About Me

My photo
I am a Roman Catholic convert from Protestantism. My wonderful wife Tenille and I live in Louisville, Ky., with our daughter Esther, and two sons, William and Ezra. We attend Mass at the beautiful St. Martin of Tours Catholic Church on Broadway Street.

Monday, January 24, 2011

On Murder

A word is a remarkable thing. It is something like a sacrament. Whether spoken or written, it consists of a material form (vibrating waves, or ink on a page), and bears to the intellect of the recipient a spiritual substance--an idea. An idea is also a wonderful and remarkable thing. It enters the intellect, and if it is an idea of great vitality or appeal it will be pondered, examined, comprehended, and then spoken to another, where it may also take root and effect some kind of transformation. An idea can inspire actions, and cause changes in the human soul and in the material world. An idea is a living an effective thing.

It is no wonder that St. James warns us of the power and the danger of the tongue. No wonder that we are cautioned to "keep a watch over our lips". The power of an idea expressed in word and passed to other intellects can cause great and sometimes damaging changes in society. We have all seen, or been guilty of, the destructive effects of gossip, libel, and slander.

But it must not be forgotten that the power of words and ideas can also be used for untold good. We remember the great example we have at the beginning of Sacred Scriptures. God Himself spoke, and so great was the power of what He spoke that is caused life and everything in the universe to come into existence. Our Divine Lord commissioned the Apostles to go out into all the world and preach the Gospel. And St. Paul asked how people would hear if no one preached to them. Above all, we remember that the "Word was made flesh, and dwelt among men", and that the Word of God is transforming the world.

And so, today, my friends, I wish to choose my words very carefully, for the subject of this essay is crucial. These are days in which it is vitally important to speak out, and to speak very clearly. It is my desire that the words written here will impress themselves upon the minds of those who read them; and I pray that the Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the Giver of Life", may cause them to be effective, to take root in hearts and minds, and to bear the fruit of Life.

Something is terribly wrong in the world, something that we can no longer ignore or fail to address, and we must do something about it.

January 16 marked the 38th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, and the Supreme Court's abominable decision to legalize abortion on demand. Thirty-eight years ago the life of an unborn baby was legally declared to be not human and simply a part of its mother's body, a part which she could remove as carelessly as if she was undergoing cosmetic surgery. A child in the womb has no legal rights, not even the right to live, because it is not really a child. And these facts are made known to us with certainty, because the highest court in our country said so, and the Supreme Court is godly, and scientifically and morally infallible....

Last week we read the horrifying news of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who was arrested for his abominable and evil practices of abortion. Last night 15,000 people gathered for a Vigil Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. Today they march for LIFE. Additional information on the Vigil Mass, including Cardinal Daniel DiNardo's powerful homily can be found at Rocco Palmo's marvelous weblog "Whispers in the Loggia" at http://www.whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/. Please listen to the homily. A few years ago, a group from our own parish, St. Martin of Tours, began a project to place Billboards for Life in the area. You've seen many of them now, I'm sure, dotting the highways and interstates of Kentucky and Indiana.

Much is being done, but it is not yet enough. I fear that even those of us who oppose abortion do not always comprehend the gravity of the situation. The six million Jews murdered in the Holocaust and all the millions slaughtered in Communist Russia and China in the past century put together still represent a far, far, smaller number of deaths than the total number of innocent children killed by abortion. But somehow, these figures do not have as much impact on us as do the casualties of war. We have not yet compared Roe vs. Wade to the victorious revolution of the Bolshevists, nor seen Planned Parenthood in the same light in which we view the Nazi Party.

Why? Because we cannot see the victims. Pro-life activists who hold up gruesome signs are often criticized, even by other pro-lifers, but there is a reason (whether we like the tactics or not) that they do this. They want us to see. We need to know that these are not invisible embryos, or fetuses, hidden in wombs. These are our little brothers and sisters.

Perhaps someone who is pro-choice will stop me here and say that I have gotten my facts wrong. Perhaps someone will say that I am being emotional and indulging in sentiment. That science affirms that the embryo is not really human, is not really my little brother or sister. So, let me pause and address this briefly.

The story I mentioned above about Dr. Kermit Gosnell presents an important idea to us in understanding this matter. Among the atrocities that he committed was the fact that in several of his abortions he first induced labor in the mother, so that the child was actually born before he killed it. This fact enables us to see the delusion of the pro-choice movement. The illegality of Dr. Gosnell's actions amounts to saying this: that an embryo that could have legally (in some states) been aborted a few minutes earlier, because it was still in its mother's womb and was therefore not human, immediately becomes human upon exiting the mother's body. If it was human after labor, then why, in God's name, was it not human before? Or another example: many premature children born before the end of the second trimester (a time at which abortion is also considered legal in certain states), are considered human, and many of them have survived. Again, why are they considered human then, at less than six months, because they left the womb, but are not considered human even later while still in it? Apparently, the ability to breathe outside the womb is the only determining factor that makes a child human. Such an idea makes a mockery of human reason and human life.

We also know, scientifically, that Roe vs. Wade got it wrong. The baby is not part of the mother's body. Although it receives its nourishment, its body and its blood from its mother, it processes and makes them its own. A baby's blood, heart, organs, and DNA are its own. It is a passenger, not a part of its mother. I remember making this statement not long ago to a co-worker and was told in reply, "Technically, it's a parasite". So I ask now, what makes it a parasite, and how is a parasite different than a passenger? Apparently the fact that the baby takes from its mother certain nutrients, vitamins, etc., and is dependent upon the mother, whether the mother wants it or not, makes a baby a parasite. If this is so, then the baby is still a parasite after birth, dependent upon its mother's milk and constant attention for survival. It continues to necessarily draw upon its mother's resources, time, and energy after it has left the womb. So, in fact, do all members of society. A man serving a life sentence in prison is also technically a parasite, then, for he is dependent upon the tax dollars of the rest of society to feed and house him, though he offers remarkably little work in return. The mentally and physically handicapped, and those in comas, offer the same analogy. By following the logic of abortionists, all of these dependents should be done away with as well. Yet the liberals who support abortion ironically tend to oppose the death sentence, and pride themselves on their sensitivity towards the handicapped. Somehow, by some disgustingly ironic turn of events, those who are pro-choice are considered caring, and Christians who strive to save the lives of children are now considered bigots!

