After a Long Absence/ On A Path Finally Taken

These beauteous forms, Through a long absence, have not been to me As is a landscape to a blind man's eye: But oft, in lonely rooms, and 'mid the din Of towns and cities, I have owed to them In hours of weariness, sensations sweet, Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart; And passing even into my purer mind, With tranquil restoration:--feelings too  Of unremembered pleasure: such, perhaps, As have no slight or trivial influence On that best portion of a good man's life, His little, nameless, unremembered, acts Of kindness and of love. Nor less, I trust, To them I may have owed another gift, Of aspect more sublime; that blessed mood, In which the burthen of the mystery, In which the heavy and the weary weight Of all this unintelligible world,  Is lightened:--that serene and blessed mood, In which the affections gently lead us on, 

~ "Lines", William Wordsworth 

 Greetings, my dear friends.

I apologize for the long absence, but in life things change, and it's entirely possible this blog has come to an end. It has been a labor of love, a labor of defiance at times, and, for long time readers, an obvious catharsis. It is perhaps because of this blog and time away in prayer and reflection that has helped to open another door in my life.

As an update, at this time I am not considering religious life, and believe that door to be closed. I fully believe Our Lord called me to deeply discern that Call, but in the end, He desired only that I say yes, and be willing, even though He has not allowed my own response to be possible. Although I am saddened in some ways, in others I realize it simply means He calls me on to other adventures, and this is glorious for God always knows where our true happiness lies. It means I continue on, the pilgrim that I am, perhaps now going into "special ops" mode in the spiritual sense of the word. By this I do not imply extreme holiness (since I have no where near achieved it), only, rather, deeper adventure, deeper mission, more covert and hidden operations in my heart and soul than can be shared with the great unknown ocean that makes up the internet world.

In this time of absence here, though, I have been working. It was as if a dam broke, and after a couple years of no interest in writing, I have, in just the last couple months, written one book and am half-way through the sequel, perhaps of a trilogy.

A couple months ago while doing some "nothing" reading, suddenly an old idea clicked in my mind and the story and characters have come to life. I have a couple dear friends who are  helping me with this project, providing support and even professional editing assistance, connecting me with resources (including people to interview) for research purposes, and even more amazingly, God has connected me with a very holy priest who also writes fiction (so far unpublished as he has not sought it yet), who has become the kind of friend every Catholic writer needs.

Just today I spoke with him about story development, and he commented on the recently deceased author Vincent Flynn (Rest in Peace) who was a faithful Catholic who lived what he believed. He noted that Flynn allowed the characters to have "free will", and this is a mark in Catholic writing. Writing is of course an art, and as Catholics, if we are faithful, if we allow God to work through us, even in works that are not religious in nature, our faith shines through.

The books I am writing are not "Catholic" in the religious sense. They are simply stories about people, they are adventure, thriller, action, and romance. They are merely human drama....yet, is there anything "mere" about the drama in the average human life? I'm not speaking here of emotional angst, but some of the deepest yearnings of the human soul, which often play out in ways that seem superficial.

As an aside....

This is why we have fiction. Our very souls are laid out nakedly in fiction; it's why we are drawn to it, identify with characters that do not exist, and engage with a story that never happened. One theologian, I believe it was Fr. Thomas Dubay, once observed that our engagement with a story in which that story comes to life in our imaginations, bringing us directly into it, is actually like a state of contemplative prayer. It is NOT the same thing, but it reveals our ability to engage all of our senses and abilities; and if we can do that with mere fiction, it also indicates we can do so even more deeply, more completely, in communion with God.  I would suggest, therefore, that reading good fiction may very well be a preparation for prayer and help us engage more deeply; that is, if we read the right things.

Moving on...

Getting back to the main point of this post, I haven't been writing a religious work, yet I found, when I completed the first draft, that Catholic themes are present. I cannot write what I do not believe. I can create characters who don't share my beliefs, and I can establish themes and content, but in the end, who I am as a Catholic is still imprinted upon the characters and within the story. Themes of sin, of redemption, forgiveness, sacrifice and eternal union arise in ways that are perhaps unexpected.

In writing seriously, I have found that my characters do truly have "free will", for they don't match what I want them to do, but seem to have minds of their own. Characters I'd like to see go down one path, in an interaction with another character choose a different one...and somehow, details emerge about the importance of the deviation from what I, the author want.

I have found, thanks to brief conversations with my priest friend, that I now have the ability to go back in this work of revision, looking with different eyes at where the free will of the characters emerge, for none of them are clones of me. They don't act as I do, they don't respond as I do. Nor do I want them to do so.

My friend today pointed out that this act of writing is an act of co-creation with God, in allowing the characters to develop, to become who they are and not necessarily what I originally envisioned them to be. It is humbling to think of it in those terms, yet his comments hearken back to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, revealing the proof of God's existence as the First Mover. A painting points to an artist, and the brush held by the artist, and in any given creation, God is that artist. A book points to the pen and the author, but then, who created the author?

Any truth points to God, if it is really true.

Whether or not my book will be published, I can't say. Although the first draft of the first book is complete, and I've done a read-through and minor correction with the second draft (typos, minor things), the third draft is in deep progress and will take time and additional research as I await one of my  important contacts to come back into the country to be available to assist with special-ops information. (non-classified) ;-)

It's amazing how many people I've already had to involve in just writing the first draft, and now I understand the litany of thanks given in any published book, for no author acts alone or anonymously.

So with that, dear readers, I thank you for the prayers and sacrifices you have offered me over the last several years, and beg for more in this new endeavor (and always for my Vocation, whatever it may be as I enter middle age).

It's entirely possible this blog is not at an end, however, I likely won't be writing much here any more. I can say that perhaps there will be other updates and other actions of God that prompt me to add another post, but maybe the "Tales of Adoro" are largely at an end since the original purpose of this blog has fallen into oblivion.

Thank you for coming with me on this journey, and, God willing, it will continue albeit in a direction I never really expected.

God bless you all, and thank you. From the bottom of my heart and the core of my soul, thank you.

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same, And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back. I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

 ~ "The Road Not Taken", Robert Frost

The Desire to be Known and Loved

Having worked with and around children for a several years now, I have an observation I've been pondering for quite some time.

A few years ago, the Pastor at the parish where I am employed went to visit the Kindergarten class. They had some questions to ask him; simple but VERY important things that told them all they needed to know about him, such as, "What is your favorite color?"  "What is your favorite animal?" "What is your favorite sport?". There were more, of course, but those questions told the children all that was important about Father as a human being. They were relational questions.

You see, the children already loved and respected Father but they wanted to know things about him to which they could relate. It was of IMMENSE importance that they learn about his favorite color, animal, and sport  to see if those things were also THEIR favorite things!

Of course, each time Father answered a question, all of the children would pipe up with THEIR favorite things and start telling him all kinds of stories about their own favorite colors, animals (pets!) and sports, and naturally, that required them to expound greatly in detail.

