The Eternal Advent

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. 

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. 

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”   

(Revelation 1:4-8)

The Eternal Advent, that is, God--He who was, who is, and who is to come. Fr. Yves Congar, O.P, notes in The Word and the Spirit, that the Hebrew word for 'truth' comes from the verb that means to be stable, firm, sure, reliable, and that in the 132 times it is used in the Old Testament, more than half are used of God. The concepts of truth and faithfulness (steadfastness) are therefore linked, and they are rooted in God's very being. 

"I am who I shall be" is, according to the TOB, a more favorable rendering of the name God reveals of himself in the burning bush (more commonly "I am who I am"). In this rendering we see an echo of Revelation above--God was, God is, and God will be, He who is to come, and always will be to come. 

While the primary mode of Advent is anticipation of the celebration of the Incarnate Word's Nativity, we know it also is a time to reflect on His Second Coming, and in the above Scripture, we see also that it can also be a time of reflection on God in Himself, a coming of Being that will always be. This is a joyful anticipation that we always have had, we have now, and will have in eternity. God is sure. He will always be. What a great joy it is to know this!

So let us now welcome God, in union with the Word and Spirit: 

The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. (Rev 22:17)

On Encouraging Religious and Priestly Vocations

I have had an interesting experience with people over time as I've been a parent now for some thirteen years. Every once in a while, for some reason or other, I mention that maybe insert-name-of-child-here will be a sister or monk or friar or priest. And it is kind of surprising to me how often my Catholic friends are quick to tell me, "or they could be a parent!" Or they say more directly, "you shouldn't pressure him/her to be religious. Being married is equally good." Something like that.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why Catholic friends are so quick to downplay the value of religious and priestly vocations. I think these would be the same folks who would readily pray for vocations to the priesthood and religious life and generally be supportive of parish awareness/promotional type activities for these vocations.

Why would it be great and okay and no reservations to pray for and encourage these vocations in the abstract/general, but when applied to a particular parent and child, we are all too quick to downplay it and really push that being a mom/dad or single lay person is just as grand?

I have had one explanation a couple times--"you don't want to force them into it, not that I think you would ever do that [but still I felt I should tell you this because I probably am not sure that you wouldn't]."

What are we so worried about? What would be so terrible about encouraging a child towards a religious or priestly vocation? 

Let me say that I am not calling any of my friends out, and I do not intend to fault people for offering such a caution--it is a perfectly understandable concern to have, and I know they have good intentions. The reason I am taking issue is that I think we all need to second guess this tendency we have to make comments like this.

"Don't Pressure Them"

Part of their motivation seems to be extrapolating from the all-too-common story of parents wrongly pressuring their children to "follow in their footsteps" or discouraging them "from their dreams." I know that in our individualistic society today, such pressure from parents seems categorically wrong. It is certainly portrayed that way in popular media, over and over and over again. Whether it is choosing one's spouse or choosing one's profession, it's always the bad parent pushing against the freedom of the child.

Here's the thing, though. Not all parental pressure is bad. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of it is good--when it is done for the good of the child. Even when parents can be mistaken about the good or go too far with the pressure, it would be a dereliction of parental duty to essentially wash our hands and say, "you do whatever you wanna do." Parents have a right and a duty to guide their children towards what is good for their children.

Granted, that doesn't mean that parents always know best nor that they don't sometimes mix up their own personal good with that of their children. Sometimes parents can't see past their own prejudices for the good of the child. Sometimes parents just don't know their children well enough to provide informed guidance.

But when it comes to religious or priestly life, I have a hard time seeing how we could go wrong in encouraging our children to consider pursuing it, especially if we think we see signs of such a vocation. If we see a tendency towards art, would we not consider encouraging them to pursue that? If we see a tendency towards engineering, would we not encourage them to consider that career path? If we saw them showing interest in become a fireman or doctor, would we not encourage that?

"But Marriage is Equally Good"

It seems there is another underlying motive behind these kinds of comments. In the past, there has been a sense in the Church that downplayed the value of lay vocations. To counter that, there has been a concerted effort since Vatican II to promote the value of lay vocations and, in particular, lay participation in the life of the Church. I get that. It is good and right.

But I can't help but feel that we are not somehow overreacting and in our eagerness to promote the value of lay vocations, we feel we must somehow downplay the value of religious vocations. Or even say that they are equally good.

Interestingly enough, both our Lord (Matt 19:10-12) and St. Paul (1 Cor 7) indicated that unmarried life for the sake of the Gospel is superior to married life--for those who can accept it, for those who are called to it. The Council of Trent put it a bit more forcefully, and definitively (Session XXIV, Canon X):

If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

Saints have also noted that religious life, in particular, is a better way. (Several are mentioned in this article.) As that author notes, even recently Pope St. John Paul II said in his apostolic exhortation Vita Consecrata: “it is to be recognized that the consecrated life… has an objective superiority.” St. Thomas expounds at some length the interrelationship between the state of religion and perfection.

The constant teaching of the Church is indeed that a life of consecration to God is more excellent than that of the lay life because of the very many graces and helps it provides towards perfection in charity. She also teaches that for those who are called to it and can accept it, they should. Strictly speaking the married state is not equally good, from an objective point of view.

At the same time, this does not deny the value of lay life, nor lay contributions to the Church, much less lay contributions to the world, which is our proper sphere of activity and responsibility. More importantly, not every person is called to consecrated life. This means that for an individual, it may or may not be better for him or her to choose consecrated life--it depends on what God has called them to do.

We Should Encourage Vocations to the Priesthood and Religious Life

As the author of the article referred to above ("Sacrificing Religious Life on the Altar of Egalitarianism") points out, though, we cannot expect religious vocation to be obviously desirable in our contemporary culture. It is a way of total renunciation of worldly goods. In our fairly hedonistic, consumeristic, materialistic society, it is in many ways far more difficult to appreciate the good of religious and priestly life than it is to appreciate the good of lay/married life. Not only that, it is considered "normal" for people to get married and have kids and enjoy the good things of this life.

For children to even consider consecrated life, I propose that we actually do need to actively encourage it more so than lay/married life. We do at least need to clearly teach our children that it is an objectively better way of life. We do need to encourage them to seriously consider it and seek God's will to know if he is calling them to that life, and even more so when we see signs of such a call in them ourselves. Any inclination and willingness to look into it should be met with lots of encouragement.

We need not worry much about pressuring our children towards consecrated life for the wrong reasons. For most parents, having a child pursue such a life--especially if they have few children as is common today--is also a kind of sacrifice and renunciation for the parent. You are renouncing the good of grandchildren and, potentially, "the carrying on of the family name." You are renouncing the potential that they will "follow in your footsteps." You are renouncing the chance that they can take care of you when you are old or infirm. In many ways, all the toil of raising the child becomes a gift to God and the Church.

Granted, there is some small danger for pride to slip in, but I'd say that it's generally much easier to just go with the flow and let your children be "normal" and that we have far more wrong reasons to hope that they do not pursue such life. So if we need to be on guard against anything, it would be against apathy towards consecrated life, against a false sense of egalitarianism, against our own natural desires for our children to have the many good things in this life that they would have to renounce should they choose consecrated life.

We humans need help to participate in God's grace, and choosing consecrated life is no different. God may be calling many people to it who are not responding because they are too caught up in this world, because they never seriously considered it, or because their parents and friends didn't even mention it much less encourage them in it.

Similarly, parents need encouragement to encourage their children in this way. What they don't need is to be made to feel wrong or bad or defensive for encouraging religious and priestly vocations in their children.

