How Will We Respond?

Even I, being in the middle of unpacking, getting new car registrations, driver’s licenses, etc., have not been able to escape the human drama unfolding in the South East of the U.S. in the aftermath of Katrina. While it is a fool’s game to try to assess the meaning of such an event or predict the outcome while still so close, there are some important questions that still can be asked. One important question I have heard is what will this event do to us as a nation? Will it make us more selfless and more community oriented as was seen in the Great Depression or will it tear us apart and drive us into an economic meltdown because people refuse to live more moderately with the greatly reduced availability of resources which many economists are now predicting (due especially to the impending shortage of petroleum- this was in fact one economic doomsday scenario analyzed recently). These tragedies bring out the best and worst in us. Many tend to respond in accord with the way God created us—that is by giving to others in need without any concern for themselves. Because we are fallen, others who have nurtured a radical disordered selfishness in their lives take advantage of people while they are down and look only after their own needs and desires. There is no way of knowing how the preponderance of people will respond; however, the initial indications are very hopeful. The proof of the pudding will be when the need for sacrifices to our standard of living arrive, if it does. We have become a society with little patience. I remember talking to my father-in-law about the differences between his generation and mine. He served in the Pacific in WWII and was on the ground in Nagasaki a couple of weeks after “the bomb.” We both agreed that we did not think that society today had the discipline or the patience to deal with the long term sacrifices required of that greatest generation. I hope that we were both wrong. Now, all those who can respond with action and/or donations I hope will. For those who cannot, prayer is as much a needed commodity as material action. Pray for the souls of those lost. Pray for the protection and relief of those directly affected. Pray for the safety of those responding and the wisdom of those directing the response. But also, pray for us as a nation; that we have the selflessness, patience, and fortitude necessary to respond to this cataclysm in accord with the manner that God has created us.

Without God, Man Becomes Unintelligible . . .

These are key words for the two personalist theologian-popes we have been blessed with (of course, JP the Great and B16 are those of whom I speak); taken as they are from Gaudium et spes (the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World from the Second Vatican Council). As if to exemplify the truth of this statement, the AP ran an article yesterday (published here in the NY Times) about the London Zoo’s new exhibit which is a group of eight homo sapiens on display. The zoo spokesperson, Polly Wills says of the purpose of the display:

“Seeing people in a different environment, among other animals . . . teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate.”

One of the homo sapiens on display is a chemist, Tom Mahoney. His reason for participating is that:

“A lot of people think humans are above other animals . . . When they see humans as animals, here, it kind of reminds us that we're not that special.”

It is interesting that such an eminent zoo thinks it has the responsibility to teach the public that the human person is no more special than any other primate, or perhaps any other animal I suppose. Like many in science, they do not recognize when they have gone well beyond their competence. Those who do generally presuppose a materialistic notion of the cosmos and then interpret it based upon that presupposition. However, there is no scientific justification for the materialist presupposition. One wonders what agenda drives these folks . . .

Yesterday's Zenit interview of Auxiliary Bishop Raúl Berzosa of Oviedo on his book "A Believer's Reading of Atapuerca: Christian Faith Vis-à-vis Theories of Evolution" (Desclée de Brouwer) provides a relevant response to this type of thinking.

Karol Wojtyła on the Sexual Experience

John’s post last Thursday about the local DJ’s call-in topic got me ta think’n (this is me trying not to lapse into intellectualism) about other differences between men and women which go to the core of who we are as masculine and feminine persons. John rightly points out that the entire structure of men and women (physiology, psychology, emotions, hormones, etc.) are oriented for the way in which God intends them to give and receive love, primarily. However, this structure affects every part of us. Karol Wojtyła (before he was John Paul II) wrote a very insightful (and provocative for the time) book which was published in 1960 and eventually translated into English as Love and Responsibility, which provides an important manifestation of this difference. He writes:

The very structure of the male psyche and personality is such that it is more readily “compelled” to disclose and objectivize the hidden significance of love for a person of the other sex. This goes with the relatively more active role of the male in such love, and also imposes a responsibility on him. Whereas in the woman sensuality is as it were covert, and concealed by sentimentality. For this reason she is “by nature” more inclined to go on seeing as a manifestation of affection what a man already clearly realizes to be the effect of sensuality and the desire for enjoyment. There exists then, as we see, a certain psychological divergence between man and woman in the manner of their participation in love. The woman appears more passive, although in a different way she is more active. In any case, her role and her responsibility will be different from the role and responsibility of the male (Karol Wojtyła, Love and Responsibility, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993] 111-12).

The context of this statement is sexual intercourse. It is so very important, especially for teenage girls, to understand the differences between the meaning which men and women generally attach to the sexual experience. Because of their masculine structure which is less integrated than women, men generally experience it more in terms of sensuality and enjoyment. Women, on the other hand, because they are more interior and integrated will see and experience it more in the way of affection and attachment. While tragically, the culture is moving young girls toward talking and thinking about sex in a manner more in keeping with fallen masculine habits, they still will experience it as a feminine person. Due to their feminine structure, they generally should be more reticent to engage in sex outside of wedlock but now they are being confused by the culture. They do not experience pre-marital sex in the same way they are told about it and talk about it. I suspect the epidemic of cutting, bulimia, and other psychological ailments that all too many young girls are experiencing is due in large part to this confusion. Chastity is the necessary first step in the solution to this and a host of other societal ills our culture now faces. I mentioned Saint Maria Goretti and Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassatti in an earlier post. I will say it again. They should be every parent’s patron saints. While our culture may find teens' and young adults' experimentation with sex outside of marriage natural and healthy, it is neither. While we share sexual copulation as a reproductive function with the animals, human persons alone are made in the image of God. If we cast aside our intellect and choose to freely behave like animals, we do so at our own peril. Since we are not islands, this peril extends to society as well. Sexual intercourse can be cheapened by reducing it to a simple animal activity, by reducing it to a act solely for pleasure, or by using profane euphemisms in discussing it (e.g. getting laid) but these do not change the reality. It is nothing less than the way we participate with God in creation and the way we totally give ourselves, irrevocably, to one other human being in the most intimate of ways this side of heaven. When we behave in any other way, we are ensuring ourselves a whole heap a’ trouble.

