Posts from — May 2009

Just to fill you in, I am currently in the United States. I have limited web access, but will try to pound an entry out in the next day or two.

In Christ through Mary,
Theodoric

According to George MacDonald, the two pillars of ‘political correctness’ are willful ignorance and a steadfast refusal to face the truth.  Interestingly, those who are politically correct often denounce those who are ‘politically incorrect’ as being ignorant and unwilling to face the truth.  The problem with feeling a need to either follow or fight any norm is that it places a damaging emphasis on arriving at a certain conclusion.  It places the cart before the horse and contravenes the scientific method.  Ignorance, or the failure to inform oneself of relevant evidence, will often lead to incorrect assertions of fact or truth.  Whether these conclusions are correct or not has no bearing on whether it is politically correct – political correctness is an independent variable.  What does matter is whether the desire to reach a certain conclusion affects the evidence analyzed and the conclusions drawn.  Thus, end-driven analysis has the potential to subvert truth, placing it at the epitome of ignorance.  This ignorance can befall those bearing both monikers.

Of course, none of us can ever assess all the data or know all the evidence.  Confucius says: “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.”  Even for the most accomplished scientists assessing the most nuanced hypothesis, an over-readiness to derive conclusions of fact from evidence which is merely suggestive will leave them susceptible to error.  For most of us, our vulnerability to deception is greater: we are forced to place a large degree of reliance on the opinions of others.  This doesn’t mean that we ought to be precluded from stating opinions.  What it does suggest is that it is inappropriate to describe the ‘political’ opinion of another as ignorant when this attack is directed at the conclusion they’ve reached and not on the manner in which they reached it.

I felt inspired to write the above paragraphs yesterday, but struggled to find an appropriate conclusion. I wasn’t satisfied with how it all tied together, electing to only post the entry on walkingtheway.ca. It’s interesting how God works, directing us even when we are oblivious to His plans.  This morning, by happenstance, I came across a quote from Barrack Obama’s address to the convoking class at Notre Dame:  

“Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

…

Understand — I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

To a large extent Obama is correct - the two sides of the abortion debate are irreconcilable.  “Abortion is always wrong” and “aborting a child is always right” are mutually exclusive stances.  Vigorous debate where each camp makes its case on abortion is exactly what western society needs.  This debate needs to occur with passion and respect.  What we do not need is for those involved to remain firm in their convictions.  We need a conviction to discover truth and fact, regardless of whether that points to the conclusion that the person involved in the dialectic originally desired.  If we merely remain committed to our convictions, society will never overcome either the division present or the ignorance.

Let us pray that Obama’s words are a harbinger of true debate and that God will open the hearts of our nations to the truth. 

Sources:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052104.html

It is ironic that we live in such an environmentally conscious society while living in an environment which is almost entirely artificial. Unlike the world in which our grandparents were raised, a modern career-person has minimal need to go outdoors. Those that park their car in a garage while at home and have below-ground parking at their workplaces may go through an entire day without stepping outside.  Being “green” drives our consciences but on most days our experiences with greenery are limited to looking out the windows of hybrid vehicles and watering our potted plants.

Perhaps it is precisely because we are inside our dwellings so much that we have become so acutely concerned with nature. When so few eyes see a forest with any frequency, it should not be surprising that a deistic sense of mystery has developed around the natural environment. Environmentalism appears to be a fast growing pseudo-religion, not just increasing in adherents, but also changing the way many view Christianity and our faith. Bookstores first replaced the section for theology with Christianity, then Christianity with religion. Now religion has all but been subsumed by spirituality. Common among the titles are those of nature spirituality and new age religions. As Alan Jacobs observed in the May edition of First Things, even the most holy of books has been made “green”. In The Green Bible, a recently published New Revised Standard Version of scripture, the passage “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn and you will not be condemned” has been specially highlighted in green type. Apparently the verse “speak[s] to God’s care for creation.” However, the reality is that this passage speaks of His care for us humans and not for trees or caterpillars. This obvious point was apparently missed by the Bible’s editors. Maybe their vision was obscured by the UV-blocking coating on their green-coloured glasses.

This is not to suggest that the “merits” of nature religions are responsible for the regression of former Christians to paganism. Rather, it is reasonable to speculate that the shift to the indoors has somehow so distanced Christians from their faith that eventually it was lost. The resultant restlessness within human hearts has no doubt drawn some to nature religions, hoping for a quick-fix.