Father, being  a very organized sort, had a very difficult time getting a word in edgewise and left that particular class session just a little rumpled in spirit.

I remember him telling me about this and all I could do was laugh at the mental image. "Father, they just want to make sure you know them as well as they know you!"

This is what I've been pondering for so long. Yes, it's clear to anyone that the children wanted him to know them and that they wanted to know more about him. But why?

The answer is simple:  Love. 

Think about it. This is "Human Nature 101".  When we love someone, we want to be known by them. Maybe we already know them or think we do, but it becomes of the utmost importance to also be known. To be recognized. To identify with them on some level. To be loved back.

This is the foundation of friendship. First it is superficial (identifying with another on favorite ie superficial  things) and then it goes deeper. Before it can go deeper, though, one must learn about things specific to that person and help that person recognize things that are specific to us as individual human beings.

Because I am an adult employee in a church, and therefore must lead many events and come into contact with many youth volunteers, sometimes I become the focus of a particular need. When one of our youth come to me for direction on a project or offer to work with me, even if I'd rather handle that particular thing alone and delegate them elsewhere, I have learned to let them help in some way. It might be painting a decorative mural for the wall for Vacation Bible School. . It might be asking them to carry this little box of pens (that I could handle myself just fine)  to that location. It might be just to be patient and answer their various questions about the simplest or most unrelated things. It might be just to listen and encourage an interest in a particular subject.

In the end, their questions and their tales about themselves and their families (from age 5 or younger on up to teens!) isn't about the event at hand. It is rather a simple request from one human being to another:  "Please recognize me. Please love me and let me tell you what I want you to love about me and how God made me!"

What I've noticed especially is that children love to talk. When they have learned to trust adults in their lives, they reveal everything. They latch on to their favorite people and tell them as many tales as they can about everything they know. They try to imitate that adult (or teen, even!). They will reveal their very souls and all this is really just an elaborate way for one human to connect with another. To say, "Please love me as much as I already love you!"

This behavior doesn't end with childhood; it's part of what adults do every day, too, although the form it takes is much more refined. 

Do you know why it's so hard to get volunteers for ANY given event, and why some need a personal phone call? Because a general call for volunteers isn't enough for some people. They need a little extra "I love you and know you so I'm calling you personally to take on this task."

We live in a world of broken families; families that have bourne children, now adults, in need of love that a shattered family simply couldn't provide when it was most necessary in their individual formation.. When a child comes to you and shares their heart, be open to them. Smile, even if you are sad about something. Smile, even if you are angry or stressed out. Take a moment  to enjoy the happiness of a child who is expressing that they love you and love you so much they want you to love them, too.

Do the same thing with adults because they, too, are the children they have always been, and they, too, are looking for someone to love them and to know them for who they are as fellow children of God.

As with young children, know when to encourage, know when to correct, know when to discipline. Human relationships can be very complicated, but everything comes down to one simple thing:

 What does the sacrifice that is true love for another human being, knowing they have been called to life with Christ for eternity, demand of you right now? 

And pray...

Pray for Our Lord to help you discern that answer in union with His Most Sacred and Merciful Heart!

Engaging the World

Yesterday was the Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, my blog patron, so I had initially intended to write this post in his honor.

A few weeks ago I was doing an internet search for a project at work, and came across a book written by one of my college professors, Dr. Benjamin Wiker.  The book in question, 10 Books that Screwed Up the World: and 5 Others that Didn't Help, which takes on the work of Nietzsche, Marx, Hitler and others, invited me by the title alone to click on the link to Amazon.com. My curiosity piqued by the numerous reviews, both good and bad, I decided to read a few to see what they contained and why this book seemed to be getting such extreme reactions (from many 5-stars to many 1-stars).

The positive reviews engaged the work itself and the research, contained some constructive criticism, some criticism that revealed the person in question had perhaps missed the point of the book but enjoyed it nevertheless, encouraged others to read it, etc. Some reviews were more detailed than others. Some were written by other professors, others by people just like you and I, mere pewsitters seeking to engage our intellects.

The negative reviews were often a mishmash of ad hominim attacks, strawmen, slinging labels around, casting aspersions upon Catholics specifically, Christians and Christianity in general. A few blustery people identifying themselves as professors ranted that Dr. Wiker's book is what is going wrong in academia today, and very few of the negative reviews were objective, taking on only the work and not getting personal. In other words, very very few of the negative reviews (of those I read) actually had any merit whatsoever.

As a disclaimer, I have not read Dr. Wiker's book so this post is not about its merits or disqualifications. Rather, I'm using this as an example of something I see in the Catholic world, to encompass the entire Christian worldview, as being a factor in why so many people seem to be making an exodus from Christianity, and I'm doing this because one negative review in particular stood out as something diametrically opposed to what we as Catholics have always done and need to do...but aren't doing.

Is your interest piqued yet?

One of the commenters on the negative side identified himself as a Christian (I think he called himself specifically an "Evangelical Christian" but I'm not certain) and said he read the book, thought it a waste of time and quite arrogant to take on such great minds. The gist of his opinion was that if one does not like those philosophers, one should not study them and leave them instead to others who agree with them. He did not see any value in taking a critical look at their thoughts and his review outright told people not to buy the book, but instead save their money and put it in the collection basket at Sunday services.

Wow.

That one left me scratching my head. A Christian saying it is arrogance to be critical of the thoughts and writings of those who have had a huge impact on the world we live in today? A Christian stating it is a waste of intellect? Really?

Truly, that attitude was condemned long ago, for it was Tertulllian who decided that since philosophy was not divine revelation, it was useless. Instead of using philosophy at the service of theology, he threw it all out.

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS engaged the world, from the very beginning. She has used the philosophy of Aristotle and Plato, has engaged philosophers both ancient and those emerging, throughout history, using what is good, refuting objectively what is contrary to natural law and Divine Revelation.

To state that we should not engage "great minds" is in fact one of the most anti-intellectual things I have ever read, and yet...it does not surprise me that a Christian would state it. I am grateful that it was not a Catholic who said such a thing, although it would not surprise me. As it is I know very few average Catholics who would even glance at such a book, much less ask why it is important or not important.

The commenter I cited above still gets some credit; he did, after all, read the book, and then simply gave his opinion based upon his own philosophy without wasting words. Fair enough. I'll not be taking his advice, however!

 Anti-Intellectualism in the Church

There seems to be an epidemic of this in some circles, although it takes different forms.

There are those who refuse to watch any television at all, for they disagree with the content, ergo it is all bad, every bit. There are those who refuse to go to movies because Hollywood produces so many immoral works, ergo, anything on the big screen is morally damaging.

There are books that contain bad theology, philosophy, or bring up moral issues in a way that is contrary to Catholic teaching...ergo they must be avoided at all cost and nothing like them ever allowed into the house.

Yes, I am giving some extreme examples, and I certainly am not trying to imply that those making certain personal decisions about these things is necessarily anti-intellectual. Rather, I am simply trying to give some common examples to illustrate my point - I leave it to you, the reader, to determine what fits.