The Unpaid Bills of the Church

This phrase is often used to refer to areas in which Church teaching has been relatively little emphasized and so erroneous thought has abounded. One area seems to be Christian responsibilities associated with the environment.

Zenit ran an article on Thursday summarizing comments by Bishop Giampaolo Crepaldi, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, at the Meeting for Friendship Among Peoples, organized by the ecclesial movement Communion and Liberation. Bishop Crepaldi made some very timely comments which correctly places the context of the “environmental problem” in the realm of anthropology. He emphasized that our responsibilities for our relationship with nature must not either absolutize it nor reduce it to a mere instrument. He said of the correct Christian approach to environmental responsibility: "'It makes of nature the cultural and moral setting in which man carries out his own responsibility vis-à-vis the rest of men, including future generations, and before God,' for his own growth and in view of the universal destiny of goods."

The idolization of nature is a real problem in many radical ecological movements but this is a response to a perceived abuse of the environment. There is a solution to this problem which is a proper concern for nature based upon a proper view of man. Drawing on John Paul the Great, Bishop Crepaldi indicated that "The anthropological error is, in turn, a theological error," he said. "When man wants to put himself in God's place, he also loses sight of himself and of his responsibility of the governance of nature." When we forget God, we forget who we are and what we are in the context of God’s plan of creation. Often times the reaction for many of us is to dismiss the concerns of radical ecologists, especially when they are violent. However, at the core of most errors is an incorrect reaction to a real problem. I have come to learn that the best approach to addressing errors is to try to find the authentic concern which needs to be addressed.

You Drink the Wine, You Pay the Fine

Well, we made it to Champaign in one piece. So far the only casualty in the move was a large crock so we are pretty fortunate. We are also very thankful for all the friends in MD who took time out to come help us load up the truck. They helped make a very daunting task seem to go like clock work. We are also very thankful to Tricia’s family who came from Dayton to help us unload the truck and set up furniture and to my brother and his wife who came down from Chicago to help us set up shelving and unpack. As you can tell, we are making good progress unpacking since the wife let me set up the computer and take some time out to blog. Speaking of which . . . Zenit published an article today on a recent report out of the National Marriage Project, based out of Rutgers University, which is of direct relevance to the discussions we have been having here. In the report Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe compare marriage in Sweden and the United States. Surprisingly, although Sweden is generally worse off than the U.S. they do have some positive, profamily policies—which may be out of the reach of the U.S. because of the differences in socio-economic structures each culture is willing to live with. Nevertheless, the general trends of both countries are in a negative direction with regard to stable family life which has negative consequences for the children. These consequences are manifested in the numbers of “serious problems in life” which the children of today’s “changing family structures” experience. While I certainly do not agree with all of that which the National Marriage Project does, they do provide some very important data which generally supports the Catholic teaching on the importance of the family for child rearing and societal health.

Once again, the data indicates that we cannot go on acting as we wish, with impunity. Our actions and choices have ramifications. When we reject the way we are made the result is pain and suffering. I had a math teacher long ago who was fond of putting this idea in a not so pithy rhyme; he said: “you drink the wine, you pay the fine.” Unfortunately, it is our children who are paying it.

Reply to Comments

I just wanted to post a quick note to thank everyone for taking the time to reply to my posts with comments. Uplifting comments are incredibly encouraging to me. It reminds me how important it is to encourage others, whether friends or strangers, on a daily basis. Your comments are a reminder what a big effect a little thing can have. Also, I appreciate others sharing insights and experiences. That is very helpful to me in growing in my understanding. A question was asked from someone on my last post, that I will respond to, but I haven't had enough time to give an adequate response. I want to do justice to the question. Please be patient as I gather my thoughts and find the time to write them out. Thanks for the question. Hopefully, David will be back on line early next week! God Bless.

Why does he do that?

I was listening to a local radio station today. The DJ profiled a woman whose boyfriend wanted to spend occasional "guy time" away from her. He told her he needed this time to be alone or to hang out with the guys. He said this had nothing to do with him not loving her. He just needed the alone time. She said that she couldn't understand this, because she didn't feel she needed time away from him. The point of the show was that the DJ was soliciting opinions from the listening audience on behalf of the woman. So, what would you say? In the past, I would have had to think about it for a while, and I still doubt if I would have had a clear answer that seemd to be right. After my class at the John Paul II Institute titled "Neurological and Psychological Dimensions of Gender", the answer is obvious to me. The problem is that we often buy into the unisex message of our culture, which says that other than the obvious biological differences, men and women are the same. Not so! This is not true from a theological or scientific perspective. Theologically, using John Paul II's theological anthropology (i.e. theology of the body), men and women are complementary. This does not mean that each have qualities that the other lacks--i.e. they are each "a half a person"--and they come together to make a whole person. Rather, each is a fully human person (i.e. embodying the fullness of humanity). Each is what the other is, but differently. Men primarily give in a receiving kind of way, and women primarily receive in a giving kind of way. Think about it. JP II says that "the body revelas man". Look at the sex organs of each, and they highlight the man's giving and the woman's receiving. But it's not like men only give and women only receive. They both do both, but differently. Men and women are 2 different incarnations of what it means to be human. Now what does science tell us? Brain studies show that the brains of women and men are radically different. Most women function primarily from the left side of the brain. With men, it is the right side. The left side controls language, feeling, intuition, and concrete details. The right side controls abstract ideas, principles, objectives, geography and map reading, and is oriented toward a wholistic vision (i.e. setting goals). Keep in mind that these are generalizations, and men and women vary as to how much these 2 sides are integrated. Some men may be more like women and vice-versa. The point is that we think differently. So why can't the woman from the radio show understand the need of her boyfriend? Because she's not a man! Her conclusion that "she doesn't need alone time means that he doesn't", assumes men and women are basically the same. Men often like to be alone because this is how they de-stress. Women tend to de-stress by talking, because it releases a brain chemical called oxytosin that gives them a good feeling and allows them to bond better with others. For men, talking will often increase stress. This "not talking" or being alone is often interpreted by the woman as a sign of rejection, yet that is not necessarily the case. Men also de-stress by doing physical things, like playing sports rather than by talking about problems and feelings. The bottom line, is that in the case of the woman on the radio, both her and her boyfriend need to understand gender differences and appreciate these differences as a gift. As Cardinal Ratzinger says, they are an invitation for men and women to collaborate. These differences are meant to unite, not divide. The problem is selfishness. Again, this goes back to being a gift for the other. You enter marriage in order to give, not primarily in order to get. It's in the giving that we receive. As Vatican II says, and JP II often repeated, "man can only find himself in a sincere gift of self" (Gaudium et Spes, Vat II docs). It's interesting to note that in the Old Testament, the men of Israel would go off in a group (just the men) at various times. Men need to do things with just men, i.e. bond with other men. Ideally, this should serve to strengthen them in their manhood and their role as a father and husband if they are married. Lastly, in general, men's biggest fear is enmeshment, i.e. losing themselves in the personality of the woman. Women's biggest fear is abandonment. For men, this issue stems from issues in separating from their mother and being properly initiated into manhood by a trusted male mentor. For women, this stems from lack of closeness to their father. Another reason a man may need alone time is that he feels he's becoming enmeshed. This is an issue related to lack of healthy development that can be treated, but it is another issue that needs to be addressed in light of the woman caller's dilemma. I would like to say much more about this topic, but I don't have the time. I have only scratched the surface. The bottom line in all these cultural questions is that we need to always seek answers in terms of "what does it mean to be a person"? What is does it mean to be a male person and a female person? What is the purpose of relationships, dating, and marriage? Our culture seeks answers to these questions in terms of "ME", and what can I get? Rather than in what can I give? It seeks answers according to a false vision of the human person; so it's solutions are bound to fail. We all have a vocation to love that can only be fulfilled in a sincere gift of ourselves. Yes, this entails suffering because suffering is the form that love takes in a fallen world. If you want to know how to treat your spouse (especially us men), no words are needed: just look at a crucifix. Jesus Christ is THE MAN. God Bless.