Not only that, other adults in children's lives need to offer this same kind of encouragement. When children see what their parents teach them confirmed by others in their lives--especially others that they respect or perceive to be wise or authorities in some sense--then it can only help them to feel freer to consider this as a good and viable option for themselves. But above all, they need their parents' support and encouragement.

So the next time you hear a parent being thoughtful or wistful or excited or (especially) worried about their child considering religious or priestly life, I suggest that you encourage them rather than dissuade or warn them. And if you know the child, by all means, encourage him or her, too!

---
Some notes for the nit-picky..

1. I realize there is a distinction between religious and priestly life. That is why I have tried to be careful about my terminology here and mentioning both despite its repetitiveness. That said, they both involve degrees of renunciation of worldly goods and are countercultural, so I think the discussion here applies to both.

2. I know first hand that marriage and parenting in particular (especially for large families) require many sacrifices that also help us on our way towards perfection in charity. I am not devaluing that here; however, I do maintain with the Church that religious life offers a more sure path towards perfection in that it requires more absolute renunciation of worldly goods.

3. This is written primarily about Catholics and to Catholics, even though it is on my public blog. So this is not the time or place to discuss how crazy consecrated/religious life may sound to non-Catholics. If such comments are made, they will be deleted. You can contact me personally if you want to discuss that.

Avoiding Misunderstandings and Offense

Life is full of misunderstandings. We all experience them. Stories are told about them. They can cause all sorts of trouble in this human sphere, sometimes serious. Many of these misunderstandings occur through no particular fault of any given party. It's just a consequence of the nature of our limited perceptions/perspectives and the boundaries imposed by language.

Life is going to give us enough of these without our help. We can do our part to minimize them. Here are some possibly obvious but terribly challenging guidelines for doing so:

1. Don't assume people know what you know. Do what you can to ensure a mutual understanding of relevant information.
2. Don't expect something of another without making it clear to that person what you expect. Be prepared for the unavoidable cases when they may not agree that your expectations are fair, reasonable, or realistic.
3. Don't expect everyone to see things the way you do, nor to value the same things you value. In fact, it is basically a given that they don't, and it's just a question of scale in how much you differ.
4. Be patient with others and try to understand things from their perspectives, in as much as you can.
5. Don't guess at others' motivations. Doing so is a source of much unnecessary ill will in the world. Often people don't even know what their own motivations are, so how much more likely is it that we don't know what they are? Instead, give people the benefit of the doubt, ask questions to understand, and honestly, truly listen to them.
6. Don't take offense. Just don't. It's basically never a good thing to do.

This last one calls for some clarification. This is not to say that you should never feel offended. It's also not to say that your feelings of being offended are wrong, though they very well could be (and probably often are, especially where personal offense is concerned). The point is not to take that feeling and embrace it, wallow in it, or otherwise stagnate in it. 

If your conscience is well formed, then it's entirely possible that your sensibilities are good, and that when they are offended, it is an indicator that something is not good. On the other hand, I would argue that very few of us, and maybe not any of us, have such perfect consciences that we should uncritically trust them. 

The main problem with taking offense is that it tends to throw logs on the fire of anger, and when we get angry, we tend to stop thinking clearly. We start from the offended sensibility that tells us we (or someone else) was wronged, and then we get angry, and then it makes it that much harder to think critically about if our feeling of offense was right, was true.

A better way is to be on our guard in relation to the feeling of offense, to train our minds to immediately set aside the feeling and go through a self-examination and reflection when we feel offended. 

• Are we feeling offended because of our own pride? If so, it's probably not good and should be dispatched immediately. 
• Are we feeling offended on behalf of another? If so, what are the rational grounds for that feeling? Is it because we have affection for them? If so, then we need to examine the supposed offense more carefully with a view to whether or not we are reacting due to our emotional attachment and not for good reason. If we are not attached to them, is there some real injustice?

If we think we have discovered a real injustice, the next thing to do would be to ensure that the offense was intended (see above). Chances are more often than not, the offense is due to some misunderstanding, and it would be better to find that out than to move on under the assumption that the offense was intended and that your emotional response is justified. 

In any case, the way forward is not to hold onto the offense but rather to move on from it to a more soundly-based motive for further action, one that doesn't tend to shut the brain down. Likely what needs to happen is to recognize our own failing, our own pride or unqualified affection; maybe we just need to discover and dispel a misunderstanding, or maybe it is a real injustice that we need to counteract. Whatever it is, it's highly unlikely that taking offense and staying offended is the best way forward.

Disconnecting from Catholic Social Media

After the latest brouhaha resultant from this post (and the convo before it I mentioned), I have been pushed over the edge. I'm done with Catholic social media.

It's not like this hasn't been long in coming. It seems what passes for the majority of Catholic blogging, and perhaps more so social media, is a sludge of conservative outrage inducing link regurgitating. The echo chamber is in full effect, and it has gotten worse since our new pope has been elected. Now it's not just the broader decadent Western culture that has the watchdogs frothing at the mouth, but apparently the Pope himself is not Catholic enough for them.

Enough already. It is downright embarrassing and, for me, infuriating. It's all just so much gossip.

We conservative Catholics need to stop conflating political ideals with Catholic doctrine, as if the Right has a corner on truth and goodness. We need to stop vilifying those on the other end of the political spectrum. We need to stop overreacting to everything homosexual and abortion-related. We need to stop setting ourselves up in our own personal popedoms. We need to relax about the liturgy. We need to relax about the world's sexual profligacy. We need to relax. Chill out a bit. Take a deep breath and stop wigging out every time something in the world doesn't align with the way we think it should be.

It goes without saying (for me) that I'm not suggesting keeping silent when we should speak. I'm not suggesting not being active in the political process how we should be. I'm not suggesting ignoring or suppressing Truth, Goodness, or Beauty. I am by no means suggesting we don't share the Gospel--exactly the contrary!

Look. Either God is in control or he isn't. If the world is going to hell in a handbasket, that ain't nothing new. The way things used to be ain't as great as we like to pretend it was in our whitewashed memories. Human nature is human nature. It always has been. Mass sinfulness has always been with us; it's just the predominate kinds of sin that change with the passage of time.

Thankfully, God doesn't judge us by the political order and culture we live in; he judges us individually by what we as individuals think, say, and do. If God intended to set up a perfect political party or government, we'd have that. But we don't, and it's not our job to try to set it up.

What we do have is the Truth. What we have are the Sacraments. What we have is each other. Real people whom we are called to truly love, even if we don't agree with them. 

And don't tell me about "speaking the truth in love." Hogwash. The Truth is easily abused and can be wielded as effectively to drive people away from God as it can to guide them to Him. The Truth is also understood incompletely, by us. It is often miscommunicated, by us. It is also often misunderstood, and we are responsible to minimize that--we must be sensitive to where people are and adjust when and how we share the Gospel with them. 

And this extends beyond social media (it just seems exacerbated by it, as are most things online, where it's so easy to reduce people in your head to mere ideas and words, stripping them of the dignity and love they deserve from us). My own dear lay Dominicans were recently discussing a situation where one of them found out that someone they have do some handyman work is gay--who was "married" recently. Apparently this was the source of great anguish--should she keep paying him to do a job? What if he brings up his gayness?? "You have to share the truth [in love] with him," says someone. 

