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

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! 

The Distinction between "Ministry" and "Apostolate" and Why it Matters

Question: On the importance of the distinction between the terms “ministry” and “apostolate”

Objection 1: It would seem that the term “apostolate” would apply to the successors of the apostles and the term “ministry” has a more universal application and understanding.

Objection 2: One who engages in ministry should be termed “minister”.

Objection 3: It seems the distinction is unnecessary because many who minister are in an apostolate and vice versa. To wit; it is unnecessary because the terms are not mutually exclusive nor are they necessarily mutually inclusive.

On the Contrary, it is important to draw the distinction in terms, for, as many theologians have noted, a lack of distinction in terms has led to larger consequences as it applies to doctrines taught by the Church with regard to ministry. In 1994 John Paul II stated, “It must be admitted that the language becomes doubtful, confused and hence not helpful for expression the doctrine of the faith whenever the difference ‘of essence and not merely of degree’ between the baptismal priesthood and the ordained priesthood is in any way obscured." (LG, 10) He also stated in the same document, “We cannot increase the communion and unity of the church by ‘clericalizing’ the lay faithful or by ‘laicizing’ priests.” (1)


I answer that although the definitions of the two terms, “Apostolate” and “Ministry” have not been formally defined to complete satisfaction, in a review of several official Church documents it becomes clear that the words do have specific applications. We can note especially that the Vatican II documents (see especially Apostolicam Actuositatem, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity) exclusively used the term “Apostolate” to apply to the work of the laity in carrying out the mission of the Church in the world. The word “minister” and “ministry”, in fact, has both historically and, as emphasized in Vatican II only applied to those who have received Holy Orders.

Reply to Objection 1: It would seem that the term “Apostolate” has a wider application. “Every activity of the Mystical Body with this in view goes by the name of “apostolate”; the Church exercises it through all its members, though in various ways.” (2) However, throughout history, the term “ministry” has been restricted to apply only to the activities that flow from Holy Orders in the sacred actions of word and sacrament. Vatican II, as well was very specific in its use of “ministry” as applicable to the work of the Ordained Ministers, and the term “Apostolate” to the work of the laity, especially as it applies in the world. Apostilicam Actuositatem emphasized especially the right and duty of the Catholic faithful to carry out apostolic activity in the Church’s work of sanctifying the world. “From the fact of their union with Christ the head flows the laymen’s right and duty to be apostles. Inserted as they are in the Mystical Body of Christ by baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit in Confirmation, it is by the Lord himself that they are assigned to the apostolate.” (3) It would seem, therefore, that the term “Ministry” applies properly to the Ministerial Priesthood which is granted specifically through Holy Orders, and the term “Apostolate” applies to the Lay Faithful which is granted and nourished by Baptism and Confirmation.

Reply to Objection 2: The use of the term “minister” has been reserved for the ministerial priesthood; that is, those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders and have taken on the character of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The work of the priest, that is, his ministry, flows from that sacramental character to minister to the people of God in exercising the offices of Priest, Prophet, and King. The 1983 Code of Canon Law extended the privilege of admitting some of the laity to participate in certain liturgical or catechetical offices. This work of the laity in those offices, however, flows not from Holy Orders itself, but out of their own foundation in Baptism and Confirmation, and granted only through the commission of a Priest or a Bishop. Those of the laity who participate in the work of the Priest in the work that does not absolutely require Clergy, such as in liturgical positions (Cantor, Lector, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion) have an extraordinary character; it is a privilege, not a right and it has limited scope.

In Christifideles laici, John Paul II discussed the fact that although the 1983 Code of Canon Law allowed for lay persons to exercise certain ministries normally belonging to clergy, “…the exercise of such tasks does not make the lay faithful pastors: in fact a person is not a minister simply in performing a task, but through sacramental ordination. Only the Sacrament of Orders gives the ordained minister a particular participation in the office of Christ…” (4)

It would be totally inappropriate for one who serves as a Lector, for example to refer to himself as a “Minister”. It is proper in that case, however, for him to understand that he participates in ministry. Likewise, the teaching office of the Church which flows through Holy Orders may be carried out, through commission, by the laity. In this case, it would be proper for the lay people who do the work of catechesis, that is, handing on the Faith, to recognize that their work is a ministry which is a participation in the ministry of the Priesthood. However, a catechist is not a minister; but rather, enjoys a participation in the ministry.