Filling in for David

I am "filling in" for David, as he is in the process of moving this week. It's hard to write as clearly and concisely as he does, but I will try to just lay out some initial thoughts. I recently graduated from the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Washington, DC. The curriculum covered at the Institute is right in line with the message that David is promoting. I encourage everyone to read John Paul II's encyclicals from the theological perspective of who man is as laid out in the "Theology of the Body". Without this perspective of the person as a "being-gift", it is not possible to get a full understanding of what John Paul is teaching. For instance, his teachings on social ethics are based on his anthropology, i.e on who man is. It is my experience that people easily miss the depth of his teachings due to not having a grounding in his anthropology. It seems to me that John Paul's Theology of the Body is the key for approaching all of reality--whether it's marriage, family, politics, work, school, play, whatever-- and I think David has been making that point. Why are we here? Where are we from? Where are we going? What is the purpose of getting up every day and doing what we do? We exist to image God as a "being-gift" in all that we do. That's why we teach children to say "thank you". It ingrains in them the reality that everything is a gift from God--especially themselves and their bodies. The human being, as the pinnacle of creation, carries within himself the dimension of the gift, and is therefore called to freely choose to be a gift for God and others. In other words, we are "from and for" : from God and for others. Only when we are "for others" do we fulfill our mission and destiny and truly become ourselves. This is what David has been saying, and I just want to stress how critical this understanding is in order to "be all you can be". With this view, it is possible to see sexual "do's and don'ts" as something different than arbitrary rules imposed on us from a God who wants to limit our fun. God desires nothing for us that is contrary to our good and our happiness. But this mission from God to realize our full potential as "being-gift" is also a task and a requirement. It takes hard work and the development of virtue through the gift of the Holy Spirit--and this gift of the Holy Spirit only comes through the Church and the sacraments. That's all for now. I will try to post again later this week in David's absence. God Bless.

Your King is Coming to You, Humble . . .

Well I suppose it is time to pack up the computer for the trip west on Tuesday. Tomorrow morning we will pick up the 26 foot truck, find a place to put it here and load it up for the drive to Dayton on Tuesday, and then on the Champaign on Wednesday. There is supposed to be a break in the heat and humidity for a few days, just in time for the move. Thank you Jesus! This is especially welcome since our car’s air conditioner decided to die yesterday. Ah well, it still runs. We met Ken for Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. Fr. Andrew Fisher celebrated Mass. His is a very young, very solid priest. If you watch Masses from the Shrine on EWTN, he is usually the master of ceremonies who is running around directing everything in a cassock and surplice. Any way, he was instrumental in the conversion/reversion of some good friends of ours whom we were stationed with at Yokota Air Base outside of Tokyo, Japan in the mid 80s. I will miss the Shrine. Any way, back to Ken. As usual, when we get together we discuss just about every topic under the sun with respect to theology and the interior life. Today we discussed his former denomination, the Society of the Good Shepherd which eventually became the Charismatic Episcopal Church, the rise and fall of the Christian Reconstruction movement (the Tylerites), and the need for more than just an intellectual appropriation of the faith for a healthy faith. One topic which is always close to my heart when discussing spiritual maturity is Cardinal Raphael Merry del Val’s Litany of Humility. I keep a copy of it near my computer. I suspect that most, if not all of us, are afflicted with some form of pride: egoism, prideful shyness, false humility, etc. The Litany prays for it all. Humility is not self-loathing, being a door mat, and it is especially not denying the natural gifts which God has given us. Rather, it seems to me that authentic humility is simply another aspect of the law of the gift. It is nothing other than recognizing that we truly fulfill ourselves by choosing to live out a Trinitarian/Christ-like love. Humility realizes that we are not truly fulfilled by self-accomplishments, by the praise of others, or by the acceptance of others. We are truly fulfilled only when we live for God and totally give ourselves to Him and to others for love of Him. Jesus was the greatest example of true humility. He recognized His kingship as one of service rather than power . . . “Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass” (Matt 21:5). This Kingship was won with His total gift of Himself on the Cross in service to man. For those not familiar with the Litany, I am providing the text below because it is not only a great prayer to pray, it is also very instructive and insightful.