Really?!? Have we become so oversensitized to this issue that it becomes a major personal crisis to find out that someone you have hired to do a job that has absolutely zero to do with their sexuality is gay? Are we really obligated to foist our opinion of their life choices on them uninvited? Must we all shake our heads and tut tut about it? Would we have the same crisis if, say, we found out that they were a terrible gossip or an inveterate liar? Somehow I doubt it, especially if their sin was also one we personally struggle with.

And that's the crux of it. If this behavior is not the very definition of what Jesus was counseling against in Matthew 7, I don't know what is. All this outrage-inducing "socializing" does is keep our focus on others' sins and errors rather than our own, much less does it help us to share the Good News. I'd say the Devil is pretty pleased with the state of Catholic social media right now. Pretending for a moment that this is "New Evangelization" is utter self-deception.

Sharing the Gospel is the key. It's not good enough to say something is a sin. That's sharing the Truth incompletely. That, at its best, is ethics. Being a "good person" doesn't get anyone to heaven. What we really need to share is not "you are living in sin" but "Christ can transform your life, give you joy and give you peace." That's the message. That's the focus. Sin is just an opportunity for us to receive God's grace. We need to share that the mercy and grace of God is greater than all our sins put together. 

We need to stand with our fellow sinners, not so as to condone sin but rather in recognition that we are all sinners, that we all fail, that we all utterly need the grace of God. If we are not truly with them, then we are not truly loving them. Compassion is the word. Suffering with others. Us versus them is not authentic love. Pointing out sin is not authentic love. It is pride masquerading as love.

And, so, for myself, all this outrage-rich social media is a very near occasion to sin (not to mention a waste of time and talent), because I am repeatedly tempted to hold these brothers and sisters in disdain, because I myself become preoccupied with their sins rather than my own, and so, give into pride. 

Therefore, I am cutting off that aspect of my life rather than continuing to fall into sin. I have deleted circles. I have unliked pages on FB. I will continue to cull these things from my life as they come up. As I slowly rebuild my Catholic social connections, I will use this as a bar: Does this person refrain from fostering outrage and indulging in judging and condemning others? Does this person share things that build people up? Does this person appear to be truly concerned with sharing the Gospel and will they help me to? 

We Believe in the Resurrection of the Body

The New Jerusalem by Nicolas Bataille (1373-1387)

Some time ago, my lay Dominican chapter president asked me to prepare a study "on the Resurrection" for our March meeting. That meeting was Palm Sunday. The study went well, I thought, but it occurred to me that maybe others would be interested in it.  So here are my study notes, slightly edited.

I asked chapter members to find and bring a favored Scripture passage on the Resurrection. Maybe you can think of one that you like now.

What do we mean by Resurrection?
I think when most of us think about Easter, we think about the Resurrection of Christ. It is after all the historical event that we are remembering. Most of the chapter members, as I expected, shared passages about this. One that I liked in particular focused on Mary Magdalene, whom we call "The Apostle to the Apostles" because she shared the Good News with the Apostles. She is also co-patroness with Our Lady of the Dominican Order, for this reason.

So yes, absolutely when we speak of the Resurrection, the first and most natural thing we think of is the Resurrection of Christ. It is a good thing for us to remember, but despite how awesome and amazing the event is itself, what is even more amazing is what it means for us.

READ 1 Cor 15:1-4; 15:12-22

Then also:

• Ro 8:11
• 1 Cor 6:14
• 2 Cor 4:14; 5:1-5
• 1 Thess 4:13-18
• Rev 20:12-21:5 - this is really amazing; just let it sink in and dwell on it ("selah")

I think sometimes we can get caught up in the recounting of the story of the Passion and Death of Christ, that it becomes more of a story about someone else, or maybe we personalize the story, so that we put ourselves in the feet of the Apostles, imagining what it must have been like for them. The sadness, the fear, the disappointment, the guilt--and then the elation of Easter, that Christ is not dead; he is raised from the dead. Again, we are overjoyed at his Resurrection--what a relief! He's not dead; he is risen!

This is all very good, but it is just a nice story if we stop there, if we do not go on to consider what it means for us. The significance of Christ's Resurrection lies precisely in that by his Resurrection, his conquering death and hell, we too can take part in it. Our Christian hope is in this--the resurrection of our own bodies.

But what does this mean? It is interesting how this fundamental aspect of the Christian faith is so often obscured and, in a sense, minimized, while it is actually the core, the kernel, the essence of the Gospel. It comes towards the end of most of the creeds, and it is easy to just rattle it off without really thinking about it. So in this study, I thought it could be helpful to focus on this aspect of what we mean when we say "the resurrection," in particular, what is referred to as "the general resurrection," meaning that which will occur for all people (hence "general") at the end of the world.

THE GENERAL RESURRECTION

Read Catechism 988-1004

Read 1015-1019 (Follows)
1015 "The flesh is the hinge of salvation" (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2:PL 2, 852). We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.

1016 By death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul. Just as Christ is risen and lives for ever, so all of us will rise at the last day.

1017 "We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess" (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a "spiritual body" (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

1018 As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer "bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned" (GS § 18).

1019 Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men.

This is the basic outline of our doctrine, but let's dig deeper, with the help of good ol' Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. If you recall, I recently drew from this book for a study on theological grades of certainty, so the bits in parentheses speak to that.

FIRST PROPOSITION
All the dead will rise again on the last day with their bodies. (De fide.)

Nearly all of the most ancient creeds specifically say "resurrection of the body" (or of the dead, which can only mean body). (I followed Ott's references to Denzinger to find that out.) Now let's go to the Scriptural references.

OT
Jo 11:24 - Martha professes faith in the resurrection.
2 Macc 7:9-11 - Maccabee martyrs profess faith in it.
Dan 12:2-3
Is 25:8; 26:19

NT
Jo 5:28-29; 6:39-40
Matt 22:29-32
Lu 20:37-38
Acts 24:15
And the passages already referenced above.

You can see this is one of the better attested teaching, and that is of course why it is considered de fide--as being directly revealed by God.

You may also want to read Summa, Supplement, Q75, a1.

Many of the Fathers wrote treatises on it, by way of apology and instruction of the faithful, some of them extensively: Pope St. Clement I, St. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ephraem, St. Basil, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, St. Peter Chrysologus, and of course St. Augustine


SECOND PROPOSITION
The dead will rise again with the same bodies as they had on earth. (De fide.)

This is a slightly more challenging proposition because it raises a number of interesting difficulties. Let's dig into it a bit more. First, let's establish it is de fide.

Job 19:25-27 - this passage is now disputed with reference to the original languages, which St. Thomas did not have access to. At best, it seems the meaning attesting to the "this same body" aspect is less clear, although it can still be seen.
2 Macc 7:11 - "these [tongue and hands]" will be received again
1 Cor 15:35-58 - this passage can be difficult, but St. Thomas helps tease the meaning apart. Note "What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies." This is the basic argument for understanding that it is this body, and not some other. We cannot rightly call it resurrection unless it is the bringing back to life of that which died, our bodies.
Phil 3:21 - change our lowly bodies, not give us a different one

Now from Denzinger, the parts that Ott refers us to.

Denzinger 429, The First Chapter of the Fourth Lateran Council (12th ecumenical council, 1215--against the Albigensians, Joachim, Waldensians, etc.) declares, "And finally the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, incarnate by the whole Trinity in common, conceived of Mary ever Virgin with the Holy Spirit cooperating, made true man, formed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, clearly pointed out the way of life. And although He according to divinity is immortal and impassible, the very same according to humanity was made passible and mortal, who, for the salvation of the human race, having suffered on the wood of the Cross and died, descended into hell, arose from the dead, and to render to each according to his works, to the wicked as well as to the elect, all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear, that they may receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting glory with Christ."