Reply to Objection 3: Certainly it can be observed that the Clergy participates also in Apostolate, and in some cases, the Lay Faithful are granted the privilege of participating in the Ministry of the Priesthood. However, this does not make the terms mutually exclusive or inclusive, which is why the distinction in terms is clearly necessary. Christifideles laici revealed that in the Synod Assembly, there was a critical judgment voiced regarding a too-indiscriminate use of the word “ministry”. This over-use caused “…the confusion and equating of the common priesthood and the ministerial priesthood, the lack of observance of ecclesiastical laws and norms…the tendency towards a ‘clericalization’ of the lay faithful and risk of creating…an ecclesial structure of parallel service to that founded on the Sacrament of Holy Orders.” (5) As stated above, in the replies to the first and second objections, the use of terms in Objection 3 are founded upon a lack of definition of terms and thus a misunderstanding of the character belonging to each term and inherent mission indicated by it. To properly distinguish “ministry” and “apostolate” is truly revelatory of the mission of the Church and the complimentary roles and charisms that belong to both clergy and laity from within their specific areas of responsibility. The Church cannot exist without the Lay Apostolate; nor can the Lay Apostolate exist without the Ministry of the Priesthood.

----------------


ENDNOTES:

1. Address of John Paul II, April 22, 1994
2. Apostolicam Actuositatem, 2
3. ibid, 3
4. Christifideles laici, 23
5. ibid.


Note:  This was a paper written for Pastoral Theology in May, 2010.

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.

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?

:-) 

How Many Times in One Day Can I Receive Holy Communion?

I’ve often heard this question, whether it was addressed to someone on Catholic radio, to a parish priest, or even from volunteers in a parish. I've repeated to people what I'd heard through credible sources, although I've since learned that SOME of those sources were wrong. (Stop looking so shocked. Catholic apologists, whether lay or clergy, are human, too!)

In Canon Law class last month, we addressed this very query, but with a proper foundation in reading the law.

Can. 18 states, “Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.”

A “strict interpretation” is reading the law to the very letter. Not reading into it and placing things there that are simply not present.

So let’s look at Canon 917, which addresses how many times in one day one can receive Holy Communion:

Can. 917: “A person who has already received the Most Holy Eucharist can receive it a second time on the same day only within the eucharistic celebration in which the person participates, without prejudice to the prescript of Can. 921.”

(As an FYI, Can. 921 s 2 addresses Viaticum and reads: “Even if they have been nourished by holy communion on the same day, however those in danger of death are strongly urged to receive communion again”)

Objection 1: I heard someone on the radio state that Holy Communion can only be received twice if the Mass is a different type of Mass, i.e. the first one is a Daily Mass, the second a Wedding. Or a Wedding early in the day and then the Sunday Vigil Mass later. Therefore, one could not receive communion the second time if they went to two daily Masses.

Objection 2: That means that if someone has already received Holy Communion, and goes to Mass again later, but is late and misses the first reading, they are prohibited from receiving a second time.

ON THE CONTRARY: These objections are a perfect example of reading something into the Law that isn’t there.

REPLY TO OBJECTION 1: I answer that: Canon Law states only that the second reception must take place within the Eucharistic celebration in which the person participates. That could be another daily Mass, it could be a wedding, a funeral, a second Sunday Mass. Canon Law does not give a distinction.

Thus we must strictly read and adhere to the law, and what it actually says, remembering Canon 18. As it would be a restriction of a right to tell someone that they can receive only at a second Mass celebrated for a different purpose, Canon 18 applies. In light of Canon 18, reading Canon 917 to the letter, we see that the ONLY requirement (outside of the Sacrament of the Sick) is that the second reception of Holy Communion requires participation in a Eucharistic celebration.

