Welcome to another installment of Theology with Ghym. Today I want to take a look at the theology of salvation found in the Catholic Church.
The Bible gives three phases to Salvation: At times the authors discuss salvation as something already possessed, something received in the past. At other time they discuss it as something which is ongoing, in the present. Still at other times they speak of salvation as something still far off in the future. This is what I was taught when I was a protestant and this is what I was taught after I became Catholic, as far as I am aware these three phases are universally recognized. I've been saved, I'm being saved and I shall be saved.
That being said, Catholics and Protestants have some very different understandings of these three phases. Protestants put a huge amount of emphasis on the initial point of salvation, seeing it as the moment of justification. For Catholics this is simply the starting point, when we enter into the process; justification comes later.
The departure runs even deeper when one considers how it is we come to be "saved", initially. For Protestants God bestows an initial grace on us which can bring about a saving faith, which, when acted upon by us, brings about our salvation. For Catholics this initial point of salvation actually precedes faith, faith and works come later. God bestows initial grace upon us enabling us to respond with either a yes or a no. If no then we stay outside. If yes, we enter into the process and God bestows even greater graces upon us, slowly bringing about faith and works, justification and sanctification.
For Catholics this initial point of salvation is entirely based upon our own receptivity, our willingness to receive the grace of God. However, this is true, not only of this first point, but of every point that follows. God continually offers us ever more grace and we continually say yes or no. As we say yes, through works or prayers or sacraments, God acts upon our hearts to bring about even more faith.
Catholics do not discuss the initial point of salvation overly much because it is simply the first link in a very long chain. It is the first yes we offer up to God, but it is far from the only one. In the second phase of salvation there is an ongoing cycle. God's grace brings about faith, our faith is made manifest in works, our works dispose us towards a greater receptivity to grace, we get more grace which brings about more faith and the cycle continues.
The final point of salvation is achieved when we are made fully open to God. This is that moment of complete surrender when we are brought into the inter life of the Trinity. It is here that we are able to fully embrace the salvation won for us on Calvary. It is only here that we are fully sanctified and thus fully repentant and can fully receive our justification.
It is not necessary that one be a Catholic, or even a Christian, in order to be saved. All that is necessary is that one be willing to receive the grace of God. You must be open to Him, He will do the rest.
The great thing about being Catholic is that we have the fullness of the truth and the sacraments. As we participate in the life of the Church our spiritual life is expedited. The sacraments and sacramentals are tools which help us along the journey. We have saints who serve as examples by which we might live our lives more fully inline with God's will. And most of all, we get to know God, not just personally, but intimately. Every time we participate in the Mass we receive a glimpse of heaven. Every time we receive the Eucharist we receive love incarnate in the most intimate act we could possibly share with God himself.
Truly, it is not necessary to be Catholic, but it really helps.
Showing posts with label Catholicism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholicism. Show all posts
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Monday, December 23, 2013
Santa is Real
For Christmas Eve I wanted to share something I made under a different moniker. The first in what I hope will be a series of videos in which I talk about much of the same things I talk about here but under a more accessible medium.
If you read my post on Santa you have already been exposed to much of what I say in the video but I hope you check it out anyway. My profession is sound editing, I've never done anything this complicated before.
I hope you enjoy it.
And if you do enjoy it, please don't forget to like and share. That's the only way you can encourage me to do more.
If you read my post on Santa you have already been exposed to much of what I say in the video but I hope you check it out anyway. My profession is sound editing, I've never done anything this complicated before.
I hope you enjoy it.
And if you do enjoy it, please don't forget to like and share. That's the only way you can encourage me to do more.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Catholic in the Extreme
Sorry for taking such a long break. I especially want to apologize to my fans, i know you both missed me terribly.
Part of the reason was gone so long was i simply ran out of topics worth writing on. Or rather, I ran out of things to say on them. The other part is, trying to write a post weakly became a chore and then i lost interest. From now on i will try to post more than once a semester, but no promises on how often that will be.
Here is what got me to come back. I saw a post from CatholicVote today and it got me thinking. You can read the article here. But basically, the author is upset that some low level military clerk put together a power point in which Catholics were referred to as extremists.
Now, on the one hand, the power point did put us along side such groups as the KKK, Al Queda and Hamas. That is a little offensive but that was not CatholicVote's complaint. CatholicVote was upset we were called "extremists". They found something which was marginally offensive and then proceeded to miss why. Yes, it is offensive to imply the Catholic Church is a hate group. No, it is not offensive to call us extremists. That is exactly what we are called to be.
We are called to a radical Christianity that makes itself felt in every part of the world, that expresses itself in every aspect of society. Not with blades or bombs, but with truth and love. Catholic extremists devote their lives to serve the poor and underprivileged, they build schools and hospitals, they travel to strange and distant lands just to tell people whom they had never met just how much they love them.
Some religious extremists have Bin Laden. We have Mother Teresa.
Saints are radical, they go to the extreme. St. Francis once challenged a group of Muslim scholars to walk with him through a furnace and whoever survived served the true God. The scholars declined his offer.
After John Paul II recovered from being shot he went and forgave his attacker and even converted him to Christianity.
As the Titanic was going down, Father Thomas Byles turned down two seats on life boats in order to remain with those who needed him. He gave up his life in order to spend a few more minutes with people who were soon to die. He spent his last minutes praying the rosary, hearing confession and sharing what words of comfort he had.
This is Catholic Extremism, this is what we are called to. We ought never take offense when someone accuses us of living up to it. If only there were more Catholic extremists out there, the world would be a much better place.
From your friendly neighborhood Ghym
If you are wondering how to be a little more extreme in your Catholicism, consider joining MissionPals. A free pen pal program i'm running which pairs active catholic missionaries with everyday lay Catholics for mutual support and edification. You can read more about it at http://missionpals.blogspot.com/
If you like my blog, consider liking my page on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Or share me with a friend!
Part of the reason was gone so long was i simply ran out of topics worth writing on. Or rather, I ran out of things to say on them. The other part is, trying to write a post weakly became a chore and then i lost interest. From now on i will try to post more than once a semester, but no promises on how often that will be.
Here is what got me to come back. I saw a post from CatholicVote today and it got me thinking. You can read the article here. But basically, the author is upset that some low level military clerk put together a power point in which Catholics were referred to as extremists.
Now, on the one hand, the power point did put us along side such groups as the KKK, Al Queda and Hamas. That is a little offensive but that was not CatholicVote's complaint. CatholicVote was upset we were called "extremists". They found something which was marginally offensive and then proceeded to miss why. Yes, it is offensive to imply the Catholic Church is a hate group. No, it is not offensive to call us extremists. That is exactly what we are called to be.
We are called to a radical Christianity that makes itself felt in every part of the world, that expresses itself in every aspect of society. Not with blades or bombs, but with truth and love. Catholic extremists devote their lives to serve the poor and underprivileged, they build schools and hospitals, they travel to strange and distant lands just to tell people whom they had never met just how much they love them.
Some religious extremists have Bin Laden. We have Mother Teresa.
Saints are radical, they go to the extreme. St. Francis once challenged a group of Muslim scholars to walk with him through a furnace and whoever survived served the true God. The scholars declined his offer.
After John Paul II recovered from being shot he went and forgave his attacker and even converted him to Christianity.
As the Titanic was going down, Father Thomas Byles turned down two seats on life boats in order to remain with those who needed him. He gave up his life in order to spend a few more minutes with people who were soon to die. He spent his last minutes praying the rosary, hearing confession and sharing what words of comfort he had.
This is Catholic Extremism, this is what we are called to. We ought never take offense when someone accuses us of living up to it. If only there were more Catholic extremists out there, the world would be a much better place.
From your friendly neighborhood Ghym
If you are wondering how to be a little more extreme in your Catholicism, consider joining MissionPals. A free pen pal program i'm running which pairs active catholic missionaries with everyday lay Catholics for mutual support and edification. You can read more about it at http://missionpals.blogspot.com/
If you like my blog, consider liking my page on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Or share me with a friend!
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Why Every Woman Should be a Mother and Every Man a Father
Motherhood is one of those indispensable positions. We really can't do without it. The same is true of fatherhood. Catholics hold that every child has a right to a mother and a father. Although some instances make this impossible, outside of anyone's control, to purposefully deprive a child of either parent is to violate their rights and to act contrary to their dignity. We each begin life as a child, with a calling to be sons and daughters. As we grow older we gain a new vocation, to be mothers and fathers. This is universal to every person who has ever or will ever live.
A vocation is a calling, it is what you are called to be. We each have many vocations. Some people are called to be priests, they have a priestly vocation. Some people are called to be doctors, having a medical vocation. Every little boy is called to be a son and every little girls is called to be a daughter. As we travel through life we discover ever more vocations. Our very first vocation is to be children and we never grow out of our vocations, for heaven belongs to such as these.
Vocations are never callings to receive, they are always callings to give, to the gift of self. As children we gave ourselves in trust and obedience. We trusted our parents and teachers to guide us and so we obeyed them. In so doing we gave up our own desires and gave ourselves over to them. As adults we gained a new calling, to be more than children, to be parents. Every man is called to be a father and every woman is called to be a mother. Not necessarily a biological father or mother. If this were it would make life awkward for Catholic nuns and monks and priests. It would also be very unfair to those men and women who can't have children.
Nevertheless, all men and women are called to a type of motherhood or fatherhood. We are called to give ourselves to those who may find themselves under our authority, to be worthy of the trust they are called to place in us, to guide for their sake and not for our own. This is the servant leadership Christ taught us. We so often think that having the position of power entitles us to privilege and honor, it makes us better than those we have authority over, but Christ came as one who serves. You see, the essence of God is love and the essence of love is humility, to place another before ourselves. This is the essence of being a parent, to wield whatever power you may have for the good of another.
The president may think he is the ruler of the free world, but the truth is your parish priest has more real power in his pointer fingers and thumbs than the United States President has in the whole of his office. However, the priest does not seek to force his will on others or enrich himself at their expense. Rather, he pledges himself to poverty, chastity and obedience. In his voice is found the greatest power ever bestowed on mortal man, and yet he does not benefit from it in the slightest. He wields it only for the good of others. This is why we call him father.
Within the womb of a woman is found another great power. The power to bring forth life. A man is necessary for the first fifteen minutes or so, but after that his involvement is more or less voluntary. It is within the woman's womb that this new life finds incarnation, where it is nurtured for nine months, where the mother literally gives herself to her child, providing it with her own nutrients and sheltering it within her own body. The relationship between a mother and child for that first year of life is the purest embodiment of what it means to be a mother.
Within the Church we find nuns and religious sisters, women who have pledged themselves to be be the mothers of the world. They give themselves to God in the three vows or solemn promises of poverty, chastity and obedience. In this way they give themselves not only to God, but to us as well. Although they will never be biological mothers to anyone they become spiritual mothers to all.
To give ourselves in love, for the good of others, is to find the meaning of our existence. For adults, this means to be a parent. Sometimes to our own biological children, sometimes by adoption and sometimes to some person we have never met before and may never see again. This willingness to be a parent is more than just something we do on occasion, it is a state of being. You don't get to be a mom or a dad on a part time basis. Every moment of every day must contain the willingness to be a parent to whomever may have need of us.
This is part of the reason the Church opposes contraception. When we create physical barriers to pregnancy in the midst of sexual union we close ourselves off from our purpose of self giving love, from being moms and dads. Even Natural Family Planning can be contrary to God's will for us if it is done from a desire to avoid having kids. That is, NFP can be done for the sake of being a better parent to those who are already here. Neither it nor any other form of birth control should be used for the purpose of avoiding our parent vocations.
