very spiritual, singing songs of deliverance as they longed for nothing more than the freedom that all human beings deserve.
I am of a similar mindset. I see the world as an unjust place with the redeeming qualities being overshadowed by its vices. However, two atheists I have spoken to recently voiced the opinion that it is only those redeeming values that we have to live for. I would then surmise that perhaps we should seek the qualities that some people express, such as philanthropism, charity, selfless giving, environmental awareness, justice and others. However, even as we pursue these options, it seems like Nietzsche's Will to Power still proves true for most humans. And it is in this case that I am forced to think the only true happiness or justice that we'll ever find does not come from this world or in this life.

In imago humani

2009-06-17T20:33:00.003-04:00

In The Brothers Karamazov, one of the brothers, Ivan, is discussing his theological views with his brother Alexey. Following a certain popular phrase, Ivan states that he believes that if man created God, then man must have created God in his image. Alexey responds that if God was created in man's image, then the devil surely was as well.
What seems most puzzling of all is why we often times cease at explaining the movements of God, but we never have a hard time explaining the temptations of a devil. We puzzle why good people are plagued with injustices, but whenever an evil befalls a wicked man we state with self-righteous justice that "that man deserved what he got."
But the truth of the matter is, for all the praise and honor we give to philanthropic action, we are much more versed in misanthropy. Perhaps the reason why we laud those like Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Schindler, and others is because what they do is truly extraordinary. We are such connoisseurs of wretchedness that when we observe somewhat exhibiting truly magnanimous action we are astounded and stand in reverence.
Take, for example, Dante's Divine Comedy. The punishments of Hell are much more graphic, descriptive and moving than the toils of Purgatory or the blessings of Paradise. It may be argued that the reason why it is as such is because more men are afraid of going to Hell than of being punished in Purgatory. However, I think that the real reason is because we are so much better at tormenting humans than of simply putting them to toil, and much more than of rewarding them.
Think, for example: what great evil and misanthropic movements have taken place in the last few hundred years? Immediately we think of the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, Genocides, Slavery, Religious persecution in general, Internment Camps, Political Witchhunts, Real Witchhunts, etc. But, on the other hand, what great deeds of philanthropic magnitude have been wrought? Can we think of any movement, other than recovery efforts, that was not in response to the great injustices that we have brought about before?
But we don't have only terribly evil men to look at. Stalin and Hitler are not the only men who have mistreated humans in horrific fashion. Everyday, we walk by the poor in our streets, we turn a deaf ear to the cries of the politically oppressed and sometimes we go so far as to condemn people simply because they are from another part of the world. We are all masters of wickedness. We are all workers of evil. For every time we ignore the beggar, or spurn the homosexual, or flat out scorn the political prisoner from the Middle East, we are all displaying the truly voracious, despicable side to human nature.
Indeed, if there is a devil, he must have been made in the image of man.