I am going to give one specific example from my own position, and it's one that may shock some or many of you.

Over Thanksgiving, my brother introduced me to a Shotime production, Dexter.

For those who are not familiar with it, Dexter is a forensic technician; a blood-splatter specialist working in the Miami PD. He also happens to be a serial killer who takes out other serial killers and notorious criminals. In the show, we hear his thoughts, his interior struggles, the psychology of his condition, his attempts at normal relationships with others, etc.

I'll admit it; I was hooked!

Looking at the show through a theologian's eyes, I'm intrigued by the moral dilemma that makes us, the viewers, root for Dexter to get away with his objectively evil crimes. I'm intrigued by the other characters in the show facing their own moral problems, which seem to be exacerbated by a total lack of religion at all. It is almost a completely secular show, with only random insertions of Catholicism or other religions by way of symbols or celebrations that reveal the background of a character. Still, religion and spirituality do not play a part other than to set a particular scene - it is merely wallpaper having no bearing on the lives of the characters we see.

Now...I'll watch the show, and as an adult with a certain moral formation and professional background, looking at it through a particular filter, I see Dexter as an opportunity to engage the world and the culture, as I'm doing now by discussing it here in a place seemingly as unlikely as a Catholic blog. Yet, this is the PERFECT place for it is exactly what the great Catholic intellectuals would have done.

DISCLAIMER!  I would not, if I had children, allow them to see it, and I would never suggest that a sensitive person see it, someone who can't handle violence or is not prepared to handle the strong moral dichotomies presented. Therefore, dear readers, do understand I am not giving this show a blanket promotion, but rather, using it to illustrate the fact that we must engage the world if we are to convert it.

What do I mean? Why am I even TALKING about this?

I mean that we must be familiar with those things that are popular, and be prepared to discuss those things. Doing so is not necessarily apologetics, but simply an acknowledgement that there's a LOT of stuff out there that IS affecting people and their moral formation, both positive and negative. We cannot just stick our heads in the sand and pretend it isn't there, then send our children out to be traumatized. Parents are in a delicate place, trying to protect their young, yet needing to prepare them for what will bombard them when they leave their homes.

Those of us who can, should be taking note of what's going on around us, and using the intellect that we have to engage it, to think critically about it, to see what is good, what can be used as an illustration, what can be used an an example of moral degeneration.

All too often, shows such as Dexter reveal a great deal about our society as a whole, giving a snapshot, for example, of the truth that where religion is merely wallpaper, virtue cannot flourish.

It can't stop there, though; what does that tell us? How does recognizing that point drive us to action on behalf of the Kingdom of God? What does that cause us to realize about the moral condition of people everywhere, in a country where more and more faith is a mere decoration? What does that say about where we are headed, and what, as Catholics, can we do about it?

I'm no expert

However, if you want a great example of someone engaging the world on the world's terms, check out Fr. Barron's Word on Fire. He has several video commentaries addressing popular movies, shows, etc., and I admit that his way of doing this is what has inspired me to lose my own fear of confronting, head-on, things that I know up front are contrary to my own beliefs.

We can't run away from the problems in our society or what causes them, but we can confront them, criticize them, take what is good and in the light of the intellect God gave us, reveal the shadows that seek to destroy our souls.

Now, all that said...

I need to go find a copy of Dr. Wiker's book, 10 Books that Screwed Up the World: and 5 Others that Didn't Help because all the snarky, anti-intellectual, and outright nasty reviews tell me that a certain faction wants this book quashed, and the ethicist who wrote it quashed as well. Given the state of our world today, that means I should be reading this book so that I can better engage the bad philosophies that have done so much damage.  ;-)

St. Thomas Aquinas - pray for us! 

Faith isn't Faith Unless Reason is Involved

I received a very interesting comment on an old post today, and thought it compelling enough to create a post dedicated to it.  Why? Firstly because the individual who left it seemed surprised to find mention of philosophy on a Christian blog, and secondly, because it shows he is very very misinformed about what we as Catholics believe about the relationship between Faith and Reason.  I have published the comment below, but for the sake of making it a bit more readable I have edited it a little for punctuation (capitalized sentences) and bolded the most pertinent sections. I do encourage you to read his entire comment, however, in order to better be able to engage his own position in relation to ours as Catholics.

Hmm...combing Nietzsche ideas with Judeo-Christian ideals, I guess pigs can fly, maybe there is hope for unification among religious theology with philosophy, next unifying science. I won’t convert to a Christian because of this but I am amazed you were opened minded enough to take other ideals to thought, I suggest you finish reading some of Nietzsche books as well as Plato which would be more to your suiting. Im a very spiritual person, taking the positive ideals from Christianly, wiccan, pagans, neopagan, goetia, Taoism, existentialist, metaphorical and literal versions of Satanism and a few ideas from shaman and Buddhism they appear to contradict at first but that is only if you dont read and search for yourself, to me they are all one in the same. I'm not trying to offend you by saying i think of demons as both metaphors and rarely literal neither do i want to often you by showing that i study religion like another philosophy class, I merely want to congratulate you for showing that a faithful Christian can be opened minded enough to add philosophy into their religious beliefs because like most ppl, the stereotype is that they are one sided but as i see from this, you are not. :)

People often accuse Christians of not being "reasonable", of not engaging "reason", of just following "blind faith".  Perhaps that is true of some Christians, but it is NOT true of our religion and our beliefs. Quite frankly, this is why Pope John Paul II published an Encyclical letter called Fides et ratio:  Faith AND Reason (not "Faith INSTEAD OF Reason)!

Before I began my graduate studies in Theology, I remember wondering why seminarians had to study philosophy for four years before entering the major seminary. By the time I completed my degree, it became very very clear. In fact, I struggle most with Christology because I was lacking the philosophical background that would have enabled me to better grasp the terms used, their definitions and their development over the centuries.  I have come to learn that without a solid grounding in philosophy, one cannot fully enter into a study of Theology.  So it was that throughout our three years, our professors brought in different points of philosophy in order to give us that basis. As it is, I now understand the importance of philosophy and of course, the development of theology which was understood through the powers of the human intellect, combing both what we can know of God and our world through natural reason with the supernatural gift of Faith.

This great myth that Christianity as a whole, and Catholicism more specifically, does not engage reason tends to reveal the great intellectual dishonesty of those making such an accusation.

The Church has always used philosophy in the development of theology, whether to properly define terms, to explore the deepest meanings of them and how they apply in light of Divine Revelation.

For anyone who has ears to hear, let them hear:

The Catholic Church is all about FAITH AND REASON!

I offer you this evidence:

St. Justin Martyr's Apologia:

From Chapter 2, Justice Demanded:
Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right.

Aristides the Philosopher, The Apology :This entire work is reason and faith; it's impossible to take small excerpt without removing it from its proper context.