At a deeper level, even at the earliest stages of conception, a child is still human. Some years back the holy Bishop Fulton J. Sheen considered the following analogy. From the opening bars of a Beethoven symphony we know that it is a Beethoven (even before we hear the rest of it), because it was composed by Beethoven. So too, he said, a baby is human because its parents are human. In other words, just because its heart is not yet beating, just because it is not yet conscious (the symphony not yet complete), does not make it any less human, or give us the right to play God and determine whether or not it will fulfill its course. Again, if being unconscious makes one not human, then those in comas may be killed as well. The moment the spark of life is struck, we have no other option but to let it live, or we are guilty of its death. And, at a more basic level still, the Church continues to teach us that we have no right to determine that life shall not naturally result from the sexual act, by means of contraception. In spite of the ecumenical tone that I desire to keep for this blog, let me speak frankly here. I sincerely wish that liberal Catholics and Evangelicals would understand this fact, and accept this moral teaching of the Church. Contraception is very much involved with our overall understanding and perspective of sex, responsibility, and life.

And responsibility brings me to another point. Those in the pro-life movement often remember the passage in Scripture where King Herod has the Holy Innocents put to death. Why did Herod do this, and why is our culture so ready to murder our children? Because we have lost God. Since the Fall, the rejection of God has automatically resulted in death--our own death first, then the murder of our brother. Remember this, God is Love, and His Love chose to create, and He chose to Love His creatures. So also do those who have God's love shining in their hearts choose to love those outside of themselves--the other. But those who have lost the Caritas of God, and do not live up to the Divine Image, find the other to be an annoyance or impediment to their own desires. Christ came to save us and restore to us the Love and Image of God, yet Herod sought to kill Him, because he feared that Christ, the other, might change his world, might take his place upon the throne. And so, today, abortion represents nothing else but the action of Herod, the denial of Christ. Christ teaches us to love the other, but America has dethroned God, placed the idols of false personal freedom and irresponsibility upon the throne; and no other shall stand in the way, even if it requires the other's death.

We can no longer stand and watch. We can no longer sleep. We can no longer do nothing.

Not all of us can counsel, not all of us have the time to march in front of abortion clinics. But we can all pray, and pray we must. To you Catholics, pray the Rosary for life. Or pray for the intercession of our Lady of Guadalupe. It is no accident that when the Blessed Virgin appeared all those centuries ago to Saint Jaun Diego, that she appeared, for the only time, as pregnant. It is no accident that God knew that the patroness of the Americas would need to be the patroness of the unborn.

And for you who are not Catholic, simply pray. Whatever, whenever, the more the better. Perhaps you could adopt the advice of Bishop Sheen and practice spiritual adoption. Remember that at this moment, somewhere, a child has just been conceived that is at risk of being aborted. Spiritually adopt that child, give it a name, and hold it up to God in prayer each day for nine months. Perhaps that child's life will be spared. Perhaps you will meet him or her someday, upon the Other Side.

And so the time has come to make a stand, to pray, to teach, to speak out. And let us speak very carefully. Let us choose our words with exactness as we address this great evil of our times. Let us say the we have sinned and fallen. Let us no longer speak of pro-choice, but of murder. Rachel is weeping, not because sensitive liberals care about the rights of women, but because Herod has slaughtered the Holy Innocents.

The voice of innocent Abel's blood is crying out from the ground, and God is asking us, "Where is your brother?" How will we answer the question of Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?"?

In God we find Mercy and Justice. Let us earnestly pray the we come quickly to know His Mercy, or I greatly fear that we will soon learn His Justice.

Holy Mary, pray for us, and for our children.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

The Whirlwind

"This is the dead land, this is cactus land, here the stone images are raised, here they receive the supplication of a dead man's hand under the twinkling of a fading star." (T.S. Eliot The Hollow Men)
                               
Do you ever find yourself, or the people you know, saying that we (and by "we" I mean the West in general, and the United States of America in particular) are the greatest civilization of all time? It's a concept that most Americans hold, either subconsciously and vaguely, or very clearly and explicitly.  We believe that the eras that passed before us were marked by ignorance, barbarism, poor health, and superstition. Even the various improvements, advancements, and enlightenments of past generations are viewed with something amounting to condescension, much like a parent would pat a child on the head and say, "Good job, you tied your shoes!" Because we have come that far. Because we are that superior, that much better.

Have you ever stopped to think about this? Have you ever wondered if this is so, or why we think that it is so? What, precisely, is the litmus test that we apply to civilization that determines ours to be so vastly superior to all those that went before? I don't have all the answers, but I do have an idea. To understand this, perhaps we should first consider the reasons why we think that previous generations were less civilized. This may give some insight into how we define a great civilization.

I think, in the end, that we have adopted a dangerously evolutionary viewpoint of history that tells us that mankind necessarily improves, and we criticize the civilizations of  previous eras primarily on the grounds of science and technology. Modern Western civilization seems to judge quality and greatness by words that end in "er". Bigger, faster, newer: these things are better. Quantity over quality. Past generations were presumably uncivilized because they were superstitious (which often means simply "religious"), unscientific, and unhygenic. In fact, they were probably downright stupid, because they got their scientific facts wrong. After all, consider the treatment of Galileo. How barbaric must a people be to imagine that the sun revolves around the earth! This is surely evidence of base savagery. Look at the Crusades and the Inquisition. Only a benighted, superstitious people would have wars about religion, or torture people for their beliefs. I guess this must be true--that never happens anymore! (Please forgive the sarcasm....)