Ecological Theology

2009-06-16T18:34:00.003-04:00

I just spent the last four days on a trip with my Stream Ecologist uncle up to Montana for some rafting and mountain biking. The trip was a blast, but as I spoke with my atheist uncle on the long drive through Idaho and Western Montana, I realized a lot of things about this world that I tend to not give as much attention to, specifically, the notion of us as human beings being good stewards in the environmental sense.
My father, on whom I don't rely for theological advice, often expresses his contempt at those who "preach global warming." He believes that if God gave this green earth to us, then there is no way that we can ever mess it up. I find this notion slightly comical, for during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union both amassed enough nuclear firepower to annihilate every living creature on this planet several times over. If we are able to do that completely on purpose, what sort of damage could we also accomplish simply by neglect?
In the end of the first chapter of Genesis, a story which most Bible Scholars admit is naught but a fable, God gives to humans dominion over all plants and animals of the planet.
Often times this verse is cited to give reason as to why humans are omnivorous, or why hunting is justified for us, or farming or ranching.
However, the problem is that we end up acting the spoiled millionaire heir, spending our funds foolishly, unaware of whence the money comes or how great the sum really is. Eventually, the spoiled heir, living out of his means, will use up a fortune which most men could easily have survived comfortably on for several lifetimes.
We live in a time where it is increasingly easier to be responsible stewards and live comfortable lives. But we often trade convenience for sensibility. We would rather trash deforest large areas for cattle grazing, or pollute streams and rivers rather than using safer, less "effective" chemicals. We would rather spray our produce with pesticides and herbicides which destroy the ecosystem rather than spend the extra money to breed natural predatory insects to protect our crops. We would rather build a mini mall to alleviate our apparent need to consume rather than enjoy the wetlands.
Some of us have even become criminally negligent. My uncle told me about a friend of his, Tyrone Hayes, a fellow stream ecologist specializing in frog populations who discovered that the presence of a popular herbicide, atrazine, in a thirtieth of FDA permitted levels in our drinking water will turn a male frog into a female hormonally speaking. What this means is that what we are federally permitted to ingest will turn an entire population of frogs into females, all of which will actually produce eggs. Now, at this point, we are not only destroying a species which, even according to the Bible, has been here longer than us, but we are also destroying ourselves, causing infertility in human males as well.
This is only one example of how our desire for convenience, also known as greed, is quite deadly. Rachel Carson also opened our eyes forty years ago with her book Silent Spring in which she demonstrated the dangers of DDT.
When it comes down to it, I don't believe that God will hold us simply responsible for what we do to each other in a very direct, easy to see manner, such as theft, adultery, murder, rape, but will also hold us accountable for what we do by our negligence. It isn't only what we advertise that will get us in trouble, but what we fail to advertise that will. And as stewards of this planet, it is our responsibility to care for it, a responsibility which I don't believe God will overlook at the last day.

Idol worship

2009-06-10T17:57:00.002-04:00

This coming Sunday is Flag Day. I will be in Montana rafting, so regrettably I won't be able to comment on it at the time.
One of the most peculiar things I can think of in my childhood when it comes to my parents trying to raise me to be a good Mormon was the high level of patriotism they instilled in me. The classic discussion in American culture and politics is always how much involvement religion should have in shaping who we are as the American people and the phrase "separation of Church and State" has always been the representation of this difference.
But over and above this my parents, and many of the parents in the communities I grew up in, instilled in their kids a kind of country worship. We were told to stand tall, not as believers, but as Americans. We were told to unite as patriots, not as Christians. We were told that the men who died for their country were heroes, and that those we fought were the enemy, but we were never told about those martyrs who died for Jesus.
I was raised to be much more of an American and a patriot that to be a Christian and a witness. But at some point, I realized that while Americanism is limited to those who live in a particular location at a specific time, I believed that true salvation and real truth was not limited in this fashion. if America is the greatest country on earth, what of those who lived before America was a nation, or those who unfortunately live in third world countries and are unable to improve their situations?
So I decided that my nationality was not as important to me as it is to other people. Furthermore, I decided that I wanted to stand by God much more than I wanted to stand by my country. In many instances throughout time, from the Romans to the NAZIs, true Christians have had to stand up against the state. Why should I pledge myself fully to a nation that is alterable according to the whims of the people who take power?
And then comes the idea of flag worship. In my house, the American flag as a holy artifact. It should never touch the ground, it should always be flown, it should never have rips or tears, and it should never be put in a situation that was disgraceful. When the flag goes by in a parade, we salute in reverence, as if it was Jesus himself. We all stand for the national anthem and face our banner. We all act as if that flag itself is the distributor of grace and the ultimate power that we have to answer to in this life.
This is what concerns me. It is isn't that our way of life is important to us. It isn't that we honor those who lead us and protect us. It is that we worship them. We adore our system so much we impose it on some and restrict it from others, all at our own whims. We worship the government and the military. We get tattoos of the flag and hang it from our houses. We love Amerigo Vespucci, the man from whom America gets its name, more than Jesus, for whom Christianity was named.