D 16, the "Faith of Damasus" formula of the creed, Gaul c. 500: "...We believe that cleansed in his death and in his blood we are to be raised up by him on the last day in this body with which we now live…"

D 40, the Creed "Quicumque", a.k.a., the Athanasian Creed (some ascribe to St. Ambrose, also one "Anastasius"), which was used with authority in east and west, and in the liturgy, says, "…at his coming all men have to rise again with their bodies…"

D 287, Council of Toledo XI (675, against Priscillianists), The Creed of Faith, "In this example, therefore, of our Head we confess is accomplished (with true faith) the true resurrection of the body of all the dead. Neither do we believe that we shall rise in an ethereal or any other body (as some madly say) but in that in which we live and exist and move. When this example of His holy resurrection was finished, our same Lord and Savior returned by ascending to His paternal home, which in His divinity he had never left."

D 347, Pope St. Leo IX, in a letter of congratulations to Peter, the newly consecrated bishop of Antioch, in 1053, sharing the symbol of faith (the formula here was very much like the questions proposed to bishops being consecrated, "…I also believe in a true resurrection of this body, which now I bear, and in eternal life."

D 427, from a formulation of faith for recanting Waldensians, 1208, from the archbishop of Terraco, "We sincerely believe and with our mouth we confess the resurrection of this flesh which we bear and not of another."

D 464, 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274 (14th ecumenical council, concerning the union of the Greeks), from the profession of faith of Michael Paleaeologus: "The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment 'all' men will be brought together with their bodies 'before the tribunal of Christ' 'to render an account' of their own deeds (Rom 14:10)."

D 531, Pope Benedict XII, edict Benedictus Deus, 1336, "…all men with their bodies…"

We see from these sources, including Scripture and ecumenical councils, that this doctrine is de fide, but we can do more to consider how it is so and what exactly the bodies will be like. For this, we turn again to St. Thomas, in the Summa Supplement, Q79ff. In it, you will see him referring back to many of the Scriptures above.

From these we better understand Some characteristics of resurrected bodies:

• Incorruptible - they will not be subject to deformity, decay, or destruction.
• Immortal - they will not die again.
• Identical - they will have the same form and matter.

That they are incorruptible and immortal is, according to Thomas, due to two reasons. First, he explains that the principle of change in our bodies will be removed; this is due to the overall change in the state of the universe at this time--the new heaven and new earth will also no longer be subject to the same changing nature. This is equally true of the damned and the just.

The second relates to the restoration of original justice and the total subjugation of our bodily nature to our spiritual (also attested by St. Paul in the passage from 1 Corinthians 15 above--the "spiritual body," i.e., the body subject to the spiritual nature), so our immortal spiritual nature can prevent corruptible changes from happening to our bodies. This is only true of the just, who have received this grace of right ordering of our human nature.

As for identical matter, this presents some more interesting difficulties. It doesn't take a modern understanding of biology to find the difficulties in this teaching, and you can see even the ancients, both Greek and Jew, had trouble with it: Acts 17:18; 31-32; 26:5-8. And there is further evidence in the early Fathers' apologies and explanations around this subject as mentioned above.

St. Thomas first addresses the reasons why it must be the same, in Q79, a1: "For we cannot call it resurrection unless the soul return to the same body, since resurrection is a second rising, and the same thing rises that falls: wherefore resurrection regards the body which after death falls rather than the soul which after death lives. And consequently if it be not the same body which the soul resumes, it will not be a resurrection, but rather the assuming of a new body." Then also in a2: "... to maintain that he who rises again is not the selfsame man [199] is heretical [200], since it is contrary to the truth [201] of Scripture [202] which proclaims the resurrection [203]."

So it can help to ask, what does it mean to be identical? 
Q79, a3 - does it have to be the exact same matter in the exact same place ("the ashes")?  To answer this, Thomas gives us the analogy of identical matter of clock, toy, etc: "Now in artificial things, in order that the same artificial thing be remade, from the same matter [301], there is no need for the parts to be brought back to the same position. Neither therefore is it necessary [302] in man [303]." In other words, it doesn't matter if the same kind of matter is used to remake the various parts (heart, bone, ears), as long as the result is it is the same heart as pertains to it being my heart for me.

If we cast this is slightly more modern scientific words, we could rely on the concept of DNA. Our DNA forms, as it were, the schema for our bodies, the set of instructions that are used to give our bodies their particular identities. It isn't important that the exact matter in our body at any given time remain for us to retain our identities. We gain weight; we lose weight. Our hair and nails grow; our cells regenerate, and so on--the matter of our bodies is in constant flux. We no more have the same matter we had ten years ago, then we will in the resurrection, and yet we will have the same identical body.

Of course, St. Thomas didn't have the luxury of our modern scientific knowledge, and yet it is interesting how he uses different words that speak to the same realities. He speaks of "the truth of human nature," in terms of what will need remain for us to retain our identities. Q80, a3: "Whatever belongs to the integrity of human [118] nature [119] in those who take part in the resurrection [120] will rise again." And further in a4: What belongs to "the truth (essence/being) of human nature," which he says is, "what first belonged to the substance [346] of a man's body… and of that which was added secondly, thirdly, and so on, as much as is required to restore quantity."

He hits on the concept of DNA in Q80, a4: "all that was in the substance of the seed will rise again in this man who was begotten of this seed." St. Paul also speaks of a "bare kernel" and how God gives "to each of the seeds its own body."

He continues, "while certain parts are on the ebb and others are being restored to the same shape and position, all the parts flow back and forth as to their matter [391], but remain as to their species [392]; and nevertheless the selfsame man [393] remains." Again, it is not as if we could grasp the current matter in our bodies and say, "this is the matter I will have in the resurrection," but we can say, these arms, these eyes, this hair, in the sense that we would recognize them in ten years, and in the sense that if we had a DNA test, it would return positive.

The difference is that any defects in our DNA will be repaired, so our bodies will be the perfect body they should have been were it not for those defects and disorders. For the just, we will not be subject to either inordinate nor disordered desires.

In Q81, he addresses questions of age, size, male and female, animal functions. Our age will be the perfect age of maturity, meaning the point at which our body naturally achieves maturity, but before it begins to decay. Many speculate around 30 years or so. The same can be said for size/stature, except again, no defects or deformities will remain--we will have perfect health. Because being male or female is part of human nature and identity, we will retain our sex (and it will be rightly ordered), but as we will no longer have need of our animal functions, we will be "as the angels in heaven." Because we do not need to materially maintain our bodies nor to grow them, we won't need to eat. Because we will not need to propagate the species, we won't need to have sex. And so on.

For those who lack of matter for the resurrection of their bodies, St. Thomas says in Q80, a4: "substitution is made by Divine power so far as the perfection of quantity requires, as it does in those who die before the perfect age." This is also true if our matter were to be, for instance, shared in some way. For instance, we die, and our bodies feed other plants and animals that then are consumed by other humans--in such cases, God will make up for the insufficiency of matter.

Somewhat amusingly, Thomas also addresses the question of whether all of the matter that belonged to our bodies will rise again, in a5: "body of one who rises again will be very dense, or it will be immoderate in quantity." LOL. Just imaging our bodies if it were true that all the matter were resurrected. We'd be as dense as diamonds or as bloated as a blimp! He goes on, "the whole of what is in man will rise again, if we speak of the totality of the species which is dependent on quantity, shape, position and order of parts, but the whole will not rise again if we speak of the totality of matter." Again, the concept is akin to the idea of reconstructing the human body from DNA (as in the cloning in science fiction, if you will).