In The Luminous Dusk, Dale C. Allison Jr. highlights a number of effects of indoor life, two of which particularly support the contention that our absence of outdoor living has weakened our relationship with God. First, urbanization has undermined our ability to delve deeply into scripture. The bible was written by people who encountered nature. Highlighting passages in green type does little to rectify our inability to relate to the authors’ lived experiences:

“… the Bible [has become] foreign to us, who now pass most of our time in artificial environments. I surely speak for many in saying that few of the significant events in my life have taken place outdoors. It was just the opposite for Jesus. Almost every important event in his life occurred outside - his baptism, his temptation, his transfiguration, his entry into Jerusalem, his crucifixion. The clouds and orbs in the sky were his roof (and I recall that when he spoke of the Last Things, he saw the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven and the stars falling from the sky). The fact is hermeneutically relevant. One wonders: Is the story of Adam and Eve not less memorable for people who have spent almost no time in real gardens? Is it not likely that the rhetorical resonance of Jesus’ agricultural parables is dulled for readers who require every detail about planting and harvesting to be explained? Can those who run to sturdy shelters when tornado sirens sound fully appreciate the terror of the disciples on the waves of a stormy Sea of Galilee? Can people who do not know the difference between a sparrow and a starling have any deep emotional response to Jesus’ command to “look at the birds of the air” (Matt. 6:26)? It is hard enough - or rather, close to impossible - to cross the chronological and geographical spaces; but when we have also quitted the natural world, is it not harder to feel sympathy for the characters in the Bible and to identify with their stories?”

Second, we have sufficiently insulated ourselves from the forces of nature that it is usually only when catastrophe strikes that we are forced to acknowledge that we don’t always control our own destiny:

“If an increasing distance from Nature has cut us off from multitudinous sources of wonder, it has also cut us off from certain feelings of terror and replaced them with nurtured feelings of self-sufficiency, even complacency. In the face of earthquakes and tornados, our parents were helpless. Droughts and floods left them humbled, cognizant of their own impotence. But the more we construct buildings that will survive earthquakes, the more we learn about predicting tornados in time to take shelter, the more we think about seeding clouds and towing icebergs, and the more we build drainage ditches to divert floods, the less terrified we become. This is so important because those who are terrified always cry out for help, just as those who are not terrified can remain confident in themselves.”

Despite accepting Allison’s cause and effect analysis, I hesitate to accept his conclusion that “the problems, unfortunately, are much more vivid than the answers.” I hesitate because in a sense he’s right. A re-ruralization of society is simply not in the cards. Yet I optimistically strive to see all our struggles as opportunities for grace. The urbanized environment creates a new context for understanding the always relevant and living word of God. The authors of scripture could never have foreseen or intended that loving our neighbour could mean posting a comment on a webpage so that the author knows someone is reading. Jesus knew, though. Immersing oneself in the bible means finding meaning for your life, your family, in God’s personal words of scripture – written just for you. The message which God whispers to my heart will often be different than that which He whispers to yours. Obviously our messages will be different Elijah’s on Mount Horeb (1 Kings 19). What matters most is that we’re listening.

As for crying out for help, we live in still times. It can’t always be so. One need only recall the plights of the Israelites in the Old Testament to know that our silence toward God seems like an ominous harbinger of things to come. Undoubtebly we will cry out and God, who is everywhere and knows everything, will hear us.  

And the stars and the birds are not going anywhere fast. When I next sleep outdoors it will be as if God has awoken my soul. I yearn for the experience and I crave it, but I know that God has placed me right here, right now. I’m finding my sanctity in front of a monitor with the gentle hum of a computer fan to keep me company. It doesn’t sound like the whisper of God, but it is strangely calming. It’s not a lullaby, but it’s helping me rest for when I can soon become most fully alive.

Sources:

Dale C. Allison Jr, The Luminous Dusk: Finding God in the Deep, Still Places (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006) at pp. 11, 15, 22.