The Triune God

2009-06-08T19:27:00.004-04:00

Yesterday was Trinity Sunday. As a convert to Catholicism from Mormonism, the whole notion of the Trinity was one that took some time to fully wrap my head around. However, at this point in my career I feel confident that I not only understand it better than most, but I am also in the process of doing research on how others (specifically Mormons) view the Trinitarian relationship.
So it seems to me that this deserves some attention. The early Christians faced several difficult challenges in defining the Trinitarian relationship. The Arians thought that Jesus couldn't be God, but only human. The Manicheans separated Jesus' humanity from His Divinity.
But it goes back further than that. The early Christians were faced with the difficulty of believing somehow that Jesus was a lot more than a human being. The Gospel of John makes Jesus out to be God. The opening words are "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Thus the tone of Trinitarian existence is set forth from even the first century.
The gospels all set out the tone of Jesus being God. Then comes the Acts of the Apostles. With Pentecost (last week, by the way), the problem of the Holy Spirit comes onto the scene. Whereas the issue of Jesus' Divinity is somewhat problematic, especially with His unity with the Father, the Holy Spirit is a whole new problem all together. Who is this Holy Spirit that does not enter the scene (apparently) until at least Jesus' baptism? After much discussion, and careful prayer, the early Fathers decided that the Holy Spirit must also be God, and also unified with the Father and the Son.
But as most who have taken a basic course in Christian Theology or Sunday School know, the official stance of the Trinitarian formula was not fully developed until the Early councils, especially Nicaea and Chalcedon.
The one tragic part of the Trinitarian doctrine is that the more it was explained and developed, the more people that became Anathema. The Arians, the Manicheans, the Coptics, the Syriacs, the Assyrians, the Chalcedonians, the Nestorians (I apologize), the Maronites, and eventually the Orthodox Church all eventually were cut off from the Roman Church. Ideas such as the theotokos (God bearer), homousious, and the phrase "proceeds through the Father and the Son" as opposed to "proceeds through the Father through the Son" became operative in the the schismatic process.
Similarly, my sister yesterday went with me to Mass and liked to interject at every point that she thought that the doctrine supported her views. That's the real problem. The Trinity is such a blessed mystery that a lot of ways that we use to describe the relationship murkies up the water. Nobody who claims to be God has completely anti-Trinitarian views on the subject, but a lot of the explanations vary.
I think that St Augustine, one of my personal favorites among the philosopher/theologians and a Doctor of the Church explained it best. He described the relationship thus: the Son is God's word, eternally proclaimed, from time immemorial even until now. The Holy Spirit is the love shared between the Father and the Son. The Love is emitted from God to us, the Son is eternally proclaimed to us and the Father is eternally reigning over the heavens and earth.
This is not an easy notion to understand. However, to be fair, I do not believe that having a perfect understanding and knowledge of the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is necessary for our salvation.

