Creation as God or Gift?

Anthropology, Creation, Evolution, Paganism, ,

It is anything but surprising that the California Wildfires have been met with a bevy of Climate Cassandras chiming in about how the fires offer indisputable proof that man-made climate change is real.  They then will call for us all to do “something” because it represents an existential crisis.  Others will try to reason with them, acknowledging that because man lives in the world, it is reasonable to expect that the environment will be changed by him.  But their failure to acknowledge the impending doom ultimately will earn them the branding of climate denier.  There is no reasoning with them because ultimately we are dealing with a subtle form of paganism.

Seeing environmentalism as a secular religion certainly helps explain its proclivity to serve as a metanarrative.  Not only does it cause natural disasters like the wildfires in California, but it also causes migrant crises, racism, and even the rise of ISIS. When coupled with the aptly named Politician’s Fallacy it becomes a instrument for seizing power and limiting the freedom of those under their thumb.

A Real Religion

It might be easy to dismiss it all as a power grab, but it seems there are many who are true believers, even those in power.  We cannot dismiss the fact that man has a natural religious impulse and must worship something.  Environmentalism serves to feed this religious impulse.  The reason why this realization is important is because they do not need convincing that their interpretation of the facts is wrong, but conversion from what is ultimately a false religion.

The foundational belief is that creation is not inherently good, but in a process of becoming so.  Nature itself (or Gaia) is God and must be worshipped in its purest form.  Creation was self-guided towards a future utopia; a day when Nature walks in the pseudo-Garden of Eden and all creation becomes one with Nature.  Everything was on the right track until at some point in history (usually the Industrial Revolution), man committed the sin of taking creation off its course.  Now we must atone for that sin by “doing something” to take it back to the pre-1800 state and get it back on track.  Otherwise we will face an Apocalypse some time in the near future. 

The Climate Cassandras are its prophets of doom who feign certainty using weasel words (like “may”) to warn us of the impending doom just beyond the horizon.  Climatologists are its priests, transubstantiating their models into reality.  Its enemies are not only the nay-sayers but the numinous, invisible ghosts like UV radiation and CO2. 

In his excellent book, Apocalypse Never, Michael Shellenberger points out something similar regarding the religious nature of environmentalism:

Environmentalism today is the dominant secular religion of the educated, upper-middle-class elite in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it with legitimacy. On the one hand, environmentalism and its sister religion, vegetarianism, appear to be a radical break from the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. For starters, environmentalists themselves do not tend to be believers, or strong believers, in Judeo-Christianity. In particular, environmentalists reject the view that humans have, or should have, dominion, or control, over Earth. On the other hand, apocalyptic environmentalism is a kind of new Judeo-Christian religion, one that has replaced God with nature. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, human problems stem from our failure to adjust ourselves to God. In the apocalyptic environmental tradition, human problems stem from our failure to adjust ourselves to nature. In some Judeo-Christian traditions, priests play the role of interpreting God’s will or laws, including discerning right from wrong. In the apocalyptic environmentalist tradition, scientists play that role.

The Path to Conversion

Properly understanding that we are dealing with religious conviction rather than an interpretation of facts, we can work towards conversion.  The path has been laid out for this rather clearly in Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate in what could be described as a Metaphysics of Gift:

The environment is God’s gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole. When nature, including the human being, is viewed as the result of mere chance or evolutionary determinism, our sense of responsibility wanes. In nature, the believer recognizes the wonderful result of God’s creative activity, which we may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise, while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation. If this vision is lost, we end up either considering nature an untouchable taboo or, on the contrary, abusing it. Neither attitude is consonant with the Christian vision of nature as the fruit of God’s creation.

Notice how he first puts the blame for environmental abuse at the feet of an evolutionary worldview in which creation is a mere accident.  The Environmentalist already rejects this, seeing in it a meaning and purpose.  If they can begin to see it not as a god, but as a gift, then it is natural for them to wonder at the nature of the Giver. 

The use of the word wonder is particularly appropriate.  Modern philosophy begins with doubt whereas for the Greeks and Aquinas it begins with wonder.  Modern man only wonders at how a thing works, while the Catholic ought to wonder why it exists like it does.  In fact, why does anything exist instead of nothing?  Why am I the kind of creature that can appreciate a beautiful sunset or wonder about the size of the universe?  Beauty can save the world.  This is the path to conversion for the Environmentalist.  By fostering a spirit of wonder, it predisposes the person towards gratitude and the recognition that everything is a gift. 

Facebook Comments Box

The Death of Leisure and the Rise of Utilitarianism

Culture, Leisure, Work, , , ,

A familiar feeling for many is the anxiety that comes at the end of the weekend. Believe it or not there is a sociological term for this phenomenon: “The Sunday Scaries”. As silly as it might sound, it is, unfortunately, an all to real phenomenon that many people identify with. A simple Google search reveals dozens of articles written on the subject. One article goes so far as to suggest that they may be a connection between suicide and “Sunday Scaries”. This problem, trivial though it may be, is symptomatic of a deeper sickness in our society. It is symptomatic of a society that does not know how to rest. By rest, I do not mean the absence of work. Rest is not, as talked about in a previous post, lying in front of the TV while mindlessly consuming the newest show. It is also not catching up on chores that we did not quite have time to get to during the week. Rest is leisure. The latin word for leisure is otium, and the word that is used for business is negotium, literally, “not leisure”. Negotium is where we get the word negotiate from. So in antiquity, leisure was not the absence of work, but work was the absence of leisure. Leisure, especially contemplation, was seen as necessary for a good life as I point out in another post on the nature of happiness. Aquinas even states that leisure and contemplation are necessary for the perfection of society. So what happens to a society when leisure is thrown aside? Isn’t it just a luxury?

The Utility of Life

Leisure is an activity sought as an end in it of itself. It is differentiated from work which is a means to an end. While work is productive, leisure is creative. It is certainly no accident that a society which has forgotten leisure, has also forgotten the goodness of having and raising children: man’s most creative act. Without leisure man’s life just becomes a series of means to an end. Even the time he does spend resting is spent so that he may be rested for work. Academia becomes glorified job training. Entertainment becomes advertisement. Life itself becomes all about efficiency.

Such a society will find that even its morality is infected with this spirit. An act is no longer right or wrong on its own merit, but instead is judged by the goal of the intention. Every act is judged by its usefulness in reaching the desired end. In a sense, morality itself becomes a game of efficiency. Ultimately, morality becomes utilitarian. And the ends themselves will only remain good for so long, because without leisure man forgets his nature and purpose. Worse still, people become justified to a society based on their usefulness. The unborn become discardable, and the elderly become a burden. John Paul II makes the same observation when he speaks about the culture of death in Evangelium Vitae when he says, “This culture [the culture of death] is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency… a life which would require greater acceptance, love and care is considered useless, or held to be an intolerable burden.” A society which forgets leisure is doomed to utilitarianism.

Reclaiming Leisure

Leisure is a preparation for the eternal. It is a preparation for Heaven. It is as Jesus tells Martha, “the better part” (Luke 10:42). Leisure is a fundamentally human activity because it is an abstraction from the day to day tasks of our lives. So how can we return to it again? First, it is necessary to take the 3rd commandment seriously again. When God rested on the seventh day, it was not just a lack of work. As John Paul II points out in Dies Domini,

It would be banal to interpret God’s “rest” as a kind of divine “inactivity”. By its nature, the creative act which founds the world is unceasing and God is always at work… The divine rest of the seventh day does not allude to an inactive God, but emphasizes the fullness of what has been accomplished. It speaks, as it were, of God’s lingering before the “very good” work (Gn 1:31) which his hand has wrought, in order to cast upon it a gaze full of joyous delight. This is a “contemplative” gaze which does not look to new accomplishments but enjoys the beauty of what has already been achieved

Thus, Sunday should be a day spent in “joyous delight”. First, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and then in the truth, beauty, and goodness of creation. There will of course be those for whom it is not possible to make Sunday a day of leisure because of extenuating circumstances, but this is the exception and not the rule. Sunday should not be a day to catch up on work, instead it should be a day dedicated to becoming human again.

Second, to reclaim leisure, we must be intentional. This is all the more necessary in the age of laptops and smartphones which mean that our work can follow us everywhere. Leisure must be a priority, and not just another item on a to-do list. On the other hand, we must also be mindful of our free time as we live in an age with seemingly endless distractions. While leisure need not be productive and perhaps ought not be, it is not just a distraction from life. It is the place where we can see meaning and beauty in life. So, as we move into 2025, let us struggle to reclaim leisure in a culture that is constantly demanding our attention.

Facebook Comments Box

On Anti-Judaism

Apologetics, Ecumenism, Evangelization, Judaism, , , ,

In an effort to join the fight against antisemitism, the USCCB’s Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, in cooperation with the American Jewish Committee, released “Translate Hate: The Catholic Edition.”  The document was meant to “equip Catholics with the tools to recognize antisemitism” and insofar as the description of the terms in the glossary goes, it is especially helpful.  What is not helpful however is the commentary at the beginning by Bishop Bambera in which he condemns as equally “insidious” both antisemitism and anti-Judaism.  It is, according to His Excellency, a denial of “the spiritual patrimony that Catholics share with the Jewish people.”  Unfortunately, the Bishop is merely reflecting the attitude of many Catholics since the Second Vatican Council and helps to explain the reason why many Catholics think evangelization of the Jews is unnecessary.

While the Bishop never really explicitly defines what he means by anti-Judaism, it seems to be implicit in his comment that “Anti-Judaism compares the faith of Israel to other religions as defective, inferior, and/or rejected by God.”  Combined with the fact that he makes a distinction between it and antisemitism, one could assume that he means it in the sense of treating modern-day Judaism as a false religion.  While it is true that Judaism is unique among the false religions because of its connection to the Old Testament, it is nevertheless a false religion in that it openly rejects Christ.