Every woman is called to be a mother and every man is called to be a father. Sometimes we get to be mothers and fathers to our own kids. Sometimes God has other plans for us. Sometimes we only get to embrace this love for an hour. Sometimes for a lifetime. Sometimes our openness to parenthood leads to us being parents. Sometimes it doesn't. What really matters is the openness. God is always open to being our Father, but we have to let Him. We too ought to be ever open; open to being mothers and fathers, open to being sisters and brothers, open to being sons and daughters. As long as we are open to love, we are growing closer to God. The second we close ourselves off, we have lost sight of our very purpose in being and have condemned ourselves to a misery of our own making.
If you enjoy my blog, consider clicking that share button down below. Maybe some of your friends will enjoy it too.
Also, feel free to like my page on Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Peace and Love!
A vocation is a calling, it is what you are called to be. We each have many vocations. Some people are called to be priests, they have a priestly vocation. Some people are called to be doctors, having a medical vocation. Every little boy is called to be a son and every little girls is called to be a daughter. As we travel through life we discover ever more vocations. Our very first vocation is to be children and we never grow out of our vocations, for heaven belongs to such as these.
Vocations are never callings to receive, they are always callings to give, to the gift of self. As children we gave ourselves in trust and obedience. We trusted our parents and teachers to guide us and so we obeyed them. In so doing we gave up our own desires and gave ourselves over to them. As adults we gained a new calling, to be more than children, to be parents. Every man is called to be a father and every woman is called to be a mother. Not necessarily a biological father or mother. If this were it would make life awkward for Catholic nuns and monks and priests. It would also be very unfair to those men and women who can't have children.
Nevertheless, all men and women are called to a type of motherhood or fatherhood. We are called to give ourselves to those who may find themselves under our authority, to be worthy of the trust they are called to place in us, to guide for their sake and not for our own. This is the servant leadership Christ taught us. We so often think that having the position of power entitles us to privilege and honor, it makes us better than those we have authority over, but Christ came as one who serves. You see, the essence of God is love and the essence of love is humility, to place another before ourselves. This is the essence of being a parent, to wield whatever power you may have for the good of another.
The president may think he is the ruler of the free world, but the truth is your parish priest has more real power in his pointer fingers and thumbs than the United States President has in the whole of his office. However, the priest does not seek to force his will on others or enrich himself at their expense. Rather, he pledges himself to poverty, chastity and obedience. In his voice is found the greatest power ever bestowed on mortal man, and yet he does not benefit from it in the slightest. He wields it only for the good of others. This is why we call him father.
Within the womb of a woman is found another great power. The power to bring forth life. A man is necessary for the first fifteen minutes or so, but after that his involvement is more or less voluntary. It is within the woman's womb that this new life finds incarnation, where it is nurtured for nine months, where the mother literally gives herself to her child, providing it with her own nutrients and sheltering it within her own body. The relationship between a mother and child for that first year of life is the purest embodiment of what it means to be a mother.
Within the Church we find nuns and religious sisters, women who have pledged themselves to be be the mothers of the world. They give themselves to God in the three vows or solemn promises of poverty, chastity and obedience. In this way they give themselves not only to God, but to us as well. Although they will never be biological mothers to anyone they become spiritual mothers to all.
To give ourselves in love, for the good of others, is to find the meaning of our existence. For adults, this means to be a parent. Sometimes to our own biological children, sometimes by adoption and sometimes to some person we have never met before and may never see again. This willingness to be a parent is more than just something we do on occasion, it is a state of being. You don't get to be a mom or a dad on a part time basis. Every moment of every day must contain the willingness to be a parent to whomever may have need of us.
This is part of the reason the Church opposes contraception. When we create physical barriers to pregnancy in the midst of sexual union we close ourselves off from our purpose of self giving love, from being moms and dads. Even Natural Family Planning can be contrary to God's will for us if it is done from a desire to avoid having kids. That is, NFP can be done for the sake of being a better parent to those who are already here. Neither it nor any other form of birth control should be used for the purpose of avoiding our parent vocations.
Every woman is called to be a mother and every man is called to be a father. Sometimes we get to be mothers and fathers to our own kids. Sometimes God has other plans for us. Sometimes we only get to embrace this love for an hour. Sometimes for a lifetime. Sometimes our openness to parenthood leads to us being parents. Sometimes it doesn't. What really matters is the openness. God is always open to being our Father, but we have to let Him. We too ought to be ever open; open to being mothers and fathers, open to being sisters and brothers, open to being sons and daughters. As long as we are open to love, we are growing closer to God. The second we close ourselves off, we have lost sight of our very purpose in being and have condemned ourselves to a misery of our own making.
If you enjoy my blog, consider clicking that share button down below. Maybe some of your friends will enjoy it too.
Also, feel free to like my page on Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Peace and Love!
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Contradictions in Scripture, One - The Two Creation Stories
Every one knows the Bible is full of contradictions and mistakes. Most people can't actually name any, but you know they're there. It's just common knowledge. Occasionally you will find someone who can give you examples. For instance, they used to claim the Hittites didn't exist, they were a mythical people for the Israelites to overcome in their cultural stories. I say "used to" because in 1876 George Smith discovered the Hittite capital of Carchemish and the Bible was vindicated. Maybe that is a bad example.
Here is one that is still used. Matthew 5 has Jesus preaching His sermon on the mount. Luke 6 has Him giving the same sermon but on a plain. Maybe this is an error, but couldn't Jesus have given the same sermon twice? Do you think i write each of my blog posts fresh for you? The answer is no, i quite often write something somewhere else and then turn it into a blog post. In fact, i did that just last week and i'm doing it again this week. I have a number of friends who are pastors. They all reuse their sermons. If we all do this, why not Jesus? Maybe this was His staple sermon and He gave it dozens of times. Maybe this is a bad example too.
Let's try a harder one. A lot of people have pointed out "two creation stories" in the opening chapters of Genesis. This raises the question; if Genesis had only one author, why did he tell the same story twice? But even worse than simply repeating himself, he contradicts himself. In the first story God creates animals first and people second, both male and female. In the second telling God creates man first, then animals and then woman. How do we explain this?
Before i respond to that, let me discus Bible errors in general. St. Augustine teaches that sometimes the Bible presents us with difficulties. This is true, some are a lot harder to explain than the ones i'm examining here, there are some i honestly can't explain. However, in faith, we believe all these difficulties, the apparent contradictions or mistakes, they all fall into one of three categorizes.
So, why the repetition? Artistic flourish. The author uses chapter 1 to establish an overarching theme, a venue for chapters 2 and 3. Then in chapters 2 and 3 he relates it to us. What of the chronological discrepancies? They aren't really there in Hebrew.
In English we are used to writing in chronological order. If i were to say; i bought a vineyard, i purchased seed, and i planted it in my vineyard. In English we assume this happened in the order specified; first i bough the vineyard, then the seed, then i planted. In Hebrew this assumption is to a much lesser degree. The same is true of ancient Greek and we can see a few examples of this in the opening chapter of Luke. Luke tells a series of self contained stories which overlap each other.
In fact, let's take a moment and reconstruct Luke 1:56 through 1:80 in correct chronological order.
Looking for a fun project? Go do with Genesis 2 what i did with Luke 1:56-80. It will be fun.
(My 'i's are left lower case by intention, to annoy the Grammar Nazis. If you spot an error elsewhere, feel free to point it out.)
Before you leave! If you enjoy my blog consider clicking that share button down below. Maybe some of your friends will enjoy it too.
Also, feel free to like my page on Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Or follow me on Twitter; https://twitter.com/TheGhym
Here is one that is still used. Matthew 5 has Jesus preaching His sermon on the mount. Luke 6 has Him giving the same sermon but on a plain. Maybe this is an error, but couldn't Jesus have given the same sermon twice? Do you think i write each of my blog posts fresh for you? The answer is no, i quite often write something somewhere else and then turn it into a blog post. In fact, i did that just last week and i'm doing it again this week. I have a number of friends who are pastors. They all reuse their sermons. If we all do this, why not Jesus? Maybe this was His staple sermon and He gave it dozens of times. Maybe this is a bad example too.
Let's try a harder one. A lot of people have pointed out "two creation stories" in the opening chapters of Genesis. This raises the question; if Genesis had only one author, why did he tell the same story twice? But even worse than simply repeating himself, he contradicts himself. In the first story God creates animals first and people second, both male and female. In the second telling God creates man first, then animals and then woman. How do we explain this?
Before i respond to that, let me discus Bible errors in general. St. Augustine teaches that sometimes the Bible presents us with difficulties. This is true, some are a lot harder to explain than the ones i'm examining here, there are some i honestly can't explain. However, in faith, we believe all these difficulties, the apparent contradictions or mistakes, they all fall into one of three categorizes.
- Textual errors - The oldest books of the Bible are thousands of years old and before the moveable type printing press was invented they had to be copied by hand. We do not believe that God kept the scribes from making mistakes in transcription. The presence of copyist error in no way conflicts with the infallibility of scripture. Most of the numerical discrepancies can be explained this way.
- Translational errors - Unless you can reading ancient Greek and Hebrew, you are probably reading a translation. You know, i'm sure those translators did the best job they could, but they were not divinely inspired. (Not even the Douay-Rheims or King Jame Versions, sorry) Sometimes, to resolve an apparent mistake, all you have to do is go back to the original text.
- Reader error - Sometime its not the Bible at all, but rather the one reading it who is in error. The two examples i already gave fall into this category; they were wrong to believe the Hittites were mythical and they may be wrong to assume Jesus never repeated Himself. People who try to critic the scriptures on scientific grounds generally make this error. As the Bible is not a scientific text book it would be wrong to interpret it as such. Only truth claims can be wrong and not everything in the Bible is a truth claim; there are myths and metaphors and parables. The trick is telling the difference.
So, why the repetition? Artistic flourish. The author uses chapter 1 to establish an overarching theme, a venue for chapters 2 and 3. Then in chapters 2 and 3 he relates it to us. What of the chronological discrepancies? They aren't really there in Hebrew.
In English we are used to writing in chronological order. If i were to say; i bought a vineyard, i purchased seed, and i planted it in my vineyard. In English we assume this happened in the order specified; first i bough the vineyard, then the seed, then i planted. In Hebrew this assumption is to a much lesser degree. The same is true of ancient Greek and we can see a few examples of this in the opening chapter of Luke. Luke tells a series of self contained stories which overlap each other.
- 1:26 - Elizabeth is six months pregnant.
- 1:39 - In those day, when Elizabeth was six months pregnant, Mary goes to visit her.
- 1:56 - Mary stays three months and then leaves. (End of Story)
- 1:57 - (Start of new story) Elizabeth gives birth to John the Baptist.
In fact, let's take a moment and reconstruct Luke 1:56 through 1:80 in correct chronological order.
- 56a - Mary stays for three month
- 57 - Then the birth of John.
- 56b - Ok, now Mary can leave.
- 58 through 64 - John's circumcision and naming. In 64 John's dad speaks, blessing God.
- 67 through 79 - So we have to jump ahead, to what Zechariah, John's dad, says.
- 65 and 66 - Now we go back to the result of all this, fear and discussion.
- 80a and Chapter 2 - Chapter 2 happens as 80a is occurring.
- 80b and 3:1 through 3:14 - The opening of Chapter 3 tells how 80b comes about.
Looking for a fun project? Go do with Genesis 2 what i did with Luke 1:56-80. It will be fun.
(My 'i's are left lower case by intention, to annoy the Grammar Nazis. If you spot an error elsewhere, feel free to point it out.)
Before you leave! If you enjoy my blog consider clicking that share button down below. Maybe some of your friends will enjoy it too.