St. Augustine, Confessions
 As Augustine was firmly philosophical and wrote many works, I offer from his Book 10, Chapter 6 title heading from Confessions: Chapter 6. The Love of God, in His Nature Superior to All Creatures, is Acquired by the Knowledge of the Senses and the Exercise of Reason.

St. Thomas Aquinas:  The Summa Theologica:   This work is a masterpiece of Faith and Reasons, utilizing a particular format which sets forth a question, begins with the objections to the question, supports the objections, and then one by one, replies to them. It is so intensely logical and philosophical that many people struggle with the content. I confess to doing so myself.  St. Thomas utilized the philosophy of Plato, Aristotle and Augustine, among many others.  This document is STILL used today in the serious study of Theology, and although some of it was speculative, we can thank St. Thomas for this work in the aid it became in the development of doctrine over the centuries.

I could go on and on, but as I only have one lifetime, one can find far more at New Advent: Fathers.

As our Church is a living Church, we have philosophers and theologians from our own age. John Paul II and Benedict XVI are both serious philosophers;  George Weigel in Witness to Hope has a very large section in his book describing the philosophy of John Paul II, who himself gave us the great Papal Encyclical, "Fides et Ratio". 

An excerpt:

  "On her part, the Church cannot but set great value upon reason's drive to attain goals which render people's lives ever more worthy. She sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it." (FR, 5)

It should be clear by now that the Catholic Church has always used philosophy as a handmaid to the higher science of Theology. It is through the use of philosophy, and thus, human reason, that the Church has been able to engage the human mind and heart in order to better open them to the higher powers of the soul through the light of Grace in the supernatural gift of Faith.

St. Paul himself spoke, in his letters, to the fact that children do childish things, but when they grow they must put away those things of childhood. So it is with Faith. A child may not be able to reason to the degree as an adult and will accept certain things on "blind faith", and so they must. But as the child grows, so does his intellect and he finds that he has questions about not just the natural world, but about the Creator; these questions are written upon his very heart!

My own "reversion" if that is what one wants to call it, was one of reason. I did not know my faith, I  did not know my religion and did not understand it. I found I needed to seek the Truth, and in so doing, I had to study.

I am not Catholic through "blind faith" but through faith seeking understanding. Through the use of reason in light of Divine Revelation.

I am Catholic because it is Truth, and it is the fullness of Truth, it is the fullness of Christ. That is not to say that I know everything there is to know, but rather, I believe what I know, submit willfully to those things I do not understand, and will continue to use my intellect to seek understanding for those questions that may yet remain.

Faith without reason isn't faith; it's a sham.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Faith, Reason, and Happiness

I recently read Dennis Prager's book, Happiness is a Serious Problem.  While I enjoyed the book, I admit that I read it with a critical eye informed by my last three years of study, and in good conscience, I cannot recommend it as good reading material for the average Catholic.

Please, allow me to explain.

I like Dennis Prager and have read many of his articles. There is much that he says with which I agree and which coincides with Catholic Tradition and belief. Within his book on happiness there are many points that DID fully agree with Catholic teaching, and from THAT standpoint, I do recommend this book to knowledgeable Catholics.

Are you confused yet? I recommend it and yet I don't? 

In our present age, the vast majority of self-proclaimed Catholics are very uninformed. In fact, they haven't been formed at all, but only raised to engage in a particular behavior, that of "doing Catholic things".  To them, that means going to Mass on Sunday, getting Baptized as an infant, getting Confirmed, and this latter to enable one to eventually "get married in the Church."  To the vast majority of self-identifying Catholics, the rosary is a nice prayer but something old ladies carry and young gangsters wear in certain parts of the country.  Catholic homes have the trappings of Saint statues and pictures, especially those of Mary. Holy Communion has a vague connotation of a mere meal we call  "Eucharist" and, many think that after reception of this "blessed thing" one is free to leave church for the bumper-car ritual in the parking lot to see who can beat a retreat faster.  Many of those within this group show up only a few times per year, primarily of which are Christmas and Easter.

Yes. This is the vast majority of self-proclaimed Catholics. I'm sorry to say it, but it's true.This is also the same group that loves to "study" World Religions, pick and choose what beliefs to follow, and still call themselves "Catholic" out of a fundamental misunderstanding of what it IS to be Catholic, for, sadly, they have both never been taught, and as adults, have chosen never to actually study their own faith before either dismissing it entirely or calling it their own while actually embracing tenants and philosophies of other belief systems. 

It is not that I am against learning about other religions; rather, I am an advocate of it.  

I only offer this caveat;  before one goes rushing off to become "informed" in other religions, one must first know ones own, for without a foundation in ones own beliefs, one cannot accept or reject ANY tenants of ANY belief system with any kind of integrity.  This lesson has, at the hands of Dennis Prager, been brought home to me, and it is for this reason that I do not recommend his book, "Happiness is a Serious Problem" for the average Catholic.

A Little Relevant History

Several years ago, a friend gave me this book and although I paged through it, it didn't interest me much so I put it on my shelf, intending to read it "later". A week or so ago, someone on Twitter asked me if I knew of a particular book on "Happiness" written by some other popular author I had never heard of.  Upon reviewing the official web page of that obscure and overly-marketed segment of pop-culture, I knew it was neither something I would recommend or something I wanted to delve into myself; but the query DID remind me of Prager's book which was quite busy gathering dust on one of my many bookshelves. Clearly, it was time to read it.

I began it with great interest and found that although he didn't use the same terminology, he was speaking, initially, by grounding his book in the virtues. He was careful to write his book for the secular set; his definitions excluding, officially, those arising from the purely religious. However, as it went on, more and more it was clear that he wrote from his own religious understanding.  This, above all, was what made the book interesting to me, for, by knowing Prager's  general religious philosophy, I could better accept his position and therefore, better evaluate it critically in light of my own.

While reading I realized, quite deeply, why one must learn one's own religion before trying to delve into another. It is quite popular in our culture, even in the Catholic world, to study "world religions" even by bringing some "expert" claiming expertise in such into a Catholic parish even to teach children!  I have always been against this practice, not out of "intolerance", but rather, out of concern for academic and scientific integrity.  Those who know little about their own position are unlikely to be able to fully grasp the position of another, and the logic that should make up ones foundation, if absent, leads only to chaotic but ultimately meaningless "connections" when presented with a plethora of options.

In other words, it's like an intellectual religious stroke that actually paralyzes any real thought or growth.

New Age, anyone?

Faith and Reason, Together, are related to Happiness. 

In reading Prager's book, I received an insight into his own position, arising from his own Jewish Faith and found that it is at utter odds with what we believe as Catholics.

I'm grateful that he brought his interpretation of  the words of Genesis, "Let us make Man in our image" into a discussion of the "lower parts" of human nature, for it was here that I finally began to obtain an understanding of a fundamental difference between the philosophy of Jews and Christians.  When one follow's Prager's definition of human nature to a logical conclusion, that arising from his own faith,  that God meant "us" to be He and the animals he created, it stands to reason that Man's "animal nature" is by instinct. Therefore, following that, things such as men's desires for  multiple partners, use of pornography, and the moral neutrality of masturbation  stand to reason. They follow a logical flow arising from what he believes both about God's nature and Man's nature.