Alan Jacobs, “Blessed are the Green of Heart” 193 First Things Magazine May 2009 - http://www.firstthings.com/

My best friend Dawn got married this afternoon. As we were leaving the reception, my date explained to me that her favourite part of a wedding is when the bride first walks into the back of the church. Everyone stands and turns to see the bride, but she looks at the groom. All eyes are off him, she explained, and what he expresses on his face is the what he’s feeling in his heart. What she said she saw as he looked at Dawn was as admiring awe and genuine joy. This joy was for his soon to be bride, and no one else, and my date felt honoured to catch a glimpse of something which emanated from the depths of his soul.

In the Life of Mother Teresa, the author explained that:

By the age of 18, Agnes [Gonxha Bojaxhiu, Mother's name in the world] had decided to become a missionary nun.

Father Jambrekovic, S.J., her pastor, encouraged her to follow her heart, saying that if the thought of serving God and His people filled her with joy, it was the right path for her. He compared joy to a compass, pointing the way to one’s true vocation.

Dawn has found her vocation, and my prayers are with her and her husband, Kevin.

As for my vocation, I did catch the garter belt.

Sources:

Mother Teresa, by Maya Gold, 2008 - posted on The Catholic Thing Blog - http://www.thecatholicthing.org/content/view/1557/29/

Facing the highest rates of unemployment in a decade and a crippled economy, many consumers in London will take any break they can get. In an attempt to placate over 13,000 people who signed an online protest launched on Facebook against major UK retailer Marks & Spencer, the company has announced it is cutting the price of select bras by as much as £2 and is offering an additional discount of 25 percent for the entire month of May.

Apparently responding to the increased costs of material associated with manufacturing larger bras, the retailer decided to up the price for undergarments of size DD and larger. “It’s true our fantastic-quality larger bras cost more money to make, and we felt it was right to reflect this in the prices we charged,” M&S told readers. “Well, we were wrong, so as of Saturday, the storm in a D cup is over.”

Twenty-six-year-old Beckie Williams, who wears a size 30G bra, helped form the group, Busts 4 Justice, which initiated the online protest. Busts 4 Justice, condemned the surcharge on bras bigger than a DD cup as not just being poor customer relations and questionable pricing strategy, but as being “criminally unfair”, urging “busty ladies” to “join forces to end this blatant discrimination”. I presume these phrases were not used as a legal term of art. Yet I hesitate to suggest that her wording was unintentional. Determining what constitutes discrimination shifts with society. Unfortunatly, the ground is moving so fast that we are heading for moral collapse.

Besides, breasts and bras have established legal precedents before. In the 1994 December edition of First Things Magazine, the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus (1936 - 2009) brilliantly elaborated on the connection between breasts and bias. This is one of the wittiest and most humorous short-articles I have ever read:

“The Politics of the Breast” is an opinion piece in the New York Times advocating the right of women to go bare-breasted on the subway. Two years ago the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state laws against indecent exposure could not be enforced against women who wish to be topless in public. Judge Vito J.Titone wrote that differential treatment of female bodies violated constitutional guarantees of equality and was “rooted in centuries of prejudice and bias toward women.” One suspects he meant to say against women. A certain delicacy about the display of the female body in public is indeed rooted, apparently from the beginning of the species, in an enthusiastic male prejudice and bias toward naked women. Such considerations seem to carry little weight with the court, however. If human nature and the edicts of the court are in conflict, human nature will just have to change. Mayor Giuliani, being a generally sensible fellow, says the transit police will continue to arrest bare-breasted women on the subway. A police spokesman explains that, in the close press of subway travel, a “very, very attractive” topless woman could create excitements that would pose a public danger. Some subway patrons, he opined, could become so distracted that they might fall down escalators or even onto the tracks. The Times writer is buying none of it. She scoffs at the idea that “the power of the female breast is such that it can lure its beholders to untimely demise in subterranean channels.” She concludes that the bare-breasted subway rider is making the point “that her breasts belong to her and not to the onlookers.” It is not, however, the proprietorship but the public display of the items that is in question. To be fair to the writer, this is a man thing and it is perhaps understandable that she just doesn’t get it. Her argument and that of the New York court, however, do helpfully illumine why it is so very difficult to make a case for public decency. The concepts of decency and indecency turn upon what is offensive. Today, unless you are a member of a certified victim group, you have not the right to be offended. If you are offended or, as in this case, aroused, the fault is with you. The fun for the more aggressive members of the certified victim group is to taunt and provoke you into protesting what they say or do, thus confirming that they are victims and you the victimizer. But this is old hat by now. And for all the media chatter about bare-breasted subway riders, we know nobody who has seen one to date. One expects it’s not for the lack of looking. In any event, the ancient maxim is again vindicated that those whom the gods would destroy are, if madness be the sign, disproportionately New Yorkers.