REPLY TO OBJECTION 2: Canon Law does not say that the person cannot receive if they are late; only that they must participate. If the person arrives late and participates to the degree possible, there is no reason, under Canon Law, why they would not be able to receive if they otherwise have the proper disposition. However, there may be another Church document outside of Canon Law that would address this issue. I will simply state that if we read Canon 917, it does not address lateness, only participation. We cannot read into the Law something that simply is not addressed within it. As "participation" is not defined, it is not a part of the decision as to whether someone can or cannot receive Holy Communion a second time if they arrive late to the eucharistic celebration.

The purpose of Canon Law is not to govern every small thing that people do, and should not and cannot be used to find out things such as how late one can be to Mass before receiving Holy Communion. If you or someone you know wants to justify arriving late to Mass at any point, you will NOT find that justification in Canon Law, either.

***** NOTE: The word "participation" does not mean "doing stuff" like serving as an Extraordinary Minister, or Lector, or Usher. That is a complete misreading of the term. ALL of us, when we attend Mass or some other "Eucharistic celebration" are participating by being engaged with the prayers, knowing what is going on, actively listening and paying attention, etc.

The Saints often used the term "Assist at Holy Mass." They weren't running all over the Church "doing stuff", but rather, were in the pews, standing, sitting, kneeling, praying. The word these days, instead of "assist" has become "participate", and means the same thing now as it did when the Saints referred to it.

Thus, the word "participation" in Canon 917 should be understood to be Mass attendance.

*****

Note: Canon Law is not interpreted in a vacuum, but also in light of moral law. A lot of people have questions about "how late is late" in order for their Mass attendance to be considered "full participation." Well, that question isn't answered in Canon Law as it belongs to a larger issue. Why are you late? On purpose? Habitually? Habitually on purpose? Because you got a flat tire en route and were delayed? Some priests I know say you should hear the first reading and on, others have said for certain to be present for the Gospel. All would say that you can't just show up for Mass at Communion time and receive. That is an abuse, just as is receiving and immediately departing. So...look to moral law for that question, look to a properly formed conscience.

****

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.

Summa: The Defects of the Mystical Body of Christ

Research note from Adoro: I found another cutting from the Summa Theologica, one of the pieces found with the Q. Documents. Amazing that it addresses so many of the questions we find today. If you would like to see the other cuttings I've found, check this link and scroll down. It addresses such questions as Blessing Beer and meeting people over the Internet...which truly flummoxed the one making objections. In any case...here is St. Thomas Aquina's answer as to the hypocritical nature of those who faithfully attend Mass. I've found it to be very timely and enlightening.

Article 1: On the Nature of the Defective Nature of Mass-Goers

Objection 1: It would seem that those who attend Mass are hypocrites. They go to Mass on Sunday and throughout the rest of the week, they're complete jerks. They don't practice what they preach. They're holier-than-thou and I don't like them.

Objection 2: Further, I can worship God on my own, in private. Because in scripture it states in Mt 6:6: "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you. " Therefore, it is better to pray on one's own than it is to risk offending the Father by praying in the sight of others.

Objection 3: My Protestant friends don't go to church on Sunday and they say they're Saved. So it doesn't make sense that Catholics have to go to Mass especially considering they're jerks anyway and I'd rather go hunting or to hockey than spend time with those jerks.

On the contrary: It is clear that the Church as the Mystical Body arose out of the side of Christ after His death on the cross, and made her beginnings on Pentecost. For just as the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary so that Christ would be conceived, so the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Apostles as they were in community, in order to give life to the Mystical Body. As Christ died in public humiliation, so the Church enters into communion through first public acknowledgment of our own sins in the Penitential Rite. The People of God had always had a community; our faith arises out of the community of our Jewish brothers and sisters, preserving the Law which was fulfilled in Christ, written in the New Testament, and carried out today through Apostolic Tradition and Scripture.

I answer that, it is fitting that hypocritical sinners come together in common to acknowledge guilt and learn to become holy, that Christ did not intend solitary worship, and that basing one's spirituality upon heretical ideals and personal preferences makes one a bigger hypocrite that those who actually admit they are not perfect human beings and are seeking to do better through the assistance of their likewise less-than-perfect pewmates.