Litany of Humility Cardinal Raphael Merry del Val (1865-1930) O Jesus, meek and humble of heart, hear me. From the desire of being extolled, deliver me, Lord Jesus. From the desire of being honored, From the desire of being praised, From the desire of being preferred before others, From the desire of being consulted, From the desire of being approved, From the desire of being highly regarded, From the fear of being humiliated, From the fear of being rebuked, From the fear of being forgotten, From the fear of being wronged, From the fear of being suspected, That others may be loved more than I, Jesus grant me the grace to desire it. That in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I decrease, That others may be chosen and I passed over, That others may be praised and I go unnoticed, That others should be preferred before me in everything, That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should.

I will be posting again soon. In the meantime, keep checking back to see what Chris, John and maybe even Hiérothée have to say.

WYD and the Dark Night

Well I thought we were done packing except that with the nervous energy about the house, I was instructed that we could pack some of the boxes a bit better using the skills we picked up along the way. There were also a hundred other little things that could be done. In any case, except for the computer, NOW I believe that we are ready to go and I must say in a much more prepared way than we would have been if I had not subjected myself to my wife’s primacy in the order of love. I admit to not being much of a blogger but from what I do have time for I have seen a lot of reporting, much of it on site, from WYD. Perhaps it is due to my acquaintance with them but I find Tim Drake’s and Jamie Blosser’s posts the most interesting. However, Amy Welborn has done a great service by linking to many of these on-site blogs on her megablog so it is still not too late to get on the ground feedback from many different perspectives. I was reading Jamie’s WYD post for today over at Ad limina and saw that he noted B16’s public persona is much less animated that our beloved JP the Great. Tim mentioned that the popular refrain he has heard is that many just say they loved JP the Great but just do not know B16 very well yet. This brought me to thinking about a possible analogy here to the interior life. I am thinking in particular about St. John of the Cross’s Dark night of the senses and Dark Night of the Soul. To keep from running down rabbit trails myself and also from getting any stalwarts lost who are still reading this blog, let me layout where I am going. I first will briefly describe the salient aspects of the Dark night and relate them to JP the Great’s anthropology. Then I will get to the main point, that is showing how it appears to me that one can find an analogy between an aspect of the WYD experience (and all of our experiences of this new Holy Father for that matter) and this Dark Night. It appears to me that the interior life as the Carmelite mystics describe it (again using St. John’s terms) can be understood in terms of John Paul the Great’s (recall he was a great practitioner of Carmelite spirituality) “law of the Gift.” This is what I mean. The Dark Night is essentially (o.k. Carmelites, let me have it if my efforts at being concise leave the description too much in the “wanting” category) a stage that is passed through as one comes closer and closer to complete union with God. The Dark Night of the senses refers to the fact that the senses begin to provide less and less pleasurable responses. For the dark night of the soul, one finally is deprived of all of the spiritual joy and positive “feedback” which one has normally received as they have matured in their spiritual journey. Now why would God put each soul through this Dark Night as they approach Him more and more closely? It certainly has to do with their spiritual maturity. I suspect that only those who are ready to handle this are subjected to it. Part of it I believe is associated with God’s gift to us which is to allow us to participate with Christ in carrying His Cross in order to make reparations for our sins and those of others. But it seems to me that it also has to do with the fundamental meaning of the human person. John Paul’s law of the gift essentially means that we can only fulfill ourselves when we give ourselves away. In other words, we become holy only by ultimately loving God for His sake and so also loving others for their own sake. When we receive positive sensual and spiritual feedback, which we do when we behave in a way for which we were created, then there is a split reason for our actions. Intellectually we are motivated by a sincere desire to give ourselves to God but affectively (our appetites and emotions) we are motivated by the positive feelings we receive. When this positive affectivity is removed and even replaced with negative affects (especially read St. Thérèse’s Story of a Soul) then we learn that we can and must continue to give ourselves to God in a disinterested (not uninterested, but meaning that we do not give ourselves for reason of receiving anything back) manner. We love God and totally give ourselves to Him because He Is (Ex 3:14) and we “are” (i.e. we exist) because of it. This is Trinitarian love, a total gift of self. It is Christ’s love, a love all the way to death on a Cross for us while we were yet sinners (Rom 5:8), for His love of the Father. So what does this have to do with WYD and B16? Well perhaps part of the reason for God’s choice of B16—a holy, wise and loving soul but one who does not have the charisma of JP the Great—because it is time for us to mature. We need to learn to love the Holy Father because he is Christ on earth for us. JP the Great was easy to love because he made us feel so good. He could exude the love he had for his flock, to millions at once. B16 does not have these same gifts. We do not receive the same affects from him (in general anyway—some I am sure do). We are perhaps being called to maturity. If the youth continue to flock to the Holy Father, who loves them every bit as much as JP the Great did, without the affective reinforcement then what JP the Great started I believe will bear much fruit. If most of the youths’ response to the Church and Her leader was a shallow, personality based response then we will see WYD (as many of the disaffected critics claim) fall off. I put my money on the former. Only time will tell.