At least Fr. Neuhaus would be pleased that Busts 4 Justice is fighting to make bras more accessible.

Sources:

http://www.firstthings.com/

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/britain_clothing_offbeat

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ms-agree-to-abandon-price-uplift-on-big-bras-1681822.html

Within our personal lives, we find ourselves torn between the desire for temporal and temporary pleasure which constitutes the allurement of sin and the longing for the eternal joy promised by the Father to those who persevere in faithfulness. This battle between good and evil is real, the struggle epic. Every aspect of our lives is impacted, for man is not pure spirit, but body, mind and soul. To influence the nature of a person is to draw nearer to that within him which is supernatural.

Bishop Finn of Kansas City states:

“Harsh as this may sound, it is true - but it is not new. This war to which I refer did not begin in just the last several months, although new battles are underway - and they bring an intensity and urgency to our efforts that may rival any time in the past.”

“[It]is correct to acknowledge that you and I are warriors - members of the Church on earth - often called the Church Militant. Those who have gone ahead of us have already completed their earthly battles. Some make up the Church Triumphant - Saints in heaven who surround and support us still - tremendous allies in the battle for our eternal salvation; and the Church Suffering (souls in purgatory who depend on our prayers and meritorious works and suffrages).

“But we are the Church on Earth - The Church Militant. We are engaged in a constant warfare with Satan, with the glamour of evil, and the lure of false truths and empty promises. If we fail to realize how constantly these forces work against us, we are more likely to fall, and even chance forfeiting God’s gift of eternal life.”

I will return to this topic frequently in future blogs, particularly in regard to the culture war we are all witnessing…

At the inspiration of a mother of a friend I looked into the writing of C.S. Yanikoski:

http://www.livewithoutgod.com/index.html#Contents

I gave the site an ever-so-brief précis. A recipe for disastrously poor analysis. However, C.S. is no Lewis. I feel well equipped to comment having read the introduction and his marvelously written table of contents, even if I skimmed the rest. It is exam time.

Aside from the immediate observation that his commentary on the bible’s origin is oversimplified, incomplete and misleading, a few things struck me. First, his audience is, he admits, those that are questioning their faith and unbelievers. In fact, he overtly states at the beginning that those that have a strong faith are wasting their time in reading on. There’s a good reason for this, we soon see; his argument holds no merit for a true Christian.

In effect, he posits that faith is a choice, perhaps an intellectual endeavor. “Belief in God”, “believers tend”, “a reason to believe” quickly becomes “Intelligent Designer” and “the God of the Gaps.” For one who believes, his argument is already on shaky ground. Believers know that he just doesn’t get it. Let me fill in the gaps. Belief is not science, logic, or reason. Faith is compatible with these, it may stem from one of them, it is supported by them all, but it can never be one of them. Faith is, er… faith. Yeah, it does require a leap. What Yanikoski doesn’t get is that the leap is not into a gaping chasm or a dark abyss devoid of certainly. It is a gentle fall into the hands of a Friend, a Lover. Faith is relationship. Father Larry Richards asks, why do you believe in God? Only one answer suffices: “I KNOW God”.

For those that do not know Him, the rest of what Yanikoski states is (mostly) correct. Sure, you can be a good person without a personal relationship with God. You may even get those things that you did not receive as a result of your prayers! He loves us no matter what. As the True Father, nothing we can do will cause Him to stop. (Something a mother will relate to, as well) We may choose to be like the prodigal son. He will not force our love. He will always welcome us back.

Yanikoski is a man who wants proof, explanation. He presents the impossible task to readers of proving God’s existence. Hardly novel. Yanikoski’s no fool, but neither is he an Aquinas, Augustine, or, more contemporaneously – we needn’t stretch the annals of time for an appropriate comparator – a Ratzinger or Wojtyla. One wouldn’t think that More or Beckett were fools, either. Yet why would they die for their faith? Not as intelligent as Yanikoski? Just didn’t get it? Perhaps. Or perhaps they got it All. There’s an utilitarian appeal that accompanies being your own boss and following a less stringent set of moral dictates. The utility of voluntarily, albeit reluctantly, accepting a London Tower beheading is admittedly more esoteric. For those of us that do get it, there has never been a greater utility than the perpetual embrace of the One whom gave us life and then offered His own for US on a piece of wood.