Reply to Objection 1: Mass, and the Church as a whole, made up of the Magisterium, the Priests, the Laity, assigned to parish communities throughout cities and towns and dioceses and archdioceses throughout the world, was brought into being in order to save sinners. As it says in Mt 9: 10-13: " While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples.11 The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 12 He heard this and said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. 13 Go and learn the meaning of the words, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' 10 I did not come to call the righteous but sinners." Thus, it would seem that if those attending Mass are hypocrites and jerks the rest of the week, then they are in exactly the right place. You should join them unless you're already one of the righteous. Because if you are, Christ didn't come for you and doesn't love the righteous anywhere near as much as He loves sinners and hypocrites.

Reply to Objection 2: Certainly one can and should worship God on one's own. Such is holy and good, however is not sufficient in and of itself. Christ called His people into a community, began the Church in a community, and through Baptism, completed in Confirmation, one is made a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. Each is called into this kind of communion. All have gifts to contribute to the whole, and when one member is suffering, the entire Body suffers in union. When one member is lost, all are lessened by that loss. Further, all souls are lacking in virtue and obtain those virtues by way of others, especially in enduring their failings. By refusing to endure the failings of other jerks, one fails to rise out of one's own sinful mire of self-righteousness.

Reply to Objection 3: It is a poverty to cite theology lacking in logic, and even further, to cite the heretical ideas of the "Reform" era which arose from demonically-influenced "theology" and the minimalist philosophy of Ockham whose ideas nearly single-handedly with Luther (his follower) lead to the socialist welfare system still in place today. The idea that one is "saved" while still committing sin is a seriously flawed way to dismiss oneself from the mortal sin of intentionally skipping Mass. Especially when the Protestant doctrine cited both does not understand what the Mass is (or they would not continue to protest) and that their man-made doctrine of salvation is flawed even to the cited philosophical foundations of their ideal. Thus, just because a Protestant does something does not mean that Catholics are held to that low bar. In fact....as we have been given much, we have much more to give, and owe a greater debt of gratitude to the God who comes to us each day through Holy Mass and through the Sacraments. As the Protestants do not have these gifts, they cannot understand why we MUST attend Mass, and the great benefit of enduring the jerkiness of others in order to be drawn closer to Our Crucified Lord.

I further answer that, to cite personal preference and the unsavoriness of other churchgoers as a reason to skip Mass reveals the foundational sin of Pride and is an outright denial of the need of a personal Lord and Savior. To knowingly choose hockey or hunting over Mass is akin to choosing Eternal Damnation.

What Does Ambition Seek?

Today in class our professor lectured on St. Augustine's Confessions, so throughout course of the day, my attention was drawn to certain passages. (whether they were a part of the lecture or not!) As often happens in class, I was struck several times by what he said and by the words that were in the text. And as usual, my mind went off to its own fields of observation.

"For pride imitates loftiness of mind, hwile you are the one God, highest above all things. What does ambition seek, except honor and glory, while you alone are to be honored above all else and are glorious forever?"

It is this passage that defines my very state in life right now, and which, ironically (or not so ironically when one considers the mystery of God in one's life), came up yesterday in conversation with a friend.

A couple years ago I lamented that I was stuck; I was in a job I hated, a career that was going nowhere. When I'd begun I saw a career path in front of me, I "knew" where I was going, and was excited that my background was going to propel me into a very successful future. It wasn't a future I'd originally forseen for myself, but it was one that seemed to arise from God's Divine Providence. But over time, the job wore on me, roadblocks went up, and the "shiny future" no longer looked like something I wanted. In fact, I saw it for what it was, and realized that I would not find happiness there.

But I didn't want to go back to the careers of my background, and in any case, I'd shut the doors that would have lead back to them, for I'd realized that they weren't a source of happiness. In fact, they were quite literally dead ends. Unfortunately, my time in that job I had begun to hate, also effectively prevented my return to any possible routes, for I'd been out of my degree field and original areas of experience for too long; I had rendered myself obsolete.

I'd unknowingly comitted professional suicide.

I was stuck. I couldn't move forward, I couldn't move laterally, every day was making me realize that my future had an Axe in it and not a promotion, and basically...the only thing I really had was God.