Understanding this kept me from being outright offended by Prager's assertion that my Christian perspective that pornography and masturbation are deadly sins are a "fringe" belief belonging to a person who is both maladjusted and has taken religion to an extreme.

I wanted to be offended, but when considering Prager's fundamental belief about human nature, I could not be; he is very consistent and logical in what he presents, and although he wrote the book with the secular set in mind, he was still  very clear in that he is informed by his Faith and finds a position of atheism and secularism to be completely illogical, and in fact, a position that inhibits happiness.

I am thrilled to agree with him here, and God bless him for pointing it out! This is one of those parallels with what we believe as Catholics. Gaudiem et spes, the Vatican II document on the Church in the Modern World comments on the causes of atheism and in reading Happiness is a Serious Problem, I was almost surprised that it wasn't a footnote in his own commentary on the subject. One would think that Prager and Pope John Paul II met and discussed this, for they both come to the same conclusion:  that nominal religion (nominal Christianity) has more to do with the growth of atheism than anything else. Prager asserts that the lack of religion in our society is also a detriment to the pursuit and attainment of happiness. His logic, and the logic of the Church, both coincide in this regard.

Christian Anthropology and the impact of Trinitarian philosophy on human nature.

Now, after this brief discussion about what Prager, and therefore, what the Jewish believe about human nature, how does that conflict with what we as Catholics believe?

Prager believes that we are both animal and divine; that when God said "Us" He meant He and the animals.

As Christians, we recognize God's use of the word "Us" to mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:  the Trinity.

While Prager believes Man is created in the image of God and animal, we, as Christians believe we are created in the image of God Himself. We look to Him, and we look to Christ as our example as to how to live, how to sacrifice, how to walk the bloody road to Calvary. We look to Jesus to learn how to unite our sufferings to Him. We look to the Holy Spirit to give us the gifts we need to meet our final end; eternal beatitude in the Divine Processions.

We believe that pornography is a mortal sin because it undermines marriage as well as the dignity inherent in every human being. We recognize that because of that dignity, that any naked, airbrushed woman or man on a magazine page is being exploited and abused, for he or she is not being seen as who she is as a child of God, but by his or her physical attributes which objectify him/her and harm the one who looks upon him/her.  We recognize masturbation as a mortal sin for it takes that which is owed to God in a sacred act, with another person in an act of self-sacrificing love, and spends it in an act of self-love which cannot bear fruit of any kind.  We as Catholics understand that by cooperating with God to elevate what is lowest within us Glorifies Him, thus our quest for holiness by working to overcome the lowest points of our fallen nature is not "neurotic" but rather, a path to Heaven.

Why I Don't Recommend This Book

I don't recommend it (to the average Catholic) because Prager advances positions commonly held by unformed and un-informed "Catholics" who find the teachings of the Church regarding Mortal Sin to be inconvenient to the way they want to live their lives. Already we are inundated by people who at all levels of "expertise" in society who try to say that the moral teachings of the Catholic Church are "outdated" or "extreme" or the like. Those who agree with the popular flow would find even more here to weaken their faith and undermine their own moral fragility.

However...those Catholics who ARE informed and know the moral teachings of the Church as well as the Catholic/Christian belief of Human Nature might well benefit from Prager's book on happiness. There is much Truth within it, when one can recognize and dismiss the parts of his commentary that conflict with our beliefs. Further, it is of use to all of us to read and understand the differing moral positions of others, for it is there that we are able to confront our own doubts and strengthen our own positions.

Tolerance and Intolerance

Ah, the words of our age; they mean so much that they have been rendered to mean nothing at all.

I have a sense that if Dennis Prager was prowling blogs, he'd welcome my own particular post. Part of his book deals with growth in knowledge, the use of intellect as it relates to happiness, and I have to admit that he's right; I have been very happy as I've put my own education to use in recognizing fundamental philosophical conflicts between he and I.

There are those who would read this post and condemn me as "Intolerant" simply because I disagree with Prager. Do you see the irony in such a position, and how one who holds it is probably inhibiting their own pursuit of happiness?

True Tolerance recognizes differences, but doesn't necessarily agree with them or accept them. I accept SOME of Prager's premises, but others I utterly reject because I have a different understanding of God's nature and Man's nature.

I have to admit that although I don't recommend the book to the average "Catholic", I DO recommend it for those who know their Faith, understand their foundations, and can therefore engage fruitfully with the premises Prager establishes.  The more you know about what you DO believe and the more you are able to hold to it, the more you will understand and accept or refute what he (or anyone with an opposing position) has to say.

I must thank Dennis Prager for this book, for he has opened my eyes to some fundamental differences between Christians and Jews; philosophical differences I had not previously understood. Quite honestly, had I read this book when it was given to me, I would not have gotten out of it, both the good and the bad, what I have now that I have completed my most recent three years of formal doctrinal studies.

Actually, although this would never happen, I'd LOVE to sit down with him and discuss our differing beliefs in God and how that leads to respectively differing moral conclusions.

It would be a fascinating conversation.

Ahhh...that would be fun enough to make me happy. At least in that moment.  ;-)
*(Dennis Prager would understand)*

What Why How

Last spring, or summer or fall...whatever it was...I had to attend a training through work. I didn't want to go but to my surprise, something I learned that day was actually useful, and didn't involve the motivational speaker telling me that I'd be living in a van down by the RIVER! (As I had feared, even though I MIGHT end up living in a VAN down by the RIVER eventually.)

So often, (please forgive me) I have been frustrated by the commenters who take my posts out of context, pulling out this or that sentence or point and trying, it seems to make my post about something it is not.  Much of this failure is mine;  often I am not clear, often it is a difficult thing, and sometimes it is something that can only be understood by someone who is going through the same thing I am while I write about it.

Sometimes I try to address within the post what I know will become a stumbling block for this or that type of reader, but it seems, always, that my most introspective posts manage to invite comments by those who simply cannot grasp where I am coming from or where I am going. It's impossible and unwieldy to even TRY to make ever commenter happy in catering to their needs. Thus, in the end, the frustration is with myself, in my inability to be all things to all people.

Truly, I don't expect people to understand me,and yet, idiotically, I somehow expect people to understand me. 

(Do you see me rolling my eyes at myself yet?)  

Some time ago, while trying to keep my frustration under wraps, I found a way to express it by writing a humorous post about what would happen if St. Augustine had blogged "Confessions."  I didn't pick on any commenters in particular, but admittedly went for reality to include the rational and annoying both.  You can find that post here. Any blogger could relate and add to the commentary.

This is where I circle around to bring in my actual subject matter for this post:  I have come to realize the speaker I was forced to listen to that day had a point, and truly, there are three types of people in the world, and all of them have commented at my blog at one time or another.