Deus humanibus creatur

2009-06-04T19:21:00.003-04:00

Ecumenism in an extremely broad sense has been on my mind lately. Not strictly the ecumenism sought after by Zinzendorf and Vatican II, but the ecumenism that Thomas Merton seemed to be pursuing toward the end of his life--the ecumenism that transcends religious boundaries, not simply denominational ones.
I've heard on multiple occasions the phrase, "God did not create man, man created God." On the surface, atheists tend to think that this witty phrase demonstrates a defendable argument. However, I think that this notion shows us something about ourselves, and our natural tendency to believe.
I think about this because for all of written time mankind has believed in supernatural forces. The oldest texts scholars have found are religious texts. The ancient Mesopotamians, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Germans, Persians, Indians, Native Americans, Incans, Aztecs, Mayans, Olmecs, Chinese, Arabs, Babylonians, Canaanites, Irish, Norse, etc all have texts or records that tell about their gods. Even today, out of the five biggest religions in the world, only one is not yet two thousand years old (Islam wasn't founded until the sixth century).
So why is it that all men, at all times have had beliefs in some super-powerful figure? Oft times, even those not in mainstream religions have their supernatural beliefs, such as Socrates' spiritual messenger, and today's superheroes.
Some people have noted that oft times the gods of yesteryear are related to elemental forces. Zeus, Thor, and Jupiter, for example, are all the god of thunder. Hel, Hades, Pluto, and Osiris are all gods of the underworld. Demeter is the goddess of the seasons. Frey is the god of fertility. Apollo and Ra are the god of the sun. Tyr is the god of victory. Neptune, Aegis, Poseidon are gods of the sea. Some gods even take on the role of certain occupations. Balder is the poet. Hermes is the messenger. Vulcan is the smith.
This of course tells us something about the human condition. Humans are superstitious. Even today, with all the explanations science gives us, we get spooked easily walking through a cemetary at night, become wary when we see "a bad omen" and think that some outside condition, such as a certain clothing article, is the cause of our ability to win at some sport.
But why are humans eternally superstitious? In the twentieth century, the former Soviet Union officially banned all religion because religions tell their members to pledge allegiance to God above the state. By removing religion from the people, the state effectively made themselves a religion. Propaganda about the motherland and new ethics were given to the people. All the facets of life that a faith system would normally provide, such as direction and community, were attempted to be replaced by the state.
But even for the atheist, there seems to be a greater power. Sometimes it is simply relegated as biology, instinct, chemistry, conditioning or other things. However, we seem to all feel as if there is something more at work than what we want to admit. Some call it fate, others providence. Some call it pure dumb luck and others call it chance. None of us feel as if we are in complete control. We all feel as if there is something bigger to which we must answer.
This is, in fact, one of the basic tenets of the Alcoholics Anonymous program. AA does not discrimate against atheists, but as part of the program, the alcoholics must answer to some kind of a higher power. That higher power need not necessarily be a god, or some super elemental force, but there needs to be one. It can, in fact, be something like one's children, spouse, employer, mentor, or anybody else. The fact of it is, though, they must report to somebody.
So it seems that the main thing that can be derived from this is that human beings inevitably find themselves dependent on somebody or soemthing. We rely, and put faith in something bigger than us.
To some, this demonstrates a kind of primitive, instinctual mentality that human beings have not fully grown out of. To me, this demonstrates a quirky fact about our nature that suggests to me that seems unexplainable unless it was purposefully left their by our creator.

Spes

2009-06-03T18:48:00.002-04:00

Most of my posts tend to be fairly academic. I'm going to try to stray away from that for today.
I'd like to talk about hope today, the forgotten virtue. Love and faith are always lauded and given so much attention, but hope is usually glossed over.
But why hope? What virtuous merit does hope have? I believe that faith is the virtue meant for the scientist and the scholar, and love is the virtue meant for the miserly. But hope is the virtue of the artist. Hope is the poet's virtue.
It is the artist--the writer, the painter, the sculptor, the poet--that truly sees life for what it is. So many philosophers have sat on their high chairs and hypothesized about life and its purpose, but the ones that have truly captured our attention are the ones who speak to us. The ones who know the human heart and speak with the eloquence of a person whose soul is more than cold steel and mechanics.
This is the way that we work as humans. We aren't machines. We don't calculate and plan. We don't always do what's rational. We have more needs than simply a suitable climate and food and water.
The artist truly thinks with his soul. His art does not depict something mathematically articulate or scientifically unique. It depicts true human essence. The artist knows what true emotion is.
So it is that the artist also knows how depressing life truly is. We are surrounded by greed, lust, pride, wrath, gluttony, sloth, and envy. We destroy others' lives for our private benefit. We walk all over those we think under us. We treat humans like common tools. We scorn, despise and hate other people because of how they were born. We wage war against others for nothing other than to make sure we feel secure.
How are we supposed to find any requiem in this despairing life? We live for maybe a hundred years and die, and that's it. The poet sees through the crap that we have hidden our true insecurities within and comes to one of two conclusions: all life ans society is a sham and there is nothing worth anything, or that there must be more to life than what we see.
This is why hope is the virtue of the poet. Hope gets us through the truly depressing. Hope tells us that there must be more to our existence than a short chance to become whatever we can in a few decades. Hope tells us our fifteen minutes of fame is not the greatest extent of who we can be. Hope tells us that all our efforts are not in vain. Hope tells us that there is some bright future waiting for us. Hope is the forgotten virtue, but the virtue that will truly make everything worth it.