Modern-Day Judaism

At the heart of the issue is an ignorance of what exactly modern-day Judaism is and its relationship to the Judaism of Christ and the Apostles.  Christ came to fulfill all that was in Judaism at His time.  Israel was simply the Church in its larval state and once Christ emerged from the tomb, the chrysalis was torn open and the butterfly that was the Church emerged.  Those practitioners of Judaism did not merely stand still, waiting for the Messiah.  Their religion was also transformed into something else.  In other words, the religion of Christ and the Apostles no longer exists.

Although the transformation took many years, Judaism slowly became, not the religion of Moses, but a religion that opposes Christ.  Rabbinic Judaism was born in the early first century and the Talmud (the sayings of the Rabbis) eventually replaced the Torah as the authoritative source of Jewish teachings.  Erubin 21b says “be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah.”  If the Talmud allows something that the Torah forbids, then it is the Talmud that is to be obeyed.    

The Talmud also established Rabbinic Judaism as anti-Christ.  Christ is presented as the bastard son of a Roman soldier after his mother strayed from her husband (Shabbat 104b:5), a practitioner of sorcery (Sanhedrin 43a:20) and residing in hell in boiling feces (Gittin 57a). 

Rabbinic Judaism then is not merely the religion of the Old Testament whose practitioners are simply waiting for the Second Coming because they missed the first.  It is a false religion that is anti-Christ.  Therefore, anti-Judaism is a necessary consequence of being Christian.  To oppose the blasphemies of modern Judaism is not anti-Judaism but anti-Christian.  Anti-Judaism is not, as the Bishop insists, a rejection of the spiritual patrimony that we share with the Jews, it is an acknowledgment that they have rejected that spiritual patrimony.

Antisemitism is always wrong, but it is especially grave for a Christian because Christ, His Mother and all the Patriarchs of the Old Testament were ethnically Jewish.  It is for the sake of these men and women that we ought to always hold them in special regard.  They are “are beloved for the sake of their forefathers” (Romans 11:28).  But only by being anti-Judaism can we acknowledge that modern day Jews are outside of God’s covenant.

The New Covenant?

This is a second source of confusion.  There is no such thing as the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.  There are multiple covenants in the Old Testament (c.f. Ex 20, Deut 6-7, Numbers 14:7-23; Dt 29:1) and not simply a single Old Covenant.  In each case a previous covenant is either modified or nullified by God in favor of a newer one that depends on the historical conditions.  The newer proscriptions themselves can replace the former ones.  The point is that God does not change, but the conditions under which men come to him in a covenantal relationship do (or at least did). He makes a covenant with each person such that he may become a member of His People by fulfilling the conditions of the covenant that is active during the particular historical setting. He does not make a covenant with a people in the generic sense; a mistake that often leads Christians to consider Jews as “God’s chosen people.”  Those Jews schooled in the Scriptures would be well aware of this fact and would be expecting a definitive and everlasting covenant with God (c.f. Ez 37:26-28; Jeremiah 31:31-34).  The promised covenant was to be rooted in Baptism (c.f. Ez 36:24-28).   

There really is then only a single covenant operative at a given time by which a person is incorporated into God’s People.  Baptism, rather than circumcision, is the way in which a person in our day enters into covenant with God.  The “gift and the call of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:30) so that the offer of a covenant is still open to the Jews but they must enter into covenant with Him through the new Circumcision (c.f. Col 2:11-12).  Christians should be anti-Judaism in order to invite those in Rabbinic Judaism into God’s covenant.  There is no other means by which they can be saved.

Facebook Comments Box

The Danger of Theory

Economics, Politics, , , , ,

Theory has been the realm of significant progress throughout history. Every great invention, system of government, philosophy, etc. began as a theory. There is little doubt that theory is one of the marks of the human genius, since we alone are able to make abstractions. However, theory carries a certain danger with it. Because theory is an abstraction it always has the possibility of becoming disconnected from reality. When it becomes disconnected from reality the consequences are often dire. If theory is connected to reality then it is also subject to feedback from reality. In other words, it is subject to falsification. Suppose a man thinks that it is possible to fly. If he goes onto a roof and walks off then he quickly finds that reality is not as he supposed.

Unfortunately, not all theories are so easily subjected to reality. Oftentimes, theories are isolated from reality by moving the predictions. This can be seen in cases like the many Malthusian predictions that we have all heard from population and climate alarmists over the years. Famously, and perhaps somewhat controversially, the early response to COVID-19 suffered the same problem. The “two weeks to slow the spread” theory turned into a months-long lockdown with hardly any acknowledgement at the time that the theory was wrong. When theory becomes isolated from reality it becomes ideology. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spoke of the horror of ideology in The Gulag Archipelago when he said,

Ideology—that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others’ eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.

Further, in his book Crime and Punishment, Dostoevsky shows us the hideousness of theory divorced from reality in Raskolnikov. He is so caught up in his theory of the world that he struggles to face the reality of the crime he has committed. Ultimately, theory divorced from reality makes the worst of evils permissible simply because the evildoer need not confront reality.

The Ideology of Man and Economics

Socialism is an illness, which has devastated many societies in the last century, that represents theory disconnected from reality. On the economic side, central planning suffers from this problem. In theory, central planning appears to be tenable. A group of well meaning experts get together and decide the best allocation of resources for the community. Setting aside the questions of subsidiarity and corruption, in reality, central planning is impossible. Leonard Read’s essay I, Pencil exposes the absurdity of central planning by simply detailing the journey of a pencil through its manufacturing process. If the individuals involved in the making of something as simple as a pencil cannot fully understand the entire process, then how can we expect that an entire economy can be understood by a group of experts. One of the reasons this theory can so easily turn into an ideology is because the central planners are almost never the ones to suffer from their lack of knowledge. For example, in the Soviet Union there were issues with wheat production that were hidden by the government in order to protect the reputation of their central planning system. It is almost guaranteed that the central planners themselves were not the ones to suffer the consequences of the underproduction.

The Model Says…

Another area that theory divorced from reality has affected is modeling. Many of the researchers who work with models fail to recognize what a model actually is. A model is not merely a mathematical construct. It is a representation of reality. This view is lost, however, when one only focuses on the theory behind a model. The theory behind a model being correct does not make the model correct. In fact, all models are wrong, it is just the case that some are useful. Especially with the advent of AI and machine learning tools, models are more easily abused because people assume that as long as they use the “right” model the answer will be meaningful. This is not the case. What makes a model’s results meaningful is dependent on how good of a representation of reality that the model is. This is determined by the validity of the assumptions made by the modeler. The modeler must be open to feedback from reality or else the model just becomes a surrogate for ideology.

Avoidance of Reality

In the end, this comes down to a question of what reality is. Is reality optional? How far can a person insulate themselves from reality? Reality can only be avoided for so long. Eventually, every person must confront it. The most stark reminder of this is the reality of death. Kings and peasants are equal in the graveyard. No one can escape reality. Now, the question becomes what should our response to this fact be? As talked about in a previous post, there is good reason to think the best response is acceptance. Beyond conversations about reality in general, we should bear in mind that human nature is as immutable as reality itself. We may wish to change it, but that is like wishing the law of gravity to no longer exist. As the Roman poet Horace said, “You may drive out nature with a pitchfork, yet she’ll be constantly running back.”

Facebook Comments Box

Happiness and the Good Life

Faith and Reason, Virtue, , , , , ,

Happiness is one of the most enduring ideas in the history of the world. One could go all the way back to the ancient Greeks and their idea of happiness as human flourishing, or eudaimonia. In our time, happiness is still a fundamental idea in the lives of ordinary people. You would be hard pressed to find a person who does not want to be happy. In fact, since the human will is inclined to work towards the good that it perceives, a man cannot help but act towards his own happiness. Or, at the very least, his perceived happiness. Herein lies the issue in many of our modern day conversations about happiness, for as much as it is talked about it is almost never defined. Postmodernists did away with the idea that there was any uniting narrative for humanity, and it seems that as a consequence the idea that happiness had any objective basis was thrown out as well. The prevailing notion in our age is that the question of what makes a person happy is up to each individual to decide for him or herself. So what is happiness? And how should we go about obtaining it?

Happiness as an Activity

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defines happiness as an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Thus, happiness is not merely a feeling or something that can be subjectively defined. It is an activity which we participate in. A person is happy insofar as they are virtuous. This view is more robust than our modern conception of happiness. Our modern conception of happiness is based around how a man feels about his life, or the external circumstances of his life, but if we view happiness as an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue then it is not dependent on the external circumstances of one’s life. In his book, Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor, makes the case that meaning and happiness are not found in one’s external circumstances. He observes that those who were able to survive the concentration camps were not necessarily the most physically fit, but the ones who had a strong interior life. This fits with Aristotle’s further commentary on happiness in Book X of Nicomachean Ethics. He writes, “If happiness is activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be in accordance with the highest virtue; and this will be that of the best thing in us… That this activity is contemplative we have already said.” So for Aristotle, happiness is a contemplative activity. This does not mean that in order to be happy we need to withdraw from society and go live a life of contemplation in the wilderness. We are social creatures, we need relationships to flourish, and have obligations to our families and society. However, true happiness cannot be found unless we take intentional time to spend in contemplation and reflection. The man who lives only for his shallow external circumstances will find that his happiness is not enduring and can be stripped away in a moment’s notice.

Man’s Final End

Aristotle’s vision of happiness is a natural happiness. It is a happiness that we can achieve by our own nature. However, there is a happiness promised to us as Christians that we cannot achieve by our nature: supernatural happiness. For Aquinas, this supernatural happiness finds its completion in the Beatific Vision which is the vision of God enjoyed by those in Heaven. Christ speaks of this happiness when He says, “If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and your joy may be complete” (Jn 15: 10-11). Natural happiness is not a complete picture of human happiness. We were not created for this life alone. The beginning of the Baltimore Catechism sums this up well: “God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.” Supernatural happiness cannot be achieved separate from natural happiness. Grace perfects nature and does not destroy it as Aquinas famously stated. We ought to seek virtue in this life, and by cooperation with God’s grace and the sacraments obtain everlasting happiness in the next. Any other view of happiness will be incomplete.