The Spirit of Dissent

A couple of things: I was talking to a friend of mine today, a former Protestant minister, about Brother Roger’s death and also what he termed “a spirit of Protestantism in the Catholic Church” which greatly distresses him. Ken was a Pentecostal, eventually becoming a Charismatic Episcopal before coming home in 2001. After his profession of faith he had to join the Army to feed his family . . . and then 9-11 happened. He ended up serving a year in Iraq before returning to the States and separating from the Army. In any case, his spiritual journey is a fascinating, and very inspiring one to listen to and so I do every chance I get. First, about Brother Roger’s death. Ken visited the Taizé community and has been interested in it since beginning his journey to the Church. He found it an inspiration that so many Protestant ministers who joined the community ended up, sooner or later, in full communion with Rome. That, by the way, is what he believes that Brother Roger did as well. Ken is confident that Brother Roger was Catholic when he visited him in 2003. In any case, based upon his interest in Taizé he caught something that I had missed in reading the Zenit article discussing Brother Roger’s letter to the Pope. In the letter, Zenit reports that Brother Roger wrote of his desire “to come as soon as possible to Rome to meet with me [B16] and to tell me that ‘our Community of Taizé wants to go forward in communion with the Holy Father . . . ’” Ken sees in this the logical fulfillment of Taizé’s mission, in other words, the community’s full communion with the Catholic Church. He wondered if Brother Roger’s impending trip and the community’s trajectory to communion with Rome might have been the catalyst for his murder. Hmmm . . . I wonder . . . The second item is the spirit of Protestantism in the Catholic Church. There was in fact a book by the title “Spirit of Protestantism” by a Presbyterian, Robert McAfee Brown. He published it in 1961 as an attempted counter part to Karl Adam's “The Spirit of Catholicism.” He was not quite successful in his ability to codify the “spirit” in his book, by his own admission; however, there have been other attempts. A Methodist, Dr. Albert C. Knudson, in a 1944 book entitled simply “Protestantism,” insisted that “the cardinal principle of Protestantism is "the inspiration of the individual and the consequent right of private judgment," as opposed to Rome's claim to be the authoritative interpreter in religious matters” (the link provides a great summary of this topic). It seems to me that Ken has hit the nail on the head. Total self-reliance in all spiritual matters seems to be the same spirit that many dissenting Catholics adopt. This realization of course is nothing new but it does provide another perspective to consider. The difference between Protestants and dissenting Catholics is that the Reformers left the Church and current Protestants do not join Her. However, for some reason dissenting Catholics do not leave to find a tradition more in keeping with what they wish to hold. Why? There are manifold reasons, perhaps as many different reasons as there are individual dissenters. However, it seems to me that the reasons many do not leave is that the current culture better allows the dissenter to live peaceably within this discord than it did in the past. Here are some ways in which I think it does: - The relativism of our culture and its distorted sense of tolerance conspire to make any claim of absolute truth untenable to modern ears. - The radical individualism which the culture fosters (with its seeds at least partly from the Reformation) and the virtue assigned to those who seem to be in control of their destinies, together with our ingrained suspicion of authority make it quite difficult to trust anyone other than ourselves (at least in some matters since we cannot live with this suspicious attitude in our daily lives and still survive in a society). - Our fallen state and our hedonistic culture condition us with a bias against any admonitions toward self-control and self-restraint. - Finally, most Catholics are not well catechized and do not understand very well what the Church teaches or why. Thus with very little to go on most dissenters (but not all), simply follow the path of least resistance. They are catechized by the culture and respond to the rare corrections that they hear with the canards with which the culture feeds them. Other dissenters who are relatively well catechized seem able to hold their positions because they have been able to convince themselves that they know better than the Magisterium . . . the path which every heretic and dissenter has taken. What is required to solve this problem is the same that that which is required for faith itself—trust. We are born trusting and only eventually learn to distrust. Without trust a child could not learn, a society could not function, and a man cannot be saved. Trust is reasonable and it is possible because God has made us with this in built capacity. It is sin, temptation, pride, bad experiences which teach us not to trust and make it hard to overcome our resistance to trust. Grace through the Sacraments and cooperation with grace through prayer, self-mastery, and practice of the virtues is the way home to the true Spirit of Catholicism.

Know Thy Self

The packing is about 99% complete. Since I do not have a laptop, you can figure out what is remaining to be packed. The big effort will be loading the truck. Since the parking lot is about 60 yards from our townhouse door and we have about 12,000 lbs of “stuff,” this could take a while. If it doesn’t rain from now until Monday I may be able to pull the truck up closer without getting stuck in mud. Who is the patron saint of dry ground? The other day I was watching a taped episode of Journey Home (it was taped because we do not have cable/satellite). Fr. Hugh Thwaites was the guest and Marcus asked him what he thought is currently the greatest problem in catechesis from his perspective. He replied that he thought it was the ignoring or outright denial of original sin. Exactly! When he said this, the words from the entrance to the temple at Delphi immediately sprang into my mind: Know Thy Self! There are just so many problems that arise because of the lack of recognition of original sin and its consequences. Of course, theologically we have no need for a Savior if we have not as a race, fallen from God’s grace. Therefore, we have no need of: the Sacraments, the Mass, the Church, etc. However, neither can we make sense of ourselves without recognizing original sin. We have an inner sense that humanity is essentially good but we see the evil things that man does to man and there arises a dissonance between our inner sense and our experience. Many have tried to reconcile this by supposing that evil arises from everything from poverty to ignorance. The problem is that as knowledge and wealth have increased so has the magnitude of evil in the world. The 20th century being emblematic of this fact. We recognize that the body is good and that we have this inner drive to genitally express our affection/lust. Without original sin and concupiscence it would seem that there is no reason not to satisfy these “natural” appetites. That is unless we honestly look at the medical and social ills which come about when these appetites are satisfied outside of the marital union. Only original sin and concupiscence can make sense of the fact that we are essentially good but we are inclined toward evil. Only original sin and concupiscence can make sense of the dissonance between our appetites and what is truly good for us and for society. Without recognizing concupiscence we have little chance of living a chaste life and achieving the purity of heart for which we were created.

Those Catholics who reject the Church’s teaching on sexual matters, usually beginning with original sin, usually end up degrading sexual intercourse. They reduce it to an animal function which humans can manipulate for whatever purpose they please, usually in quite hedonistic manners. Paradoxically, however, they accuse the Church of degrading sex as little more than a necessary evil. On the contrary; the Church teaches that it is holy. Sexual intercourse, within the marital covenant, is the most intimate union two persons can experience with one another. However, this sexual union is only a shallow foretaste of the consummate union all will experience with God and the saints in heaven. Without the whole picture of who were are, we are more likely than not to follow our fallen instincts and thus have more in common with the animals than with children of God.