That's how I met Him face-to-face, so to speak, I think. That's the crisis that drew me to Him; I didn't know who I was, where I was going, or who I was supposed to be. In fact, I was on my knees in what I saw as the ashes of my life, once again. But let's face it; that's the BEST way to learn who we are and where we really belong. That's what made me start asking the right questions, redefine "happiness" according to a proper standard, and subsequently understand that life isn't about what we do...it's about who we are called to be.

One of my biggest laments was that all through high school and college I'd been very DRIVEN towards my career goals. I knew what I'd come from and what I desperately was trying to escape, I knew what I wanted to do, I knew I had a future, and I thought I was in control of it. And sure enough, everything I touched turned to gold: doors opened, gates parted, and my dreams (really quite humble ones, if glorious in my eyes) were on the verge of being realized. And really, they WERE realized.

Unfortunately, they lost their sheen, and like the Prodigal Son, I, the Prodigal Daughter, found myself eating muck and begging for my bread.

It's been a repetetive pattern in my life, but it was the last manifestation that was finally definitive; each crash was really a new ascent. A new purification. Each disaster, I now see, was bringing me closer to God.

To be perfectly honest, while my goals were truly humble in this world as I did not desire fame or political power or anything like that, I WAS still ambitious, and that ambition was truly a way of seeking glory for myself. I wasn't doing anything for God or out of love for God; everything I did was centered upon myself and what I wanted and what I thought I needed.

In short, it was my quite unholy opinion that I thought the world revolved around me, and whenever it didn't, I became upset and demanded that such "injustice" should change.

No, I never truly realized that this was my position, and I never voiced such an idea; in fact, I abhored the thought! All of us realize, rationally, that the world does not revolve around us, but when we get to the depths of our wounded souls, we have to face the fact that, if we are not living in reference to the Sacrifice of the Cross, then we are living for ourselves. With that kind of flawed philosophy, the only truth is that we make ourselves the center of the world.

We will never find happiness if we define ourselves according to our own scales, for we can ONLY know ourselves through knowing others, and we can only discover who we are called to be if we are willing to embrace the Mystery of the Cross - and in fact, let the blood of the Cross be mingled with our own blood and sweat.

Yesterday, in speaking with a friend, I revealed to her that I still don't know my future. I'm no longer in the job that made me so miserable, but the position I'm in now is definitely not my "calling". I do recognize a certain Call in my co-workers, which they are fulfilling beautifully. They are enthusiastic and passionate, and God's hand is on them. Myself...I'm there, I'm taking up space, I'm doing the best I can and I'm learning a lot, but it's not my future. It's a waystation, another purification, but have no fear; it is developing virtues and skills I'd not have in any other way. And it's building relationships that draw me further out of myself, refusing to take me out of the shadow of the Cross. I'm at peace, knowing there's a reason for where I am, and I do truly love the people with whom I work and those I am serving.

A New Future?

I don't see a future for myself, not when I consider my life according to career or material, worldly goals. "Future" is a word that's not really in my vocabulary anymore, for it's an irrelevant term. In fact, when it comes to my material future, I "foresee" disaster only. But it doesn't matter. God has taught me how to re-define my priorities, and even though I still battle with myself in self-love and glory-seeking ambition, it's not what defines me any more. My identity is no longer tied to what I do to pay my bills, but rather, it's in my identity in Christ.

I'm learning to live with reference to God, to know myself through loving others, and to look to the Cross for the answers of my deepest questions.

St. Augustine, one of my dearest and longest-suffering Patrons, really hit the nail on the head in the quote I used, and I love him even more for his honesty. His words still condemn me, but they also reveal, in hindsight, the spiritual journey my life has taken thus far, and remind me to continuously look to honor and glorify God in all things.

As long as we remember that, our own ambitions can be put into their proper place, in deference to God's own will, for He desires only our good, which cannot be separated from the good of the salvation of others.

It's a lesson I'd suffer again to learn...and probably will.

St. Augustine, pray for us!