Aristotle correctly posits that in order for happiness to be our final end it must be self-sufficient and not lacking. However, if we restrict our happiness to things of this life we will run into the problem of desire which C.S. Lewis speaks of in Mere Christianity when he says, “I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy.” Therefore, seek virtue and happiness in this life, but never despair of our ultimate happiness in the next. Let us always keep in mind the closing lines of the serenity prayer: “Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will; that I may be reasonably happy in this life, and supremely happy with Him forever.”

Facebook Comments Box

True Devotion to the Saints

Communion of Saints, Heaven, Saints, ,

Before he died, St. Ignatius, yielding to pressure from his assistant and secretary Fr. Luis Gonzalez de Camara, dictated a spiritual biography.  The future saint knew just how important it was to study the lives of the saints, especially because God had brought him to conversion through his exposure to different hagiographies.  At one pivotal point Ignatius, led by the grace of God, began to “think and reason to himself.  ‘Suppose that I should do what St. Francis did, what St. Dominic did?’ He thus let his thoughts run over many things that seemed good to him, always putting before himself things that were difficult and important which seemed to him easy to accomplish when he proposed them. But all his thought was to tell himself ‘St. Dominic did this, therefore, I must do it. St. Francis did this, therefore, I must do it.’”   In this way, St. Ignatius could be the Patron Saint of studying the lives of the saints.

In coming to read the lives of the saints, many of us seem to take a similar approach to Ignatius.  We are moved by their exploits and try to model our spiritual lives after theirs.  We think St. Dominic preached the Rosary, therefore I must preach the Rosary.  St. Francis went to great lengths to tame “Brother Ass” (the epithet he gave his body), so I too must regularly fast by eating nothing several times a week.  The problem with this, as Ignatius later hinted at, is that it has all the makings of a self-help trap in which we risk running out ahead of grace instead of cooperating with it.

The Importance of the Floating Pronouns

Ignatius understood the deeper meaning of the floating pronouns this and it when he was moved by the Holy Spirit to think “because Francis or Dominic did this, therefore I must do it.”  The this is not the specific exploits.  Ignatius was wholly incapable of doing those things because the great and holy things that Francis and Dominic did were done under the influence of grace.  They were impossible no matter how determined Ignatius was.  But moved by supernatural grace, they made the extraordinary seem ordinary and sanctity achievable.  It becomes the key and by it Ignatius meant cooperating with grace.  What made Francis and Dominic, and ultimately Ignatius, saints was not what they did specifically, but their habit of never missing a single grace that God sent to them.  They were, according to the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, inhabitants of the Third Class of Men who “seek only to will and not will as God Our Lord inspires them.”  They didn’t just do good, but they did the good that God wanted.

To study the saints then we should understand that everything they did was because they were docile to grace.  We ought to begin, not by being amazed at their exploits, but by being amazed at what grace can do to an ordinary person who desires to always cooperate with it.  That is what we should seek to imitate first and foremost.

True Imitation of the Saints

The reason why this is important is because we are each given different graces.  We are all commanded to fast and thus given the grace to carry out that commandment, but only some of us are given the grace to fast in the manner of Francis.  It would be wrong for us to imitate Francis in that regard unless we have been told and equipped—”to will and not will as God Our Lord inspires us.”  The first question we must ask is not what Francis would do, but whether God is asking it of us.  Too often we get ideas to do something extraordinary that turn out to be of our own (or the Enemy’s) making. It is important to discern those graces because God will equip us to do the extraordinary, but unless we have the necessary sensitivity to grace we will miss it.  We should be regularly asking for the grace of being faithful and docile to grace.

It is important to stress that this is not the only reason we should study the lives of the saints.  It is simply what our initial approach should be aimed at.  Armed with the realization of what grace can turn us into, we now ought to turn to their example personally.  Each of the Saints is still, perhaps even more, alive and active in the Church today.  Our eternal destiny is not just a “me and Jesus” twostep, but to be united to the Holy Trinity and the Saints.  This is the Communion of Saints.  We will know each of them personally.  That friendship is based on mutual devotion.  We study their lives because we cannot love who we don’t know.  But when we do get to know them, we not only grow to love them, but also come to rely on them.  They become devoted to us as well. 

One of the things that most of the Saints did during their earthly sojourn was to develop relationships with the Saints who had gone before them.  St. Thomas relied on St. Paul to explain to him the difficult parts of his letters.  St. Gemma relied on St. Margaret Mary Alocoque to help her in her suffering with spinal meningitis and to teach her devotion to the Sacred Heart.  Because St. Margaret Mary had received the unique grace of knowing and understanding the Sacred Heart of Jesus, she became a distributor of that grace when she entered into her eternal reward.  St. Gemma knew this about St. Margaret Mary and so she knew to go to her when she wanted the grace of devotion to the Sacred Heart.  This is why we must also come to treat the notion of patron saints as much more than a mere talisman and part and parcel with holy friendship.  God gave each saint very specific graces in his lifetime so that he in turn could become a distributor of that grace from heaven.  Please God that we too might take those special graces that He gives us and become His distributor from heaven. 

Facebook Comments Box

Why Suffer?

God's Will, Redemption, Suffering, , , ,

As discussed in the last post, suffering is a tragic part of the human experience. It is a reality that we all must face. It is uniquely human. All animals can feel pain, but only we can suffer. As John Paul II points out in Salvifici Doloris,

“Nevertheless what we express by the word “suffering” seems to be particularly essential to the nature of man. It is as deep as man himself, precisely because it manifests in its own way that depth which is proper to man, and in its own way surpasses it. Suffering seems to belong to man’s transcendence: it is one of those points in which man is in a certain sense “destined” to go beyond himself, and he is called to this in a mysterious way.”

Suffering is not merely the experience of pain. It is an awareness of a deficiency. The man who suffers does not suffer merely because of the pain, but because that pain is a reminder of what is lacking in himself and in the world. Suffering arises from the experience we all have of looking at ourselves and the world, and thinking “it should not be this way”.

So, what are we to do with the fact of suffering? Many have tried to run from it in the pleasures and comforts of the world only to find that these things are vanities. Ultimately, we are left with two options to deal with suffering. There is the Way of Mephistopheles, or the Way of the Cross. A middle ground does not exist. Everyone suffers, there is no choice in the matter. However, each person can choose how they will respond to it.

Suffering and Resentment

The Way of Mephistopheles, is named after the demon in Faust, and his line: “for all that comes to be / deserves to perish wretchedly”. This response is characterized by its bitter resentment. This resentment fills a person with rage, and is a quick path to misery. And, as they say, misery loves company. Those who suffer may become envious of those they perceive as suffering less. This envy, prodded by their resentment and misery, forms the basis of the justification to inflict suffering on others. Not so that they may suffer less, but so that all will suffer as they do and “perish wretchedly”. While this is certainly a grim outlook, we would be foolish to deny that our own hearts do not have the capacity for this kind of resentment. We have all seen it in small forms, like losing our cool with a family member because we are having a bad day, or maybe even in larger forms like celebrating murder. This approach to suffering ruins lives and relationships. Despite what our culture says about the compassion behind abortion and euthanasia, it is this view of suffering that drives these things. Abortion pits a mother against her child, and justifies the evil done to the child in light of the suffering or potential suffering of the mother. And with respect to euthanasia, in Canada for example, it did not take long before assisted suicide was offered to those who are suffering and did not ask for it. The contempt for suffering can drive us towards moral abominations. Indeed, in the final analysis, there may be no real difference between resentment towards suffering and resentment towards those who are suffering.

The Death of Suffering

Now that we have seen the bitterness of the Way of Mephistopheles, let’s take a look at the Way of the Cross. The path is characterized by the acceptance of suffering. Rather paradoxically, this is the only path out of suffering. Any athlete or musician knows this. In order to be excellent at something, one must suffer through long and grueling hours of practice. However, once a sort of excellence is achieved, the suffering decreases even if the practice is just as long and grueling. The symbol of the cross itself shows us the truth of this paradox. The cross has gone from a symbol of suffering so severe that it struck fear into the heart of every Roman to a symbol of hope for untold numbers of people throughout history, and all because of Jesus’ willingness to accept suffering. In the end, the problem of suffering cannot be solved without Jesus. Yes, as is laid out in this article, there is good reason to take the Way of the Cross without an explicit appeal to religion, but suffering itself cannot die unless we are willing to unite ourselves with Christ and accept the will of God the way He did in Gethsemane. As St. Paul explains in Philippians 3, by sharing in the sufferings of Christ, we can also share in his resurrection. When we learn to fully accept God’s will, suffering becomes a gift. There is no longer a reason to say, “it should not be this way”. Suffering takes on a whole new character. It becomes redemptive. Perhaps the truth of suffering is that it is destined to become either the means of our salvation or of our eternal ruin.

Facebook Comments Box

Better Off Dead?

Culture of Life, Defending the Faith, , , ,

One of the greatest challenges confronting the Church today is embracing the realization that the majority of people, including most Christians, think with a post-Christian mindset.  The opposition to the Terminally Ill (End of Life) Bill in England comes to mind as the most recent example.  The Catholic Bishops of England vociferously opposed the bill, even though the passage of the bill was fully expected.  Yet their reasoning would really only be convincing to someone deeply rooted in a Christian culture.  That is why they are forced to keep saying “The Catholic Church teaches…”  To use language that speaks of the dignity of the human person, while true, falls rather flat in a culture of death.   In fact, you could argue that it is really at the crux of the issue.  When people no longer practically believe in God, there is little interest in protecting His image in man.  My proposal then is to update our approach by going backwards.

In many ways St. Augustine is a perfect model for our times.  He lived in an era when Christianity was mostly tolerated but the Christian mindset was nowhere to be found.  What he did was to address social evils using the examples and thought patterns of the day.  He would then show how they fit with the understanding of the Church.  In fact he was so good at it, that he wrote a thousand+ page book that has remained intact for nearly 1500 years that uses this technique throughout called The City of God.