Our bodies will be our bodies (again about DNA), from Q81, a2: "At the resurrection human nature will be restored not only in the self-same species but also in the selfsame individual : and consequently we must observe in the resurrection what is requisite not only to the specific but also to the individual nature."

To put it briefly, it is not the exact same particular matter from any point in our lives (much less what was there when we died or remained thereafter) but the identity of our bodies, free from defect and disorder, and restored to perfect maturity, health, stature, and so on. What particular matter is used to form this body is for God to figure out, but it will be my body, this body, not some other and not some non-physical spiritual/ghostlike body. That's pretty awesome.

THIRD PROPOSITION
The bodies of the just will be remodeled and transfigured to the pattern of the Risen Christ. (Sent. certa.)

The qualities of the resurrected bodies of the just as outlined above:
- Perfect - completely whole, healthy, of optimum age, and rightly ordered

And also, as in Summa, Suplement, Q82-85 - the four qualities of beatified bodies
- Impassibility, the incapability of suffering
- Subtlety, spiritualized nature--not spirit but a spiritualized body--completely subject to the soul
- Agility, capability of the body to obey the soul with the greatest of ease and speed (near instantaneous)
- Clarity, brightness, the "glory" of our souls being seen in our bodies

These are drawn from Scriptural sources, either specific statements about our bodies, taken from the Transfiguration, and from that related about Christ's body after his resurrection. Our bodies will be conformed to his, like his, so we can derive these truths about our bodies based on what we are told about his.

FOURTH PROPOSITION
The bodies of the godless will rise again in incorruption and immortality, but they will not be transfigured. (Sent. certa.)

The understanding of the quality of the bodies of the damned are taken also from Scripture, implied in what is said of them. St. Thomas deals with this topic also in Question 86 of the same part.

Q86, a1: ""The dead shall rise again incorruptible"; where a gloss [13] says: "The dead, i.e. sinners, or all the dead in general shall rise again incorruptible, i.e. without the loss of any limbs." Therefore the wicked [14] will rise again without their deformities."

a2: immortal and incorruptible: " It is written (Apocalypse 9:6): "In those days men shall seek death, and shall not find it, and they shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them."
Further, the damned will be punished with an everlasting punishment [78] both in soul [79] and body (Matthew 25:46): "These shall go into everlasting punishment [80]."

a3: not impassible: "Now on account of the former co-operation not only the soul [129] but also the body will be rewarded after the resurrection [130]. Therefore in like manner the bodies of the damned will be punished; which would not be the case were they impassible. Therefore they will be passible."

SUMMARY
As noted already, these truths are at the very heart of the Christian faith. They are part and parcel of the Good News. Even that dealing with the damned is in accord with this being Good News, not because we, much less God, are spiteful and wishful that any should so perish--God forbid! Rather, it is in that part of God's perfection is perfect justice, and the only just recompense to a rejection of God's mercy is to be judged without the application of that mercy. We know that God does not desire that punishment, but in his justice, he allows for it. We know that God gives each person sufficient opportunity to take advantage of his mercy, so no one is thus condemned unjustly.

This is good news because we know that God is and remains perfectly just and that he rewards each of us according to what we have done. Even more, for those who throw themselves on God's mercy, they will be receive the additional grace of having their resurrected bodies glorified, transfigured to be like Christ to live with God forever.

"Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them as their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, for the old order has passed away.”  Rev 21:3-4

I Am Barabbas

During the Palm Sunday reading this year, more than any year I can recall, the figure of Barabbas stood out to me. I'm sure I've heard others make the connection, but you know how it is when you have a personal epiphany--it's like this blazing light that sears into your soul, all else temporarily drops away, and you can briefly see with some kind of unhindered clarity something that you didn't see before or maybe only saw less clearly.

This happened to me. Specifically the aspect of how Jesus quite literally took the place of Barabbas  I mean, we often speak in a general sense about how Christ took our place in the sacrifice of the Cross. But for some reason, it just struck me how literal it was in the case of Barabbas.

But all together they shouted out, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us.” — Now Barabbas had been imprisoned for a rebellion that had taken place in the city and for murder. — Again Pilate addressed them, still wishing to release Jesus, but they continued their shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

Pilate addressed them a third time, “What evil has this man done? I found him guilty of no capital crime. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”

With loud shouts, however, they persisted in calling for his crucifixion, and their voices prevailed.

The verdict of Pilate was that their demand should be granted. So he released the man who had been imprisoned for rebellion and murder, for whom they asked, and he handed Jesus over to them to deal with as they wished.

This man. A murderer. A leader in rebellion. The Incarnate Word took his place.

We are often tempted to think that Christ couldn't possibly forgive our sin. Our sin is too heinous. Or we keep doing it--how could he keep forgiving on us? But he does. He took the place of a rebellious murderer. And he wants us to let him take our place as well. He wants us to rely on his atonement, on his mercy.

Yes, I am Barabbas, and Christ really did take my place.

Diabolical Debate or Divine Dialectic

Instead of starting from "how well does what this person has to say align with what I already think?", we would be better to start from "what can I learn from what this person has to say?". This is the way of dialectic and fruitful dialogue. Sadly, too often I forget this and fall into the comfortable cage of my own preconceptions and prejudices.

Must try harder. Must remember to pray first.

The Riches and Poverty of the Church

Much has already been made of our new pope's obvious humility and closeness to the poor and needy. Everyone who knows him seems to confirm it; he already has a history of living it (e.g., eschewing the episcopal palace and living in a normal apartment, preparing his own meals, using public transportation, telling his people to stay in Argentina rather than coming to his incardination and now installation as pope, to give the money they would spend on the trip to the poor, visiting the poor and sick, washing their feet,  and so on), and he is making an effort to continue living it now that he is pope.

We have seen it in his choice of simple white cassock and black shoes when he was introduced; we presumed it in his choice of name; we have seen it in his choices to not take advantage of various papal niceties thus far, and I have no doubt that we will continue to see it.



Today he spoke on his choice of Francis, confirming that it is indeed after St. Francis of Assisi:

"Francis of Assisi...the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and guards creation... How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor."

One of the first things he did, the morning after being elected, was to visit the tomb of Pope St. Pius V, a Dominican pope, a reformer, and, interestingly enough, the pope who started the tradition of wearing a simple white cassock--which is the habit of the Dominicans.

St. Francis was also a reformer. Although he only became a deacon, he began a reform movement that spread like fire and continues to this day--an evangelical witness of poverty.

In those days, many people were losing faith because, in part, of the wealthy way in which many of the clergy, especially the high ranking clergy, lived. St. Dominic recognized this also, and this is in part why he enjoined the vow of poverty on his friars as well. It is a kind of evangelical asceticism, a closeness to the poor for the sake of the poor's evangelization.

Many, worldly minded people will appreciate Pope Francis' emphasis on the poor. Certainly Christ himself taught what is now called the preferential option for the poor (#57). And this is precisely what our Holy Father is living, showing, and teaching himself. The catch is, again, that this is all ultimately for an evangelical purpose. It is a way of leading people to Christ; it is not a simple humanitarian impulse.

Lest anyone think I am adding my own interpretation on this:

We can walk as much as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord. ... When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness. ... When we journey without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord, we are worldly: we may be bishops, priests, cardinals, popes, but not disciples of the Lord. ... My prayer for all of us is that the Holy Spirit, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Mother, will grant us this grace: to walk, to build, to profess Jesus Christ crucified. 