“Then Jesus our good Lord said: If you are satisfied, I am satisfied. It is a joy, a bliss, an endless delight to me that ever I suffered my Passion for you; and if I could suffer more, I should suffer more.” – Bl. Julian of Norwich

The April 2009 edition of First Things magizine contains a book review of the late Richard John Neuhaus’ Ministering to Ministry: Freedom for Ministry. As described by Timothy George, “Neuhaus believed that the minister serves not only the local congregation but also the Church that is the Body of Christ, extended throughout time as well as space.” No where ought the transcendent nature of ministry be more obvious than in the liturgy, where the Catechism assures us that “to the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ.” (CCC 1370)

Sadly, I speculate that few priests speaking of ‘community’ consider the term in the richness which the liturgy effectuates. A few weeks ago I had the privilege to attend a funeral Mass, wonderfully celebrated and - I have no doubt - inspiring to all in attendance. Surprisingly, the entire congregation knelt from the Sanctus to the Great Amen, a practice all but unheard of in my Archdiocese. As I was leaving I cheerfully, albeit retrospectively cheekily, asked one of the concelebrants whether he was taking note of the kneeling. I attend his parish on occasion and its practice is to remain standing throughout the entire consecration. Understandably perturbed by my off-handed question, he rather abruptly informed me that I was aware that the proper liturgical norm is to adopt the posture of the congregation.

Neither was I aware nor am I convinced. “Liturgical diversity can be a source of enrichment, but it can also provoke tensions, mutual misunderstandings, and even schisms. In this matter it is clear that diversity must not damage unity. It must express only fidelity to the common faith, to the sacramental signs that the Church has received from Christ, and to hierarchical communion. Cultural adaptation also requires a conversion of heart and even, where necessary, a breaking with ancestral customs incompatible with the Catholic faith.” (CCC 1206) Is hierarchical communion present when two parishes within the same Archdiocese hold two liturgical practices for the proper posture of reverence during the consecration of the bread and wine, the time when the source and summit of our faith become manifest and present among us? In a liturgy which spans both time and space one’s emphasis on the local community must surely be exaggerated if it perceives a need for “cultural adaptation” and distinction for two Roman rite parishes within a 20 minute drive of each other.

Cathechism aside, his retort seems nothing short of illogical. Presuming - and I stand to be corrected - that the Church in Atlantic Canada proscribed kneeing as the proper posture from the Sanctus to the Memorial Acclamation (http://wcr.ab.ca/news/2008/1215/kneel121508.shtml), then how would such a discrepancy in parish practices have arisen? Thomists know that the creation of something new requires a first mover. If the posture proscribed in the G.I.R.M was that of kneeling, citing the practice of the community is a lame way to vindicate and perpetuate the initial disunity caused by some liturgical deviant long since forgotten.

As for decision to kneel before the Lord during the consecration, I believe I find myself in good company, joining Our Lady at the foot of the cross.

(Addendum: The “standing” parish is without kneelers. See Cardinal Arinze’s comments… “…. suppose it is open-air or it rained and it is muddy — you could not kneel there. But in the normal church it is possible to kneel … Where a particular person cannot kneel — you have arthritis or you are a mother holding a baby — that is understood.” - http://www.adoremus.org/1003Arinze.html)

“And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.” - Luke 5:37-38 (ESV)

Welcome to my new wineskin! I used to blog, ever so infrequently, on mycatholicvillage.com. Then I started servustuus on blogspot. Now it’s time for a dedicated sever. There’s no harm in putting old wine in new wineskins, so I will shortly post a few older posts transferred from mycatholicvillage and servustuus. Expect a fresh post as frequently as time will permit. My aim is to post at least every other day. I hope you enjoy my posts. Please encourage as many people as possible to read my blog. Please comment! Every author appreciates knowing his readership extends beyond himself! This wineskin won’t burst, so check back often and pour in your thoughts and reactions!

In Christ through Mary, Mother of God,

Theodoric