Also, feel free to like my page on Facebook; http://www.facebook.com/TheologyWithGhym
Or follow me on Twitter; https://twitter.com/TheGhym
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Why Jews Think Catholic Statues are Idolatry and a Catholic Response
I recently had an awesome conversation with some Jewish friends on Reddit. It started on the topic of morality and the law, corresponding to last week's blog post. However, we ended up having a discussion on idolatry. They seemed to think that Catholic use of statues constitutes idolatry. I, of course, took the opposite position.
We Catholics have our great thinkers, people who's contributions to the theological world seem to dwarf the works of most others, people like Saint Augustine. Judaism has it's great thinkers as well and perhaps chief among them is Mosheh ben Maimon, also known as Maimonides. Think Aquinas and Augustine rolled into one. In fact, even we Catholics owe a lot to Maimonides for his influence on the scholastics, people like Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Maimonides, this great philosopher and theologian, gives a definition of idolatry containing three parts;
I think it is fairly easy to show that none of these aspects of idolatry correspond to statues of saints.
In concern to statues of God, it gets a little more complicated. On the first two points we come out smelling like roses. A statue of God is not a mediator between us a God, it is meant to lift our eyes to heaven, similar to the serpent Moses crafted in the desert. (Although distinct in that the serpent lifted eyes to heaven in a more literal fashion while the statues in Catholicism do so in a more figurative fashion.) A statue of God is not a mediator, it is not even an intercessor, it is more like a sign post, and a sign pointing the way to Chicago is not a mediator between me and the windy city. Similarly, a statue is not an independent power. By virtue of the fact that the statue is made in the image of another, it cannot be independent of the other's power. A picture of me is valuable to my mother because it bares my image. If it did not bare my image it would be of no value at all.
At first glance it seems that the issue of worship should be simple as well. It is the one God Himself who is being worshiped and not any created thing. Idolatry is literally "image worship" and the image is not here being worshiped, directly or indirectly. Catholics recognize that no statue can represent what God actually is, for God cannot be limited to any physical form. Statues and other images can only display an aspect of who God is and even then only imperfectly. They are sacramental signposts, not objects of worship.
However, it is not that simple. For Maimonides, the use of any image in worship is idolatry and we do use images in worship. By the definition of Maimonides, Catholics are idolators. To get around this is one would have to refute the very definition given by this great Jewish thinker. I am a 25 year old Catholic graduate student with a blog. I do not presume to critic such a mind as Maimonides. I leave that for those with greater credential than I.
If a person were to try and refute this position, perhaps they could start by pointing out all the times God is described by analogy throughout the scriptures; God as a shepherd, God as a potter. Both of these images are employed in prayers, times of worship. If it is permissible to use literary images in the directing of our worship, why not a picture or a statue? I do not see any real difference. Much more would need to be said before one could call this a true refute, but perhaps there is a hole here.
More importantly, when one who is versed in Thomistic philosophy reads Maimonides, it is not difficult to see parallels. One of the things Maimonides taught was that Abraham came to know God as the final cause. He saw his neighbors worshiping these created things and realized there must have been something greater than them to create them, there must have been a first cause, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. Perhaps Aquinas was more of a thief than we realize.
There are only two things of which i am certain; i am certain of my own existence for to me this is self-evident, and i am certain this God of Abraham exists for if i exist there must have been something prior to me to cause my existence. Catholics and Jews disagree on a lot, but on this we agree; we agree that our God exists, and we agree on who He is. He is that which is and from Whom all else came.
We Catholics have our great thinkers, people who's contributions to the theological world seem to dwarf the works of most others, people like Saint Augustine. Judaism has it's great thinkers as well and perhaps chief among them is Mosheh ben Maimon, also known as Maimonides. Think Aquinas and Augustine rolled into one. In fact, even we Catholics owe a lot to Maimonides for his influence on the scholastics, people like Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Maimonides, this great philosopher and theologian, gives a definition of idolatry containing three parts;
- to do an act of worship toward any created thing
- to believe that a particular created thing is an independent power
- to make something a mediator between ourselves and God
I think it is fairly easy to show that none of these aspects of idolatry correspond to statues of saints.
- There is no worship towards any created thing for we do not worship saints or their statues. We honor the saints as we honor Moses or Elijah, or to a much lesser extent great sports players and war heroes. Worship is for God alone.
- The saints are completely dependent on God, just as we are. The saints are to God as the moon is to the sun. They reflect God's glory, God's magnificence, they contain none of their own. They are most definitely not independent powers.
- The saints serve as examples and intercessors. They give us images to model our own lives after, in order that we might better enter into the service of God. An intercessor petitions on behalf of another. We on earth can serve as imperfect intercessors for each other by praying for one another. The saints in heaven are perfect intercessors, for they are unimpeded by their own sin and now dwell within the true Holy of Holies, in the celestial temple. However, they are not mediators, we have no mediator apart from God Himself.
In concern to statues of God, it gets a little more complicated. On the first two points we come out smelling like roses. A statue of God is not a mediator between us a God, it is meant to lift our eyes to heaven, similar to the serpent Moses crafted in the desert. (Although distinct in that the serpent lifted eyes to heaven in a more literal fashion while the statues in Catholicism do so in a more figurative fashion.) A statue of God is not a mediator, it is not even an intercessor, it is more like a sign post, and a sign pointing the way to Chicago is not a mediator between me and the windy city. Similarly, a statue is not an independent power. By virtue of the fact that the statue is made in the image of another, it cannot be independent of the other's power. A picture of me is valuable to my mother because it bares my image. If it did not bare my image it would be of no value at all.
At first glance it seems that the issue of worship should be simple as well. It is the one God Himself who is being worshiped and not any created thing. Idolatry is literally "image worship" and the image is not here being worshiped, directly or indirectly. Catholics recognize that no statue can represent what God actually is, for God cannot be limited to any physical form. Statues and other images can only display an aspect of who God is and even then only imperfectly. They are sacramental signposts, not objects of worship.
However, it is not that simple. For Maimonides, the use of any image in worship is idolatry and we do use images in worship. By the definition of Maimonides, Catholics are idolators. To get around this is one would have to refute the very definition given by this great Jewish thinker. I am a 25 year old Catholic graduate student with a blog. I do not presume to critic such a mind as Maimonides. I leave that for those with greater credential than I.
If a person were to try and refute this position, perhaps they could start by pointing out all the times God is described by analogy throughout the scriptures; God as a shepherd, God as a potter. Both of these images are employed in prayers, times of worship. If it is permissible to use literary images in the directing of our worship, why not a picture or a statue? I do not see any real difference. Much more would need to be said before one could call this a true refute, but perhaps there is a hole here.
More importantly, when one who is versed in Thomistic philosophy reads Maimonides, it is not difficult to see parallels. One of the things Maimonides taught was that Abraham came to know God as the final cause. He saw his neighbors worshiping these created things and realized there must have been something greater than them to create them, there must have been a first cause, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover. Perhaps Aquinas was more of a thief than we realize.
There are only two things of which i am certain; i am certain of my own existence for to me this is self-evident, and i am certain this God of Abraham exists for if i exist there must have been something prior to me to cause my existence. Catholics and Jews disagree on a lot, but on this we agree; we agree that our God exists, and we agree on who He is. He is that which is and from Whom all else came.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Morals and Ethics and Politics
Last week i wrote on sin, you can find that post here. This week i would like to consider morals and ethics. How are they different? How are they the same? Do i have the right to force my morals or ethics on others? If Mitt the Mormon missionary mused on his Mormon morals, would they be mere Mormon musing of a Massachusite monarch? (Also, is that joke now dated?)
Morals and ethics differ in their source material. Morals are based on a set of beliefs, like a religion. Ethics are based on a philosophy which is in turn based on a set of beliefs. In the end all ethics are a form or morality, but not all morality qualifies as ethics. This is analogous to how all politicians are tiny bloodsucking animals, but not all tiny bloodsucking animals are politicians. (Also; All french are cowards but not all cowards are french, all Catholics breed like rabbits but not all rabbits are Catholic (some are Jewish), you get the idea.) Morals and ethics both find their foundations in a belief set. For morals this belief set could be divine revelation, or alien transmissions, or the deluded ravings of a mad man living in a cave. These are not all equal in validity, but they are all sufficient for the foundation of a moral code. Ethics must find their footing in a person's foundational assumptions, those basic beliefs that inform our worldview, that is, the way we view the world.
Something is subjective if it only applies to a singular individual or group. Something is objective if it applies to everyone. An example most of us can relate to is temperature. A guy would generally find 72 degrees (22.2C) to be a little on the warm side. If a member of the opposite gender, your mom, sister, or girlfriend, walks into the room she will ask why it is so cold in here. Our perception of 72 degrees is subjective because it depends on the person; be it warm, cold or just right. However, it is an objective fact that the room is indeed 72 degrees.
Because morality is based on an individual's beliefs, there is such thing as subjective morality. However, most morality is objective. It would be objectively wrong for me to hunt down that person who cut me off in traffic the other day and burn her house down. There is no real doubt here. (sadly) I would say there is nothing objectively wrong with consuming alcohol, so long as it is done in moderation. A cold Yuengling after a hard day's work (or while watching anime on Hulu) is a very nice thing. However i have friends who think all alcohol is of the devil and it is a sin to consume any. (They would like me to give it up, but since i'm already going to hell for being Catholic, i don't see why i should surrender my Rum and Cokes.) For the sake of argument, we are gong to say i'm right and alcohol is a good thing; it's not wrong for me and thus not objectively wrong. However, it would be wrong for them to consume alcohol as it would be a violation of conscience. Thus we have subjective morality. It is morally acceptable for me to drink a Long Island Ice Tea but would be morally wrong for my puritanical Baptist friends.
Ethics are never subjective. They are objective by their very nature. I can be right in my ethical claims and i can be wrong in my ethical claims, but there are no ethical claims which apply only to me. In fact, the absolute nature of ethics allows us to distinguish subjective morality from objective morality. Burning down that lady's home would be ethically wrong. This is how i know it is objective morality. If we can back up our morality with ethics then it is objective morality, universal truth. Subjective morality can have no ethical footing.
This brings us to our core concept, politics. The role of government in Catholic thought is two fold, according Pope Pius XII, "to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority." The government has the authority and obligation to defend basic human rights. In addition, as every right correspondes to a duty, the government can and should enforce the performance of those duties.
The role of morals in politics seems simple. Subjective morality has no place in the public sphere. Just as you are under no duty to obey my morality and i have no right to force my morality upon you. Most everyone believes their morality is of the objective type. Even people who say all morality is subjective will admit that murder is universally wrong, i.e. objective. I often hear people say it is wrong to force your morality on others, thus making a claim on universal, objective morality. In practice we all believe our own morals are objective, otherwise we wouldn't hold to them. However, who is to say who is right? Morals should not be legislated as it is simply presumption to assert my morality as superior to yours. I can and should strive to convert you to my way of thinking, and you should do the same for me, but i cannot and should not use the government as a way to force my beliefs on you.
Ethics are the complete opposite. Ethics inform us of our human rights and of our duties. Ethics tell us what we cannot do and what we must do. They are those universal truths for which government exists. It is not only acceptable that the government enforce ethics, the government fails in its very purpose when it fails to do so. I can make a moral argument against homosexual activity, but i cannot make an ethical argument against homosexual activity. Who's rights are being violated? What duty is being ignored? I must therefor conclude that it would be inappropriate for the government to legislate against homosexual acts. The truth is, i cannot make a half decent moral argument against abortion. However, ethics tells us that the right to life is the most foundational of all rights and we have a duty to defend human life no matter the age or location of the person. The ethical arguments against abortion are thoroughly sufficient to merit a universal ban.