These are the Holy Father's own words, in his first papal homily. And they strongly echo the words of St. Paul in his first letter to the church in Corinth:

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ... For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. ... When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Caring for the poor and needy is today, perhaps more than in any other age in human history, generally recognized to be a good, desirable thing. It is certainly common ground we can find with those who are on many other counts opposed to the Church. And that should give us some pause. 

It should give us pause because we cannot risk losing our faith, obscuring it, or minimizing it in order to collaborate with them. It should give us pause when they demand we check our faith at the door. It should give us pause when they try to tell us to whom we can and cannot minister. It should give us pause when they try to define what is and is not acceptable service to the needy. It should give us pause when they refuse to let us collaborate with them because they think they understand what is good for people better than we do. It should also give us pause when many members of our own religious orders become so conformed to the world's model of service to the poor that they become indistinguishable from any other humanitarian agency.

While caring for the poor and needy is a good, it is not an end. As Catholics, as Christians, we know that our end is God. We were made by him and for him. When Christ exhorts us to care for the poor, it is with an eschatological purpose. It is because each person bears the image of God that each person has such great dignity, rich or poor alike. Thus we truly are serving Christ by loving our neighbor. Christ was not just giving us a nice, religious way of saying that we should help the poor. No, he was explaining that it is a metaphysical reality that we are serving him by serving "the least of these"; it is truly, really a way of loving both God and our neighbor by the same action. It is a direct, not an indirect, way to love God, who is our end.

And it is because of this that when we separate our acts of charity from their theological end, treating them as ends in their own right, that "things go wrong" as the Holy Father put it. If we are not, by our care for the poor, professing Christ and him crucified, we are completely missing the point. We are lopsided and wrongheaded. We get confused and potentially lost; "we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness" because seeking an end other than God, no matter how noble in appearance, leads us away from God, turns us in on ourselves, and that is the very way of the devil, who seeks nothing more than to draw us away from God.

Authentic care for the poor demands a lively faith. It is this faith that keeps us well rounded in our care, because poverty is not limited to lack of material things. We can be physically poor--suffering some lack of physical wholeness or wellness. We can be socially poor--lacking friends and companionship. We can be poor in justice--having suffered wrong at the hands of others. We can be poor in freedom--captive, in prison (physically, psychologically, spiritually). We can be morally poor--messing up our lives, the lives of others, and our relationship with God. And most seriously, we can be spiritually poor--living a sterile life devoid of transcendence and relationship with God. 

And this is where I begin to get to the point. :) Some criticize the Church for all of our supposed lavish luxury. They see the grand architecture and amazing artwork, the fine ornamentation and the expensive vestments, and they claim that these riches are contrary to the Gospel and that they show a disdain for the poor. "If the Church really cared about the poor, it would sell all that crap and give it to the poor."

Ignoring the fact that Catholic charities far and away outstrip all global charities, both today and, even more so, throughout our long history, sentiments like these are an example of how "things go wrong." Because these things are themselves a ministry to the poor--especially the spiritually poor. The sole purpose of the Church is to draw us to God, and She uses every means at her disposal to do so--both the splendid riches of our most beautiful cathedrals and elaborate liturgies and the evangelical poverty of St. Francis, St. Dominic, and all those who profess such vows. She uses her intellectual riches to draw people through the mind, and She uses the corporal service to draw others through acts of simple kindness. She uses her supernatural riches of the prayers and merits of cloistered religious and hermits, the graces of the sacraments in every parish throughout the world, and the evangelical vigor of the apostolic orders and, yes, the laity as well. All that the Church is and does is ordered towards bringing people to Christ.

This of course does not mean that every action of every Catholic is so ordered; however, that is how it should be, and that is how the Church as both a supernatural and natural institution is ordered.

Pope Benedict XVI is known for his restoration of our liturgical riches. He taught us by his example that these are good means to enrich the spiritual poverty that has even become spread throughout the members of the Church. But he has also taught that "love for widows and orphans, prisoners, and the sick and needy of every kind, is as essential to her as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel." He on several occasions exhorted people to not waste vacations idly, but to spend them renewing our relationships with God and others, and he showed this in the way he spent his own. He untiringly gave us the riches of his intellectual efforts through books, apostolic letters, homilies, and audiences.

Pope Francis may have a different emphasis, one that focuses more on simplicity in practice and an evangelical poverty, according to his vows. That doesn't mean he is changing the Church, that he'll suddenly start divesting the Church of all material wealth, and it certainly does not mean he will lack a focus on orthodoxy (much less "change the Church's teaching" as if this were something a pope can do!). 

Benedict did not eschew tending to the needs of the poor; his emphasis was on a different kind of poverty, one that the world does not so well perceive. It seems that Francis will emphasize other kinds. We should be reluctant, however, to take comfort that his emphasis is better received by the world lest we be lulled into a spiritual laxity. Perhaps that is why our Holy Father came out so strongly in his first homily emphasizing what he did. The world is not the judge of the Church, what is good for people, nor what is good for a pope to be like or focus on; only God is that judge.

Together our Holy Fathers illustrate the holistic way in which the Church cares for the poor, always keeping in mind, word, and deed "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" but exemplifying it in different ways with different emphases according to their particular talents and callings.

Just Cuz the Church Says So

"Do you really believe that just because the Catholic Church says so?" my perplexed friend asks.

"Why yes. Yes I do," I reply.

"So you just have 'blind faith' in the Church then?" he sighs, and mumbles something about "religious zealots."

----

Of course, the discussion shouldn't end here--there is more to the story. Rather than jumping to the conclusion of 'blind faith', one should rather ask why. Why do I believe X just because the Church says so? And once we know the answer, we can see that it is not blind faith at all; quite the opposite.

First of all, let's be clear on the scope of propositions that would call for such belief. For Catholics, it is propositions concerning faith and morals. The proper object of faith is God and, implicitly, our relationship to God and, further, our relationship to others in as much as it touches on our relationship to God, which is why morals are also considered, i.e., the practical application of our knowledge of God. I mention this to address people jumping to weird conclusions like if the Pope definitively declared the earth to be flat, I would believe it. I wouldn't, because it doesn't pertain to faith and morals (and because there is much evidence and other reasons to hold to the proposition that the earth spherical).

That touches on the second aspect to be considered, which is the interplay between reason and faith. Some jump to conclusions that faith is somehow inherently opposed or contrary to reason, and blind faith is the most irrational, unwarranted form of such "faith." But faith is not inherently irrational. Whether faith is irrational depends on whether the object of faith (the proposition) cannot be shown to accord with reason.

The reason I phrase it the way I did is that just because someone can construct a rational argument that leads to a conclusion opposed to the proposition does not exclude the possibility of one or more rational arguments that support it. And as long as there are rational arguments for a belief, it can be said to be rational. The proposition may not be true, but that does not preclude one's belief in it from being rational. The argument may not be compelling to you, but that does not mean it is not rational.

Up to this point, we've been speaking of objective rationality, that is, whether a rational argument exists for a proposition. There is also the subjective consideration. For instance, regardless of whether or not a rationale exists for a belief, if my belief were only based in emotion (or wishful thinking), in that sense my belief could be said to be irrational. In that sense the belief could better be described as prejudice or even blind faith. 

So, back to the question at hand, is my belief in X that the Church proposes for assent by the faithful irrational? We must dig further.