Te Rogamos

2009-06-02T21:58:00.003-04:00

I thought prayer might be an appropriate topic to cover. Recently in my house, the topic of "reverence during prayer" was discussed, so it seems as if a more thorough examination of the subject is necessary.
I previously mentioned that the only true prayer is "Thy will be done." I hold to this. I feel as if I could end my post right here, but I think there is still more to be said. I also previously mentioned in my post on religiosity that wordy prayer is a kind of false piety.
So what is it about prayer that captures us so much? Many religions use prayer in a very scheduled, systematic fashion, with certain prayers for certain hours of the day and certain circumstances that require prayer, etc.
I've noticed that most faiths embrace some sort of pre-set prayer. I find this peculiar. Did not Christ himself say, "When you pray, use not vain repetitions?" (Matthew 6:7). So why is it that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Mormons all have set prayers? Why are we asked to repeat a prayer that somebody else is saying?
The true question to ask here is whether or not it is a true prayer if the words are already set aside.
Another thing that seems peculiar to me is that we are often admonished to thank God in our prayers. The Old English use of pray was the same as a request. To say, "I pray thee" is the same as "I ask you." Sometimes at Mass we use the Latin form when we offer up our intentions with the "Te Rogamos" which literally means "We ask you." A prayer, it seems, is strictly a pleading.
The assumed posture for people who pray is always one of a beggar. We often times lie prostrate or kneel down. We bow our heads to show our servility. We clasp our hands together in the state of begging. The act of praying is designed to be a demonstration of how low and vile we are and how great our God is.
Truly, Christ himself lauded the tax collector whose prayerful stance was one of utter unworthiness (Luke 18:13-14).
I once heard an atheist offer a prayer at a dinner. Before discovering that the man was an atheist, I thought to myself that it was the most arrogant, inflated and self-indulgent prayer I had ever heard. When I learned that he didn't even believe in God, I wondered how it was that his image of prayer was so skewed. I had a slight feeling that his prayer was in mockery, but at the same time I realized that it was highly likely that it was also due to the example set by his Christian friends.
So, perhaps there needs to be a reform in our worship with regards to the way that prayer is seen. Perhaps instead of praying in a very elaborate fashion as if we were trying to impress someone with our eloquence we should simply declare, "God have mercy on me, a sinner." Instead of our lofty orations, we should beg God as the truly penitent do. Our prayers need to be stripped of pride and laid out as humble petitions to an infinitely more perfect God.
So, in our assemblies and in our homes, we need to remove the pomp and circumstance of prayer. There is nothing celebratory about prayer. Instead of demanding respect and reverence as if we ourselves are channeling God, we need to acknowledge the lowly state we ourselves are taking on. There is no glory to be had by being the one offering the prayers. There is no grandiosity in being chosen to offer a benediction or an invocation. I don't mean to say that we should not pray, only that our attitude about it needs a definite reform.