Augustine on Suicide

What makes his approach especially relevant is that he tackles the question of suicide in Book I.  The Romans tended to view suicide as something noble.  Augustine examines two famous examples to make his point.  The first was Lucretia who was a Roman noblewoman who had been raped.  After her brother and husband exacted revenge on the offender, she killed herself to avoid the shame.  The second was Marcus Cato who strongly opposed Julius Caesar so that once Caesar came into power, he killed himself rather than submitting.  The Romans looked to both of them as models of nobility.

Rather than leading with the dignity of the human person or the Commandments, Augustine first attacks the value the Romans found in suicide, namely its nobility.  He shows how it is anything but noble.  He calls Lucretia weak and a coward: “it is not even right to call it greatness of soul when someone kills himself because he is not strong enough to endure hardships or other people’s sins.”  Because he is questioning whether or not it is truly noble to run away from hardship, he now has the Romans’ ears.  They value nobility and Augustine has called into question what is truly noble.

Likewise, he calls Cato a coward especially because he and his friends admitted that when his son killed himself it “was an act showing weakness unable to bear adversity rather than honor on guard against disgrace.”  He then goes on to say he prefers a different Marcus, one surnamed Regulus, whom the Romans “offer none better for their outstanding virtue”.  He, rather taking his own life after losing to the Carthaginians, remained patient and bore the shame and bad fortune.  Only then does he offer up the example of Job asking the reader whether he would prefer to be Job or Cato.

Challenging on Their Terms

All of this is pertinent because one of the arguments in favor of assisted suicide is that, just as in the propaganda ad above, there is something noble in taking one’s life.  In order to meet the anti-lifers on their terms we must call it out for what it is; it is most decidedly an act of cowardice on the part of the person and those who surround him.  We all know this, but very few are willing to say it and call it out.  We may think we are being kind by not pointing out the obvious, but it is a false compassion.  There is true nobility in bearing suffering well and facing it head on.  There is true nobility in being Simon of Cyrene and courageously allowing another’s suffering to spill over onto you.  The false compassion that leads to silence is not much better than the false compassion that leads to support of deadly bills like this.

Imagine the difference between offering a person facing suffering and death a pill versus offering them support to lean into it.  When given the choice, wouldn’t any one of us rather be St. Paul than King Saul?  We cannot be afraid to challenge people directly, especially when they have suffering in front of them.  Ask them how they want to be remembered: as someone who went out on their own terms or someone who fought to the very end?  Telling the stories of great saints who endured suffering, especially modern day examples like St. Maximillian Kolbe, St. John Paul II and St. Teresa Benedicta, can be sources of inspiration.  It is a natural transition from them as sources of inspiration to their Source of inspiration. 

Part of the dignity of the human person and a sign of man’s greatness is the fact that he can see suffering coming and can plow right into, and Lord willing, through it.  The reason many will choose to end their lives is because they have not met Christ crucified.  We must not be afraid to preach the truth that because He suffered, suffering now has eternal value.  The Lord suffered so that no suffering is ever meaningless, and the only real “sweet death” is the one that He has set aside for each of us.

Facebook Comments Box

In Defense of Honor

Culture, Faith, God's Will, Virtue, , , , ,

In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke comments on the loss of honor that came as a result of the French Revolution. Concerning Marie Antoinette, Burke writes,

Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fallen upon her in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honour and of cavaliers. I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards to avenge even a look that threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever. Never, never more, shall we behold that generous loyalty to rank and sex, that proud submission, that dignified obedience, that subordination of the heart, which kept alive, even in servitude itself, the spirit of an exalted freedom. The unbought grace of life, the cheap defence of nations, the nurse of manly sentiment and heroic enterprize is gone! It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honour, which felt a stain like a wound, which inspired courage whilst it mitigated ferocity, which ennobled whatever it touched, and under which vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness.

Honor once lost, like any other virtue, is not easily regained. It is especially hard to regain in a culture that is actively hostile to it.

Honor, as St. Thomas Aquinas defines it, “is the reward of every virtue… it follows that by reason of its matter it regards all of the virtues” (ST II-II Q. 129 Art. 4). Thus, it is clear that honor comes from virtue. In order to be truly honorable, a man must be virtuous. Our culture has, in large part, rejected the traditional idea of virtue. There is much talk about rights and what we are owed, but little discussion about duty. Men are encouraged to extol the virtues of kindness and inclusivity, and women, on the other hand, are told that expressing traits like “nurturance” and “family-oriented values” are just mere preferences and not virtues. As always, the devil is in the details. A man should be loving and caring, but if he places kindness and inclusivity above all other virtues then the family and, by extension, society, will suffer. Certainly, kindness and inclusivity would not have saved Marie Antoinette from the guillotine. And families do not need women who prefer to be nurturing and selfless, but women who are nurturing and selfless. There will be, however, some who will object to this and say that traditional notions of honor and virtue are outdated and bigoted. So, naturally, the question becomes, “Why should we care about honor, aren’t we better off without it?”.

There are a couple of approaches one could take towards answering this question. The first would be to ask what will replace the role that honor had in society? What is beyond honor and virtue? Alasdair MacIntyre explores this question in his book After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Of a society that has lost its vision of honor and virtue he writes,

In a society where there is no longer a shared conception of the community’s good as specified by the good for man, there can no longer either be any very substantial concept of what it is to contribute more or less to the achievement of that good. Hence notions of desert and of honor become detached from the context in which they were originally at home. Honor becomes nothing more than a badge of aristocratic status, and status itself, tied as it is now so securely to property, has very little to do with desert.

A society that abandons honor does not get egalitarianism. Instead, it gets aristocracy and credentialism.

For the second approach, one might ask if tearing down virtue and honor would also threaten other societal goods. Failing to examine this question would be like removing a wall in a house without first determining if it is load-bearing. Unfortunately, leaving honor in the past has not been without consequence. Honor is the basis for magnanimity. Aquinas identifies this connection: “Now a man is said to be magnanimous in respect of things that are great absolutely and simply, just as a man is said to be brave in respect of things that are difficult simply. It follows therefore that magnanimity is about honors” (ST II-II Q. 129 Art. 1). In 2020, Ross Douthat wrote a book called The Decadent Society: How We Became the Victims of Our Own Success about how and why our society has, in many ways, stopped advancing. While his hypothesis is beyond the scope of this article, the phenomenon he is discussing is germane to the point. There has been a societal decline in the desire to do great things. This stems directly from a change in societal value. As MacIntyre pointed out, society values the vain status associated with honor rather than the virtue from which honor is derived. Not only is magnanimity a virtue and therefore necessary for human flourishing, but society needs it. Magnanimity landed on the moon, it sailed to new worlds, it wrote poems and epics, it built planes, and made countless discoveries and inventions. So rather than resent success and laugh at honor, we should have the courage to ask ourselves if we are here on this earth for something great. Perhaps there really is something great in store for each and every one of us if we would but have the courage and magnanimity to pursue it. And even more terrifying is the possibility that part of the greatness God wishes to bring to the world can only be brought through you. Sure, God can bring goodness out of anything, but there may be good that never comes if you abandon honor and magnanimity. In closing, I would like to turn to Pope Benedict XVI who so eloquently reminds us of this truth: “The ways of the Lord are not easy, but we were not created for an easy life, but for great things, for goodness”.

Facebook Comments Box

A Porch to Christianity?

Church, Culture, Evangelization, Faith and Reason, Paganism, , , , ,

Although it is not clear who first pointed this out, it is most certainly true that there is a certain law of undulation at play in every time and every culture related to the quality of the men: “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”  We are, by almost any accounting, living in hard times, plagued by weak men.  Historically speaking it is hard to say how long the hard times must go on before the strong men emerge, but there is a growing awareness among many men in our culture that something is amiss with manhood.  This awareness helps to explain the growing popularity of Stoicism, especially among young Catholic men.  Because of Stoicism’s emphasis on virtue, most assume that Stoicism and Catholicism are compatible.  It is worthwhile then to examine whether this is true.

Sitting on the Porch

Stoicism has a long history that extends back to ancient Greece and the lectures that Zeno of Citium gave to his students on his porch or stoa.  It lay mostly dormant until around the 1st Century AD when it was revived by Epictetus and Seneca, followed by the first philosopher king, Marcus Aurelius.  It is marketed as a practical philosophy (i.e. ethics) based on the pursuit of virtue.  According to Epictetus this pursuit is governed by two principles.  First, “In life our first job is this, to divide and distinguish things into two categories: externals I cannot control, but the choices I make with regard to them I do control. Where will I find good and bad? In me, in my choice.”  This dichotomy of control is supplemented by a second principle aimed at our response. “What hurts this man is not the occurrence itself…but the view he chooses to take of it.”   Essentially this means that there is nothing good or bad in itself, only our attitude towards it gives it an ethical color.  We have the opportunity to see everything that happens as a means grow virtue.  Although it is often described as such, Stoicism is also not an emotionless ethic.  Because of its emphasis on virtue, it is about bringing our emotions under the control of reason.

It is ultimately this pathway to an inner freedom that comes about by focusing only on those things that we can control that makes it appealing to modern men.  The hard times make the battlefield seem so large and many men struggle to pick their battles and end up in a holding pattern.  But there is more to Stoicism than just this.  Stoicism ultimately is a pantheistic religion.  The reason why the Stoic can practice the necessary detachment is because he believes that everything that happens is necessary and good serving the Good of the whole.  There are no physical evils and the only moral evil is personal vice and folly. 