Understanding the types of people (therefore readers/commenters) can go a very long way towards responding to them according to who they are, and this leads to blog success.  More specifically, it leads to success in evangelization THROUGH the blog - or any other medium, for that matter.

(Yes, I'm shameless. Why are you shocked?)

Without further ado, I introduce you to the three types of people found everywhere in the world through every single medium, including blog com boxes:

The "What" People:

These are the people who just want to know WHAT the problem is if there is one, or if not, WHAT the subject is about and therefore, WHAT they should do.  These are the same people who want short blog posts and who are looking for the fine points in any given published article or online post.  They favor bullet points over paragraphs and wouldn't be able to survive without printers and highlighters

In some sense, I think that they might be the most likely to take longer posts out of context, just because of their inherent nature to ask "What the hell are you talking about so I can respond and get it over with?"  These are the people who look to the Passion of Christ as a necessary business, but would prefer not to emote too much over it.

The "What" people are pragmatic, practical, to-the-point, realistic, logical, and want to prioritize. They don't have time for trivialities and quickly tap their feet when confronted by both the "Why" people and the "How" people, whom they see as being extremists and polar opposites.

To evangelize them one must focus mainly on who Jesus is and the fittingness arguments as to the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection.  The challenge in formation for the "What" people is often to bring in both doctrinal and mystical theology to make sure they do not focus only on outcome, i.e., "getting the job done."

Many "What" people are most probably Thomists or Scholastics.

The "Why" People:

These are the people who are the most empathetic among us. They tend to be the most optimistic, the ones who most desperately flee any semblance of suffering in favor of "looking to the good things", often to the degree of outright denial of the necessity of obstacles.  In their empathy they are looking for the same empathy they offer out of their own inherent virtue, and are often bitterly disappointed, but to be fair, are honestly confused when others aren't as "Resurrection-oriented" as they are. They suffer greatly in this area and struggle to maintain their optimism.

The "Why" people tend to be the ones who are most offended and have the thinnest skin when it comes to the reality of sin in the world, wanting both to deny it in general and for themselves, focusing so desperately on the "positive" that they willfully deny the very important positive point of redemptive suffering.

This group is the most difficult to evangelize; they are emotionally driven to the deprivation of the intellectual. It is therefore important, when evangelizing a "Why" person, to find points of identification, such as that provided  by the Saints.  Find a Saint that most resembles the individual, build the points while you build the relationship of friendship and support with that individual.

Keep in mind that with a "Why" it isn't about facts or history or doctrine...it is all about whether they like you or not, and whether you can transfer their affection for you to affection for Christ so that He reigns.  It's a long-term project, and it means that you're going to become family members and best friends long before the "Why" finally accepts the teaching of Christ.  Why?  Because it's all about emotion and trust. It's entirely possible for a Why to adapt to a more realistic approach, but it takes time and patience. When it happens, though, get out of the way for the Why can easily become a How when they recognize the importance of their mission, and NOTHING stops them!

You'll find a lot of "Why" people focusing on Catholic Social Teaching, but the challenge in forming them tends towards the emphasis of  the doctrinal teachings and why they are important. They are excellent in the field of encouragement and intercessory prayer (you'll never find someone more dedicated to intercession!), make great motivational speakers, and are often found peddling politics and special causes.

These are the "doers" of society who keep things running.

The "Why" people are the ones most likely to find a philosophical basis in conceptualism and/or relativism. They can be guided towards Scholasticism and may adopt other philosophies according to their formation and emotional approach to spirituality.

The "How" People:

Oh, this is probably the most complicated of all.  They are perhaps the bane of my existence.

The "Hows" are the concrete-numbers-only-literalists among us.  They tend to be engineers and mathmeticians, or even worse, actuaries.  They might even be librarians (although most librarians are more flexible and personable.)  Most likely, they work for the IRS, the KGB, or the CIA.  Or maybe the DMV.

These are the people who, upon being notified of a meeting, demand to know the topic, the content, what they should bring, and then prepare spreadsheets with all sorts of complicated figures so that they will be certain to know each and every detail and be able to contribute to influencing it.

You'll never find a politician among this group. The "How" people are far too intelligent to ever condescend to mere politics. They make up the backbone of any organization, the unsung heroes in the dingy basement office of the highest skyscraper, spending their days with numbers, printouts and ever-changing computer code.

Evangelizing a "How" is quite difficult. If they are not already faithful, they tend towards the atheistic spectrum, although do have a special love of logic. The only people who can really evangelize a "How" have a deep grasp of philosophy, a love of concrete facts, and only bring in the mystical when it is absolutely necessary AND when the How is ready to go to the next level.  It's a very tricky task, but once a How has converted...get out of the way!

"Hows" make the best Scripture Scholars and Systematic Theologians.

The challenge in the formation of a How is in the realm of true pastoral relations and divine pedagogy;  making sure that the person receiving the message is actually prepared to receive it.

Philosophically speaking, the "How" people tend to cross the spectrum; but once converted, tend towards Thomism, Scholasticism, Moral Ethics, and Natural Law.

Conclusion

I have detailed above the three types of people, and having had a year or so to consider it, have come to the conclusion that the speaker was correct. I work with all three types of people and their combinations.

Most people belong to a combination of categories. For myself, I am a What-Why, only rarely tapping into How.

It is no surprise that I sometimes become frustrated when I am not understood through this medium, and probably, my readers likewise are not understood.

Although I've taken a (dry) humorous approach on this, I invite my readers to look at the categories (What, Why, How), suggest your own take on philosophy, evangelization, and characteristics, and post them in the com box.

Keep it light, keep it fun, and keep it real.

:-)

It might be Lent, but that doesn't mean we have to give up being geeks!

On the Implication of the question, "Why?"

I've been pondering something for several days now, and because of the comments on my previous post, I've decided to tackle the issue. It's something I've noticed for a long time, and in fact, I finally understand an instruction received when I first began working in adolescent psych during my college years.

During the week of our new employee orientation, the trainer, who was the Patient Advocate, explained to us that every question beginning with the word "Why?" was a reasonable question and should be answered. At the time I didn't really understand why we needed to be offered this information. To my way of thinking, if someone was asking any question, it was a real question.  Why was it necessary?

Therein is the problem. Look at the last sentence of the above paragraph. It begins with the word "Why?" followed by a question mark. And in reading that sentence, it seems to presuppose a negative answer, and perhaps to the degree of the implication by the query that his direction to us WASN'T necessary!

Yet, I would argue, it was necessary, as I have come to learn. 

Over the years I've often asked the question "why?" which was an implication of my own presuppositions that, sadly, assumed either there wasn't a satisfactory answer, or none at all.  Of course, I have also asked many questions knowing that in order to further my knowledge of a subject, I had to ask for the reason, thus, necessarily used the very intelligent query, "Why?"

Still, it seems that overall, if that question is used, no matter what the interlocutor's intent, it is read as a negative, or even as a criticism.