Souls intertwined

2009-06-01T19:39:00.005-04:00

I feel remiss in never mentioning my girlfriend in any of these blog posts. In a blog about personal theological reflections, I think it is somewhat excusable, but nonetheless I wish to make up for it. So this blog post is dedicated to my darling Alexa, who brings so much joy into my life.
When it comes to love, I have a hard time taking a strictly Catholic view on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I fully accept that there are some people that God wants to be married and some that he doesn't, but I have a hard time with some of the subtler doctrines.
Like homosexuality, for example. The official stance of the Church, as outlined in the Catechism is that homosexuality is not a choice nor is it a sin, and that we are to welcome our gay brothers and sisters into the Church with open arms. However, the Church officially does not recognize homosexual marriage and it condemns sex outside of marriage.
But that is a topic for a different time and place.
Being raised Mormon, I have certain ideas about marriage and love that other faiths do not have. My parents, and my two older brothers and their wives were married in Mormon temples. Mormons believe that they can be married forever, and that when they're married here on earth, they'll be married in heaven as well.
And while there are a lot of Mormon doctrines that I don't like (especially the deification that comes along with the Mormon idea of eternal marriage), I am somewhat partial to this one. Of course, the Roman Church cannot espouse this idea because this would undermine the whole idea of the celibacy of the clergy.
So here's where I'm torn: I understand why it's important for priests to be celibate. How can one devote his whole self to the Church when he has familial obligations? How can one be encouraged to have a family if he has no time to devote to them? Of course, other traditions, most notably the Orthodox Church, allow their priests to marry, but not the bishops.
But what of the families? What about those who are so happy in their marriage that they never want it to end? What salvific value does the sacrament of marriage have, if it all ends at death?
My first post was about love. I want to reiterate it. Love is what it's all about. If you are able to find someone who loves you, you'll understand. Love makes every day worthwhile. Love makes the dreadgery of life exciting. Love makes us do things we would never do. Love transforms us.
This is why the Evangelist John proclaims that God is love. God is all that is good and right. Love is all that is good and right. I believe that perhaps God, in His infinite wisdom and glory, will not end whatever relationships we have on this earth. Those we love here, we will be able to infinitely love in the afterlife. As we become engulfed in the ultimate love that is God, I believe we will not lose whatever love we have for each other here.
Can you imagine a sadder ending to life than for everything to be over? Instead of the story ending "happily ever after" it ends "and then they died and their love was lost forever." Why would a God, who is love, who is all that is good, and whose ends are always just, allow the brightest thing in the universe to die out while our souls live on?
I believe that in the eternal communion of souls, those who find their souls intertwined shall still be intertwined. I believe that God does not allow our love to die with our bodies.

Anima Aeterna

2009-05-29T16:43:00.004-04:00

So the thought occurred to me that one thing that most monotheistic faiths lack is a sense of the whatever comes before this life.
Of course that comes from the simple fact that as being travelers on this journey we call life,we are far more concerned with where we're going than where we're coming from. However, faiths such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Mormonism all provide explanations of what has come before. Socrates provided an explanation, as well, as did Vergil in the Aeneid.
I have to wonder, then, why it is that Judaism, Christianity and Islam does not seem to put such emphasis on this facet of our faith.Truly, if we claim that the soul is eternal, per Aquinas, then we have to ask where we came from.
I suppose this is a good opportunity to examine the case for eternality. Does eternality mean an infinite amount of time on both sides? Is eternity more like a geometric line or a ray? Does something eternal have a beginning or has it always existed?
Suppose we say that something is eternal. Therefore, it necessarily has an infinite amount of existence. Thus, it will continue to exist forever and whether or not it was created seems irrelevent because it will always exist. However, if we say it will always exist, this is different than saying it does always exist. If something is created but will never cease to be created once it's created, then we can always measure how long something has been around. On the other hand, if something's existence goes back ad infinitum then we can never say how long it has been around.
What I'm trying to say is this: If everything that is has always existed in some sense, then our souls necessarily have always existed in some sense. But, if we believe that at some point everything was created, then our souls were created as well. Simply because Newtonian laws dictate that everything that is will always be in some form or another does not mean that it always has been.
Here's the conundrum: if our souls have not always been around, how can we be sure that they will always exist? And if they were not created at some point, how can we say that our God is all powerful?
Perhaps this is the reason why monotheism has never addressed this issue. Buddhists have no real concept of an all-powerful God, therefore omnipotence isn't an issue. Hindus have a group of gods that work in concert, but none of them are all powerful either. The gods of the Greeks and Romans were little more than super-powered human beings. And Mormons' concept of divinity rings like a combination of monotheism with the Olympian gods, by which method humans can become gods and God himself is limited in the heavens.
Thus, the idea of our souls existing since forever seems to be absent from those who believe in a god who has all power in the universe.