My arguments against contraception are moral arguments, based in my religious beliefs. It would be inappropriate for me to try and ban contraception with the arguments i currently posses. However, the opposite is also true. Just as it would be wrong for Catholics to force our views of contraception on others, it would be equally wrong for them to force their views on us. For example, by forcing us to purchase contraception for them, directly or indirectly. It is ethically wrong to force people to act contrary to their own moral beliefs. Each one of us has a right to conscience and to violate this right is a serious abuse of government authority.
Human beings are political creatures by nature. Whenever we form groups we form ways of governing those groups. Even among a group of friends they will have a mode of decision making. As political creatures it is important for us to understand the role of government. We must understand why it is in place, what it can and cannot legislate. When the founding fathers put forth the declaration of independence they also put forth three ethical claims; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. At times we are called upon to lay down our lives to secure the liberty of another. At times we are called to lay down our liberty for the happiness of another. We can never enslave another for the sake of our own happiness. We can never kill another for the sake of our own liberty.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Morals and ethics differ in their source material. Morals are based on a set of beliefs, like a religion. Ethics are based on a philosophy which is in turn based on a set of beliefs. In the end all ethics are a form or morality, but not all morality qualifies as ethics. This is analogous to how all politicians are tiny bloodsucking animals, but not all tiny bloodsucking animals are politicians. (Also; All french are cowards but not all cowards are french, all Catholics breed like rabbits but not all rabbits are Catholic (some are Jewish), you get the idea.) Morals and ethics both find their foundations in a belief set. For morals this belief set could be divine revelation, or alien transmissions, or the deluded ravings of a mad man living in a cave. These are not all equal in validity, but they are all sufficient for the foundation of a moral code. Ethics must find their footing in a person's foundational assumptions, those basic beliefs that inform our worldview, that is, the way we view the world.
Something is subjective if it only applies to a singular individual or group. Something is objective if it applies to everyone. An example most of us can relate to is temperature. A guy would generally find 72 degrees (22.2C) to be a little on the warm side. If a member of the opposite gender, your mom, sister, or girlfriend, walks into the room she will ask why it is so cold in here. Our perception of 72 degrees is subjective because it depends on the person; be it warm, cold or just right. However, it is an objective fact that the room is indeed 72 degrees.
Because morality is based on an individual's beliefs, there is such thing as subjective morality. However, most morality is objective. It would be objectively wrong for me to hunt down that person who cut me off in traffic the other day and burn her house down. There is no real doubt here. (sadly) I would say there is nothing objectively wrong with consuming alcohol, so long as it is done in moderation. A cold Yuengling after a hard day's work (or while watching anime on Hulu) is a very nice thing. However i have friends who think all alcohol is of the devil and it is a sin to consume any. (They would like me to give it up, but since i'm already going to hell for being Catholic, i don't see why i should surrender my Rum and Cokes.) For the sake of argument, we are gong to say i'm right and alcohol is a good thing; it's not wrong for me and thus not objectively wrong. However, it would be wrong for them to consume alcohol as it would be a violation of conscience. Thus we have subjective morality. It is morally acceptable for me to drink a Long Island Ice Tea but would be morally wrong for my puritanical Baptist friends.
Ethics are never subjective. They are objective by their very nature. I can be right in my ethical claims and i can be wrong in my ethical claims, but there are no ethical claims which apply only to me. In fact, the absolute nature of ethics allows us to distinguish subjective morality from objective morality. Burning down that lady's home would be ethically wrong. This is how i know it is objective morality. If we can back up our morality with ethics then it is objective morality, universal truth. Subjective morality can have no ethical footing.
This brings us to our core concept, politics. The role of government in Catholic thought is two fold, according Pope Pius XII, "to safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of every public authority." The government has the authority and obligation to defend basic human rights. In addition, as every right correspondes to a duty, the government can and should enforce the performance of those duties.
The role of morals in politics seems simple. Subjective morality has no place in the public sphere. Just as you are under no duty to obey my morality and i have no right to force my morality upon you. Most everyone believes their morality is of the objective type. Even people who say all morality is subjective will admit that murder is universally wrong, i.e. objective. I often hear people say it is wrong to force your morality on others, thus making a claim on universal, objective morality. In practice we all believe our own morals are objective, otherwise we wouldn't hold to them. However, who is to say who is right? Morals should not be legislated as it is simply presumption to assert my morality as superior to yours. I can and should strive to convert you to my way of thinking, and you should do the same for me, but i cannot and should not use the government as a way to force my beliefs on you.
Ethics are the complete opposite. Ethics inform us of our human rights and of our duties. Ethics tell us what we cannot do and what we must do. They are those universal truths for which government exists. It is not only acceptable that the government enforce ethics, the government fails in its very purpose when it fails to do so. I can make a moral argument against homosexual activity, but i cannot make an ethical argument against homosexual activity. Who's rights are being violated? What duty is being ignored? I must therefor conclude that it would be inappropriate for the government to legislate against homosexual acts. The truth is, i cannot make a half decent moral argument against abortion. However, ethics tells us that the right to life is the most foundational of all rights and we have a duty to defend human life no matter the age or location of the person. The ethical arguments against abortion are thoroughly sufficient to merit a universal ban.
My arguments against contraception are moral arguments, based in my religious beliefs. It would be inappropriate for me to try and ban contraception with the arguments i currently posses. However, the opposite is also true. Just as it would be wrong for Catholics to force our views of contraception on others, it would be equally wrong for them to force their views on us. For example, by forcing us to purchase contraception for them, directly or indirectly. It is ethically wrong to force people to act contrary to their own moral beliefs. Each one of us has a right to conscience and to violate this right is a serious abuse of government authority.
Human beings are political creatures by nature. Whenever we form groups we form ways of governing those groups. Even among a group of friends they will have a mode of decision making. As political creatures it is important for us to understand the role of government. We must understand why it is in place, what it can and cannot legislate. When the founding fathers put forth the declaration of independence they also put forth three ethical claims; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. At times we are called upon to lay down our lives to secure the liberty of another. At times we are called to lay down our liberty for the happiness of another. We can never enslave another for the sake of our own happiness. We can never kill another for the sake of our own liberty.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Understanding Sin as Tangent
Generally, I avoid the term sin. This is not because i find the topic distasteful, but because most people don't know what sin is. They see it as arbitrary divine judgement. For them, sin is the violation of some supernatural legal code. Just as crime results in prison, sin results in damnation. It's cold and impersonal and alienating. When they hear us say they are sinning they simply hear us passing judgment on them. Although i will not shy away from talking about sins, generally, i will avoid the term. It just confuses the issue and pushes people farther away.
However, this is based on a misconception of God, of His relation to us. God is not a power hungry tyrant, He is not an impersonal and wrathful judge. He is a loving Father, and He created us with a purpose. To understand sin, we must first understand this purpose and our relation to God.
There is a meaning to life. We were created for the greatest good of all, complete union with God, in which we find true happiness and ultimate joy. We enter into this union through love, through the true self-gift. This is not something we do, but rather something we allow God to do. All you really contribute is your yes, when you say yes to God and offer Him the entirety of yourself. So long as i pursue my own good, i will never find the ultimate good. So long as i am looking out for myself and pursuing my own happiness, true joy and fulfillment will forever evade me. So i let go, and offer myself to God. I allow him to love me and to love the world through me. In giving myself to Him, i receive Him in turn, and find the purpose for which i was made.
There is this path, its narrow and steep, but when we travel it we travel with God, towards our true purpose. This is the path of salvation. God neither forces us to walk it nor to remain on it. There are many other paths to choose from, often times they seem more appealing, but they do not takes us anywhere we really want to go. They are tangents, leading us away from our true ends. We walk the path of salvation so long as we pursue God, the ultimate good. We leave this path and pursue the tangents when we choose lesser goods over God, temporal good over eternal good, personal good over the good of others.
God does not send anyone to Hell. If He did, he would be a monster, creating man simply to subject him to eternal torment. God sends no one to Hell. Each and every soul who arrives in this destination of the damned is there of their own free will, their own volition. They refused God when He offered them salvation, when He offered them Himself. The souls in Hell said no when God offered them Heaven.
When we place our hope in anything apart from God it will eventually fail us. We pursue lesser goods but they don't satisfy us. They may grant us a momentary escape from the miseries of life, but soon they fade. We seek them out again, but this time we need more to get the same feelings, and again they fade. Soon it does not matter how much we get, our desire cannot be satisfied. We desire a fulfillment which can only be achieved in finding our meaning, our purpose in being. We all hope in someday finding that purpose, but the longer we seek it in vain the more our hope fades, until it finally dies, and all we are left with is despair. Hell is not a place like Pittsburgh or Milwaukee, it is a state of being, it is the complete absence of a meaning only God can provide. Hell is the complete and utter despair resulting from a life of self-gratification.
Sin aught not to be seen as a legal term, divine or otherwise. Our true fulfillment is found in union with God, and God desires that for us. However, He gave us free will so that we could choose for ourselves. We have the power to choose against God, to reject Him. We can take actions that impede our union with God, that separate us from the ultimate good, that lead us on the path towards the misery of despair. This is the essence of sin. This is what we aught to mean when we refer to it. Sin is that which separates us from God, from the ultimate good, from the purpose of our being. It consists of those things which are spiritually harmful to the individual who does them.
God desires that which is best for us, which is union with Him. Sin harms us by separating us from Him and binding us to the world. Nothing in creation is evil in of itself. Food is good, sex is good, music is good, everything is created good. The problem comes when we prefer these things to God. Again, God sends no one to Hell, it is not something God subjects us to, it is something we subject ourselves to. But why? Why would anyone choose Hell over Heaven? It is because of the high cost of Heaven. In order to gain paradise, we must be willing to give up everything. All the goods of creation are distractions we must be willing to sacrifice. No human being can do this alone. It is only with God's aid that this is possible. Even then we all will fall short on occasion. Sins are those things which tie us to these lesser goods and distract us from God.
When we do something that leads us away from God, we are choosing against Heaven. When we stop pursuing God and go off on these tangents, that is sin. When God tells us to give to those in need and avoid murdering our neighbors, it is because He desires what is best for us. I could rightly say that contraception is a sin, but most people would hear something like; contraception makes God angry and now your going to hell. This understanding would not only be unhelpful, but it could even lead people away from Christ and His Church. So rather than give scandal, i say contraception harms you as a person, it impedes your true happiness and hinders your relationship with God. Far less offensive, much more informative, and yet I have said the exact same thing in both cases. For that is what sin does and why it is so bad; it harms us as people, impedes our true happiness and hinders our relationship with God.
Sin is a tangent, because it distracts us from the real purpose of it all.
However, this is based on a misconception of God, of His relation to us. God is not a power hungry tyrant, He is not an impersonal and wrathful judge. He is a loving Father, and He created us with a purpose. To understand sin, we must first understand this purpose and our relation to God.
There is a meaning to life. We were created for the greatest good of all, complete union with God, in which we find true happiness and ultimate joy. We enter into this union through love, through the true self-gift. This is not something we do, but rather something we allow God to do. All you really contribute is your yes, when you say yes to God and offer Him the entirety of yourself. So long as i pursue my own good, i will never find the ultimate good. So long as i am looking out for myself and pursuing my own happiness, true joy and fulfillment will forever evade me. So i let go, and offer myself to God. I allow him to love me and to love the world through me. In giving myself to Him, i receive Him in turn, and find the purpose for which i was made.