The Feminine Genius

I am taking a little break from packing for our move on Monday. The house is stacked full of boxes; in fact, I have had to squeeze in among some precariously balanced boxes stacked to the ceiling in order to get to the computer (which really should be in a box right now as well). My wife’s patience with this process kind of coalesced with some other recent events, which I will mention below, to give rise to this thought about women and femininity. John Paul the Great coined this phrase, the feminine genius, to help counter a growing problem in some strains of feminism. Notably, the problem is with those feminists who actually reject femininity as a weakness which has been exploited by men. They end up by rejecting femininity and adopting masculine modes of behavior, which JP says will deform them. JP the Great used the term to show the unique and irreplaceable gifts that women possess and their necessity for the proper functioning of society. What he meant by genius is not simply intellectual but that the whole feminine person is structured in such a way which allows her to most uniquely cooperate with God in His ongoing plan of creation. All of her gifts are oriented toward motherhood; whether it be biological or spiritual motherhood, all women have what it takes to be a good mother (even if some do not make use of their gifts). Monday’s Solemnity of the Assumption has manifold meaning but in this regard, the feast reveals the crowning glory of the Blessed Virgin’s vocation as a mother; the Mother of God and the Mother of the Church. While she conceived in a miraculous manner, the way in which she lived out her vocation was nothing other than her obedient response to God’s will and her obediently making use of all of her natural gifts as a feminine person. Her “fiat mihi” (let it be done to me) was not a singular event but an attitude and commitment which marked her entire life. She revealed the essence of biological and spiritual motherhood. She gave herself entirely over to God and in this, she gave herself totally to her family, the Holy Family and the Church. Mary’s heroic model of selfless giving is often criticized by some feminists who say that JP the Great is setting an impossible ideal. They miss the point. He does not overlook the fact that women, as well as men, live in a fallen state. They are both subject to concupiscence and they often fall into sin. However sinful women can be, it does not negate the feminine genius or the capacity of women, aided by grace, to overcome their concupiscent desires. Very many do. I think about the young mother in the news recently, Susan Torres, who died after giving birth to her baby daughter. Most know the details of this bitter sweet case so I will not repeat them. In motherhood, mothers donate their bodies to their children for their first nine months of life and then give the whole of themselves for the remainder of their lives. While Susan Torres did not get to choose to donate her life for the sake of her child, her family, who knew her, said that what her husband did, keeping her alive until the child could be safely delivered, was what she would have wanted. In fact, many mothers have refused treatment for cancer because of the danger to their children, and paid for it with their lives. My own maternal grandmother was counseled to have an abortion with her last child because the doctors feared she would not survive child birth. She did not. However, she did give birth to a healthy baby girl, my Aunt Bev. I also am very lucky to have a mother who provides an excellent model of motherhood. She makes use of all of her feminine gifts to give of herself to her family. Living a life faithful to the feminine genius God has bestowed is not an impossible ideal, it is not the source of oppression, it is what makes women special. Whether God bestows the gift of biological motherhood on a woman or not, she still has the vocation as a spiritual mother for others in her life. Women must recognize and embrace their feminine genius and use it to complement the gifts of men in the family, in the work place, in the Church, and in society as a whole. Society will not survive without it.

A Century of Tears

I just got back from seeing the Italian made film on JP the Great, The Man Who Became Pope, thanks to Barb and Tom who TiVO’d it and let us watch it with them and our parish RE director, Sr. Susanne, in their home theater. It was a very powerful movie and brought home, in a very visceral way, JP’s description of the 20th century as the century of tears. JP the Great recognized the consequences of getting the human person wrong. He saw first hand the way that man ultimately turns on himself when he rejects God. This began with his experience in Poland under the pagan dialectical materialism of the Nazi regime which annihilated the person for the sake of the state and then right on its heels, in what must have seemed like an unbelievable nightmare, under atheistic, Marxist Communist rule which absolutized the common good at the expense of the rights and dignity of the person. His firsthand experience of two different “flavors” of totalitarianism, the fruits of a perverse philosophy of humanism proved to him that philosophical ideas have real world consequences. However, getting the person wrong also waxes tragic without the explicit rejection of God. The sad state of affairs we have today when even some Christians advocate all kinds of sexual intercourse beyond marital intercourse between a husband and wife which is open to fruitfulness, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, transexuality, etc. gravely mistake who and what the human person really is. The results are such that as this confusion expands, the rise tracks all too closely with the demise of the nuclear family and society. A recent thread commenter suggested that this type of statistical correlation does not prove causality. However, if this were a drug the FDA would immediately pull it from the shelves given the same data. Our culture has brought with it many important advances for human welfare and convenience, both social and technological. However, the Godless form of secularism which the U.S. is moving toward threatens these advances as it threatens our society itself. We cannot afford to sit back and watch as the rhetoric of a few together with a sympathetic mass media distort the human person and society with it. That is, unless we are prepared to endure another century of tears . . .

You Have To . . . You’re My Uncle

Earlier this summer we took a trip to Tampa, FL to visit my brother and his family, as some may recall. We were there to help take care of the boys while my sister-in-law was recovering from some medical problems. On one occasion, I was bringing my nephews, Aiden and Tyler, to nature camp. On the way to camp, I teasingly indicated to them in a stern voice that I had something to tell them. They somewhat cautiously asked what it was. I said, “I love you.” Tyler’s response was, “we know that.” I asked them how he knew. He said, “you have to, you’re our uncle.” I thought about it for awhile and realized that Tyler may have hit on a thought that John Paul the Great developed in great detail in many of his works both before and after becoming pope. The thought is that we are created in relation to one another and so, whether we like it or not, we have obligations for one another. Our culture, which espouses individualism to a near pathological point, does not generally acknowledge this. However, there may be some vestiges of this recognition remaining in areas like social welfare programs and perhaps some state laws such as the requirement to render aid to someone in distress to the best of our abilities. But by and large, I do not believe that many today would acknowledge an obligation for others which precedes our consent. Nevertheless, we are our brother’s keeper. Of course the degree of our obligation for others is conditioned by such things as our state in life, our means, nearness in relationship, our abilities, etc. We are created to be in a self-giving relationship with God and with others. The complete intersubjective union we are destined for in heaven has its preparation here on earth. The family is the first training ground. The family prepares us for our relationships in our church, neighborhood and broader society. The extent of our success in this lifelong project of self-giving to God and to others, is called according to another term—holiness. We become Godlike through our total gifts of ourselves to God and to others. Our capacity to give and receive the love of God in the next life is determined in this life by our holiness when we die. In the theological tradition, this has been discussed in terms of reward. However, when we see holiness, good works, rewards, and Purgatory in terms of holiness, love, and total self-gift, it helps to understand more clearly our mission on earth to put on Christ. Tyler was right, I have to love him . . . he’s my nephew.