Mysticism or Nihilism

2009-05-27T19:48:00.004-04:00

I guess I could copy and paste verbatim what I wrote on facebook on this subject, but that was about a year ago and my thoughts have expanded a little bit.
We live in a very morally relativistic society. We always hear and in fact are usually guilty of saying things such as "Well, that's just your opinion." In our minds, what we think is right or wrong is not a system of absolutes. And, in fact, often times we view moral rectitude as a matter of politics.
However, it is a logical contradiction to state that everything is relative, morally speaking. For, if this is the case, then it is also necessarily the case that morals are null and void. There is no constraint in morals, and thus, the laws that govern society and are supposed to protect us are nothing more than a few people in Washington's ideas of what morality is. Thus, it would not be morally wrong to kill one's neighbor, cheat on one's wife, steal someone else's property or gain anything at the cost of someone else, as long as it was done in such a way that the person performing the action thought he was in the right.
This leads us to a Nietzschean point of view. Once again, whatever we do is part of our will to power. Nothing that we do is "evil" since "evil" is an invention of those who feel contempt for others. This leads to the ever popular idea of "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
Here's where everything comes to a head. If our moral actions are relative, than there is no consequence for anything after we die. Thus it can also be deduced that there is no afterlife, and that this is all there is. This is where the Existentialists get their strength, but also where they fail to fully follow through with their logic.
If everything we do has no bearing on what happens to us after we die, than there is no significant difference, in terms of post-mortality, on how it affects us. Since the universe is billions of years old, and will continue to exist for billions of years, and we live for generally a maximum of a hundred years, it is obvious that our lives count for probably no more than a billionth of the time of the universe. And since right now there are six billion people alive on this planet, the impact we make in that one billionth of the universe's time is probably only a six billionth. Thus in the grand scheme of things, whatever we do, in all likeliness, amounts to no more than a pentillionth of any kind of significance on this planet. If there are other populated planets in the universe, than it is even less. Thus we see, that if we have no future to look forward to, it's not a matter of "living it up" because there is nothing to live up. If we can look past the noses on our faces, we will not only realize that our time here is extremely finite, but the space that we occupy, in terms of the universe, is infinitismal. And, if current scientific thought is correct, our universe, which was born of the big bang, will eventually collapse, and a new universe wil be born, continuing a cycle of infinite temporality.
Therefore, if there is nothing to look forward to, we, ourselves, are nothing. The question of morality becomes one that has no purpose, since we ourselves serve no purpose and occupy a space and time unimaginable to comprehend. We cannot fathom how insignificant we are.
On the other hand, it might be the case that everything matters. Perhaps there is a glorious afterlife for us if we live according to what is right. In that case, there must needs be a set of defined morals and ethics, otherwise how would there be any kind of reckoning after we die? If there is some form of an afterlife, than it is most likely that every single action we perform has some significance, and that every action we fail to perform has some consequence. In this model, we find ourselves with the possibility of some great reward, but at the cost of moral rectitude instead of moral ambiguity.
It is difficult to acknowledge that we live in a world of extremes, but we often over-estimate the true gray area of the world. One cannot be a follower of Christ if some great teaching of Jesus is completely ignored. One can also not be a physicist if he considers natual laws to be "relative." In our modern world-view, we have come to scoff at those who think of scientific discoveries as "relative" but we still believe that relativism can be present in ethics, philosophy and theology. It used to be the case that philosophers would compete over whose ideas were correct and whose view of virtues was right. Men would argue in the marketplace about who they followed and why they thought the other person's views were skewed. Now we live in a world where the idea of "live and let live" is prevalent.