There is this path, its narrow and steep, but when we travel it we travel with God, towards our true purpose. This is the path of salvation. God neither forces us to walk it nor to remain on it. There are many other paths to choose from, often times they seem more appealing, but they do not takes us anywhere we really want to go. They are tangents, leading us away from our true ends. We walk the path of salvation so long as we pursue God, the ultimate good. We leave this path and pursue the tangents when we choose lesser goods over God, temporal good over eternal good, personal good over the good of others.
God does not send anyone to Hell. If He did, he would be a monster, creating man simply to subject him to eternal torment. God sends no one to Hell. Each and every soul who arrives in this destination of the damned is there of their own free will, their own volition. They refused God when He offered them salvation, when He offered them Himself. The souls in Hell said no when God offered them Heaven.
When we place our hope in anything apart from God it will eventually fail us. We pursue lesser goods but they don't satisfy us. They may grant us a momentary escape from the miseries of life, but soon they fade. We seek them out again, but this time we need more to get the same feelings, and again they fade. Soon it does not matter how much we get, our desire cannot be satisfied. We desire a fulfillment which can only be achieved in finding our meaning, our purpose in being. We all hope in someday finding that purpose, but the longer we seek it in vain the more our hope fades, until it finally dies, and all we are left with is despair. Hell is not a place like Pittsburgh or Milwaukee, it is a state of being, it is the complete absence of a meaning only God can provide. Hell is the complete and utter despair resulting from a life of self-gratification.
Sin aught not to be seen as a legal term, divine or otherwise. Our true fulfillment is found in union with God, and God desires that for us. However, He gave us free will so that we could choose for ourselves. We have the power to choose against God, to reject Him. We can take actions that impede our union with God, that separate us from the ultimate good, that lead us on the path towards the misery of despair. This is the essence of sin. This is what we aught to mean when we refer to it. Sin is that which separates us from God, from the ultimate good, from the purpose of our being. It consists of those things which are spiritually harmful to the individual who does them.
God desires that which is best for us, which is union with Him. Sin harms us by separating us from Him and binding us to the world. Nothing in creation is evil in of itself. Food is good, sex is good, music is good, everything is created good. The problem comes when we prefer these things to God. Again, God sends no one to Hell, it is not something God subjects us to, it is something we subject ourselves to. But why? Why would anyone choose Hell over Heaven? It is because of the high cost of Heaven. In order to gain paradise, we must be willing to give up everything. All the goods of creation are distractions we must be willing to sacrifice. No human being can do this alone. It is only with God's aid that this is possible. Even then we all will fall short on occasion. Sins are those things which tie us to these lesser goods and distract us from God.
When we do something that leads us away from God, we are choosing against Heaven. When we stop pursuing God and go off on these tangents, that is sin. When God tells us to give to those in need and avoid murdering our neighbors, it is because He desires what is best for us. I could rightly say that contraception is a sin, but most people would hear something like; contraception makes God angry and now your going to hell. This understanding would not only be unhelpful, but it could even lead people away from Christ and His Church. So rather than give scandal, i say contraception harms you as a person, it impedes your true happiness and hinders your relationship with God. Far less offensive, much more informative, and yet I have said the exact same thing in both cases. For that is what sin does and why it is so bad; it harms us as people, impedes our true happiness and hinders our relationship with God.
Sin is a tangent, because it distracts us from the real purpose of it all.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
A Catholic View of Evolution and Darwinism; Part II - How it All Relates
Assuming you read Part I, welcome back! If you have not yet done so, i highly recommend you do.
Evolution and darwinism are not the same thing, nor are creationism and intelligent design. Evolution is a completely legitimate scientific theory. Darwinism is an absurdest philosophy masquerading as natural science. Evolutionists and creationists are opposed to one another but they are both attempting to answer the same question; how did we get here? They want to provide the efficient cause of humanity, earth and the universe. Darwinism and intelligent design are similarly diametrically opposed, but they too are trying to answer a singular question; why are we here. They want to explain the final cause.
I consider myself a theistic evolutionist. That is, i believe in an intelligent design to the universe but i accept evolution as God's modus operandi in creation. It does not matter to me if you believe in evolution or creationism. The theological truths about God and the universe are largely unaffected by what position you take there. I would much rather spend my time blasting darwinism and upholding intelligent design. However, i feel i should give a brief explanation for my position and i'll do that near the end.
Evolution seems to fit well with naturalism as it doesn't expressly call for a supernatural outside force. As i said last week, there is nothing inherently wrong with naturalism so long as it is merely methodological. The problem arises when one corrupts it into metaphysical naturalism.
Metaphysics is the study of being, it is the purest form of philosophy, seeking to understand the formal and final causes; what we are and why we are here. Naturalism is the assumption of purely natural causality. When it is applied to metaphysics we are left with a philosophy of being which rejects anything beyond the seen, beyond the natural. This is, of course, incomparable with creationism and so it strives to find footing in evolution. The resulting monstrosity is known as darwinism.
Although this may at first seem a match made in heaven (forgive the pun), we quickly come upon two major problems. The first problem is the law of entropy. This argument has been used ad nauseum against evolution, and that is not my intention here, especially considering that it doesn't work. However, the argument does have some weight against darwinism. Entropy is sameness or disorder. The law of entropy states that in a closed system the amount of entropy can only increase. That is, assuming no outside force, things only ever get more similar and less complex. Consider a camp fire reducing the wooden logs to their base components. The diversity and complexity of the wood are gone. Only ash remains.
Evolution calls for a growing of complexity and diversity over time, seemingly in direct contradiction to the law of entropy. The only explanation is that this isn't a closed system. The darwinist would argue the decrees in entropy in evolution is attributable to increased entropy elsewhere, namely the sun and to a much lesser extent the earth. However, just think about that. What is really more impressive? A universe simply snapped into existence with all the complexities already in place or a universe which gradually unfolds in time with the capacity to grow in complexity despite a tendency towards ciaos? The second one calls out for God with far greater subtlety, but it calls out for a God far more worthy of being called out to.
The second problem is easier to express and harder to refute. Evolution is a process. By definition it has to start somewhere. You can't have infinite regression. This is an old argument, but it still works just as well. There must be a first mover, an uncaused cause, to set the entire process in motion. Darwinism can't account for this. In Catholic theology this is the very definition of God, the first mover, the uncaused cause. Evolution can't tell me if God really is personal or loving or even sentient, but it tells me God exists.
Creationism and evolution both call out for God, they just do it in different ways. Creationism is more blatant, evolution is more subtle. Creationism is in a hurry, evolution is more patient. While creationism screams for God's existence, evolution suffices with a whisper.
Intelligent design can be taken on multiple levels, but at it's core it simply says there is a reason for existence beyond random chance, that there is a God who is sentient and who designed the laws by which our universe functions. It allows for meaning and purpose in existence. It says there is more than just what we see. Although it is usually paired with creationism, there is no reason to reject evolution as the means for this intelligent design.
I won't say creationism is a legitimate scientific theory, but there are many very intelligent people who embrace it. I think creationists are wrong, but they do have some good arguments, and they keep evolutionists honest. They even expose serious flaws in the theory of evolution which might otherwise go undressed. However, when all is said and done, i thing the hard scientific evidence supports evolution. In addition, when you contemplate how God has worked through history, evolution seems to fit better. God didn't just just snap Israel into existence; he started with one guy and grew it into a family and then a tribe and then a nation and a kingdom. Out of Israel He brought the Church, starting with the twelve disciples and growing it like a mustard seed into the billion strong liturgical empire we have today. God created a temporal universe in order to lay foundations and build on them over time. If He follows this pattern in recorded history, why not in prerecorded history?
When all is said and done, i think creationists make the same mistake as darwinists. They confuse natural science with theology. Creationists and darwinists fail to realize that these things have different ends. Natural science wants to understand how we got here and evolution provides an answer. Theology tries to explain why we are here and evolution cannot answer this question, only God can. The fatal flaw of darwinism is looking to natural science when the answers can't be found in nature. The fatal flaw of creationism is the exact opposite. The Bible has history in it, but it is not by its natural a historical textbook. The purpose of the Bible is to answer theological questions, the questions of why.
Evolution can tell us how we got here, but it cannot tell us why we are here. The Bible doesn't say how God made us, only that God made us. The Bible tells us we are made in the image of God, to manifest His authority on earth. The Bible tells us we are here to glorify Him by loving one another. It tells us how to find the meaning of existence, the purpose of our being, true happiness and fulfillment.
I guess, for creationists, that's just not enough.
<< - To Part I
Evolution and darwinism are not the same thing, nor are creationism and intelligent design. Evolution is a completely legitimate scientific theory. Darwinism is an absurdest philosophy masquerading as natural science. Evolutionists and creationists are opposed to one another but they are both attempting to answer the same question; how did we get here? They want to provide the efficient cause of humanity, earth and the universe. Darwinism and intelligent design are similarly diametrically opposed, but they too are trying to answer a singular question; why are we here. They want to explain the final cause.
I consider myself a theistic evolutionist. That is, i believe in an intelligent design to the universe but i accept evolution as God's modus operandi in creation. It does not matter to me if you believe in evolution or creationism. The theological truths about God and the universe are largely unaffected by what position you take there. I would much rather spend my time blasting darwinism and upholding intelligent design. However, i feel i should give a brief explanation for my position and i'll do that near the end.
Evolution seems to fit well with naturalism as it doesn't expressly call for a supernatural outside force. As i said last week, there is nothing inherently wrong with naturalism so long as it is merely methodological. The problem arises when one corrupts it into metaphysical naturalism.
Metaphysics is the study of being, it is the purest form of philosophy, seeking to understand the formal and final causes; what we are and why we are here. Naturalism is the assumption of purely natural causality. When it is applied to metaphysics we are left with a philosophy of being which rejects anything beyond the seen, beyond the natural. This is, of course, incomparable with creationism and so it strives to find footing in evolution. The resulting monstrosity is known as darwinism.
Although this may at first seem a match made in heaven (forgive the pun), we quickly come upon two major problems. The first problem is the law of entropy. This argument has been used ad nauseum against evolution, and that is not my intention here, especially considering that it doesn't work. However, the argument does have some weight against darwinism. Entropy is sameness or disorder. The law of entropy states that in a closed system the amount of entropy can only increase. That is, assuming no outside force, things only ever get more similar and less complex. Consider a camp fire reducing the wooden logs to their base components. The diversity and complexity of the wood are gone. Only ash remains.
Evolution calls for a growing of complexity and diversity over time, seemingly in direct contradiction to the law of entropy. The only explanation is that this isn't a closed system. The darwinist would argue the decrees in entropy in evolution is attributable to increased entropy elsewhere, namely the sun and to a much lesser extent the earth. However, just think about that. What is really more impressive? A universe simply snapped into existence with all the complexities already in place or a universe which gradually unfolds in time with the capacity to grow in complexity despite a tendency towards ciaos? The second one calls out for God with far greater subtlety, but it calls out for a God far more worthy of being called out to.
The second problem is easier to express and harder to refute. Evolution is a process. By definition it has to start somewhere. You can't have infinite regression. This is an old argument, but it still works just as well. There must be a first mover, an uncaused cause, to set the entire process in motion. Darwinism can't account for this. In Catholic theology this is the very definition of God, the first mover, the uncaused cause. Evolution can't tell me if God really is personal or loving or even sentient, but it tells me God exists.
Creationism and evolution both call out for God, they just do it in different ways. Creationism is more blatant, evolution is more subtle. Creationism is in a hurry, evolution is more patient. While creationism screams for God's existence, evolution suffices with a whisper.