We think that we are more advanced because advancement is determined in our minds by science and technology. The Medieval Era is discarded out of hand, because the thinkers of its time made certain scientific errors. But are we really more intelligent? How many professors of philosophy today could go mind-to-mind with St. Aquinas? Or Scotus, who, with his dunce's cap, is a far finer thinker than most of the relativist thinkers of today. We pride ourselves on having more education and more people receiving an education, but is it really a better education?

And what other tests may we apply besides philosophy, education, science and technology? What about literature? Where are the Dante's and Virgil's of today? Or the Shakespeares, or Goethes? Even the T. S. Eliot's and Edith Sitwell's of our generation seem virtually non-existent. Furthermore, the technology in which we take so much pride may actually tend toward the destruction of our language. Fewer and fewer people in our times have a really good grasp of grammar and the  English language. I fear for a time when "text" becomes our standard form of writing....

There is not time enough here to mention the rest of the arts and other factors that contribute to a great civilization. Suffice it to say that the results of this more comprehensive litmus test are not as favorable towards Western culture and civilization as the limited tests of science and technology. But one key issue needs to be treated here briefly, and that is the respect (or lack thereof ) for human life. It doesn't require a historian or scholar to know that all the wars and tortures of the Middle Ages cannot even begin to compare to the horrors of death and destruction of just the last century. Granted, many of these deaths are not attributable to the West (Russia, and China come to mind). Yet even our own country has been involved in numerous wars these last hundred years (not all of which were justifiable!), and Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone bear witness to our failing respect for human life. And, remember, it was our vaunted science and technology that enabled us to successfully kill so many people. If the hearts of men remain uncivilized, then science and technology will lend themselves to the cause of  greater destruction. But even war is only a part of the story of human life.

I read an article yesterday that might be too dreadful to reproduce in detail here. But the basic facts are these. A doctor was recently arrested for the manner in which he had performed seven abortions. What was illegal in his actions? When he went to perform the abortion, he first induced labor so that the baby was actually born before he murdered it. Horrifying, indeed, but for all its horror it raises a question in my mind. Why was this illegal? Simply because the baby was outside its mother's womb, and was therefore human life, protected by the law. Yet strangely enough, if he had killed the baby a couple of minutes before, while it was still inside the womb, it would have been a legal act, the embryo would not have been considered human. The fact that our nation cannot see that such reasoning and such actions are utterly stupid, heinous, and absolutely evil causes me to be very much afraid. A nation that kills its own children, Pope John Paul II told us, is a nation without hope.

"A voice in Ramah was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children...because they are not."  (Matt.2:18)

A civilization that has embraced the "culture of death" is not dying. No, it is already dead, and rapidly decaying. We do not pass the test. Art, life, literature, philosophy, culture, education, religion, and language all tell against us. We have bought into a great and terrible lie--the lie that we are truly good (because we are "liberal" and open-minded) and truly great (because our technology is so bloody marvelous). Not only is technology not the only test of the greatness of a civilization, but I specifically thought that the fascination with bigger, stronger, and faster, as opposed to the arts and intellectual pursuits, was a mark of the savage....

When philosophy is lessened or ignored, a civilization declines;
When religion becomes barbaric or is despised, a culture loses its identity;
When language looses its depth and flexibility, so does the culture that speaks it;
When the arts are abandoned or become formless, a civilization has lost its moral perspective;
When culture goes, civilization goes;
When morality loses its importance, violence and revolution become the norm;
Wherever human life has become cheap, consequential death and destruction lurk nearby.

In preparing for this essay I took a moment to look up the definition of the words "culture" and "civilization". They were pretty much what you would expect, no major surprises. But I noticed something of which I had previously been unaware. This is probably familiar to most of you, or else may seem obvious. It so happens that the word "culture" comes from a Latin root meaning "to cultivate".  This was news to me, but it made sense. Cultivation bears to our minds images of soil, seeds, plots of ground, plants, tilling, nature, and growing things. Concepts like growth, life, identity, training, care, etc., attend the word "cultivation".There are numerous instructive associations between culture and cultivation. But my mind went somewhere else, to a passage in the Old Testament that also has to with cultivating: "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." (Hosea 8:7)

If high civilization and culture are related to cultivation, then the question we must honestly ask ourselves and our country is, "What are we cultivating? What have we been planting, and what may we expect to gather in?" I am sure that there are many answers to this question, but one seems especially clear right now, right here, in twenty-first century America. Relativism. We have uprooted absolutes and planted relativism. Moral, philosophical, artistic, intellectual, and religious relativism. This is the dreadful seed that we planted in the foolish hubris of our young American civilization. And what may we expect to reap when it has grown up? Destruction, nothing less. When absolutes are denied, relativism reigns. Where relativism is the absolute, anything goes. When anything goes, everything will. And when everything goes, our civilization goes, and we meet with our destruction. Then we come face to face with the crop that we planted, and but for the Mercy of God, we will reap such a whirlwind as we have never known.

And what are we, as Christians, to do as our civilization around us is desperately trying to commit suicide? Do we stand by mourning, but doing nothing? Do we despair? No, there is planting and reaping of another kind still to be done. We shall mourn, indeed, but we will sow another seed, and sowing means doing something very real and very definite. This, then, perhaps is the verse for us today: "Those who sow in tears sing as they reap. He went off, went off weeping, carrying the seed. He comes back, comes back singing, bringing in his sheaves." (Ps. 126:5)

It is dark, but the day is not yet over, the last votives are not yet burned out. The Gospel is still being planted, and laborers are still being called to the great Harvest. The picture is far bleaker than I can paint it here, but despair is a sin into which we must not fall. The West is crumbling like Rome of old once did, but somehow I do not think that God has entirely abandoned it. There is work to be done still, truth to be preached, culture to be preserved, beauty to be admired, souls to be won--and by the Grace of the God Who has never left us yet, we may still reap a different and goodly crop; we may bring in most precious sheaves.