To Be Home . . .

It's great to be home after a summer of intense traveling . . . but unfortunately, it won’t be home for long. We had success in Urbana-Champaign (or Champaign-Urbana) in finding a house. That job accomplished, we now set to work on the million and one things one has to do when moving from one state to another. However, the trip also was the opportunity to experience God’s Providence at work. Tricia and I met a very interesting man in Champaign. He is originally from Champaign and has a varied background. He started out as a rock singer and songwriter and traveled with his band; he even ended up with a recording contract and a stint on MTV. When he had children, he decided that he needed to get something more substantial and went back to school and ended up with an M.A. in English. He had applied this in various ways until he went to Rome for the bestowal of the pallium by JP the Great on a very close family friend. This experience led him to discern a call to get a law degree and work directly for the Church. He had a scholarship in a weekend program but soon also discerned that he was being called to go to Ave Maria law school. He told me that he began to have doubts when at the last moment everything seemed to be falling apart. He had rented a house in Michigan and moved his family up there when his funding seemed to unravel and he could not rent his house. Then he got a call out of the blue from someone who had been given his phone number by a property manager who had been too busy to manage his property; she actually had to fish it out of the trash basket. The call was from me. I wondered why he had become so emotional when I told him where I was working and what I would be doing. He recognized God’s hand at work much sooner than did I. Short story long, we will be renting his house while he and his family are in MI. This event reminds me of a talk I had with my wife’s nephew when we visited him in Charleston, SC earlier this summer. He mentioned that his formerly agnostic roommate shared with him a recent experience in which he recognized that God was working through him. The details are not important but the point that his roommate made was that he came to recognize that for anyone who is not open to it, experiences of transcendence can be dismissed as coincidence, emotions, etc. However, when one is open, even if not yet a believer, God can make His presence known in an unmistakable manner. These supra-rationale experiences may not always be obvious but it seems to me that they are simply extraordinary manifestations of the gift of faith. The precursor to faith, however, is an open and trusting heart.

Children, Uterobots, and Narcissism

Well we just cannot let any moss start growing under our feet . . . thus, we are on the road again. Two days at home is just too long. The wife and I thought we would mosey on over to Champaign-Urbana, IL to find a place to live being as we are moving there in a week or so. But do not go any place. Chris is back from his honeymoon, Hiérothée may have something to say (who knows) and we may get a new member so there still should be some posting going on. In any case, we will be back Sunday so we do not miss too much time away from packing or posting. In the mean time, Hiérothée passed on a very good article from Kathleen Parker from the Houston Chronicle. I find it unusual for secular papers / writers to take the common sense / moral position on any issue associated with sexuality. This is especially true with the issue of homosexuality and same sex marriage. However, Parker has done just that. She is on target in her story about Governor Mitch Romney’s refusal to allow two homosexual men to be named as parents to a child born of the sperm donation from one the men via the rental of a uterobot (a woman who rents out the fertility of her body). She uses Dr. Seuss’s “One Thing, Two Thing” from “The Cat in the Hat” to show the basic narcissism of folks who think of children as things to fulfill personal needs. Thus, it does not matter if there is a mother and father, just a mother, just a father, two fathers, two mothers, or just a partridge in a pair tree. The thought is that if it is good for the person it must be good for the child. However, basic biology shows the need for a mother and father. Common sense and experience show the need continues in the nurturing and upbringing of children. We have spent much discussion here on the ills associated with missing parents, especially missing fathers. It is refreshing to see some common sense printed in the pages of the mainstream press. However, I am sure that Parker is reaping the ire of plenteous critics for pointing out the obvious. Does any one know anything about Kathleen Parker?

Home Again . . .

Well we made it back from Waco this morning. Again, we were there for Christopher's wedding. Everything went great and all of the married men were quite generous in their advice for Chris, as we are wont to be. We were supposed to arrive home last night but US Airways and the weather conspired to provide us with luxurious, overnight accommodations in the Philly airport. However, they did make up for it by losing our bags. Oh well, now on to planning for the move and getting packed. Oh, I did forget to mention in my last post that Waco also is the home to the Dr. Pepper Museum . . . my apologies to those Dr. Pepper fans and the Waco Chamber of Commerce. A while back Zenit published in a four part series, a talk given by the then Cardinal Ratzinger on the crisis of faith in Europe. In the first part of this talk given prior to JP the Great's death, Cardinal Ratzinger characterizes the fundaments of the crisis in the same personalist terminology as did John Paul. In fact, they both seem to have the same points of concern for our society. That is, the human person has been lost sight of because God has been lost sight of. The result is that human life is no longer viewed as a gift but almost as a product of human ingenuity. The person is not respected for who he is but for what he can do or add economically to society. Cardinal Ratzinger also points to the problem of the new moralism, even among many Catholics, in which truth is replaced with a relativist value. This leads to a political moralism rather than a morality which respects the value of the person as a gift. When the person is not seen as a gift, the result seems to be a "political party" morality manifested as a "dictum addressed to others, [with] too little . . . personal duty [in] our daily life." In other words, the importance of subsidarity is missed. Taking care of others becomes the responsibility of an impersonal government and we feel ourselves lifted of any responsibility for our fellow man. This is not the worst of it of course. Values morality leads to whatever the political party in power decides is a value which fits within its idealogy. Nevetheless, the problem is acute because there is now political power behind instituting, what in many cases turns out to be, anti-human policies policies. These same problems which have become common place in Europe are on the door step of the U.S. at this moment. We seem to be at a precipice. Those who espouse the greatness of Europe’s Godless secularity and embrace the death wish which comes from an idolatrous secular humanism, seem ready to follow Satan’s temptation to jump into the nihilist great abyss and take the rest of us with them. If B16 cannot save Europe, hopefully his pontificate will at least awaken the United States to the dangerous path we are following.