Ideas Have Consequences

That I labeled Stoicism as a pantheistic religion anticipates the fact that it is not wholly compatible with Catholicism.  But in truth, the two cannot be reconciled at all.  Its insistence that it is only our reaction to what happens that makes something good or evil leads to a subtle form of moral subjectivism.  There are many evils in the world that we cannot control and yet we must offer resistance or even fight against.  Detachment to things we cannot control is great until we are confronted with the suffering of another person.  Their suffering is only because they are thinking about it wrongly and thus empathy and compassion are folly.  Epictetus unashamedly counsels a fake compassion when he says,

“When you see a person weeping in sorrow, either when a child goes abroad, or when he is dead, or when the man has lost his property, take care that the appearance do not hurry you away with it as if he were suffering in external things. But straightway make a distinction in your mind, and be in readiness to say, it is not that which has happened that afflicts this man, for it does not afflict another, but it is the opinion about this thing which afflicts the man. So far as words, then, do not be unwilling to show him sympathy, and even if it happens so, to lament with him. But take care that you do not lament internally also.”

This fits with my experience with many men who practice Stoicism, Christian or not—they are usually the most judgmental and disinterested especially towards those who they deem not as strong-willed as themselves.

This brings up a necessary, although slightly tangential point.  The reason the Church maintained the Index of Forbidden Books for so long was not just to protect the Faithful from heresies.  There is a very real way in which false teachers of religion and philosophy can put an enchantment on the reader.  They have a tendency to draw the reader in and make him question reality, even when he is only curious or trying to adopt certain aspects of that philosophy/religion.  In this regard Stoicism is no different.  Read enough of it with an open mind, even while trying to filter it through a Catholic sieve, and it will “magically” cause you to see the Faith differently.  It seems that there is a fine line between reading a prayer and saying a prayer—a line that may be safe when it comes to the Faith but when encountering false belief systems becomes perilous.  This is why Augustine ultimately rejects Stoicism in his City of God (Book XIX, CH.4); because Cato came under its spell and committed suicide out of pride.

Stepping Off the Porch

In truth it does not actually help the person grow in virtue either.  First, it has a false view of human nature that borders on dualism.  It sees an evil that is done to body as not being done to the person.  The only evil is what is done to the soul.  Furthermore, because everything that happens is good, it rejects any negative emotions.  The 2nd Century Stoic Aulus Gellius tells the story of a Stoic philosopher who is at sea when a terrible storm breaks out.  Because he cannot control the storm, it is wrong for him to fear.  Likewise, it is wrong to be angry or sadness.  The emotions are good and especially important in hard times as they serve to propel the battle against evil.  

Because it denies the negative emotions, it ultimately pins our problems, like Buddhism, on our desires.  Epictetus tells the stoic, “Therefore altogether restrain desire…Demand not that events should happen as you wish but wish them to happen as they do happen.”  The last thing men of hard times need is to become men without chests.  That is exactly what happens when you stamp out desire and create a whole group of men who are aloof. 

Ultimately then the Cross and the Porch are incompatible.  Stoicism’s emphasis on virtue may seem like a good thing, but it is wholly unnecessary for those who accept the counsel of Christ to “take up your cross and follow Me.”

Facebook Comments Box

Bias: A Progressivist Slur

Culture, History, Politics, , ,

Many of us have been subjected to implicit bias trainings that have become part in parcel of the human resources department of corporations and academic institutions throughout the country. While many of the ideas behind these trainings seem absurd, they have inflicted grave harm on society nonetheless. Take for example the idea that institutions must embrace equity in order to “correct” for these biases. Evidence suggests that Asians applying to Harvard needed to score 270 points higher on the SAT than Hispanics, and 450 points higher than African Americans to have the same chance of admission: bitter fruit indeed. It was statistics like this that, in part, led to the 2023 SFFA v Harvard Supreme Court case. Though it would be an interesting article to cover the topic of implicit bias trainings and their connection to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) ideology, that will have to be an article for another day.

What will be dealt with here is the larger issue of bias. Bias is a term frequently thrown around by both sides of a debate, but rarely defined. At one point or another we have all probably received the retort “Well you just think that because…” or “You are just biased”. In many cases this is just a simple ad hominem or genetic fallacy and nothing more. However, there is a particularly pernicious use of this attack that is worth examining in-depth. This is the progressivist accusation that the ideas of the past are no longer valid because they are biased, either by their bigotry, racism, sexism, or whatever other pejorative one can think of. This attack is at best ignorant and at worst hypocritical. Bias, per se, is not a reason to discount any argument or idea. In fact, it is unavoidable.

The Progressive View

Before discussing the absurdity of the progressivist charge of bias, it is necessary to talk about the philosophy behind this attack. When I speak of progressivism I am not merely speaking of a political movement, but of a philosophy. It is a philosophy rooted in the belief in inevitable progress towards a more fair, more just, and more enlightened society. Rarely do the proponents of this philosophy argue explicitly that society is inevitably progressing in a positive direction, rather it is assumed. With each advancement in society, progressivists are usually quick to point out that it is a sign of progress, but what is rarely asked is “Progress towards what?”. If the progress is inevitable then the question would not even be worth asking. In an 1853 sermon called “Of Justice and Conscience” Unitarian minister Theodore Parker said, “Look at the facts of the world. You see a continual and progressive triumph of the right. I do not pretend to understand the moral universe, the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. But from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice”. This statement has been famously quoted by Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama. While there is truth in this quote, after all we do and should long for justice: “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.” (Mt 5:6), it is just too simple. Simple narratives of history should be treated with extreme skepticism. An honest reading of history reveals anything but a simple narrative. History is filled with successes and failures, suffering and triumph, heroes and villains. It is not one long “progressive triumph of the right”, but rather a struggle in which there is both progress and regress.

On a societal level, progressivism leads to the view that tradition is foolish or even a burden as a recent presidential candidate frequently pointed out. On a personal level, this can lead to a deep resentment of one’s ancestors. Progressivism is implicitly opposed to the fourth commandment, “honor and obey your father and mother”. If the progressivist reading of history is correct then what is there to honor in your parents? After all, they are less enlightened than you. Sure, there is a certain degree of gratitude one still owes to their parents for taking care of them and giving them life. But at the end of the day, society has moved on from their honor. What was honorable in their day has been replaced by the “continual and progressive triumph of the right”. There are sobering examples of how resentful progressivism can make people towards their ancestors, including their parents. Take this woman for example. Further, there is research showing that an increasing number of children are cutting their parents off. While there are certainly other factors at play, progressivism has not helped this problem.

I Think Therefore I Am Biased

What the progressivist fails to see is that bias is a necessity. No person can avoid it. Bias is the set of assumptions that we bring with us into the world. It is the narrative by which we see reality. I affirm that each of us should examine this narrative, but I do not advocate for getting rid of it. There is no human being who can rid themselves of all assumptions. As G.K. Chesteron points out in his essay “Philosophy for the Schoolroom” all argumentation, and thus all thought, is built on assumptions and dogmas. No one can be a completely objective observer of the facts of this world. For every person there is a value or set of values by which the facts are interpreted. Therefore, the progressivist is no less biased than anyone else. The concern should not be whether or not a person has bias, but whether that bias disposes a person towards the truth. The goal should not be to rid ourselves of assumptions, but to hold true assumptions. So, yes, we should examine our biases to see if they are in accord with reality and truth. The man who wishes to discard all of his bias must reconstruct his entire system of thought every time he has a new thought, lest he be biased by what he thought before. And even that would not remove all of his bias as Chesterton points out. Ultimately, the great irony for progressivism is that in order for society to progress at all we must be biased towards our ancestors. For it is as Edmund Burke said in “Reflections on the Revolution in France”, “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors”.

Facebook Comments Box

Transgenderism and Transhumanism

Defending the Faith, Evolution, Magisterium, ,

There is a sense that the cultural tide is shifting away from widescale acceptance of transgenderism.  One gets the feeling that yesterday’s advocates are turning into today’s skeptics.  That the ideologues were willing to sacrifice children on the altar of “gender affirmation” certainly sped up the process, but there is another reason why ideological support is waning.  For the intellectual elite and their ilk transgenderism was always meant to be a port of entry into a Brave New World and nothing more; an on-ramp to the Transhumanist superhighway.  Once the court of public opinion begins voting to convict, the “Transgender Moment” will have outlived its usefulness and they will begin to sever their ties to it, leaving thousands of victims in their wake.

Linking them Up

Transgenderism and transhumanism may only seem to be tangentially linked, but a closer examination shows the transgenderism to be fruit from the transhumanist tree.  At the heart of the transgender ideology is a shift in identity.  We are not body and soul composites, but minds operating in bodies. The body is viewed as no more than gendered machines that can be modified to suit the sexual intuition of the individual.  What it found out rather quickly is that no amount of technological tinkering can alter the machine so that a man might really become a fully-functioning woman and vice versa.  “Gender affirming care” became quite the opposite and left its victims in sexual limbo by becoming permanently disfigured, resembling neither sex.

From this perspective it appears to have been a failure.  But that was never really the point.  The point was to sell an intellectual bill of goods and the culture was found willing to pay the dues.  Not only does it show that most people view themselves as ghosts in a machine, but that there is no such thing as a fixed human nature. 

This is not mere speculation, but the plan of one of the planners himself.  Martine Rothblatt is one of Forbes’ Top 50 richest self-made women .  He is so successful that not being a woman isn’t an obstacle to appearing on a list of the most successful women.  Rothblatt shows his hand when, in his 2011 book Transgender to Transhumanism, he says:

“I came to realize that choosing one’s gender is merely an important subset of choosing one’s form. By form, I mean that which encloses our beingness … I came to this realization by understanding that 21st century software made it technologically possible to separate our minds from our bodies. This can be accomplished by downloading enough of our neural connection contents and patterns into a sufficiently advanced computer and merging the resultant mindfile with sufficiently advanced software—call it ‘mindware.’…”

If you can choose a body to house your gendered mind, then why must we ultimately choose a body at all?  Why couldn’t we choose an avatar that avoids all the messiness of the body like pain, sickness and ultimately death?  What if we just linked our minds with some computer or some other hive mind? 