"When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, then we thought we were dreaming. Our mouths were filled with laughter, our tongues sang for joy....Restore again our fortunes, Lord." (Ps. 126: 1-2,4)

Sunday, January 16, 2011

The Power of Formal Prayer

                                                 "O Holy Spirit, let your finger touch me,
                                                   your finger that drops down wine and oil
                                                   and the choicest myrrh. Let your finger touch me,
                                                   most beloved Lord, and when it has rid me
                                                   of corruption, let it restore my wholeness,
                                                   so that, when you come to dwell in me,                                  
                                                    you may find me not a thoroughfare,
                                                   nor a bag with holes, but a dwelling intact
                                                   and entire, founded on the truth of faith,
                                                   erected in the certainty of hope, and completed
                                                   in the zeal of charity.

                                                  Come, most welcomed guest,
                                                  knock, and enter into my soul.
                                                  Open the door and let no one shut it.
                                                  Enter, and close the door behind you.
                                                  For all the things that you possess are in peace,
                                                  and there is no peace apart from you. You are indeed
                                                  rest for those that toil,
                                                  peace for those that strive,
                                                  bliss for those who grieve,
                                                  comfort for the weary, coolness for the fevered,
                                                  merriment for mourners, light for those in darkness,
                                                  and courage for those who are afraid.
                                                  What  more is there to say?
                                                  You are all good.
                                                  Amen."
                                                  (Prayer to the Holy Spirit, from The Essential Catholic Prayer Book.)

Recently I posted a short essay on ecumenism and the Sign of the Cross entitled In Nomine Patris. In that essay I particularly tried to demonstrate that the Catholic practice of making the Sign of the Cross should not be found offensive to non-Catholics; that it was, in fact, a very good practice; and that it might serve as an example of a practice that could be adopted by Christian of many traditions with the purpose of both personal enrichment, and Christian unity. I also suggested the study of Sacred Scripture as an excellent practice often found in Protestant circles that could and should be more widely adopted by Catholics. Today I would like to continue in a similar vein, on another Catholic practice that I believe could greatly enrich the lives of all Christians, put us back in touch with long-abandoned Tradition, and also be very effective in restoring unity among Christians. I am referring to formal prayer.

Formal prayer is not formal in the sense of "stiff" or "proper". Rather it may be defined as prayer that has a specific form of words, order, or actions, or some combination of those features. It is, therefore, distinct from spontaneous or informal prayer. It implies repetition and structure. It is vocal or mental, but not contemplative, though we are taught that it may well lead to a contemplative state. Examples of formal prayer include the Our Father, the Rosary, the Stations of the Cross, the Glory Be, the Angelus, etc.

There are certain objections that have been raised in recent centuries and decades against formal prayer. I would like to briefly look at these objections before discussing the positive benefits of formal prayer. They are principally three in number.

1. The first objection to formal prayer is that it is involved with, or tends to, a superstitious, un-Christian mindset of fear and works. In other words, the repetition of set prayers can lead to two related but opposite errors: fear ("I haven't said enough prayers today, God will not be pleased with me"), or works  ("I have said twenty Our Father's today, God must be pleased with me"). There are at least three answers to this objection.

First of all, I would like to point out that a fearful, scrupulous mentality is often a pre-existing condition in the subject's mind. In may exhibit itself in formal prayer, or a thousand other ways, but formal prayer is not its cause. In my own experience, I can say that I have indeed struggled with scruples in my prayers, yet I was scrupulous long before I ever became Catholic.

Secondly, this is not a fault specific only to the formal kind of prayer. It is not related only to "how many" prayers one has said. A person could easily become fearful, or prideful, based on "how much" time they had or had not spent in spontaneous, informal prayer. This is an error that may be found anywhere, and it would be incorrect to attach the blame for it to formal prayers.

Lastly, I am reminded of the old Latin legal dictum, abusus non tollit usus: the abuse of a thing does not preclude its proper use. Perhaps some people have fallen into fear, shallowness, or error with formal prayer. Perhaps pride or vain repetitions mark the prayer life of others. These abuses in no way constitute a proof against the valid use of formal prayer. Consider how many really good things can be abused through imbalance or misunderstanding. The greatness and Majesty of God offers us an excellent example. If not tempered with a comprehension of the Love and Mercy of God, the awareness of the Majesty of God can lead to miserable, un-Christian fear. Such fear would not be possible if our conception of God's greatness were less. The more we come to recognize God's Majesty, the greater our possible errors relating to it may become. The Truth is always a dangerous thing, being twisted and misunderstood at every turn. Yet for all these abuses we must not seek to do away with Truth as if it were at fault.

2. The second objection is that formal prayer tends to empty recitation and meaningless ritual. In other words, because we are not searching our own hearts and minds for prayers and words with which to address God, but are simply adopting the words of Saints who have gone before us, our prayers become empty and robotic. There are several answers to this objection as well.

It would would be good to note that, in reality, all of our words are adopted. We learn our language from our parents, but that does not keep us from making it our own. Our goal in language is seldom ever to invent new words, but to obtain a greater understanding of them, and exhibit greater exactness in our use of them. Even in spontaneous, informal prayer we cannot escape from the adoption of words and phrases. Our prayers will likely be infused with snatches of Scripture, or hymns, or our own developed and often-repeated phrases. These repetitions will have greater or less meaning to us depending upon our attention, and the state of our hearts. Remember, we often repeat our own prayers. If a persons says after each sin, "God, I am sorry", that prayer may have no meaning upon the hundredth occasion it is said, or it may be full of meaning and honest contrition upon the hundred and first occasion.