Waco or Bust . . .

Well I was home for a couple of days and now we are back out on the road again. My wife Tricia and I are on the way to Waco Texas (home of Baylor University and the David Koresh cult) tomorrow morning. Chris, of this blog fame (??), is getting married and yours truly is in the wedding party. Incidently, the trip out to Champaign, IL on Tuesday went very well. So well in fact, that we are moving there by the end of the month. I accepted a job working at the Newman Foundation as the executive assistant to Msgr. Stewart Swetland, the Foundation director. A great priest and someone who will be a challenge to keep up with. By the way, Zenit did an interview, as a series of articles, with Dr. Tracey Rowland who is the dean of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family a while back. I made mention of the first one previously. Well, I thought the second article was also fascinating. Any thoughts about it anyone would like to share? If the postings become sparse in the next few days it will be because of the challenge of finding a computer and time to post.

Tormented Transformation

B16 uses this phrase to describe the process by which Christians are sanctified through carrying their crosses. It is the mystery of Christian personhood that our unity with Christ in His mystical body is such that our works, joys, and sufferings become His work of the Cross. Even more, that His destiny of the Cross is ours as well. Contemplate the awesome brilliance of the plan of salvation by which the suffering caused by the sin which enters the world actually becomes the vehicle by which sin and suffering are healed (cf. Rom 5:20). Benedict's words are directed toward the crisis of faith the Church is experiencing today, primarily in the Western World. It is both sobering and comforting to know that we, through our own efforts, will not solve the crisis. Rather, it will be solved by Christ making use of our sufferings joined to His. Benedict makes it clear that we should suffer when we see our attempts at evangelization seem to fall on deaf ears. B16 says that failure to suffer when the truth seems to be disregarded (I would add by believers and unbelievers alike) would be a lack of faith and a lack of commitment to the gospel. Nevertheless, with this suffering comes the comfort in knowing that God is in charge. John Paul the Great used the phrase from Gaudium et spes over and over again in his anthropology. Christ reveals man to himself. Thus, we know that we will only fully perfect ourselves by joining ourselves to the Cross. B16 is right, the way to holiness is through tormented transformation.

Sky Dive!

This is the acclamation of avid maniacs. When I was an undergrad, I went with some friends from Austin up to Georgetown to do some skydiving at the local airport. It was a fun time but since we jumped with static-lines the free fall time was only until the static line pulled the shoot open. Nevertheless, jumping out of the airplane was certainly exhilarating, and even more so when I tangled myself in the static-line and almost lost my head when it snapped taught. This experience came to mind as I read an article by David Popenoe for my dissertation, which he later published as a book entitled Life Without Father, on the problem of the absent father in the United States. He found that there was a direct correlation between the absent father and the decline of the nuclear family, which he describes as in “free fall” since the 1960s. Free fall may be fine if you’re sky diving and have a parachute to help break your fall. But it is not so clear that there is a parachute for authentic family life. While many sociologists like to pretend that this is just another step in the evolution of marriage and family, and that all will be fine—just different, the sociological evidence runs contrary. The “new” family is generally absent the father and the social ills directly attributable to this do not bode well for society’s survival. The first step to solving the problem is recognizing there is one and that something can be done to turn it around. The next step I suppose is to work in our own families to keep them focused on Christ and to give our children a healthy understanding of the anti-gospel message they will get from society.

By the way, we got home last night and I am off today to Champaign, IL. There is a good comment to a previous post on nurture v. nature by Huck Finn, a response to which will have to await my return. In short though, I will say that the more one writes the more trouble he can get himself into. I will probably not get any posts in for Wednesday until late.

Spiritual Sex Change

In setting up for the family reunion, I had occassion to speak with the parish priest about the hall we were using. Conversation soon moved from the subject of the parish hall to John Paul the Great's theology of the body and his use of Christopher West's popularization of the same for marriage prep classes. Of course, Balthasar had to be discussed as well . . . unfortunately (for them), I had several people waiting in the car for me at the time. The conversation continued . . . Because of our proximity to Canada here, of course we also talked about the recent same sex marriage act in Canada and the so called "ordination" of women on the St. Lawrence Sea Way. It seemed to us that JP the Great's anthropology is an effective answer to this confused way of thinking which seems to assume that sex differences do not matter.

After leaving the rectory, the thought came to me that the misguided attempt of women to be ordained as Catholic priests is analogous to the physical sex change operations undergone by some tortued souls. In a sex change operation, the physical appearance is changed, but the sexual dimension of the soul remains untouched. Likewise, when ordination is attempted by women, the accidental exterior acts seem to be the same as for men but the soul remains untouched. That is except for the fact that a woman damages herself when she attempts to reject her feminine constitution and act like a man, as JP the Great says in Mulieris dignitatem. But back to the issue of priests and masculinity.

You see, priests are spiritual fathers. They obtain their spiritual fatherhood from the fact that they are ordained as priests in the Person of the one High Priest, Christ. Christ's priesthood is a mediation of God's fatherly love to His children -- His Church. God relates to humanity as masculine to feminine. This is perhaps best understood in the sense that God is the first to offer love; the human person must actively receive this love and then return it. Jesus is a male because His masculine soul is necessary to provide this love of initiative. That is why only males, who in holy orders are sacramentally configured to the person of Christ, can be ordained as priests. Only a male soul relates masculinly to other persons and so only a male soul can be configured to Christ as a priest. In a recent post I mentioned Peter Kreeft's superb article on this subject. I would again strongly recommend reading it if you have not already.

This is a difficult teaching for some because they mistakenly view the Church and the hierarchy through a secular lens. In other words, they view the hierarchy as positions of power to be sought rather than as fathers of a family who are put there by Christ to serve Him and His family. Again, as with most dissent it goes back to a lack of trust. But this trust is misplaced when we think that because humans are sinful and fallible, that we can trust only ourselves. The trust we call faith is ultimately in Christ and His promise to protect and guide His Church through the Holy Spirit. The truth the Church teaches makes perfect sense but until the issue of trust is resolved, hearts will remain closed to the movement of the Holy Spirit to accept this beautiful truth.