Building on this point, Rothblatt connects the dots further by saying:  

“In a similar fashion I now see that it is also too constraining for there to be but two legal forms, human and non-human. There can be limitless variation of forms from full fleshed to purely software with bodies and mind being made up of all degrees of electronic circuitry between. To be transhuman one has to be willing to accept that they have a unique personal identity beyond flesh or software and that this unique personal identity cannot be happily expressed as either human or not.  It requires a unique transhuman expression.”

If gender is not binary, then, Rothblatt contends, any aspect of personality is also on a spectrum.  This leads him to conclude that we should view humanity itself as a spectrum.  This is at the heart of the Transhumanist project, expanding the spectrum towards some post-human ideal. 

The Connection to Evolution

It also shows a willingness to abandon biology in favor of evolution.  What I mean by this is that biology really doesn’t matter when you can grab the evolutionary reins for yourself.  This is, according to the popular author Yuval Noah Harrari account in Homo Deus, the great project of the 21st Century:

“In the twenty-first century, the third big project of humankind will be to acquire for us divine powers of creation and destruction, and upgrade Homo sapiens into Homo deus. This third project obviously subsumes the first two projects, and is fueled by them. We want the ability to re-engineer our bodies and minds in order, above all, to escape old age, death and misery, but once we have it, who knows what else we might do with such ability? So we may well think of the new human agenda as consisting really of only one project (with many branches): attaining divinity…Now humankind is poised to replace natural selection with intelligent design, and to extend life from the organic realm into the inorganic.”

Herein ultimately lies the reason that the Church was caught flat-footed during the transgender moment and will remain so as the Transhumanist train leaves the station: an unwillingness to address the false evolutionary paradigm that animates the posthuman agenda.  Because God is Logos, there can be no disconnect between the physical laws and the moral law.  The physical laws can even be instructive of the moral law.  For human beings to cooperate with the physical laws constitutes a morally good act.  Now, if (macro)evolution is true, then it would not be wrong to cooperate with it or even to aid in the process.  More specifically, if evolution is true, then there really is nothing wrong with men trying to enhance humanity so as to bring about the next evolutionary step. 

In order to combat it then, we must go to the source of the error—evolution.  The Church, still gun shy from the Galileo affair 500 years ago, is scared to confront the theological, metaphysical and moral errors of evolution.  Instead, her members try to remain neutral and some even go so far as to reinterpret Scripture to make it fit.  This simply cannot go on any further and it is time to reach back into Tradition and refute this error head on.

Facebook Comments Box

Pornography as Self-Worship

beauty, Sexual Ethics, Theology of the Body, ,

It tends to be that when a society gets their view of God wrong they also get their view of sex wrong. These two things are intrinsically linked. Our worship is closely connected to our view of sexuality. We can see many examples of this throughout Pagan cultures, and even throughout the Old Testament, most notably in the Exodus story of the golden calf. It then should not come as a surprise at all that a culture which is dominated by pornography, contraception, and so called “casual sex” is also a culture that profoundly misunderstands God and worship. Could it be that these deviant sexual behaviors are themselves a form of worship? That would certainly explain why we have lost our ability to understand true worship. In this article, I want to explore just one of those forms of worship: pornography. Further, we will examine the idol behind the worship.

Worship

One might be willing to agree that pornography interferes with our true worship of God, as all sin does, but isn’t it a little bit far to say that it creates an idol? Every year the world’s largest pornography site releases usage statistics for their platform. One chart they release describes the usage for each day of the week.  In three of the last four years in which data was released the most popular day is Sunday.

source: pornhub.com/insights

The fact that the most visited day of the week is the day which is culturally set aside for worship is uncanny to say the least. In fact, as will be argued later in this article, given the worship like nature of pornography there is good reason to believe that we are dealing with an idol here. Furthermore, users of pornography must often make sacrifices to continue their use. To name a few users must often sacrifice their marriages, jobs, and, ironically, even their normal sexual function. Since idols always demand something from their worshippers, it would seem that there is indeed an idol behind pornography.

Idols as Charms

Before the word “fetish” was widely used in a sexual context, it was a term that meant a charm viewed as having a captivating spiritual power. The word has roots in the Portugese word feitico meaning charm or sorcery. One widely discussed effect is that the longer a person engages with pornography the more fetishized the types of pornography that they use needs to be. As Dr. Norman Doidge points out in his book The Brain that Changes Itself, pornography has become increasingly more hardcore and fetishized. Additionally, Mary Harrington describes the law of “erotic entropy” as the tendency for a user to turn to more extreme forms of pornography over time in order to achieve the same arousal. The neuroscience behind this matches up with this law. Pornography stimulates the release of dopamine in the brain, and as the brain adapts to the levels of dopamine more extreme content is required to give the user the same “high”. To bring us back to the point, pornography has moved increasingly in the direction of fetishes which serve as charms and idols. 

Further, engaging with pornography itself is a parody of the center of Christian worship. While I am certainly not the first to point this out, the act of engaging with pornography itself is an inversion of the central words of the Mass: “This is my body given up for you.” Instead, the viewer of pornography says, “This is your body taken by me.” The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is total and selfless act of life giving love, but pornography is the offering of another’s body to the idol of one’s desires. Pornography is the worship of an idol.

Making the Connection Clearer

It has already been alluded to, but it is worth making the connection between idolatry and pornography clearer. It is certainly tempting to conclude that pornography itself is an idol, however, pornography is not an end in itself. Just as the Mass is not what we are worship, but the means by which we worship, likewise pornography is not the true end which the user is seeking but a means to an end. So naturally, the question is what is the end? 

To answer this question I think we must first ask what pornography is. The root of the word comes from the Greek, pornographos, meaning something like “depicting prostitutes”. Interestingly enough, it was also a word used to describe sexually graphic paintings that were put in temples of Bacchus. This brings us to an important connection between pornography and art. Oftentimes, when one walks into a church, especially older churches, he is struck by all the artwork in the church. The artwork is there not because we are worshipping the art itself, but because the holy images elevate our mind to the contemplation of God and His mysteries. On the other hand, pornography is a kind of anti-art. It was not put into temples because they worshipped the paintings, but because it led their minds to the indulgence and elevation of their base desires and fantasies. Thus, while holy artwork is used in the worshipping of God, pornography is used in the worshipping of the self. 

What should be done?

In closing, there are two things that I think are important to point out. First, I would like to make clear why I have written this article. I have written this not to shame those who struggle with this issue. In fact if you do struggle there is a certain sense in which that is a good thing, so do not stop struggling. However, there are many people and even many Christians who sadly have given up on fighting this issue. These people foolishly believe that pornography is not that serious. It is for these people that I have written. Second, we must remember how idols need to be dealt with. As the story of King Josiah from 2 Kings reminds us, idols must be destroyed. They cannot coexist with true worship. We ought to seek to make pornography both legally and culturally unthinkable for the good of both the producers and consumers, but as is argued in this article pornography is not an idol, but the means by which we worship an idol: the self. Ultimately, the idol needs to be destroyed in our own hearts or it will destroy us. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in his book The Gulag Archipelago reminds us of this truth: “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

Facebook Comments Box

Forgiving from the Heart

Mercy, , ,

When Our Lord teaches the disciples to pray the Our Father, He connects the forgiveness of sins with our capacity to forgive others.  Just to make sure that the point was understood, it follows up the prayer by making it more explicit: “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Mt 6:14-15).  This commandment is shocking, especially for those of us who assume that God’s forgiveness is unconditional as long as we are sorry for our own sins.  Upon reflection however, to put such a restriction on forgiveness however, like all of Christ’s commandments, is for our good and it turns out that the necessity is more closely related to our capacity to receive forgiveness than to give it.

To grasp the meaning of the dictate then we must first reflect on forgiveness itself.  When a person purposely does real harm to us in some way, we are “spiritually” wounded by that person.  That is why we often say “I was hurt when you said/did X”.  It is important to note that this is a perfectly natural reaction to a perceived injustice; a reaction that is accompanied by sorrow and sometimes even anger.  In other words, to dismiss it as “nothing” is irrational.  It is something and it has done something both to you and the offender that needs to be addressed for the good of both of you.

The Dangers of Unforgiveness

Only forgiveness can heal this wound.  Unforgiveness allows the wound to fester meaning that the person is unable to turn away the suffering of the injury.  Demons, keenly aware of the wound, will tempt the person to focus on the wrong in order for the wound to remain open and keep them trapped in a state of sorrow and anger.  Because he dialogues with the Tempter, he slowly gains more and more control over the person especially concerning anything related to the wound.  A stronghold is developing and forgiveness becomes even more difficult because the person is now beginning to identify himself as a victim.

This “victim” status now blocks him from receiving forgiveness from God. This is the point of the parable that Our Lord tells about the Unforgiving Servant later in Matthew’s gospel (Mt 18:21-35).  The man is offered forgiveness but because he is so focused on the slights against him, he is unable to generate the sadness (or the gratitude for forgiveness) necessary for the Master forgiving him.  Unforgiveness then makes it impossible for God to forgive us because all of our sorrow and anger is directed at the slights against us rather than at the wrongs we have done.

How to Forgive

Given how important forgiveness is for us then it is worth reflecting on how we can, as Our Lord commands “forgive your brother from your heart” (Mt 18:35).  First, we make the distinction between what might be termed volitional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness.  Because we are fallen and our emotions do not always follow our will, they are often separate acts.  The easier of the two is volitional, especially because the demons cannot touch our will.  To forgive in the will is to release the person from the debt of justice and turn them over to God so that He might deliver a just punishment.  This can sound and feel like wishing for a smiting and so you should always pray that God forgives them as well. It is this latter step that provides the most healing for the one that has been offended.  It is important to remember that Christ does not merely issue commandments but promises the grace to fulfill that commandment as well.  It is important to always pray for the grace to have forgiveness in your heart.

Emotional forgiveness is often the harder of the two because we must break the association of the pain caused with the person.  This is why it is always easier to forgive someone who apologizes.  When he bears the burden of the sorrow he caused by expressing that sorrow, it lessens the burden on the offended person.  This solidarity in sorrow also acts as a unitive force strengthening the communion between them.  Love always means saying your sorry.