Also, I remember reading some years ago a comment from Scott Hahn, in which he makes use of the analogy of a man telling his wife of many years, "I love you". No doubt he has repeated those exact words thousands of times, but that does not imply that they have come to mean less with frequent use. Rather, it is to be hoped that they now carry more love and meaning than they did at first.

Again, as noted above in the response to the first objection, the fact that a thing may be abused or misunderstood is no proof at all against its valid use.

3. The third objection against the use of formal prayer is simply that Christ commanded us against vain repetitions. "In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words." (Matt. 6:7) A little examination will reveal that this statement is in no way a commandment against formal prayer. Christ warns us not to pray like the pagans who think that a lot of words will make God hear them. This indicates a works-based approach to prayer that is not in keeping with true Christian thought, and misunderstands the freely given Grace of God. It probably is also indicative of a misunderstanding of God Himself: that we need to pray a lot in order for God to be able to hear us. Jesus continues by stating, "....Your Father knows what you need before you ask him." (Matt. 6:8) It would also be possible to assume that much praying of informal prayers would cause God to hear us. This would be an equally great mistake.

Furthermore, if Christ was commanding against the use of formal prayer, how strange then that He immediately gives us a set prayer to say! "This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come...." (Matt. 6:9) Repetition and ritual are not foreign to Scripture. Christ Himself prays two times in Gethsemane in the same words. (Matt. 26:39-43; Mk. 14:36-40) Christ commands baptism in the Trinitarian formula that has been repeated from that day to this. The Psalms have many repeated "choruses" or responses that the people were to say. And are not hymns addressed to God simply prayers set to music? And yet we repeat our favorites hundreds of times with no thought that we are babbling, or acting like the pagans.

But so far we have only looked at the negative side of this matter. Perhaps formal prayer is not bad, nor explicitly commanded against, but is there any real value to it? Is there any reason why we should make use of it? Let us look at a few of the positives:

1. As noted above, our words and language are adopted from our parents, and then made our own. Of what great value, then, is the adoption of the words of Sacred Scripture, the prayer given to us by our Divine Savior, and the prayers and devotional practices of the Saints and the Church throughout the centuries? Here we learn from our spiritual fathers and mothers, from holy guides, and from our God Himself. We are put in contact with the devotions and piety of the Saints, our minds are kept in contact with their theological thought, and we find an abundance of suitable words and prayers to lift up our hearts and minds when our own thoughts have failed us. We are given great assistance to help safeguard us from the dangers of inventing our own piety and theology. As we strive to lift up our hearts, we find that the prayers of the holy men and women who have gone before us teach us, and lift us even higher still. And this is not only true of solitary prayers, but also of the devotional practices of the Saints. The virtually incomparable Spiritual Excercises of St. Ignatius, and the powerful Chaplet of Divine Mercy, to name just two, offer us unimaginable assistance in our journeys. Let us then, with humility, come to this great store of treasure, and freely take of its riches. Let us sit at the feet of the sages and learn from them. Let us pray with the countless holy ones who have walked this way before us. Above all, let us not lean upon our own understanding. Here, there is truth unimaginable, beauty unspeakable, and wealth untold. Let us journey a little way and kneel down with monks and nuns, priests and laity, saints, apostles, martyrs and virgins, hermits and missionaries. Here we may find the things that our eyes have hitherto not seen, that our ears have not yet heard, and that have not previously entered into our hearts. This is the path of wisdom.

2. By committing Scripture and prayers to memory we will find several other benefits. The words of Scripture and the Saints become infused into our minds, the set forms of devotion lead towards the development of discipline and the habit of prayer, and our hearts and minds are kept in contact with Spiritual realities. For example, the Rosary has been described as the Gospel in miniature, because it consists of twenty meditations, eighteen of which are scenes from the life of Christ. Those saintly people who have made a practice of regularly praying the Rosary come to live in the Gospel, breathing its very air, and touching Christ Who is the Rosary's center and focus. 

We also find that we have a store of prayers readily available to us in times of trial and temptation. At moments when we may have neither the time nor the emotional or mental energy to seek out appropriate words, formal prayers are waiting in our memories to assist us. Through regularly recitation of formal prayers, and regular practice of set devotions, a person may come to walk, and live, and breathe in a house of prayer--familiar and patterned, yet beautiful, and ever growing in its depth.

3. The third point brings me to the real focus of this essay. Unity. One of the truly wonderful things about formal prayer is its ability to unite Christians. Formal prayers create a common ground and a common language between  believers. I imagine that there would scarcely be a Catholic in America, who has had at least a moderate formation in his/her faith, that would be unable to join in if someone began an Our Father, a Rosary, the prayer to St. Michael, or Grace before a meal. I am reminded of hearing, years ago, a good Catholic lady describe praying in front of an abortion clinic. Rather than each person praying seperately and spontaneously, all of the Catholics present were gathered on the sidewalk praying the Rosary, a prayer they all knew, and the unity of their voices was like a shout. That is powerful. Unity of voice, unity of mind, unity of heart, unity in Spirit. To be able to pray together with the brother or sister next to you, not only internally, but vocally, in unison, praying the exact same words, is a beautiful thing. There is a great body of prayer known to thousands of souls, and all one has to do at any time is start a few words and others join in, numerous tongues all speaking the same words, proclaiming the same praises, interceding for the same needs. If you pray from the Book of Christian Prayer, you know that thousands of priests, monks, and lay people are praying the same Psalms, reading the same same Scriptures, and interceding for the same intentions on that very day as well. If you pray the Chaplet of Divine Mercy at three o'clock, you can be certain that countless others are pleading for mercy "on us and on the whole world" at the very same moment, with precisely the same words. How blessed it is to be able to enter into something so marvelously unifying, praying the same prayers with others around the world, and praying the same prayers as those who have gone before us!