So, we must ask ourselves, is it a matter of Nihilism, and nothing has any significance, or Mysticism, and everything has a purpose and place?

Of course, answering the question that there is a definite set of morals to which we should adhere does not, by any means, answer as to which ones should be followed. The question of moral rectitude is not one which I can personally define with guaranteed accuracy, nor one that I feel confident that I understand. A quick glance through the newspaper, especially the Editorials, will reveal how complex a question moral rectitude actually is.

Friedrich Nietzsche

2009-05-26T21:31:00.003-04:00

Over the last year, I have heard professors offer their opinions on who the movers and shakers of the intellectual, especially theological and philosophical, world are. Names such as Martin Luther, Soren Kierkegaard, Blaise Pascal, Karl Barth, John Calvin and others come up. However, I think the biggest person who influenced the shift in the theological world was Friedrich Nietzsche.
One must first understand all the things that happened before Nietzsche. In the three centuries preceding his life, the Christian world was rocked by the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and various political revolutions, not least of which was the French Revolution. All of these events laid the groundwork for this German philosopher.
The first time I read Nietzsche I felt uneasy. He came off to me like a out-of-reach itch on one's back. It was there, and it was impossible to ignore, but it was hard to alleviate the irritation it caused. I remember that as I read him, I saw the logic and truth of a lot of his philosophical obeservations, up until he reached his conclusions. This I have found to be the greatest problem with Nietzsche--rather than fixing what many would term the social ills, he only exacerbates them.
Point in case: Nietzsche says that all men follow the will to power, therefore there is nothing which we should allow to stand in our ways on the path to power (a very Raskolnikov notion). Rather than seeing this terrible proposition and fleeing from it, society has embraced it. All means justify their ends. All terrible, destructive behaviors, so long as they provide good for the person performing the actions, are worth-while, no matter the cost physically, emotionally, morally, environmentally, spiritually, socially or economically.
Second point in case: Nietzsche says that Judaism and Christianity ruined traditional ethics and man must return to the "Aryan," conquering ideology of the Romans. Big, conglomerate corporations put small businesses out of work with no remorse. Certain countries, rather than striving for peaceful co-existence, force the surrender of their enemies through the possession of superior weaponry. Men abuse their wives and children if they think that their family members are "acting up."
Shouldn't preachers be preaching against this from the pulpit? Shouldn't they be discouraging the philosophies of a man who could very well be considered the antichrist? Shouldn't they be defending traditional Christian ethics? Shouldn't they defend Christianity's transformation of Eros? Shouldn't they discourage the will to power? Shouldn't they discourage the peasants from "dancing in the streets with satyr-like gyrations"?
Then comes the second attack from Nietzsche. Not only has he pervaded Christianity and shown that it is our true nature to be defunct, baseless creatures, but he has also declared, "God is dead, and we have killed him." He laughs at the believers. He openly tells us that the preachers and theologians are men who are trying to deny humans their true potential. And people have heard his cry. They have taken up the banner and chant in the streets that their is no God. They ask themselves, as Zarthustra questioned after speaking to the old prophet, "Can it truly be that this man has not heard the news that God is dead?" They preach against the Christians as a blight on humanity, much the way that Nietzsche has.
So there we have it. Those who proclaim themselves to be the Christians Nietzsche so violently hates are secretly his disciples. Those who proclaim his very words have still stuck to Christian ethics. The true disciple of Christ is becoming rarer and rarer, while the disciples of Nietzsche are ever amassing. So, despite the radical theological ideas of Bultmann, Reimarus, Aquinas, Zwingli, Schleiermacher, and von Balthasar, Nietzsche is the one to whom we should turn to discover the source of the modern world-view of theology and ethics.