While it is easier when the offender expresses sorrow, it is not automatic.  Nor is it, obviously, automatic when the offender shows no remorse.  In that case, it often takes repeated acts of the will in order to bring the emotions in line with the will.  Each time the thoughts drift towards the hurt, it is necessary for the offended to make the same act of the will until the emotion subsides.  What will begin to emerge are feelings associated with mercy and compassion.  This again is extremely difficult and is at the heart of Our Lord’s admonition to Peter that he must forgive his brother seventy times seven times.  It may actually take 490 (or more) acts of the will to fully heal the emotional wound that has been inflicted.

In closing, it is important to reiterate the fact that “forgiveness is divine”.  Christ never commands without equipping.  Many times unforgiveness traps us in a web of guilt because we feel like we are powerless to forgive.  The first step in the process, like in every process, is to ask for the grace to forgive, knowing that was one of the graces He won for you on Calvary when, in the face of those who weren’t sorry, He asked “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”

Facebook Comments Box

Are We Alone in the Universe?

Angels, End Times, Redemption, Science, , , ,

There was a time, not too long ago, when mentioning Area 51 or aliens, invited ridicule as a conspiracy theorist.  But the difference between a conspiracy theory and reality is currently measuring about four years so that many Americans (2/3 according to a 2021 Pew Research study) now believe that extra-terrestrial intelligence (ETI) exists.  Interestingly enough, American Catholics believe at a slightly higher rate than Americans as a whole.  One can only speculate why that might be, but the Church has not spoken definitively on the subject leaving Catholics somewhat free to follow the evidence.  It is the qualifier “somewhat” that I would like to use as the launching pad for a discussion of ETI given that Divine Revelation gives us some guardrails for investigation as to both the possibility and the likelihood.

It is worth mentioning at least at the outset that we already have proof that we are not alone in the universe.  Angels and their fallen counterparts are constantly acting within material creation, even in visible ways.  It is certainly possible that the UFO sightings and even the discovery of “non-human biologics” are simply diabolical manifestations.  But it is contemptuous to insist upon this as the only possible explanation.

Setting Up the Guardrails

The temptation when dealing with the question is to leave it to “science” to determine the possibility and likelihood of intelligent life.  This approach neglects the fact that theology is also a science.  Because its first principles come from God Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, it is the highest of the sciences. 

By looking to theology, we are able to eliminate some possibilities.  The ETI must be of a completely different race from mankind in that they have a different line of descent.  The Church has condemned polygenism and so there must be more than mere accidental differences between human and the other race of ETIs.  They must be a different substance altogether.  In other words, they would have to be biologically distinct humanoids with a rational soul.  Scripture and the Magisterium both describe the “human race” as descended from Adam so that it at least seems possible (an argument from silence) that there could be another race or races in the universe.

Once we allow at least for the possibility, then we must examine the ETIs relationship to Christ.  For everything that exists, exists in relationship to Christ Who “is the center of the universe and of history” (Pope St. John Paul II,Redemptoris Hominis, 1 ).  St Paul tells the Colossians that “in Him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through Him and for Him” (Col 1:16-20).  This point is vital not only in considering ETI, but in understanding reality as a whole.  Everything that exists, does so for His sake (not only for His sake but primarily).  Fig trees were created for Him to curse, trees for crosses and water for baptism.  Most importantly, human nature exists for His sake so that He might take on human flesh.

The fact that Christ took on human flesh gives to the human race a special dignity such that “all material creatures[exist] for the good of the human race” (CCC 353).  This would include ETI who, even if rational beings existing for their own sake, would exist in a similar manner to the angels, acting in service to the race of Adam.  This might be an argument against the existence of ETI in that we appear not to have received any benefit from them.  This is likely an argument St Thomas would have made in light of his contention that to speak of a universe in any meaningful way is to assume that the elements must form an ordered an interactive whole.  If there were no communication among the citizens, then the civil good could not be perfected (c.f ST I q.47, a.3).  Communication could still come later, but it is hard to imagine why it would be so delayed.

Building on the principle that the ETI must be related to Christ, then we can examine the relation of the race itself.  First, we would posit that they were, like the angels and mankind, created in a probationary state of grace.  As St. Thomas says, “It pertains to divine freedom to infuse grace into all who are capable of grace, unless something resisting is found in them, much more than he gives natural form to any disposed matter” (Commentary Sentences, 4, q.1 art.3).  The question would then be what the outcome of their testing was.

Fallen or Unfallen?

One thing that becomes immediately clear in reading the New Testament is that in the act of redemption, God willed a correspondence between the fallen and the Redeemer “since the children share the same blood and flesh, he too shared equally in it, so that by his death he could…set free those who had been held in slavery all their lives by fear of death” (Heb. 2:14).  This means that if the ETI were fallen, they would need a separate incarnation.  A second incarnation however would be incompatible with the Faith according to an infallible teaching found in Dominus Iesus: “Therefore, the theory which would attribute, after the incarnation as well, a salvific activity to the Logos as such in his divinity, exercised ‘in addition to’‌ or ‘beyond’‌ the humanity of Christ, is not compatible with the Catholic faith” (DI, 10).  The Son’s sole redemptive act is through His human nature.  Therefore, there can be no other fallen race in existence.

This leaves open only one possibility; that there is a heretofore unknown, unfallen race of intelligent creatures in the universe.  Like the Angels, Christ would be their Lord and Head, but not their Redeemer.  In His human nature Christ is “the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:12-13).

St Thomas says that if Adam had not fallen then he would immediately attain “that happy state of seeing God in His Essence, he would have become spiritual in soul and body; and his animal life would have ceased, wherein alone there is generation” (ST I q.100, a.2).  Likewise, because they would have passed their probationary period, the ETI would have spiritual bodies (which might help to explain the manner in which UFOs seem to move) and would not reproduce.  Of course one could also ask why, if they have passed their probationary period, they don’t immediately receive their reward in the beatific vision. 

According to Paul Thigpen in his book Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Catholic Faith, St Padre Pio once told a reporter that “The Lord certainly did not limit his glory to this small Earth. On other planets other beings exist who did not sin and fall as we did.”  Despite this saintly endorsement, I think another saint provides the logic for why they do not exist.  When speaking of how Providence guides even our sins, St Thomas says that because the angels contain a higher perfection than men, a far fewer number of them fell as compared to mankind (Sentences I D.39 q.2 A.2).  It would seem that if there were a race of men that did not fall, this test of proportionality would fail and the ladder of perfection of the universe upended.  It is for this reason that I ultimately find the existence of ETI very unlikely. 

Before closing, I want to mention another resource that I found very helpful in addressing the existence of ETI; Marie George’s Christianity and Extraterrestrials.  Part of the challenge in thinking theologically about this issue is being able to formulate the questions correctly and frame it from the perspective of Divine Providence.  She does both.  I might weigh her conclusions differently than she did, but her framing of the issue is invaluable for anyone who wants to approach the issue from a Catholic perspective.

Facebook Comments Box

Gender as a Mental Construct

Marxism, Natural Law, Sexual Ethics, , , ,

In his Poverty of Philosophy, Karl Marx attacked eternal truths and natural law as nothing more than constructs of the bourgeoisie to repress the working class.  This has powered the campaign of his intellectual progeny to take everything that is natural and paint it as a “social construct” that fuels the engine of repression.  The most recent, and perhaps the most pernicious example of this is gender.  By labeling it as a social construct, all natural differences between the sexes, including complementarity, explained away as effects of changing social conditions.  All that needs to be done is to construct the right social conditions and equality and androgyny will usher in a sexual utopia.  

WHO Should We Listen To?

In combating the social contagion of transgenderism, we must first irradicate the mind virus that leads to it.  Ironically, this global mind virus has spread even into the World Health Organization who  defines gender as a social construct in this way:

Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed.  This includes norms, behaviors and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time. Gender is hierarchical and produces inequalities that intersect with other social and economic inequalities…Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs… Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.

Notice first the circular nature of the experts’ definition.  They say it “interacts” with sex but is different than sex.  Its definition is teaming with sexual terms—“women, men, girls, and boys”  Those terms are only meaningful in relation to each other.  A women is a human being whose body is ordered towards the gestation of new life while a man is human being whose body is ordered towards the gestation of new life in another.  Girls and boys are merely immature versions of those two.  No amount of verbal gymnastics of degrading a woman by reducing her to her function as a “birthing person” will change this inherent sexual relationality.  The fact that WHO advocates for transition “treatment” modalities such as hormones and surgery which make the person “look” more like the opposite sex also betrays the fact gender and sex are inseparable.  Is it really a social construct that men have beards and women have breasts?  If it is not, then why would it be necessary for a woman to “transition” to a man physically?  If gender and sex can be different, then why all the effort to match them up?  If gender identity is “person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender”, then why is it necessary to touch the external at all?

Why We Shouldn’t Give Them a Hearing

Once we grasp that the purpose of labeling gender a social construct is to apply the magical Marxian dialectic to it, then we are more apt to defend it in a way that combats this directly.  We need to actively reaffirm what is natural.  First there is the fact that we are social creatures which means that society, rather than being a vehicle of oppression is a necessary element of our fulfillment.  Boys and girls are first formed in masculinity and femininity (and their interaction with each other) in the social setting of the family.  They learn how they have a unique capacity for self-giving based on their sex and they enter into society as a whole and form families of their own in order to fulfill this capacity. A further element that must be combated is the overt dualism that animates most people’s thinking.  Because we are a body/soul composite, the inner experience can never be divorced from the outer reality.  Any attempt to do so ultimately leads to a disintegration of the person which manifests itself externally in the mutilation of the body.  Hylomorphism means that essentially everything we consciously experience has its foundation in material reality  We might imagine something like a unicorn, but that image must come from our experience in the real world of either a picture we have seen of a unicorn (from someone else’s imagination) or a mixture of our own images of a white horse with a horn.  Likewise we might imagine what it was like to be Louis XVI, but could never fully imagine what he felt like when he was about to be guillotined.  It is simply outside of our experience.  The philosopher Thomas Nagel has an essay entitled What Is It Like to be a Bat? in which he gives a deeper explanation of this limitation of consciousness in relation to the “inner” experience of other beings.   