I can give several examples of this:

"Why are you doing that?" ~ May imply that one is doing something wrong - tone or facial expression would give this question a positive connotation.

"Why doesn't the Church allow women to become priests?"   ~ Oh, just go to an apologetics forum with that question, stated just like that. Just WATCH the responses go crazy and descend into the assumption that the person making the query is attacking the Church!  It's worse than yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre, or "Bomb!" in the security line at the airport on the day before Thanksgiving.

"Why is this happening?"  On the surface, this seems to imply a negative. Is it? Or might it be reasonable to ask?

"Why do we need to learn this?"  I can think of a lot of positive answers to that question. Is the question itself negative, or is the person asking it seeking a real answer?

"Why is this important for us to know?"

"Why is there suffering in the world?"

"Why am I earning this degree?"

"Why do you wear your hair in that style?"

"Why are you wearing that outfit?"

"Why do we have to get up so early?"

In all of the above questions, it is very easy to read the negative into it and assume the person asking the question is asking it not out of a sincere desire for knowledge, but rather, out of argument. I've made the same mistake with people, and have often had to chide myself, remembering the instruction given to me by that trainer long ago.  Yet I can't seem to stop assuming that if that question is asked, it must be coming from a standpoint of negativity or even dissent! It's very easy even to fall into the trap of assuming that someone who asks, "Why?" is looking for an argument.

It's a curious thing, isn't it?  

I know someone who left the Church and became an Evangelical Pastor because of how his own "Why?" was not answered.  (Yes, there's more to his leaving than that, but that was where his journey out began.)

My friend told me several times, that he was raised Catholic. He remembers Vatican II, and the disciplines that changed.  He explained to me that one day, eating meat on a Friday was a mortal sin. The next day, it wasn't anymore. (This is how he reported it...I'm not making a judgment in this case as to whether or not this was true.)  Of course he was confused and asked the Priest who was teaching his class WHY this was the case.  He had an honest question, and honestly assumed there was an answer to it. He was not being snide or smart.  He was confused.

He said that the Priest snapped at him, told him to sit down, shut up, and stop asking questions.  (Again, this is how my friend reported it. Please don't go into "defense" mode in the combox...focus on the topic at hand.)

You see, my friend asked a reasonable question:   "Why?"

For some reason, the predominant opinion of the public, whenever they are hit with the question "Why?" they assume it implies a negative or arises out of argument.

It doesn't - well, not usually, anyway. Certainly the question may ARISE out of a negative situation, but in its essence, the question belongs to reason; it is asking for a REASON for something, and often assumes a positive answer.  In the questions I posed above, certainly non-verbal communication such as body language, facial expression, and vocal tone will help the person being asked understand the intent of the person asking the question, but not always. Some people have a very flat affect. Some just like to yank people's chains.  Others may go around with perpetual scowls and a dark cloud overhead, but it can't be assumed that they are being snide or contentious.

This being a human being stuff is complicated, isn't it?  And it's even harder when limited to the written medium.

My post from a couple days ago was misread by many people, and I agree that the overall tone was a bit melancholic. However, that tone doesn't define my overall interior attitude, and in fact, I was disappointed that my own "Why?" queries were taken out of context of the overall post and interpreted as self-condemning or even worse, condemning of God. Yet I understand why that was taken out of context, for I asked the question, "Why?".

What I was doing in that post was engaging my reason with rhetorical questions. which ultimately were an expression of my prayer to God.  Why am I getting this degree?  I don't know, I don't understand.  The path is not clear for me, nothing is obvious.  Thus....WHY? Would anyone seriously argue that I not offer these questions? After all, there are all sorts of people in my family and friends who have often asked me "Why" I'm getting a degree in Pastoral Theology. I have never had an answer for them for I don't know that answer. Nor have I assumed their questions posed to me to be in the negative;  rather, they expect a positive response.  Their attitudes only change when I express a LACK of an answer, but those who have faith just shrug and say, "God will reveal it."  (Those are also the people who would like to pursue the same degree or field!)  :-)

Making that "why" statement, contrary to seeming popular opinion, is not indicative of an attitude of negativity, but rather, actually touches on a very human principle:  when we are confronted with the deepest issues in life, we ask questions. God expects those questions and has answers for them. This is why it is REASONABLE to ask "Why?" and doesn't presume wastefulness of education, for example, or a lack of answers. Rather, it presumes that there ARE answers even though they may not be readily apparent.

Someone who is asking the question "Why?" is seeking to go deeper;  they are seeking Truth.

I understand now why the Patient Advocate had to point out the reasonableness of that question, and I understand many more things that I was not afraid to pursue simply because of the answers I received when I had the courage to ask the question, "Why?"  In some cases, I learned more because there WASN'T a satisfactory answer, which led me to dig deeper, go further, and amass more knowledge.

"Why?" opens doors. It doesn't slam them shut.

Challenge  yourself.  Consider all the "Why?'s" you've asked in your life and check your reaction when someone around you begins a question with that query. Think about your gut-reaction when that question is asked, and how it is tempered when you then take in the other cues surrounding it.  You may actually be surprised at your own assumptions and how wrong they may be.

In my personal experience, I'm one to assume the negative, too, and have often had to quell my response to people by remembering that instruction from years ago. It has caused me to respond with reason to a question asked in reason, and it has often been the very thing the caller or customer needed to know. Perhaps they did ask out of  a bad situation, but in responding to their need, the situation was resolved...through reason.

Think about it. "Why?" isn't a bad word. It's perhaps the BEST word in the English language! Use it liberally!

Why not?

:-) 

Finding Jesus in the Temple

During class this last semester, in Spiritual Theology our professor introduced us to Plato's cave analogy. In that analogy, Plato describes some men who are bound, facing the wall of a cave. Behind them is a road, and beyond the road, a fire, which provides the backlight needed to cast the shadows that the bound men observe. And in the reverberating voices, the bound men believe that the shadows themselves are speaking.

And then the men are unbound, and made to walk. As they turn, they observe the road, and the people who had caused the shadows represented on the wall, and they see that the voices emit from them, not from the shadows they had cast. The now-unbound prisoners walk up the road, past the fire, and towards the mouth of the cave where the sun begins to light it. Yet they do not know the cause of the light until they emerge from the darkness.

The analogy goes on, obviously discussing something akin to one of St. Thomas Aquinas's proofs of God..the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover. But there is a deeper meaning.

The first Sunday of Advent, I attended my first TLM (Extraordinary Form) Mass, and found it beautiful. Not earth-shattering, but suddenly things made sense. It was proper. It took what I knew intellectually, and made it real, almost tangible. And yet, I was lost. I still had hold of the images, the shadows that have been my life until then. It wasn't until I let go of what I thought I understood (ie divesting myself of images) that I could allow the new understanding to penetrate my soul and intellect.

Suddenly, the Cave Analogy made perfect sense...I was living it.