Intelligent design can be taken on multiple levels, but at it's core it simply says there is a reason for existence beyond random chance, that there is a God who is sentient and who designed the laws by which our universe functions. It allows for meaning and purpose in existence. It says there is more than just what we see. Although it is usually paired with creationism, there is no reason to reject evolution as the means for this intelligent design.
I won't say creationism is a legitimate scientific theory, but there are many very intelligent people who embrace it. I think creationists are wrong, but they do have some good arguments, and they keep evolutionists honest. They even expose serious flaws in the theory of evolution which might otherwise go undressed. However, when all is said and done, i thing the hard scientific evidence supports evolution. In addition, when you contemplate how God has worked through history, evolution seems to fit better. God didn't just just snap Israel into existence; he started with one guy and grew it into a family and then a tribe and then a nation and a kingdom. Out of Israel He brought the Church, starting with the twelve disciples and growing it like a mustard seed into the billion strong liturgical empire we have today. God created a temporal universe in order to lay foundations and build on them over time. If He follows this pattern in recorded history, why not in prerecorded history?
When all is said and done, i think creationists make the same mistake as darwinists. They confuse natural science with theology. Creationists and darwinists fail to realize that these things have different ends. Natural science wants to understand how we got here and evolution provides an answer. Theology tries to explain why we are here and evolution cannot answer this question, only God can. The fatal flaw of darwinism is looking to natural science when the answers can't be found in nature. The fatal flaw of creationism is the exact opposite. The Bible has history in it, but it is not by its natural a historical textbook. The purpose of the Bible is to answer theological questions, the questions of why.
Evolution can tell us how we got here, but it cannot tell us why we are here. The Bible doesn't say how God made us, only that God made us. The Bible tells us we are made in the image of God, to manifest His authority on earth. The Bible tells us we are here to glorify Him by loving one another. It tells us how to find the meaning of existence, the purpose of our being, true happiness and fulfillment.
I guess, for creationists, that's just not enough.
<< - To Part I
Saturday, October 13, 2012
The Galileo Myth
Galileo, Galileo. Everybody knows this story, right? Scientist puts forth a revolutionary new concept that challenges the presuppositions of the religious elites and so they and silence him. People love telling this story because it perfectly illustrates the close-minded, anti-scientific nature of the Catholic Church, or maybe even Christianity in general. The fact that it isn't true is... inconsequential.
I should clarify; Galileo did believe the earth revolves around the sun (heliocentrism) and he was tried by the inquisition for heresy, twice, and the second time found to be gravely suspect of it. However, his heliocentric views were not really the reason for his trial. There are plenty of people who have already explained what happened. If you want in in-depth look at the history or theories in dispute, try Google or click here. As I really don't like rehashing the same ground as everyone else, i'm going to try and take a slightly different approach. I'm more interested in the theology and philosophy that got us into this mess in the first place, so i will try and discuss these.
The Catholic Church has a strong dislike for schism and scandal. At the time of Galileo this had grown into a blatant paranoia, largely due to the resent emergence of Protestantism. This is understandable considering the 30 years of war and millions of casualties, on both side, which followed. (However, in truth, this was more political than religious (i'll address it in a future post)) Although, as Christians we should be a little paranoid about these two things. Schism is a break in the unity of the Church. Christ's final request to the Father before His passion was that we would be one, that we would posses a true unity. As the Church of Christ, we strive vigilantly to manifest that unity He prayed for. To cause schism is to go in the completely wrong direction.
To cause scandal is to cause another to stumble in their faith, to lead another away from Christ. That is, away from the eternal joy of union with the Trinity and towards an eternal oblivion of despair. Jesus says it is better that a man have a millstone tied around his neck and he be cast into the sea, than that he would cause scandal. This is very serious. Additionally, as a schism is a breaking with the Church, the ordinary means of coming to Christ, schism is a form of scandal. When we discuss these, we are not discussing merely earthly affairs. Schism and scandal can have eternal ramifications. Under the Church's understanding of these things, they place people's immortal souls in jeopardy.
This is my first premise; schism and scandal are very serious issues, the Church is completely justified in treating them as such. At the time of Galileo the debate between geocentrists and heliocentrists was very heated. There were scientists and theologians on both sides of the issue. In fact, heliocentrism was the minority opinion among scientists. Geocentric scientists and theologians felt very strongly about their position. Heliocentric scientists and theologians felt very strongly about their position. Within this debate Galileo emerged as a dominant and divisive figure. (He was not nice to his opposition.)
Galileo had a talent for angering his opponents and disenfranchising his friends. The issue was not what he was saying so much as how he was saying it. He was a brilliant scientist but politically, he was a moron. He wanted to push his theory in political and theological circles as well as scientific ones. Where ever the question could be raised, he was there raising it. Eventually the Church told him to shut up. They felt his tactics could cause scandal. They were worried the debate had potential to give rise to schism. In order to prevent this, they chose to embrace the majority scientific and theological position and suppress the dominate voice of the minority. Again, this was done, not to refute a scientific position or define a theological concept, but solely to prevent those two great evils of scandal and schism.
Imagine if you were in the military. Your commanding officer gives you an order. You would have to follow it, right? Now, imagine if you disagreed with that order and you disobeyed. What would happen? It would not matter if you were right or wrong, you would be in trouble. The Catholic Church is like the military. As a Catholic i am under the authority of my superiors; primarily my priest and bishop. If they tell me to do something i need to do it. It was the same with Galileo. The Church told him he was allowed to conjecture on heliocentrism but that he couldn't actively defend it. (This is kinda like telling a five year old that he can play with a ball so long as he doesn't throw it. There is nothing wrong with the ball, but if he throws it he might break something.) So what happened? Galileo decided to ignore them and threw the ball.. ah.. actively defend heliocentrism. Consequence? He got slapped down. (There is nothing wrong with throwing balls, but i told you not to. So now you are in time-out.)
It was felt that Galileo was causing schism and scandal. His higher ups limited the means by which he could defend his position in order to stop this. He didn't obey them and so he got in trouble. If you study the history of the Church and contemplate the life of Galileo you will probably come to a few conclusions: If he had avoided the political lime light rather than pursuing it, he probably would have been fine. If he had limited himself to science, rather than defending his position in theological forums as well, he probably would have been fine. If he had been willing to consider heliocentrism a theory, rather than definitively true, he probably would have been fine. If he hadn't insulted and alienated all his politically powerful friends (like the Pope), that would have helped. It seems as if Galileo was trying his absolute best to get himself excommunicated. We should not be shocked that he almost succeeded.
(side note: Galileo believed the sun was at the center of the universe, so technically, he was wrong.)
A few points in Summary:
-The Church never condemned heliocentrism as wrong, only as problematic.
-Galileo was not a pure scientist, he debated theology as well.
-Galileo did not get in trouble for being wrong, but rather for being disobedient.
(Edit: The sentence against Galileo was not an excommunication. He was found gravely suspect of heresy, and sentenced to house arrest.)
I should clarify; Galileo did believe the earth revolves around the sun (heliocentrism) and he was tried by the inquisition for heresy, twice, and the second time found to be gravely suspect of it. However, his heliocentric views were not really the reason for his trial. There are plenty of people who have already explained what happened. If you want in in-depth look at the history or theories in dispute, try Google or click here. As I really don't like rehashing the same ground as everyone else, i'm going to try and take a slightly different approach. I'm more interested in the theology and philosophy that got us into this mess in the first place, so i will try and discuss these.
The Catholic Church has a strong dislike for schism and scandal. At the time of Galileo this had grown into a blatant paranoia, largely due to the resent emergence of Protestantism. This is understandable considering the 30 years of war and millions of casualties, on both side, which followed. (However, in truth, this was more political than religious (i'll address it in a future post)) Although, as Christians we should be a little paranoid about these two things. Schism is a break in the unity of the Church. Christ's final request to the Father before His passion was that we would be one, that we would posses a true unity. As the Church of Christ, we strive vigilantly to manifest that unity He prayed for. To cause schism is to go in the completely wrong direction.
To cause scandal is to cause another to stumble in their faith, to lead another away from Christ. That is, away from the eternal joy of union with the Trinity and towards an eternal oblivion of despair. Jesus says it is better that a man have a millstone tied around his neck and he be cast into the sea, than that he would cause scandal. This is very serious. Additionally, as a schism is a breaking with the Church, the ordinary means of coming to Christ, schism is a form of scandal. When we discuss these, we are not discussing merely earthly affairs. Schism and scandal can have eternal ramifications. Under the Church's understanding of these things, they place people's immortal souls in jeopardy.
This is my first premise; schism and scandal are very serious issues, the Church is completely justified in treating them as such. At the time of Galileo the debate between geocentrists and heliocentrists was very heated. There were scientists and theologians on both sides of the issue. In fact, heliocentrism was the minority opinion among scientists. Geocentric scientists and theologians felt very strongly about their position. Heliocentric scientists and theologians felt very strongly about their position. Within this debate Galileo emerged as a dominant and divisive figure. (He was not nice to his opposition.)
Galileo had a talent for angering his opponents and disenfranchising his friends. The issue was not what he was saying so much as how he was saying it. He was a brilliant scientist but politically, he was a moron. He wanted to push his theory in political and theological circles as well as scientific ones. Where ever the question could be raised, he was there raising it. Eventually the Church told him to shut up. They felt his tactics could cause scandal. They were worried the debate had potential to give rise to schism. In order to prevent this, they chose to embrace the majority scientific and theological position and suppress the dominate voice of the minority. Again, this was done, not to refute a scientific position or define a theological concept, but solely to prevent those two great evils of scandal and schism.
Imagine if you were in the military. Your commanding officer gives you an order. You would have to follow it, right? Now, imagine if you disagreed with that order and you disobeyed. What would happen? It would not matter if you were right or wrong, you would be in trouble. The Catholic Church is like the military. As a Catholic i am under the authority of my superiors; primarily my priest and bishop. If they tell me to do something i need to do it. It was the same with Galileo. The Church told him he was allowed to conjecture on heliocentrism but that he couldn't actively defend it. (This is kinda like telling a five year old that he can play with a ball so long as he doesn't throw it. There is nothing wrong with the ball, but if he throws it he might break something.) So what happened? Galileo decided to ignore them and threw the ball.. ah.. actively defend heliocentrism. Consequence? He got slapped down. (There is nothing wrong with throwing balls, but i told you not to. So now you are in time-out.)
It was felt that Galileo was causing schism and scandal. His higher ups limited the means by which he could defend his position in order to stop this. He didn't obey them and so he got in trouble. If you study the history of the Church and contemplate the life of Galileo you will probably come to a few conclusions: If he had avoided the political lime light rather than pursuing it, he probably would have been fine. If he had limited himself to science, rather than defending his position in theological forums as well, he probably would have been fine. If he had been willing to consider heliocentrism a theory, rather than definitively true, he probably would have been fine. If he hadn't insulted and alienated all his politically powerful friends (like the Pope), that would have helped. It seems as if Galileo was trying his absolute best to get himself excommunicated. We should not be shocked that he almost succeeded.
(side note: Galileo believed the sun was at the center of the universe, so technically, he was wrong.)
A few points in Summary:
-The Church never condemned heliocentrism as wrong, only as problematic.
-Galileo was not a pure scientist, he debated theology as well.
-Galileo did not get in trouble for being wrong, but rather for being disobedient.
(Edit: The sentence against Galileo was not an excommunication. He was found gravely suspect of heresy, and sentenced to house arrest.)
Saturday, September 29, 2012
The Meaning and Purpose of Life
Why yes, in fact, i do know the meaning and purpose of life. If you would like to know the meaning and purpose of life, all you need to do is send $100 to 1304...
Ok, never mind.