The point is that a man feeling like a woman is by definition outside of his range of experience.  He only has experience of being a man who feels like a woman (which is by definition still a man).  He may know what it feels like to be confused, but he is confused as a man.  How can a man struggling with gender dysphoria know that what he is experiencing is “feeling like a woman”?  Doesn’t someone have to be a woman to feel like a woman?   How does he know that what he feels like is exactly what a man should feels like?  This is why he must go to the cultural priests (psychologists) and receive their blessing that his feelings are authentic.

The fact that an expert must authenticate the experience returns us back to the fundamental truth that transgenderism is ultimately a mental construct by those who are seeking to eliminate all hierarchies by destroying nature itself.  It is designed to power the latest instance of the Marxist dialectic.  This is not to trivialize the experience of those who suffer from gender dysphoria but to discredit the so-called experts who are willing to sacrifice them to their ideology.

Facebook Comments Box

Fulfillment of the Law

Bible, Church, Church and State, Natural Law, The Life of Jesus, ,

As Moses departed from the people of Israel, he promised that God would send another prophet just like him (Dt 18:15).  This prophet would not only lead them into the True Promised Land, but would give them a new law.  So the Jews were constantly on the lookout for this “new Moses” and the early Church repeatedly preached Jesus as the Mosaic prophet they were looking for (c.f. Acts 3:22, 7:37).  It is no surprise then that Our Lord, just after beginning His public ministry in Matthew’s gospel (addressed to the Jews), climbs a mountain and delivers the Sermon on the Mount.  For just like Moses who had to climb Mount Sinai to bring the law from God down to the people, the new Moses, God Himself, speaks directly from the mountain about the Law.

Chronologically and culturally removed from the Sermon on the Mount, it is often confusing for us when the Bible speaks of “the Law”.  What exactly does that mean and, more specifically, what does it mean when Our Lord tells those gathered that “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill” (Mt 5:17)?

The Old Law

In his treatise on Law in the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas enumerates three kinds of precepts of the Old Law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial.  By placing all of the Old Law within these three broad categories, we are able to better understand both our relationship to the law and the manner in which Christ can say that He did not abolish it but came to fulfill.

When most people think of the “Old Law” the Ten Commandments immediately come to mind.  It serves as the foundation for all the moral precepts contained within the Old Law.  The Decalogue is in a certain sense superimposed upon the Natural Law, making the precepts of the Natural Law specific.  Some of the precepts are easily discernible based on the natural law—“thou shall not kill…thou shall not bear false witness”.  Other precepts require wisdom and reflection such as “thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s wife.”  Still others, especially those of the first tablet require Divine instruction.  Nevertheless, they do all relate to what can be known from the natural law.

Second, there are the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law.  These pertain to Divine Worship.  This would include things like sacrifices, sacred things such as the tabernacle, Old Testament “sacraments” such as Seder Meals and circumcision, and observances that distinguished them as worshippers of the True God (not eating pork, etc.).

Finally, there is judicial law.  Judicial law is similar to civil law in that it determines the way that a People is governed.  It maintains the sovereignty of the People, it governs relations within the People, and governs how citizens interact with non-citizens.  Much of the book of Leviticus lays out in detail how Israel is to govern itself in these areas.  Israel was to be a “light to the Gentiles” but must remain a distinct People because “salvation comes from the Jews.” 

Fulfillment of the Law

With three types or precepts of the Old Law, there are also three ways in which Christ fulfilled them.  When we speak of “fulfillment” we must first grasp intention.  The moral precepts, reflected in the Ten Commandments, are the direct intention of God with respect to how we are to relate to Him (1st-3rd Commandment) and to each other (4th-10th Commandment).  As St. Thomas says, there can only be dispensation of the law when the letter of the law frustrates the intention of the Lawgiver.  Therefore, there is no abrogation of the moral precepts of the Old Law.

Christ, nevertheless, fulfills the moral precepts in Himself.  He perfectly follows the moral law.  In so doing, He wins graces for His followers such that they are empowered to do the same thing.  It is as if He gives us the power to “re-read” the Decalogue not in terms of rules but as a prophecy.  “in Christ you shall not make false idols…in Christ you shall not covet your neighbor’s goods” etc.   

Christ likewise fulfilled all the ceremonial precepts.  The purpose of the ceremonial precepts was to prefigure and act as a foreshadowing of the mystery of Christ.  All of the sacrifices find their meaning and fulfillment in His sacrifice on the Cross.  He is the true tabernacle.  Baptism becomes the “new” circumcision.  All dietary laws are abrogated because the Bread of Life has become man’s true food.

The judicial precepts had as their purpose setting apart the Jews for the sake of the Messiah.  In Christ there is no distinction between Gentile and Jew so that the judicial precepts are no longer binding (Heb 7:12).  The catholicity of the New Israel means that the theodicy of the Old Israel has ended and the principles of the New Covenant can guide men in civil life, regardless of the form of government they take.  Church and State work together, each within its respective sphere, to bring men to salvation, rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s” (Mk 12:17).

 We see then how Christ came not to abolish but to fulfill the Law.  He fulfills the moral, ceremonial, and judicial precepts of the Law, but each in a unique way.  The moral by empowering men to live according to God’s law.  The ceremonial by giving us Himself on the Cross and through the Sacraments.  And the judicial precepts through the Church.    

Facebook Comments Box

Sin and the Dimensions of Providence

Sin, Spiritual Warfare

One of the themes that St. Paul reflects upon in his letter to the Romans is the role that Sin plays in Divine Providence.  He does not say it using those terms directly, but it is clear from his statement that God “where sin abounds, grace superabounded” (Rom 5:20) that there is an important reflection for the Romans (and us) to make related to Sin in their own lives.  It is this theme that I would like to take up here.

Recall what has been said a number of times previously in regards to Providence.  It has two dimensions or aspects.  The first relates to God’s overall plan for Creation.  At the center of the plan is Christ.  This is why St. Paul keeps coming back to the typological relationship between Christ and Adam in Romans 5-7.  The sin of Adam becomes the type of all sin and becomes in a very real sense the cause of the Incarnation.  I am not taking sides in the Scholastic debate over whether the Son would have become man if there was no sin, only dealing with reality as we have it.

Adam’s Sin and God’s Providence

What we very often don’t think about is that God could have stopped Adam from sinning.  And He could have done so in a way that still protected Adam’s freedom of choice.  He could have stopped the Devil from entering into the Garden.  He could have given Adam an actual grace by which his intellect or will were strengthened against the temptation of the Devil.  He could have inspired Adam to pray against the temptation.  He could have sent His Guardian Angel to crush the head of the serpent.  He could have continually done this so that Adam never sinned (this is exactly what he did with Mary) and Adam would have been the freest human person ever.

So, then we must ask why God permitted Adam to sin.  Permitted is the key word because God did not cause Him to sin.  Yet He chose not to stop him and so there must have been some good that otherwise would not have been.  That good was the Incarnation of His Only Begotten Son.  Again, this is not an answer to the debate, but a fact that it was better for the Son of Man to save us from our sins than to be merely incarnated.  It reveals something of God and His glory that otherwise would not have been shown forth.

It is also a fact that God permitted that particular sin of Adam.  Again, Adam could have fallen any number of ways.  But God allowed that particular sin with all its circumstances for a very specific reason.  Adam sinned exactly as he did because it brought about and prefigured the specific act of redemption God wanted. Felix culpa!  “O happy fault that merited so great of a Redeemer.”

But Adam was not a mere pawn or instrument in the divine economy.  God also had Adam’s good in mind when He permitted him to fall exactly as he did.  This does not mean that Adam received the good, only that God allowed his sin in order to give him some good.  It is impossible to know what the specific good or goods that God would give to Adam as a consequence of that particular sin, but one can readily see how this would be possible.  For Adam needed humility and trust in God’s Providence, both of which could have been given to him as a consequence of his sin.  God would not permit the sin to happen if there was not some personal good that was also possible. 

Admitting the possibility though does not mean that Adam received the consequent goods.  Repentance is the gateway to receiving those goods.  This is what St. Paul means when he cautions the Romans not to think that grace was a direct result of the sin (Romans 6:1). It is a result of God’s omnipotence that He can bring good from our sins.  For sin is literally nothing and only God can bring good from nothing.  Try as we might, we can never do evil and expect good to come from it.

Providence’s Second Dimension

What we have been discussing is the other way in which sin plays a role in God’s Providence—personally.  God’s Providence is not just in His governance of the world as a whole, but also His governance of the world as if you are the only one that matters.  He will not cease providing you and me with what we need at each and every moment of our lives.  It is a direct effect of His wisdom and His love; wisdom in His governance of all things for my personal benefit and His ceaseless willing of my good.  God doesn’t just will my good generically, but personally and at each and every moment of my life.

While we might intellectually assent to this, we cannot realize it without asking why God permits us to fall into some sins and not others?   Most certainly there are sins from which we personally could never escape.  Those seem not to plague.  Others keep us humble and aware enough of our faults that we do not sin in more serious ways.  Others help us eventually to see that we have been trapped by a lie of the Evil One.  Not sure why God permitted it, ask Him.

This is a spiritually fruitful practice not just because it helps us to grow in self-knowledge, but also because it helps us to see what God wants to give us and heal us from.  In order for this to happen we cannot hide in shame from our sins or try to rationalize them away.  Trusting in God’s mercy we must face them head-on in a spirit of repentance.  Once repented, we are opened to receiving the greater grace within God’s permission.  As St. Thomas says in a gloss on Romans 5, some sinners “by the help of divine grace are humbled when they consider their sins and so obtain a greater grace (Ps 16:4)”.  In short, when we sin we must run to repentance and filled with both sorrow and love, anticipate the good that God has for us

Facebook Comments Box