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.
Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label love. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
To die from a broken heart.
"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."
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."
Labels:
Athanasius,
Barth,
love,
outreach,
Victor Hugo,
von Balthasar
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
On being jaded
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.
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.
Labels:
Alexa,
death,
disillusionment,
love,
restitution,
Social Justice,
war
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
A product of our times?
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.
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.
Labels:
Athanasius,
Buddhism,
Hinduism,
Islam,
Judaism,
love,
Socrates,
St Francis of Assisi
Monday, June 22, 2009
Ex iusticia
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.
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.
Labels:
Apocalypse,
evil,
injustice,
justice,
love,
Nietzsche,
philanthropy,
slavery
Monday, June 1, 2009
Souls intertwined
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.
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.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Our True Calling as Christians
I feel somewhat inclined to write about the Abortion issue and President Obama's visit to Notre Dame. However, because the issue has been so played out over the last few weeks, I do not feel the need.
Rather, I would like to discuss something that I think we often overlook as Christians. The word Christian is used so much to describe people and things. We can live a Christian way of life, visit a Christian bookstore or talk to Christians. We have Christian music, Christian movies, even Christian video games.
None of these things are truly Christian. None of them truly incapsulate the message of Christ. There's been so much debate about Eucharist, Grace, Tradition, Scripture and a plethora of other theological topics over the centuries that we have forgotten what Christ was really all about.
It doesn't matter where we stand on the abortion issue, or where we pledge our allegiances. It doesn't matter if we favor one politician over another. What it comes down to at the end of the day is how we demonstrate Christ-like love.
Christ told us simply that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second is to love our neighbors (Matthew 22:38-40). "Upon these hang all the law and the prophets."
In the end we aren't judged by our faith, or who we protested or supported. It doesn't matter if we raised millions of dollars for a worthy cause. What does matter is that we love with a Christ-like love.
Even St Paul, in a letter to the Corinthians tells them that the greatest virtues to have are faith, hope and love, but love is the greatest of all of these (1 Corinth. 13:13). Love is greater than faith. This is said by the man who told us that we are only saved through our faith (Galatians 3:14).
So let us not call any cause "Christian" that is not centered fully on love. Let us not call ourselves Christian if we hold hatred in our hearts. Let us not call any lifestyle Christian that hates any people for any reason.
Rather, let us call those Christian who stand up for the oppressed. Let us call those Christian whose intentions and means are filled with love and not anger. Let us revere those as Christians who suffer gracefully the hatred and anger of an unjust world.
Soren Kierkegaard said that there was nothing of worldly value in being a Christian. There is no worldly success in the work of a Christian, nor is there any praise to be gained by his contemporaries. The Christian loves. That is all the Christian does.
Rather, I would like to discuss something that I think we often overlook as Christians. The word Christian is used so much to describe people and things. We can live a Christian way of life, visit a Christian bookstore or talk to Christians. We have Christian music, Christian movies, even Christian video games.
None of these things are truly Christian. None of them truly incapsulate the message of Christ. There's been so much debate about Eucharist, Grace, Tradition, Scripture and a plethora of other theological topics over the centuries that we have forgotten what Christ was really all about.
It doesn't matter where we stand on the abortion issue, or where we pledge our allegiances. It doesn't matter if we favor one politician over another. What it comes down to at the end of the day is how we demonstrate Christ-like love.
Christ told us simply that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second is to love our neighbors (Matthew 22:38-40). "Upon these hang all the law and the prophets."
In the end we aren't judged by our faith, or who we protested or supported. It doesn't matter if we raised millions of dollars for a worthy cause. What does matter is that we love with a Christ-like love.
Even St Paul, in a letter to the Corinthians tells them that the greatest virtues to have are faith, hope and love, but love is the greatest of all of these (1 Corinth. 13:13). Love is greater than faith. This is said by the man who told us that we are only saved through our faith (Galatians 3:14).
So let us not call any cause "Christian" that is not centered fully on love. Let us not call ourselves Christian if we hold hatred in our hearts. Let us not call any lifestyle Christian that hates any people for any reason.
Rather, let us call those Christian who stand up for the oppressed. Let us call those Christian whose intentions and means are filled with love and not anger. Let us revere those as Christians who suffer gracefully the hatred and anger of an unjust world.
Soren Kierkegaard said that there was nothing of worldly value in being a Christian. There is no worldly success in the work of a Christian, nor is there any praise to be gained by his contemporaries. The Christian loves. That is all the Christian does.