I have to confess, now, when I attend Mass at my own parish, I'm dissatisfied. The pro populum altar has driven me crazy for a long time...even more so now. The performers on the stage singing Haugen show tunes seem more than ever to be performing. I feel like I've been freed, but then returned and bound, looking at shadows that are speaking to me...but they aren't.

They're speaking to God. And even the shadows don't seem to know that they are supposed to be doing so.

It's getting more and more difficult to focus at Mass. The gestures of the people around me in the pews toward the priest (who isn't speaking to any of us, but only to God) is distracting. The constant intercom announcements to "join in singing" the latest new/old heretical protestant hymn, which is followed by applause for the performers is forcing me to figure out how to properly find God in all this mess.

I feel like a prisoner in my own parish. And yet, even as I feel bound, I'm grateful, for I know that so many others are still completely lost, staring at shadows they don't know are shadows, reacting to gestures that aren't being made to them, but rather, for them. And if they only KNEW the reality of the mysteries for which we are present....!

It fills me with pity, and even with a certain anger, for I wonder how it has come to this?

And then, this evening, I read this while praying Vespers:

Ant. Son, why have you done this to us? Think what anguish your father and I have endured looking for you. But why did you look for me? Did you not know that I had to be in my Father's house?

Read that dialogue over a few times. Enter into it. Isn't that what so many of us ask every week, maybe every DAY? Don't we experience anguish when we see how the theological symbolism has been so lost to us? Isn't it a terrible hardship to have to try to look for God, when we aren't being directed to Him?

One of the things I've learned in my Master's program has been on the theology of suffering. God does not specifically will suffering, but He allows it, and in that is found His will for us. When we enter into suffering, we ask these questions, and Our Lord awaits them, expecting this faith seeking understanding, no matter where we are in life, whether spiritual or temporal.

And He answers, but we must be willing to listen, no matter what the cacaphony around us, be it bad theologically-incorrect-Vatican-II-noncompliant showtunes or the ignorant applause that follows it. We must return to the horror of the birth of Christ, and the horrors that followed in the slaughter of the Holy Innocents, and we must remember that if that is what He suffered, should we not expect to suffer the same?

We have to remember that God gave His only Son to Mary and Joseph...and they lost Him, and had to look through him in the dusty, dirty, uncivilized roads leading to and through Jerusalem. And where did they find Him?

In the Temple.

The Temple wasn't a perfect place...a few years later, Jesus would form a whip and overturn the tables of the money changers, chastizing them for turning the Lord's house into a place of commerce.

We have to see, then, that no matter how bad things might be, Christ is there. He is speaking, even to those who aren't listening or refuse to listen.

More and more, I'm realizing how drawn I am to either the Latin Novus Ordo (which locally is done ad orientum) or the Extraordinary Form (TLM) Masses, but today's antiphon after the Canticle of Mary has chastized me.

My preferences perhaps don't matter; God is present at my own parish. I don't need to look for Him anywhere else; I just have to see Him where He is, and where He has called me at this moment. The anguish in trying to find him is both real and self-inflicted all at once. What is happening to our Church is within God's will, for He is allowing it, perhaps to make us seek Him in the storm.

We don't grow in holiness through an easy road, but through suffering. We can never find Christ unless we endure the Cross.

The other day I wrote about how our romanticized ideal of the birth of Christ obscures the reality of the Incarnation; perhaps that same understand needs to be applied to the Mass. Maybe we have to learn to find Christ no matter where we are. We don't have to love the music; we have to love Jesus. And if He could endure the abuses at the Temple, then we can endure the same kind of thing for His sake and those of His people, those around us.

Maybe the next time, then, that I enter into the cacaphony of the Mass at my parish, I will remember that I need not seek so hard for Jesus, for He is already there, and the more I give in to resentment, the further back I will be in the crowd. And even if the eyes of the crowd are upon the performers, it is my place to keep my eyes and heart focused on Christ.

And THAT is a path to holiness that has been given to most of us.

Pray. Endure. And remember He is Present. Don't let Him be alone.

Who is God?

I'm not sure I'm going to be able to articulate myself at all in this post, but I'm going to try. And if you are struggling in your faith, don't read this post. Maybe I shouldn't even be writing it.



OK, here goes:

I don't know who God is.

Maybe I'm still under the influence of my New Age dabblings, or maybe I never have really had a relationship with God. Maybe the relationship I fancy I have with Christ is really just a fabrication of my active imagination.

Yes, I know God is a Trinity, I know He consists of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I know that He entered History about 2,000 years ago and since then everything has been different.

I know these things with my intellect, but do I really know them with my heart? Do I know them with my soul?

Do I really have a soul?

Do I really have a heart?

Is it possible for your heart to be divorced from your soul?

I can't seem the grasp the idea of God actually caring about us, about intervening in our lives. Or calling us. I can understand Jesus, because He was human (although I also have a hard time really grasping His reality). And the Holy Spirit...yes, I've been to Life in the Spirit, even spoke at one of the seminars, but even He seems so impersonal to me. A mighty wind, tongues of flame...a force that directs us when we are open to God's will?

And here's what REALLY disturbs me: I've experienced bona fide miracles, some of which I won't put on my blog, but those close to me know of them and have seen the evidence. My life has changed since my return to the Faith.

For you Carmelite-minded readers, this is NOT a withdrawl of consolations, this isn't the illuminative way, etc etc. And for those of you who dabble...this is also NOT the Dark Night. (Given the proper definition and context I learned on Sunday in class...oh, boy, is that idea misunderstood by the vast majority of people who claim to recognize it in themselves or another!)

I'm not sure what this is, but I know what it's not. Grad school is good for that.

Sometimes I ask myself if I really believe in God. Sometimes I think I don't. I look for God, but I can't see Him. I look at Christ...and see a statue. I look for the Holy Spirit and see an idea.

I feel almost paralyzed by this.

But I can't deny this: when I walk into the church, as I will tomorrow morning, and see the Blessed Sacrament exposed in the monstrance, even if I have no emotions, it never fails that my heart LEAPS, and I'm immediately grateful to be there.

I ask myself if I really believe, and so often, I think I don't. But I can't deny something like that which cannot be explained. I know that my intellect can't grasp the mystery of God, and it's not supposed to. And my intellect can't grasp how bread can be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.

But there's something within me that believes, even when my intellect says it's impossible.

So here I sit, wondering if there's a God, wanting to know that there's a God, even wanting to deny His existence.

But I can't deny the evidence of a miracle that I can observe daily, I can't deny what happens to me when I see the Blessed Sacrament, no matter what the state of my soul.

I don't know who God is. I can't prove He exists. I can't prove He loves us.

But I can make a decision, to believe or not to believe. All the miracles in the world maybe aren't sufficient...or necessary. And so I'm choosing to believe, because no matter what my earthly experience, I also can't believe that this life is all there is. I can't look around the shambles of my own life and decide it's meaningless. I can't help but see that we are all drawn towards and designed for something greater, something beyond ourselves.

What that is, no I don't know. I can't tell you because I don't understand. I don't know who God is.

But I know I want to meet Him.