I know that this short essay leaves many things unsaid, many questions and answers unaddressed. Yet I hope that it may serve as an introduction and a starting point. I sincerely hope that we will strive to find more common ground with our fellow Christians, and that we will return to the great wealth of prayers that Tradition has to offer us. In my post In Nomine Patris I noted that many Christians have abandoned (or are unfamiliar with) nearly a millennium and a half of Christian Tradition before the Reformation. There is much to be learned and discovered there! We would do well to study the theology of the Fathers, to become acquainted with the powerful devotional practices of the spiritual masters, and to adopt the beautiful and unifying prayers of the Saints and the Church.

As stated in In Nomine Patris I am not asking for anyone to go contrary to their consciences. I am not asking you to request the prayers of St. Jude, nor the assistance of St. Michael. But there are so many good and helpful prayers and devotions to be discovered, like the beautiful prayer to the Holy Spirit at the beginning of this post, to which we should find no objection. Perhaps The Book of Christian Prayer with its beautiful pattern of Psalms, Scripture readings, hymns, prayers, intercessions, and canticles may be a powerfully enriching and unifying form of private or communal prayer, that could readily be adopted by Protestants. Except for the optional observance of certain feast days of the Saints, and some equally optional Marian hymns, there is virtually nothing in The Book of Christian Prayer that could be found offensive to any Christian. Or, perhaps, we could simply make a practice of often saying the Our Father. After all, this has been the great prayer of Christians throughout the centuries, and was given to us by Christ Himself. And the opening words remind us that we are not isolated individuals, but one Father makes us all brothers and sisters (even non-Christians). Surely praying "Our Father in heaven...Thy  kingdom come, Thy will be done" will assist us all to grow in unity, and in love of our Christian and human family.

At the very least, I pray that this essay will help some to understand why so many Christians pray formal prayers. I hope that many will come to see that there are thousands of souls across the world who are not repeating empty, meaningless formulas when they recite their prayers. Perhaps some may even come to understand and appreciate those who pray chaplets, say a family Rosary, and walk the Way of Cross.

In closing, I am reminded of another oft-recited prayer to the Holy Spirit, prayed by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Second Vatican Council, a council so deeply ecumenical in its tone and content:

"Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful and kindle in them the fire of Your love.
Send forth Your Spirit and they shall be created, and You shall renew the face of the earth."

Peace to all.

Friday, January 7, 2011

Towards a Moral Economy

Morality and Economics. Those are two words that we seldom see juxtaposed in  print. And I suspect that we seldom associate them in our own minds. We hear a lot about the economy these days. "The economy is up"; "The economy is down"; "We're in a recession"; "Maybe the economy needs another stimulus package"; and on and on we go. Our chief concern with the economy seems to be only how much wealth is presently flowing towards us. In fact, that seems to be as far as our definition and understanding of economy goes. A good economy means that I am making more money at the moment. "Good" has no specially moral value in the above sentence. Perhaps we might feel an occasional self-righteous hint of moral repugnance at the size of the National Debt, or the disparity between the rich and the poor in America, but beyond that morality remains largely unconnected in our minds with the economy. Yet economic structures contain all the necessary ingredients for moral culpability or virtue, and demand moral thought and action from us, as much as government, environmentalism, politics, business, and our inter-personal relationships do. When we leave morality out of politics, business, relationships, etc... well, I probably don't need to finish that sentence--we've all seen where it goes.

Let's glance at morality for just a moment. Morality has to do with relationship. Relationship is implied in every moral action. To see this, let's take an extreme (and impossible) hypothetical example. Suppose that nothing existed except you. No God, no universe, no people, and no possibility of anything else ever coming to exist. There is no law for you to break, there are no persons for you to hurt, and no God for you to offend. Without relationship to a law, or God, or nature, or other persons, your actions will have no moral significance. Morality enters the scene the moment a relationship is established.

Now, hold that thought for a second, and let's go back to economics. The first part of the Merriam-Webster College Dictionary's definition of economics reads as follows: "The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services...." Through this definition we can see that economics deals with very relational topics. Production involves labor, or work. Distribution involves buying, selling and shipping. Or to put it more simply: trade. So economics involves work, trade, and consumption. Now it is almost self-evident that these three subjects are fundamentally relational and moral.

 The first subject, that of work, involves relationships between employer and employee; relationships between co-workers; and moral subjects such as just wages, fair hours, and a healthy work environment. Even the self-employed worker still experiences relationship. Perhaps he  needs to feed a family, or help support a neighbor. At the very least he works to take care of himself, and this implies not only his own personal happiness, but also his relationship to others. As Donne reminds us, no man is an island. And, fundamentally, work is a moral topic because it involves the very dignity of man, and his relationship to God. "In work, the person exercises and fulfills in part the potential inscribed in his nature. The primordial value of labor stems from man himself, its author and its beneficiary. Work is for man, not man for work." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2428). In proportion as work lowers the dignity of the worker, it becomes morally unacceptable (except for certain special situations involving higher causes).

The second subject, trade, clearly involves relationship, and hence carries with it a number of moral concerns as well. Supply and demand, pricing, competition in the marketplace, etc., are all issues that offer countless opportunities for good or bad moral behavior.

And clearly the final subject, consumption, brings up moral questions such as greed, waste, environmental effects and so forth.

So we see that the economy cannot be  divorced from moral considerations, and that the economic systems and structures of a  country or community should be established with certain moral principles in mind.

If the economic structures of that country or community are of such a nature as to easily allow the dignity of the worker to be abused, fair trade to become difficult or impossible, monopolies and mega-corporations to control most of the marketplace, prices to be unfairly fixed,  production and consumption to negatively effect the environment,  and the ownership of private property to be greatly reduced or abolished, then that country's or community's economic structures may be considered immoral.