One way to do this is to look for the rationale offered by the Church in proposing something for belief. The Church does not propose something for belief without offering some rationale for that proposal. In that sense, it would not be irrational to accept the proposition as1 true, because there is rationale, and I accept it because I find the particular rationale compelling. 

Indeed, there is much in what the Church proposes, especially in terms of morals, that is discernable with reason without the aid of Divine Revelation, and it is in such things that we have so much common ground with non-Catholics.  (There are also things the Church proposes based on the natural light of reason and not reliant on Revelation that we disagree on--such as abortion, redefining marriage, death penalty, etc.)

But my friend specifically qualified the question with "just because the Church says so." This is to say, do I accept the proposition (remember it is assumed to be concerning faith or morals) based only on the authority of the Church, without consideration for the rationale that the Church offers for it. That is the question.

In order for my assent to be rational, I would need some rationale to warrant that sort of trust in the Church, some reason to believe that the Church has the authority to define something as true and, consequently, to expect the assent of the faithful, even if they don't know the rationale, even if they don't fully understand it, even if they don't find the rationale convincing.

And that's precisely what I am suggesting--that the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, has that authority, because it is granted and guaranteed by God, who is himself the very source of the truth, has the authority to define truths concerning faith and morals and that the faithful are bound to assent to them. (NB: There are degrees of certainty in truths proposed for assent, and there are corresponding degrees of assent required of the faithful, but that's a subject for another time.)

Now in this post, I'm not proposing to delve into all the reasons to believe that the Church is this pillar and foundation of truth. There are reasons, and it is through them that I was led to join the Catholic Church. But for now it is enough to simply point out that if we accept this as a given for the sake of this discussion--because for Catholics it is--then it follows, rationally, that we Catholics should assent to those things pertaining to faith and morals, even when we don't find the offered rationale for some particular teaching as compelling.

It is thus that we can say, "Yes, I believe it just cuz the Church says so." It is thus that we can join St. Anselm in faith seeking understanding.  And it is thus that we can say to Christ, "I do believe, help my unbelief!"

Let Priests Be Priests

Continuing on my post yesterday on "we're doing it wrong," in which a lot of my suggestions revolved around the priests, our pastors, one of my priest friends on G+ (who shall remain unnamed until he tells me otherwise), said this:

Lay people, please bring this post to your pastor and volunteer to help as you can. It's too easy for priests to get into maintenance mode, worrying about keeping the lights on and the heat running and the roof from falling in and ... Then they see the "new evangelization" and think, "O Lord, another thing I need to worry about?", forgetting that evangelization and equipping the laity is their primary role.

As a priest, it's easy for us to feel overwhelmed and feel like there's so much that needs to be done, but little to no help to do it. We need lay people to step up and take the reins.

This speaks to one of my speculations--being intimidated at the effort involved. Now, I happen to know this particular priest is not one to shy away from challenging his parishioners, but the sentiment he expressed is important listen to as laity.

A few folks on G+ were taking me to task (in a friendly way) for essentially putting it all on the priests. Now, I want to be clear, I think the priests and bishops do have the leading, primary role in making changes like the ones suggested. I think their calling is precisely to lead us laity towards God, to strengthen us for our own sanctification, and to equip us for our own lay apostolate, our own evangelization. We have a crucial role in the evangelization of the world--it's not "Father's job" to do that on his own. We, by nature of being in the world all the time and by being so many, have much more opportunities for evangelization than Father ever can have, and we are all called to share the Good News.

So what we laity need to do is to support priests in what they need to do. We need to help priests be priests, and part of that is taking care of the other stuff that is not essentially priestly. It's not right for Father to feel so pooped and overwhelmed that he feels he can't perform his primary priestly ministry. That is something we can help with.  Help them to help us.

The Obnoxiousness is Bravery Fallacy

It always strikes me as odd when someone says or writes something that is obnoxious that you have people saying things like "At least he's brave enough to put it out there and tell it like it like he really sees it," or something along those lines.

No. It isn't brave. It's just obnoxious plain and simple. What would be brave is to listen to and engage those with whom you disagree, treating them with respect and courtesy. You see, that makes you vulnerable.

That this is true is evident by those who defend the loudmouths. They hurl ad hominems at those who demand common decency and respect--"you're just weak" or "spineless" or "brainless" or worse. They seem to imagine that pretending you can't be wrong and blustering your way through, insulting, and using coarse language shows that you are strong. It's all a façade, though, to cover up the reality. It's a lie. Lying isn't a sign of courage or strength; it is cowardly and weak.

Honesty is brave, the kind of honesty that exposes your own doubts, that doesn't hide or ignore the weaknesses in your arguments, that shows you know that you are fallible and that, all other things being equal, the other person is just as likely to be right as you. Showing that honesty but still respectfully engaging with people of contrary opinions, that is brave. Courage doesn't mean you have no fears; it is having fears and yet confronting them with wide eyes, head on.

The honesty I'm talking about is not the "honesty" that uses "the truth" to bludgeon other people and attempts to intimidate them into silence. It's not the "honesty" that readily sacrifices the dignity of others to win an argument; it's not the "honesty" that holds courtesy in contempt and considers mutual respect as a byword for the weak. It's not the "honesty" that deceptively inflates the certainty of one's position. That is not honesty; it is false honesty. It is an abuse of the truth.

That's not to say that obnoxiousness is never an effective rhetorical device. But it's not brave. It may win an argument; it may effectively make a point, but it is fighting dirty. And that's not something to be admired.

Towards Real Open Mindedness

Every so often I hear or read someone wringing their hands about information bubbles--the basic idea being that all these social media and feed personalization services allow people to "hide" or "shield themselves" from viewpoints that differ from their own.

This has always struck me as an odd thing to worry about. First, because people have been doing this forever, both intentionally and not. The simple fact that communication and mobility over large geographic areas was until recently in human history relatively difficult meant that people naturally were more isolated. More than that, our tribal inclinations mean that we tend to want to be with people who are like us, so, coupled with that being not hard to accomplish in most historical circumstances, it strikes me that this socio-cultural isolation has been the norm for most of human history. Why get so angsty about it now?

Another example comes from my own background growing up as an evangelical Protestant at a mega church, with its own school, located next to an ideologically similar university. One could literally grow up within that sphere and rarely encounter people of other viewpoints. We kids often debated the value of the "Victory bubble" growing up, all the way up to debating whether or not to go to said university or not based on that consideration.

For better or worse, my family could not afford to keep me in the bubble for all of my school years. I will say that those years outside of it were hardly wonderful and enlightening. The "world" is not all it's cracked up to be, and I told my friends who never left the bubble that at the time. (Of course, this could provide a digression on whether or not public schooling really reflects "real life" itself or not, but I will save that for some other time.)

So anyways, that touches on the "why now?" aspect. The second thought is that maybe the isolation enabled by these media channels is not so bad. By that I am being more pragmatic than idealist. People seem by and large to need this isolation. It feels safe. It is less emotionally draining. Unless it's your job, it is simply too tiring to not be able to have such an ideological retreat.

Perhaps more than that, it seems to me that the people wringing their hands about this are usually worried about other people. They see themselves as so wonderfully enlightened and open minded. In short, by taking the position they are taking, they are representing an ideology, an ideology that is inescapably one sided. Why do they want these other people to not be isolated? Because they hope that by making them so, they will become more like them. It is the same exact tribal inclination at work.