Labels:
Christianity,
Jesus,
Kierkegaard,
love,
St Paul
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Odium et Caritas
It seems to me that when the Beatles sang "All you need is love," and Jackie DeShannon sang "What the world needs now is love" they were correct. How much hate is there in the world? How much fighting and bickering?
Recently, I've attracted more attention than I should because of my baptism and a letter to school newspaper about why we should invite Obama to the campus. The responses I've received have been diverse. Some people have praised what I've said. Others have condemned it. Others yet, have taken what I've said and contorted my words to make me say things that I have never said.
There are two interactions I have had with people that have had strong impacts on me personally. The first was an interaction on the Indy Star blog with a man who goes by the moniker "Roymondo." He exhibited a lot of anger and hostility to my conversion to Catholicism. Every chance he got, he tried to enlighten the world with what he thought to be the true reason why I converted. I was personally offended, but mostly I felt sad for him not being able to understand that I would truly convert out of a genuine movement of mysoul.
The second was with a friend of mine whom I shall call Steve for the sake of this post. He personally contacted me after reading my Observer post. He didn't respond with a whitty letter to the editor explaining why I loved abortion and hated God or anything of that nature. Rather, he advised me on staying true to the tenets of Catholicism and exercising obedience to the council of the bishops. After each message to me, he concluded with "With love" or "In the love of Christ." He never condemned me nor did he tell me that I was completely wrong. But he did warn me and tried to guide me.
The example of Steve is an example to me of truly Christ-like love. Roymondo's example is the opposite. There tends to be a fine line between Christ-like admonition and self-righteous condemnation. Sometimes the difference is obvious to those outside, though. Nobody on the Notre Dame campus views the actions of Randall Terry and the Center for BioEthics to be in Christ-like love. But to think that there are no people protesting Obama's invitation here who have no love in their intention is not only false, but an affront to those who respectfully and graciously demonstrate their feelings.
The real question we must ask is this: How do we show our distaste for something without exuding a condemnatory attitude? How can we respectfully display our disagreement? How do we know which battles are worth fighting?
I would suggest that Christ's counsel here is very applicable "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." (Matthew 5:25)
Recently, I've attracted more attention than I should because of my baptism and a letter to school newspaper about why we should invite Obama to the campus. The responses I've received have been diverse. Some people have praised what I've said. Others have condemned it. Others yet, have taken what I've said and contorted my words to make me say things that I have never said.
There are two interactions I have had with people that have had strong impacts on me personally. The first was an interaction on the Indy Star blog with a man who goes by the moniker "Roymondo." He exhibited a lot of anger and hostility to my conversion to Catholicism. Every chance he got, he tried to enlighten the world with what he thought to be the true reason why I converted. I was personally offended, but mostly I felt sad for him not being able to understand that I would truly convert out of a genuine movement of mysoul.
The second was with a friend of mine whom I shall call Steve for the sake of this post. He personally contacted me after reading my Observer post. He didn't respond with a whitty letter to the editor explaining why I loved abortion and hated God or anything of that nature. Rather, he advised me on staying true to the tenets of Catholicism and exercising obedience to the council of the bishops. After each message to me, he concluded with "With love" or "In the love of Christ." He never condemned me nor did he tell me that I was completely wrong. But he did warn me and tried to guide me.
The example of Steve is an example to me of truly Christ-like love. Roymondo's example is the opposite. There tends to be a fine line between Christ-like admonition and self-righteous condemnation. Sometimes the difference is obvious to those outside, though. Nobody on the Notre Dame campus views the actions of Randall Terry and the Center for BioEthics to be in Christ-like love. But to think that there are no people protesting Obama's invitation here who have no love in their intention is not only false, but an affront to those who respectfully and graciously demonstrate their feelings.
The real question we must ask is this: How do we show our distaste for something without exuding a condemnatory attitude? How can we respectfully display our disagreement? How do we know which battles are worth fighting?
I would suggest that Christ's counsel here is very applicable "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison." (Matthew 5:25)
Labels:
Christianity,
hate,
love,
Randall Terry
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Quid gaudium est
Today I had an interesting epiphony. While at Mass I noticed a young man, a little older than I am, a senior here. In his arms was, as far as I could tell, his infant child. I don't know this young man personally, but I do have friends that know him and his girlfriend.