Beer and St. Thomas Aquinas

Father Schnippel has posted a wonderful blessing for beer. Yes, beer. Mmmmmmmm...beeeeer. But the Thomist in me wonders...is a beer blessing... um...kosher? Can beer be blessed? So, since this blog is in need of levity, humor, and wit, and something for the geek, too, well, I've researched and researched and have discovered this little-known clip of the Summa Theologica that apparently was left on the editing-room floor. It was found near one of the quashed records from the early Church that proved the authorship of the Gospels (in addition to the writings of the Early Church Fathers), so, given the state of modern "Catholic" scholarship today, it's no surprise that we don't often hear of the ancient blessing of beer. So, without further ado, here's a little artifact for all you Thomists out there; let your soul be refreshed...and let temperance be your guide!


Whether the blessing of beer is proper and can be justified?

Objection 1. It would seem that the impropriety of blessing the intoxicating liquid commonly called "beer" should be obvious to one and all who aspire to living a life of sanctity. As beer can be quickly intoxicating and thus eliminate the inhibitions of properly-sober persons, the action of "blessing" the beer would seem to give license not only to intoxication, but also to limited mental faculties that lead one into sin.

Objection 2: Further, blessing beer creates a temptation and an occasion of sin. When sober, a man has the use of full reason consistent with his intellectual capacity, however, the use of beer can diminish what reason he possesses. In the diminishment of reason, one may determine that something otherwise considered to be sinful would in fact be pleasent and "good", and thus, the beer would have lead said person down a path away from reason and towards sin. Such a thing is a temptation and thus the blessing can be termed to be "an occasion of sin."

Objection 3: Further, beer is a beverage not consumed at holy events, but in bars, backyard barbecues, and keg parties for the sake of imbibing great quantities for the intended purpose of intoxication. It should not be imbibed at all, and other intoxicating liquids should also be avoided for one trying to live a life in God's grace.

Objection 4: It is scandalous to the faithful to bless beer.

On the contrary, It is written (Jn 2:3) "When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine'". Even further, it is written in reference to the 30-gallon jars meant for ritual purification, that they be filled to the brim. In this, the first miracle of Jesus (Jn 2:7), Jesus changed that water into wine for the feast, and He provided a quantity fit to intoxicate a crowd of their own volition. Thus we see that although the scriptures mention abundant wine, they do not mention beer.

I answer that, beer was not an ingredient of celebration in biblical times, however that does not imply that the invention of it is ungodly, only different but similar in effects to the predecessor which was wine.

Reply to Objection 1: Good beer was created from earthly ingredients freely given by God for this purpose. Good beer was created from especially tasty elements and was designed not for embarassing consumption but to be sipped in fellowship and enjoyed as with a good wine. The intoxicating properties are limited through the virtue of the one who consumes the beverage. Beer consumed in proper amounts does not inhibit the life of sanctity.

Reply to Objection 2: As in the reply to Objection 1, although beer can be a temptation to sin by some, it is not a temptation to sin for all. I further answer that food can be a temptation for some, but that does not inhibit our need to ask God to bless our food. To argue that beer cannot be blessed because it may be a temptation and occasion for sin is fallacious; for that point to be true, those who are tempted to gluttony must not have their meals blessed, if they eat at all! Thus, blessing beer does not enter one into an occasion of sin.

Reply to Objection 3: I answer that beer is also consumed at fine meals and at family events, taken with food, and limited in quantity. Just as wine with dinner is not automatically drunk to intoxication, thus is beer. Beer is no different from wine in this regard. To argue against blessing beer is to argue against allowing wine to be blessed with the meal. Jesus himself consumed wine at Passover and had beer been created, he would likewise have consumed beer. Yet we do not read of Christ and his Apostles drinking to intoxication at the Last Supper.

Reply to Objection 4: It would seem that it is NOT scandalous to bless beer. As we also bless food and consume it, thus we must also bless beer to be consumed with the food, for its elements too, are gifts from God, as are our friends and family. It must be observed that the blessing must call to mind right use of those gifts, which further enables us to focus on the virtues of temperence and charity, while unblessed food or beer could lead us to treat those gifts and ourselves callously. Thus, we see that the blessing of beer would not only be spiritually advantageous, but could, in fact, draw one into a closer union with God through the increased virtue inspired by the blessing. Especially if the blessing is stated in Latin.

Further, the only thing that would cause the blessing to be scandalous would be if the priest blessed the beer and then refused access to the rest of the present faithful.