And along with that, you will find that rather than increasing dialogue and open-mindedness, including ideologically opposed channels in your feeds will often rather simply reinforce your own views, in a negative way. You are more regularly opposed to the "stupidity and idiocy" of the other side. You will, instead of gaining ground on the way to enlightenment be dragged into anger and outrage. Only the most disciplined mind could avoid this, and I'm not sure it is possible even then.

So rather than arguing that everyone stop using services that let them create a like-minded information bubble, which I think is normal, healthy, and possibly healthier than the other alternative, I suggest rather carving out focused and limited times in your life to engage with "the enemy." The popular media, and most of social media, is not the place to look for this engagement--because these are the centers of the echo chambers/bubbles. Instead, find a thoughtful person or two on the other side who is interested in dialogue, i.e., really open minded and not just doing lip service to it. Discuss your differences, share selective sources, don't worry about convincing each other. Just be honest and respectful.

Doing this enables you to both minimize and manage the emotional drain of such encounters while providing the most likely ground for mutual enrichment and growing in respect. This is the way to learn to view "them" as real, thoughtful human beings rather than as the enemy.

- tapped from a tablet, pardon the typos

Us Weirdos

Have you ever thought about the fact that you are reading this makes you a weirdo? Well, at least the fact that I am writing makes me one!

I mean, most people I know--even intelligent people in highly-skilled, knowledge-worker jobs--don't spend much time thinking about life, the universe, and everything. And guess what, they're not terribly open minded or reticent, either, from what I can tell.

Go to any mall and sit in the food court or even a coffee shop. Listen to conversations around you (it's okay, if you do it for science! ;) ). Look at what's popular on TV; listen to popular music. Even check out the top sellers lists at a bookstore. Talk to your friends about what their plans are for any given evening or weekend. Go to a club. Go to a theater. Watch Twitter's main feed, or even just "local" tweets. Poke around on Facebook. Even universities, which are supposed to be all about higher learning and critical thinking, are chock full of ebullient young folks who act as if they couldn't care less.

People by and large seem pretty disinterested in the deeper things in life.

On the other hand, I am told that people deep down really long for deeper meaning in life. The thing is, you'd never know it by looking at all this evidence. Are they all just waiting, hoping to have deep conversations? I don't think so, judging by the way such things get so quickly dismissed when brought up, and judging by how people fill their free time.

All I can figure is that those of us who actually like to engage in these things are weird. And since I am weird, I don't really relate to not wanting/caring.  I can't imagine what it would be like to not be actively, regularly engaged in philosophy and theology. Believe me, there are times when I want to not care, but I can't not (at least not for long). It's just not in me.

And it's not like these things are just a "special interest group" kind of thing. I mean, we're talking about philosophy and, for a theist, theology. These are things that apply to everyone. They're not hobbies or simple diversions. They are the fundamental things in life. People are quick to have an opinion on them, but not very interested in dialoguing about them. People certainly live according to a philosophy, and many nominally practice a religion, but they seem to do so without giving much thought to them. (Except occasionally, like in moments of life crisis.)

And while I know this situation is not new in human history, I think there is maybe less justification for it today. By that I mean that we middle class Westerners are, as a rule, more affluent than the rich in earlier times. It is actually practical for most middle class folks to engage in philosophy nowadays, something that in the past was relegated to only the wealthy, educated elite. And we are also massively more educated than the average folk of earlier times.

And yet, here we are. The most educated and wealthy masses in history, and what do most do with all that leisure and education? Sports. Video games. Partying. Shopping. Reality TV?

Don't get me wrong. I have no axe to grind against all these, taken in moderation. Certainly I regularly enjoy many popular things. I am no cultural elitist--I am not anti-TV or anti-internet or anti-social media.. But I can't go very long without coming back to these deeper things.

Not because I am better or smarter or more disciplined (God knows I am not that). It's almost more like a compulsion. I can't ignore the deeper things, even if I try. And more than that, I positively enjoy thinking about them. I enjoy having respectful dialogue about them.

It seems to me that saying "you're just an intellectual" is insufficient, given the aforesaid universal bearing these matters have on us human beings. But alas, I am most certainly biased. It's as much a part of me as being male. So all I can do is accept the evidence and what other people tell me--that I am just not normal in this way. I am a weirdo. Are you?

The Life Experiment

It occurred to me the other day that all this hubbub about being a theist or an atheist is misplaced, for your average scientific-minded atheist. The common explanation for disbelief is "there is no evidence." By this is meant, of course, no empirical evidence, no evidence that can be subjected to evaluation using an empirical scientific method.

But here's the thing. The question of whether or not God exists is a metaphysical one. By its very nature, it would be improper to subject the question of his existence to empirical evidence. In order to verify his existence scientifically, we should expect evidence in the dimension appropriate to the problem at hand. So of course we can't prove (nor disprove) that God exists using physical evidence and experimentation upon it, and asking theists to do so is fallacious, a form of moving the goalposts.

There is, in my judgment, plenty of metaphysical evidence based on sound reasoning to at the very least give God a good benefit of the doubt. But hey, let's be scientific about it. Each of us is looking at (theoretically) the same metaphysical evidence and reasoning and forming contrary hypotheses from it. Each of us believes that his hypothesis comes from good reasoning. If we are to be scientific, what is left but to experiment? So let's experiment with our lives.

The theist proposes the hypothesis that God exists. In order to test that hypothesis, he will choose to believe in God and live his life accordingly.

The atheist proposes that God does not exist, or at the very least he remains sufficiently skeptical to be inclined towards that hypothesis. Either way, he will choose to not believe in God and live his life accordingly.

So, when each of us dies, we will find out the results of our individual life experiments, and in the meantime, we're all being scientific about it, right? Plus, it's an eminently repeatable experiment. Every single human being has everything needed to form a hypothesis and test it. And in the afterlife, if there is one, the results will be in.

So Why All the Gnashing of Teeth?
Of course this is all well and good. What is all the arguing about then? The atheist might say, "fine, you can have your religion, but keep it to yourself, in private--don't let it affect me or anyone else in any way." Whereas the theist (and especially a Catholic Christian) says, "sorry, no can do. Part of my life experiment involves letting my belief system inform the way I act and the way we relate to each other, both in private and public life."

There's the rub. What we need to do is find a good balance to let each of us carry out our life experiments as freely as possible. Neither of us should insist on social arrangements that prevent us from carrying out our experiments effectively.

Atheists by definition don't have a common creed. Plus, if their hypothesis is correct, then it really doesn't matter how they act. They could live their life as holy as a saint, and it wouldn't matter. On the other hand, if the theist hypothesis is correct, then how they live their lives really matter. They do have fixed creeds. They do have definite rules they have to live by, some of which do include behaviors that can impact other people (usually for the better). They are bound to share their beliefs (especially with their children). They are bound not to deny their beliefs or to hide them (even if others find them objectionable). They are bound to charity towards everyone (not just people who share their creeds).

So if we were going to be strictly scientific about it, then it would follow that the atheists, not the theists, are the ones who need to accomodate more. Since the success of the atheist experiment does not depend upon any particular way of living, they can freely accomodate theists in cases where the success of the theist experiment depends upon some behavior that calls for such accommodation.

Ironically enough, though, this is the exact opposite of what the self-proclaimed "scientific" atheists demand. They demand to control how the theists are allowed to carry out their life experiments. They demand that theists cannot freely exercise their religion. Some even call for the outright extermination or suppression of religion.

That is hardly scientific. It is hardly the mark of an open, freethinking scientific mind. It is, rather, a very unscientific and prejudiced jumping to conclusions, a short-circuiting of free scientific experimentation. It is, in short, everything that a good scientist should abhor.