For the brief moment I saw him, a lot of thought came into my mind. How difficult of a journey has it been for him? How did his girlfriend react when she found out she was pregnant? What bumps did they encounter on the road to where they were? Did the thought of abortion cross their mind? Was it a difficult decision?
And as all these questions emerged, I had a realization: This is what love is. And this is what life is all about. I wondered if what people were really looking for in this world of misery and pain was simply love. What makes a couple with nothing going for them get married? What makes a young man decide to enter the seminary and become a priest?
I think that all humans really want is love. Love of God, love of a spouse, of a significant other. Love is what causes a basketball star to move to a different team for his child's well-being? What makes an adult take in an aging parent to her home? Love is what really drives us, what really makes us happy. This is why so many people who have nothing material going for them can be so happy. And this is also why people who have so much materially can be so miserable. The cliche, "All you need is love" maybe is true. Maybe if we stopped focusing on trying to get ahead in life and shifted our attention to how to love, we would be much more blessed people.
For the brief moment I saw him, a lot of thought came into my mind. How difficult of a journey has it been for him? How did his girlfriend react when she found out she was pregnant? What bumps did they encounter on the road to where they were? Did the thought of abortion cross their mind? Was it a difficult decision?
And as all these questions emerged, I had a realization: This is what love is. And this is what life is all about. I wondered if what people were really looking for in this world of misery and pain was simply love. What makes a couple with nothing going for them get married? What makes a young man decide to enter the seminary and become a priest?
I think that all humans really want is love. Love of God, love of a spouse, of a significant other. Love is what causes a basketball star to move to a different team for his child's well-being? What makes an adult take in an aging parent to her home? Love is what really drives us, what really makes us happy. This is why so many people who have nothing material going for them can be so happy. And this is also why people who have so much materially can be so miserable. The cliche, "All you need is love" maybe is true. Maybe if we stopped focusing on trying to get ahead in life and shifted our attention to how to love, we would be much more blessed people.
Quid caritas est?
"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your might, with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. The second is like unto it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Upon these hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)
I find it perplexing how often this one small passage is ignored (by the way, St. Luke includes a similar passage whereby we get the parable of the "Good Samaritan") by those who would claim to be Christians. Jesus himself states "Upon these hang ALL the law and the prophets." There is nothing more important than these two commandments.
But what kind of a name has Christianity earned for itself within the last few years. Better yet, what of the last few decades? Last few centuries? Last thousand years? It is true that Christianity has a lot of atoning to do for the acts committed in the name of the Prince of Peace.
However, there is no way to change the past. The most we Christians can do is apologize for our past mistakes (viz Vatican II, In Eo Tempore) and pray that we make no more such egregious decisions. We must start now. The true Christians of today must work hard to shine brighter than the darkness brought upon us by such groups as the Westborrough Baptists and Randall Terry and his squad of fetus crusaders.
I use the term we, but I by no means wish to exclude any non-Christians from reading this. As a theist, and one who has had a very real struggle in finding my faith, I adhere to the Muslim notion of "لا اكراه في الدين" meaning "there is no compulsion in religion." Jesus commanded us to be lights on the hillside, not torches in people's faces.
I find it perplexing how often this one small passage is ignored (by the way, St. Luke includes a similar passage whereby we get the parable of the "Good Samaritan") by those who would claim to be Christians. Jesus himself states "Upon these hang ALL the law and the prophets." There is nothing more important than these two commandments.
But what kind of a name has Christianity earned for itself within the last few years. Better yet, what of the last few decades? Last few centuries? Last thousand years? It is true that Christianity has a lot of atoning to do for the acts committed in the name of the Prince of Peace.
However, there is no way to change the past. The most we Christians can do is apologize for our past mistakes (viz Vatican II, In Eo Tempore) and pray that we make no more such egregious decisions. We must start now. The true Christians of today must work hard to shine brighter than the darkness brought upon us by such groups as the Westborrough Baptists and Randall Terry and his squad of fetus crusaders.
I use the term we, but I by no means wish to exclude any non-Christians from reading this. As a theist, and one who has had a very real struggle in finding my faith, I adhere to the Muslim notion of "لا اكراه في الدين" meaning "there is no compulsion in religion." Jesus commanded us to be lights on the hillside, not torches in people's faces.
Labels:
caritas,
charity,
love,
neighbor,
Randall Terry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)