Factory work. Government subsidized farms. Lack of small farms and businesses. Marketplace (and political) control by mega-corporations.  Strip mining. Abuse of natural resources. Lack of private property. Loss of individualism and creativity on the part of workers. Imbalanced supply and demand (e.g. corn). Necessity for excessive working hours. Heavy tax burden. Overwhelming debt to other nations. Staggering rates of unemployment.

This is America. Something is wrong.

I am not presently focused here on whether the economy is booming or not (though that is important, and affects us all), nor am I qualified to offer suggestions on how to reduce the National Debt. But if we have lost sight of the basic principles that should rule any economic system, such as the right to private property, the dignity of work and the worker, etc., then perhaps it is time to rethink the entire system from the roots up.

Thoughts or suggestions, anyone?

Monday, January 3, 2011

Cause and Effect Part III: Gethsemane

 "One would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the practical ends of materialism demonstrate anything other than the final degradation of the human person."
"Man is God's mirror. The works of man, therefore, must be godly, for their only proper object is divine. The ultimate success, wherein man achieves union with the divine, is the obedience of Christ crucified. The will of God and its reflection in man, the artistry of God and its perfection in man, are united on the Cross. It is there that the two orders, Creator and created, are made one, the one bringing the other to the fulfillment for which it was made." Fr. Lawrence C. Smith.

Over the last few weeks I have attempted a series of posts as part of an essay dealing with the effects of atheism on man and matter. We looked briefly at Communism as an example of some of the deadly and destructive  results of atheism. The complexity of the topic has forced these short posts to be somewhat incomplete and disjointed. For example, I only ended up writing about the effects of atheism of the human person, and never addressed the subject of the material world at all. Yet I hope that these posts will serve as a starting point for conversation. Your comments are always welcome.

As I come to end of this essay, I recognize that it is almost always easier to criticize and point out what is wrong with the world, than it is to offer a positive and constructive alternative. It is far simpler, and more often appealing to our human nature, to stand in judgment against the crimes and mistakes of others, than to propose a viable solution. The last part of this essay involved a comparison between Christian and atheistic thought, through an examination of the first chapters of Genesis. But it leaves a great unspoken question: does the Church simply condemn the ills of society, or does she offer a real and possible alternative? I believe the answer is yes, so in this closing part of the essay I would like to look at two things: what the hopeful alternative vision is, and how it may be attained.

And so the first question posed may be stated as follows: If the Church condemns atheism and various atheistic philosophical and social structures such as Communism, modernity, materialism, and humanism as intrinsically evil; and if history and reason demonstrate the destructive tendencies of such, then what alternative does the Church offer? What does faith in God mean to us practically, in our work, in our politics, in our societies, in our personal lives and our immortal souls? What is Christianity's vision of Man? Perhaps the Church merely condemns and judges, but has no better option to offer us. Or perhaps She has been truly granted a God-given vision and the supernatural means to restore the great and glorious Original Dignity of Man.

While the answers to these questions could fill volumes, and have done so, they can also be expressed in a few sentences. "...he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire." (II Peter 1:4) Here is the key, the answer, the hopeful vision that is offered unto us. Man was created in the Image of God, and has never completely lost that Image. The consciousness and freewill of man, even in the dreadful choice of Hell, still bears witness to it. Still, the separation of man from God, and the effects of the Fall have all but obliterated the true Person of Man.

This, then, is the great hope and vision of Christianity, that humans can be made partakers in the divine nature and thus be restored to the original purpose and dignity of man. And in the process we will find the purpose and dignity of our work, relationships, etc., restored as well. To attempt to solve the ills of our present state by addressing the effects rather than the cause is futile. Economics, education, politics, sociology, etc., are all focused on effect, not cause, and can never offer more than a transient improvement of our situation.

Christianity starts at the beginning, with the cause, by restoring man's relationship with God, and finds along the way that the effects begin to dramatically improve as well.

So, how is this great Hope achieved? Is the Christian message merely wishful thinking, or does it offer us a real possibility and the means to attain it? It does so, and it does so by striking at the very root of the problem, and it does so in the Person of Christ. Christ comes not only as our saving God, but as the God-Man he undoes the denial of God by Adam through His acceptance of the will of God. And Christ does this in a very striking, specific, and unforgettable way, in a place that is pregnant with meaning to us.

In the last part of this essay we looked at a comparison between two gardens, the Garden of Eden and the Utopian paradise of humanism. But the attempts of man to effect a Paradise sans Dieu create only an awful and barren desert. So we journey in sorrow and come at last to another garden, a garden full of suffering, helpless and often stupid friends, traitors, enemies and temptations. We come at last to Gethsemane. And there the voice of one Man is heard, repudiating the denial of Adam, and accepting the God of us all. "Nevertheless, not my will, but Thine be done." Here Christ, having entered the human condition, undoes the pride and denial of our first parents, going all the way to the culmination of the Cross. And He bears the curse that was its result.

"Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you...." "Weaving a crown of thorns they placed it on his head...."

"By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat...." "...His sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground."

"In the day that you eat of it you shall die." "Jesus cried out with a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit', and when he had said this he breathed his last."

And so the curse is borne, but not removed. We still live in a fallen world of suffering. As seen in so many other examples Christianity does not offer us an obvious or expected answer, but God has picked out for us a remarkable and unexpected path. On one hand the Greek sect of the Stoics dealt with suffering by manly acceptance. And the Eastern thought of Buddhism seeks to escape suffering by denying the desires that cause it. On the other hand our modern societies seek an escape from suffering by the uninhibited pursuit of pleasure. But God offers us neither Stoicism nor escapism. Through the acceptance of God, and through being made partakers in the divine nature, we find our sufferings not done away with but redeemed. God draws a real and actual good from our sufferings and works. By God's Grace virtue and merit are attained, and our souls and the souls of others are healed and benefited. Through Her message and the Sacraments the Church offers us not platitudes, nor a vacant mirage, but a true Hope, an actual restoration, though it lead us to Gethsemane, though it lead us to the Cross. The Faith is not a quick-fix, it is Redemption. Christianity is not an easy way. It is the Way, and the Gospel is the great and glorious message of our Hope.