You don't need to send me money. I'll just tell you. I usually fall far short of it, i'm trying, but it's hard. You see, meaning is tied to purpose. Everything has a purpose and the meaning of existence is to fulfill that purpose. This may seem subtle, but i'll ellaborate.
As humans, there are three big questions we tend to ask. Most everything else is just a version of these. Every answer we seek is the counterpart to one of them; What, How and Why.
What is the most basic question of all? What is the most basic question of all. That's the answer, what. The most basic question of all is, what. What is this thing? What is it called? What is it made of? What defines it? You are a person, a human being. You're made of carbon and water and a few grams of various other minerals, and something else. It is this union of the something else to the material that defines you. There are billions of people, but only one of you. Each person is a union of body and soul, and this distinguishes us from everything else. Angels have souls but no bodies. Animals have bodies but no souls. (They have temporal spirits, but that is very different.)
Only human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. This image is stamped on our souls, our souls are joined to our bodies and we are made the manifestation of God's power on earth. (See post from last week.) As human beings we are defined by the image we bare and this joining of conflicting elements. As individuals, we are distinguished by our souls and the individual vocations to which each of us is called. Your body could be duplicated and your memories downloaded into its brain; but you would still be distinct, you would still be different. Your soul and your vocation, your calling, are unique to you.
How! This is the second question. Science loves asking this question. Although, it really only got popular with the enlightenment, when people lost sight of their priorities. Understanding how something came to be and how it works can tell us how to control it. Answering the question of how grants power, and science loves power. This isn't true understanding, it falls short of answering the final question. In Genesis we find an answer to the question of how. It's an extremely simplified answer, but it is all we really need. God did it. We can push further and ask how God did it, and there is nothing wrong with this, but it is not particularly important. In order to move on to the final question, all we need to know is that God did it. Pushing further into the how must not distract us from the why.
Why did God do it? Why am i here? The why informs purpose. Darwinism, materialism, modern enlightenment thinking says there is no real reason. It was just random chance, happenstance. Just the natural result of causality, like the rain or the sunshine. The only purpose is to exist, and then you die. Yea...
Jesus gives a better answer. In fact, He shows us. As He suffers and as He dies, He proclaims the very purpose of our lives. Two-thousand years ago, upon a cross, God gave Himself for us and He now gives Himself to us every day in the Eucharist. Through Scripture and Tradition , He tells us to do likewise.
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another as I have loved you.
We were not placed here to pursue just any-old-good for ourselves, we were placed here to pursue the good of others. When we imitate Christ, and give ourselves for the good of the world we discover our true purpose, the very meaning of our lives. This is the greatest good we could ever hope to procure.
We were placed here to love as Christ loved. To love the old man across the street. To love the single mother we pass in the store. To love the unborn child, waiting to be born.
We love others when we place their needs before our own. When we desire what is best for them and pursue it without concern for ourselves. When we accept, from God, a "new heart" which "will make it possible to appreciate and acheive the deepest and most authentic meaning of life: namely, that of being a gift which is fully realized in the giving of self." (Blessed Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 49 [emphasis in original])
I fail in this on a daily basis. But occasionally i succeed, and every time i do i rediscover its truth. I cannot prove my claim philosophically, but it is easy to demonstrate. Find an opportunity to love someone who has no chance to reciprocate. Take a leap of faith, you won't regret it.
True happiness is this, to love abundantly, with no concern for your own happiness.
Ok, never mind.
You don't need to send me money. I'll just tell you. I usually fall far short of it, i'm trying, but it's hard. You see, meaning is tied to purpose. Everything has a purpose and the meaning of existence is to fulfill that purpose. This may seem subtle, but i'll ellaborate.
As humans, there are three big questions we tend to ask. Most everything else is just a version of these. Every answer we seek is the counterpart to one of them; What, How and Why.
What is the most basic question of all? What is the most basic question of all. That's the answer, what. The most basic question of all is, what. What is this thing? What is it called? What is it made of? What defines it? You are a person, a human being. You're made of carbon and water and a few grams of various other minerals, and something else. It is this union of the something else to the material that defines you. There are billions of people, but only one of you. Each person is a union of body and soul, and this distinguishes us from everything else. Angels have souls but no bodies. Animals have bodies but no souls. (They have temporal spirits, but that is very different.)
Only human beings are made in the image and likeness of God. This image is stamped on our souls, our souls are joined to our bodies and we are made the manifestation of God's power on earth. (See post from last week.) As human beings we are defined by the image we bare and this joining of conflicting elements. As individuals, we are distinguished by our souls and the individual vocations to which each of us is called. Your body could be duplicated and your memories downloaded into its brain; but you would still be distinct, you would still be different. Your soul and your vocation, your calling, are unique to you.
How! This is the second question. Science loves asking this question. Although, it really only got popular with the enlightenment, when people lost sight of their priorities. Understanding how something came to be and how it works can tell us how to control it. Answering the question of how grants power, and science loves power. This isn't true understanding, it falls short of answering the final question. In Genesis we find an answer to the question of how. It's an extremely simplified answer, but it is all we really need. God did it. We can push further and ask how God did it, and there is nothing wrong with this, but it is not particularly important. In order to move on to the final question, all we need to know is that God did it. Pushing further into the how must not distract us from the why.
Why did God do it? Why am i here? The why informs purpose. Darwinism, materialism, modern enlightenment thinking says there is no real reason. It was just random chance, happenstance. Just the natural result of causality, like the rain or the sunshine. The only purpose is to exist, and then you die. Yea...
Jesus gives a better answer. In fact, He shows us. As He suffers and as He dies, He proclaims the very purpose of our lives. Two-thousand years ago, upon a cross, God gave Himself for us and He now gives Himself to us every day in the Eucharist. Through Scripture and Tradition , He tells us to do likewise.
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another as I have loved you.
(John 13:34)
We were not placed here to pursue just any-old-good for ourselves, we were placed here to pursue the good of others. When we imitate Christ, and give ourselves for the good of the world we discover our true purpose, the very meaning of our lives. This is the greatest good we could ever hope to procure.
We were placed here to love as Christ loved. To love the old man across the street. To love the single mother we pass in the store. To love the unborn child, waiting to be born.
We love others when we place their needs before our own. When we desire what is best for them and pursue it without concern for ourselves. When we accept, from God, a "new heart" which "will make it possible to appreciate and acheive the deepest and most authentic meaning of life: namely, that of being a gift which is fully realized in the giving of self." (Blessed Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 49 [emphasis in original])
I fail in this on a daily basis. But occasionally i succeed, and every time i do i rediscover its truth. I cannot prove my claim philosophically, but it is easy to demonstrate. Find an opportunity to love someone who has no chance to reciprocate. Take a leap of faith, you won't regret it.
True happiness is this, to love abundantly, with no concern for your own happiness.
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This
is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and
died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Saturday, September 22, 2012
In the Image of God
Why is there is so much pain and suffering in the world? If God really loves us why is it that 16,000 children die every day from starvation? Why do there have to be rapists and murders and politicians? If God is all loving and all powerful why did he let it get this bad?
Do you want to know the answer? You might not like it. Its pretty simple really; the world is screwed up because you suck at life. Basically, you suck at being a person.
I'm sorry for being so blunt. I would have preferred a more refined way of expressing this concept, but i lack the literary eloquence necessary to achieve that particular feat. At mass we say, "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault"; mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa. Every child who goes hungry tonight, every family with no roof over their heads, every school that can't afford text books. If you want to know where to lay the blame, look no further than the nearest mirror. Every time you come upon an evil and fail to act, due to laziness or selfishness or being "only human", that's you failing at life.
A lot of ink has been spilled considering that line in Genesis. That we were made in the image and likeness of God. What does it mean? Does it means what some ancient heretics claim, that God has a body and we look like Him? (roll eyes here please) Maybe it has to do with our intellect? Our ability to choose?
As my old youth pastor used to say, context is king. So let's look at the context. Specifically the cultural context. We believe the book of Genesis was written by Moses, some time in the 40 years Israel spent wandering in the desert. Immediately preceding this development they had spent 215 years living in Egypt; learning about Egyptian culture and custom. The author himself grew up in the court of Pharaoh, he would have been trained extensively in Egyptian theology. (How about that?)
Did Egyptians have any beliefs that seem to mirror this passage? They had statues, images of their gods, made in the likeness of their gods. (Connection?) Those statues didn't simply represent their gods, but rather they believed a god's power was manifested through their statues. Does this sound familiar? Its sacramental theology! We have it in the Catholic Church. A lot of Protestants follow a form of it. (Not so much Zwinglians, but they're blatant heretics, we can just ignore them.)
For people recently concluding a two century long stay in Egypt and especially for Moses, the meaning of this passage would seem obvious. To be made in something's image and likeness is to bare its sacramental presence, to manifest its power in the world. We are made in the image of God so that we might be the means of God working in the world, that God might work through us.
Does the passage support this? The verse says we are made in God's image "so that [we] may rule". That seems to fit doesn't it? That we are given power so that we can rule? Seems to me power would help with ruling.
How about other places in scripture? Do we see this elsewhere in the Bible? Maybe Moses? Moses didn't bring the Israelites out of captivity, Moses didn't part the Red Sea. God did those things through Moses. This is how sacramental imaging works. God could do things without human interference, but He chooses to work through a man.
We see this in the natural world as well. Consider a man and a woman, they join together in that ultimate act of union, and nine months later a new person emerges into the world! How incredible is that! Did they make that person, give it its humanity, its soul, its very existence? Creation, new life; that is the domain of God, and yet He works through this couple to manifest that most awesome power.
If you'll permit me to be Catholic for a moment. In the mass, when the priest elevates the host, the bread and wine, he speaks the words of consecration and the voice of Christ echos in the world once more. This is my body, this is my blood. No longer bread and wine, but rather true body and true blood. This is not the power of a mere human priest. This is the power of God being manifest through the priest. (Please note: Not by the priest but rather through the priest. This is an important distinction.)
It seems to me, if our power is derived from being made in the likeness of God, then we aught to wield that power in accord with the image. That is, our authority is not just any authority, it is an authority we are called to use in bringing about God's will. Christ says we should love one another as He loved us. That's a tall order, but that is what we were made for. We were made to manifest God's power in pursuit of love.
The world is our domain! God gave it to us. He could act in it without our permission, but generally that is not how He works. Getting mad at God because the world isn't perfect is like getting mad at your parents when your room is messy. We are the ordinary means of God working in the world. We are His hands in this place. When it comes down to it, we caused the problems, God expects us to fix them.
Do you want to know the answer? You might not like it. Its pretty simple really; the world is screwed up because you suck at life. Basically, you suck at being a person.
I'm sorry for being so blunt. I would have preferred a more refined way of expressing this concept, but i lack the literary eloquence necessary to achieve that particular feat. At mass we say, "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault"; mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa. Every child who goes hungry tonight, every family with no roof over their heads, every school that can't afford text books. If you want to know where to lay the blame, look no further than the nearest mirror. Every time you come upon an evil and fail to act, due to laziness or selfishness or being "only human", that's you failing at life.
A lot of ink has been spilled considering that line in Genesis. That we were made in the image and likeness of God. What does it mean? Does it means what some ancient heretics claim, that God has a body and we look like Him? (roll eyes here please) Maybe it has to do with our intellect? Our ability to choose?
As my old youth pastor used to say, context is king. So let's look at the context. Specifically the cultural context. We believe the book of Genesis was written by Moses, some time in the 40 years Israel spent wandering in the desert. Immediately preceding this development they had spent 215 years living in Egypt; learning about Egyptian culture and custom. The author himself grew up in the court of Pharaoh, he would have been trained extensively in Egyptian theology. (How about that?)