Saturday, January 1, 2011

In Nomine Patris....

I want to take a short break from a series of posts I've been writing lately, dealing with atheism, and interject some ideas and food for thought on another topic. I am thinking about ecumenism and about the sign of the Cross.

Catholics and Protestants these days are talking more and more about ecumenism. That's a good thing. I think we all realize that Christianity was never meant to be divided. Think about verses in Sacred Scripture like "not a bone of it shall be broken," and the statement that Christ's garment was seamless. So ecumenism basically makes me happy, and I'm glad to see more of it. But it needs to be understood correctly, it needs to be treated carefully, and it needs to be more than mere talk.

First of all, it is extremely important that we are honest to each other and to our own beliefs and principles as well. As a Catholic I would naturally love to see more people believe the teachings of the Catholic Church, but I don't want you or anybody throwing their brains and beliefs out the window for the sake of ecumenism, any more than I intend to do so. If a person can accept certain beliefs or practices, then by all means accept them. But if they are unacceptable to your conscience, then don't. I'd far rather see an honest Protestant than a dishonest Catholic, and vice versa. And while I would love more people to understand that the Catholic Church is nothing at all like the pagan, superstitious, evil religion that far too many people think it to be, if you really think that something we do or think is truly wrong, then you must not accept it in the name of tolerance. Ecumenism that denies truth, absolutes, conscience, and good theology is utterly pointless. So treat it carefully.

But ecumenism starts with understanding and Charity. It's equally pointless to go on thinking that the other person is superstitious or heretical when you don't really understand their beliefs. And Charity demands (within certain reasonable limits) that we try to understand the beliefs of our brothers and sisters. Understand them, mind you, not necessarily agree with them. But at least we might learn where they are coming from, and that their faith and practices may not be as shocking as we once imagined. The truth will set us free, we are told, and ecumenism that is not founded on truth and honesty will get nowhere. As long as we retain untrue impressions of another person or group, our ecumenical strivings will be constantly foiled.

Still, understanding is only a starting point. If that understanding is not put into practice of some kind, we will find that we are not as close to achieving unity as we thought. I have an idea that might help us get a little further down that road.

First though, let me pause, and mention an example of a common misunderstanding that divides Christians. I am thinking of the Sign of the Cross. Catholics make this Sign all the time. It has been a common practice among Christians since the early days of the Church, way before Constantine and the supposed (but completely imaginary) "paganization" of Christianity. But it arouses great ire and indignation among certain Protestants, particularly those of a more Fundamentalist bent. It is seen as a superstition, as an action incompatible with true Faith. Of course, there might be a reason for this. You might have seen it used at one too many ball games. Or as a joke. Or something children do in movies with no real comprehension of its meaning. You know, "Cross my heart and hope to die," says the adorable little six year old. Cute, but probably not the best form of apologetics. Still, the old Latin legal dictum continues to apply: abusus non tollit usus. The abuse of a thing does not preclude its proper use.

But, really, this is by no means the hardest Catholic practice to get one's head around. In fact, when one steps past the basic hand-me-down prejudices, it becomes evident that there is absolutely no reason to object to it at all. None.

Let's take a look. What is the Sign of the Cross? It consists of two parts: the actual tracing of the pattern of the Cross upon one's person, and the saying of the words "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." Now, which part of this is offensive? Surely not the Cross. Surely not the Trinitarian Name of our God. Really. Think about it. Not only is it not bad, or merely perhaps OK, but it is really and truly, very intensely, powerfully, actually Good. Just a little thought shows that this, in fact, is one Catholic practice that really has absolutely nothing about it that ought to offend Protestant sensibilities.

When made with understanding and attention the Sign of the Cross is powerful, meaningful, and effective. It involves faith--faith in the Blessed Trinity and faith in the Incarnation. It also makes us aware that our Redemption and our Hope are inextricably connected with what happened on Golgotha two thousand years ago. By making it we put our trust in God and in the power of the Cross, dedicate ourselves to Him, and accept the Cross in our own lives. It is a blessing, consecration, protection, and a public witness to our Faith. It has been in common use since the early days of the Church.

The Cross is the Sign of Christians.

This brings me back to my idea. Maybe we not only can come to better understand and love one another, but maybe we can also learn from each other. Perhaps we can even adopt some of each others practices that are clearly in keeping with our own faith and may enrich it. I can think of a big one for Catholics: the study of Sacred Scripture. Of course countless monks, nuns, priests, and popes have studied and breathed the very air of Sacred Scripture for nearly two thousand years now, but the laity has sadly often not taken full advantage of this practice. Popes of the last hundred years have been encouraging Bible study among the laity, but it is only now beginning to take root. And, as for Protestants, I would like to point out that there is an incredible wealth of tradition, prayers, hymns, literature, theology, Biblical interpretation, philosophy and practices to be gleaned from the Catholic Church. The Protestant churches, in focusing on their own tradition, have simply abandoned nearly a millennium and a half of rich pre-Reformation Christianity. There is much to be learned here. Perhaps the Book of Christian Prayer would be a good starting point. With the exception of the optional observance of certain feast days, there is virtually nothing in this wonderfully unifying and rich day by day celebration of prayers, Psalms, hymns, canticles and Scripture readings that cannot be accepted by Protestants. Perhaps adopting the Sign of the Cross in one's prayers and daily practices would also be another enriching point of common ground.

And so my prayer and hope is that through Divine Charity, understanding, and the humble willingness to learn from each other, we may at last see ecumenical attempts begin to bear the beautiful fruit of unity among all who hold the Name of Christ.

In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, Amen.