Did Egyptians have any beliefs that seem to mirror this passage? They had statues, images of their gods, made in the likeness of their gods. (Connection?) Those statues didn't simply represent their gods, but rather they believed a god's power was manifested through their statues. Does this sound familiar? Its sacramental theology! We have it in the Catholic Church. A lot of Protestants follow a form of it. (Not so much Zwinglians, but they're blatant heretics, we can just ignore them.)
For people recently concluding a two century long stay in Egypt and especially for Moses, the meaning of this passage would seem obvious. To be made in something's image and likeness is to bare its sacramental presence, to manifest its power in the world. We are made in the image of God so that we might be the means of God working in the world, that God might work through us.
Does the passage support this? The verse says we are made in God's image "so that [we] may rule". That seems to fit doesn't it? That we are given power so that we can rule? Seems to me power would help with ruling.
How about other places in scripture? Do we see this elsewhere in the Bible? Maybe Moses? Moses didn't bring the Israelites out of captivity, Moses didn't part the Red Sea. God did those things through Moses. This is how sacramental imaging works. God could do things without human interference, but He chooses to work through a man.
We see this in the natural world as well. Consider a man and a woman, they join together in that ultimate act of union, and nine months later a new person emerges into the world! How incredible is that! Did they make that person, give it its humanity, its soul, its very existence? Creation, new life; that is the domain of God, and yet He works through this couple to manifest that most awesome power.
If you'll permit me to be Catholic for a moment. In the mass, when the priest elevates the host, the bread and wine, he speaks the words of consecration and the voice of Christ echos in the world once more. This is my body, this is my blood. No longer bread and wine, but rather true body and true blood. This is not the power of a mere human priest. This is the power of God being manifest through the priest. (Please note: Not by the priest but rather through the priest. This is an important distinction.)
It seems to me, if our power is derived from being made in the likeness of God, then we aught to wield that power in accord with the image. That is, our authority is not just any authority, it is an authority we are called to use in bringing about God's will. Christ says we should love one another as He loved us. That's a tall order, but that is what we were made for. We were made to manifest God's power in pursuit of love.
The world is our domain! God gave it to us. He could act in it without our permission, but generally that is not how He works. Getting mad at God because the world isn't perfect is like getting mad at your parents when your room is messy. We are the ordinary means of God working in the world. We are His hands in this place. When it comes down to it, we caused the problems, God expects us to fix them.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Why I'm Still Vegetarian
I decided to be vegetarian a long time ago. I
was maybe 10 years old and heard of the health benefits being a
vegetarian offered. Although this got my attention, it was really the
vegetarian ideals of freedom and equality that pulled me in. I
appreciated their opposition to animal cruelty, their work in the public
sphere to raise awareness, their work in animal shelters and
clinics around the country, seeking to lessen the hardships faced by our
furry companions. My mom and i discussed all of this and eventually
decided to commit, to become vegetarians ourselves.
After being vegetarian for about a month i realized we didn't completely agree with all of their ideas. I can stand with them when they oppose eating dogs or cats or guinea pigs (after all, they're cute a furry). I am totally in line with not hunting purely for sport. But they wanted me to stop eating beef and chicken and pork. How idiotic is that? They wanted me to stop eating cheeseburgers and bacon and cheeseburgers with bacon?!?! Who did these stuck-up numbskulls think they were? Telling me to give up all animal products!
Some of my so-called-friends looked down on me, said i wasn't really a vegetarian, just cause i didn't want to be a herbivore like them. I felt angry, i felt betrayed. They were taking my beloved vegetarianism and turning it into a political weapon. This was not the vegetarianism of my youth. It seemed they had rejected those principles of freedom, equality and acceptance of others, which had first drawn me in. They had turned vegetarianism into simply opposing meat. They had forgotten our roots in social justice and made it political.
At times, i've wondered if i really want to be a vegetarian, given the backwards views of so many of my piers; their small-minded refusal to recognize omnivore and carnivore rights, their radical opposition to meat consumption even in instances of steak. Can i really be part of a group that is so stuck in its old fashioned ideas, so unwilling to move into the twenty first century?
Despite this, i remain a vegetarian. I love my vegetarianism, and it is my vegetarian ideals of freedom and equality that lead me to support the freedom of every person to eat what they desire and the equality of all people regardless of dietary preferences. It took me a little while, but eventually i realized, we’re not going to agree about everything, and that’s OK. If eating meat annoys some of the vegetarian elites, fine. Their hateful intolerance of my carnivorous ways will not deter me. I am every bit as vegetarian as they are.
Interpretation;
You don't have to be Catholic if you don't want to be, but you should be honest with yourself. Just as a meat eating vegetarian has some strange ideas concerning vegetarianism, so too do some Catholics about Catholicism. This is a work of satire. It is not directed as vegetarians, who have no reason to be offended. There are however many so-called-Catholics who do have cause to be offended. Namely, "Catholics" who deny the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. To be a Catholic is to uphold all those things the Church proclaims.
As this blog continues i will do my best to explain just what those things are and why our Holy Mother Church believes in them. To deny them does not make you a bad person, but it does kinda disqualify you from the title of Catholic.
After being vegetarian for about a month i realized we didn't completely agree with all of their ideas. I can stand with them when they oppose eating dogs or cats or guinea pigs (after all, they're cute a furry). I am totally in line with not hunting purely for sport. But they wanted me to stop eating beef and chicken and pork. How idiotic is that? They wanted me to stop eating cheeseburgers and bacon and cheeseburgers with bacon?!?! Who did these stuck-up numbskulls think they were? Telling me to give up all animal products!
Some of my so-called-friends looked down on me, said i wasn't really a vegetarian, just cause i didn't want to be a herbivore like them. I felt angry, i felt betrayed. They were taking my beloved vegetarianism and turning it into a political weapon. This was not the vegetarianism of my youth. It seemed they had rejected those principles of freedom, equality and acceptance of others, which had first drawn me in. They had turned vegetarianism into simply opposing meat. They had forgotten our roots in social justice and made it political.
At times, i've wondered if i really want to be a vegetarian, given the backwards views of so many of my piers; their small-minded refusal to recognize omnivore and carnivore rights, their radical opposition to meat consumption even in instances of steak. Can i really be part of a group that is so stuck in its old fashioned ideas, so unwilling to move into the twenty first century?
Despite this, i remain a vegetarian. I love my vegetarianism, and it is my vegetarian ideals of freedom and equality that lead me to support the freedom of every person to eat what they desire and the equality of all people regardless of dietary preferences. It took me a little while, but eventually i realized, we’re not going to agree about everything, and that’s OK. If eating meat annoys some of the vegetarian elites, fine. Their hateful intolerance of my carnivorous ways will not deter me. I am every bit as vegetarian as they are.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interpretation;
You don't have to be Catholic if you don't want to be, but you should be honest with yourself. Just as a meat eating vegetarian has some strange ideas concerning vegetarianism, so too do some Catholics about Catholicism. This is a work of satire. It is not directed as vegetarians, who have no reason to be offended. There are however many so-called-Catholics who do have cause to be offended. Namely, "Catholics" who deny the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. To be a Catholic is to uphold all those things the Church proclaims.
As this blog continues i will do my best to explain just what those things are and why our Holy Mother Church believes in them. To deny them does not make you a bad person, but it does kinda disqualify you from the title of Catholic.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
When Can Catholics Wear Condoms? A Response
I've been putting this off for awhile, but i thought it was about time i starting using my blogspot account. After a few years of avoiding the thing, i figure either use it or get rid of it. So here i am using it.
Although i would have rather written on something more unique, to establish my individuality and distinctiveness, i'm writing a response piece. Someone i respect over at Patheos recently posted an article entitled When Can Catholics Wear Condoms? It's a good question. As he rightly points out, there is nothing wrong with wearing a condom.
"So we should feel free to wear condoms. We should feel free to wear four or five of them. Just not during sex."
I'm not going to bother recapping his entire argument. It suffices to say, it's a good question. The meat of the topic is; if you are using a condom for a purpose other than contraception, is it then ok? Our Holy Father has already given us one example in which it would be. If a gay prostitute wears a condom, the act itself is already contracepted by the fact that two men cannot procreate with each other. As a consequence the condom would be only to prevent the spread of HIV, this is a good thing.
While i cannot advocate going into this particular profession, being a condom wearing gay prostitute may be a step up from being a condom-free gay prostitute. (If you want to find true joy in life, this is probably a profession best avoided all together.)
Now, what of a married couple? The husband has AIDs and doesn't want to pass it to his wife. Could he wear a condom? While my esteemed counterpart answers in the affirmative, i would have to disagree. Sorry
The center of this discussion seems to come from Humanae Vitae, where it puts forth, "the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic
means necessary to cure bodily diseases,"
(It seems to me that preventing bodily diseases of which there is a significant and immediate risk would also qualify. So i see no problem here.)
It continues, "even if a foreseeable
impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such
impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”
I would put forth, this is where condoms face a problem. It has to do with how they work to prevent AIDs. I'll get to this in a second.
This concept, from Humanae Vitae, is based off of Thomas Aquinas's Principle of Double Effect, which allows for certain harmful actions to be justifiable given three conditions;
- the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral.
Sex is good. Wrapping a piece of rubber around a body part is... weird, but morally neutral. So, i see no problem here.
3. the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances
sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent
exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.
Not getting AIDs, or not passing them on to a loved on, is good. I would classify not getting pregnant as morally neutral, although also sad. Due diligence to minimize the harm is something i'll bring back up latter.
2. the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself.
You might notice i went out of order. That's because the second condition is the one that gives me the greatest pause. The bad effect cannot be the means to the good effect.
The condom works, both as a contraceptive method and to prevent AIDs, by preventing the transfer of fluid from the man to the woman. The very thing that helps to prevent AIDs is also that thing which renders the act infertile. The bad effect, the contraceptive attribute of the condom, would be the means of preventing AIDs.
In chemical contraception, by comparison, the pill alters the hormonal balance of the woman. This altered hormonal balance may have the dual effect of curing a medical condition and reducing fertility. However, these two effect are independent of each other. In theory, a woman could receive the medical benefits and still get pregnant. The one is not dependent on the other.
With condoms, these two effects are inseparably united to each other. There is no way in which the woman can get pregnant if the condom is doing it's job properly, that is, of preventing the exchange of bodily fluids. The impediment is being directly intended for the motive of preventing AIDs. I do not see how condoms could fit with Humanae Vitae or the principle of double effect.
There is also a point from condition #3 i want to address: Doing due diligence to minimize harm. Condoms are not 100% effective at preventing STDs. Abstinence is. If your only goal is to prevent the transfer of an STD, it seems abstinence is more fitting.
Additionally, when one uses a condom, for any reason, they are directly separating the procreative element from sexuality. They are dehumanizing it. This leads to seeing sex as an ends in itself. It reduces your partner to a mere means to your own sexual gratification. It does a great deal of harm.
When i am in a state of sin, i will abstain from the Eucharist. I love and adore the Eucharist and receiving it grants me a great deal of grace. However, when i am in a state of sin i will abstain, and the abstaining grants me far more graces then the reception would have. This is because of my love for it and my desire to do no harm to my Lord.
Sometimes in life, we are called to abstain from things that are good in order to receive something better. Using a condom in the confines of a marriage will do harm to that marriage. Sometimes abstinence is the fullest form of self giving love, and will do good for the couple.
The third condition seems to rule out condoms on the grounds that abstinence does less harm and the second condition would rule condoms out all together.
“[The Church] of course does not see [condoms] as a real and moral
solution. In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of
infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more
humane sexuality.”
Pope Benedict XV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)