Faith in God, Faith in the Church

Bright Maidens Topic: To Counsel the Doubtful

Bright Maidens facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/BrightMaidens

            There were times in the past when I disagreed (or thought I disagreed) with certain teachings of the Catholic Church (or, what I incorrectly perceived the teachings to be).  I can now identify at least two issues that were the main sources of my apparent disagreement, and I suspect that there are many people in a similar circumstance.  It is probably not too inaccurate to say, as Fulton Sheen has said, "There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church.  There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church - which is, of course, quite a different thing" (1).

            My disagreements with Church teaching were, I later recognized, differences in opinion which came out of two underlying situations.  The first situation was a lack of catechesis and correct understanding of the basis of Church teachings.  If someone pressed the topic with me, I likely would have admitted at least that it was something that I had simply not been taught.  In fact, I did exactly that, with the attitude that it was not my fault.  What I failed to recognize at the time, but eventually came to realize during my faith conversion was this: As true as it is that my past lack of catechesis had been no fault of my own, that fact does not and will not excuse me from the responsibility of seeking to learn and understand the truth on my own.  Further, if I am to continue calling myself a Catholic, I must only do so if the truth I am seeking is that of Jesus Christ, as revealed to us by His Church.

            The second situation, which I did not fully understand prior to coming back to the Church, was that in disagreeing as I did with those teachings, I was exhibiting a somewhat general lack of faith in the Church itself.  To explain this reasoning, I propose that a disagreement with a teaching of the Church about "topic X" may often stem from a denial of the Church's authority to speak about "topic X" to begin with.  Since we believe that the Church's authority stems from Jesus Christ Himself, to say that the Church does not have the authority to teach on matters of faith and of morality is to say that the Church does not possess the Truth of Jesus Christ.  If we do believe that the Church is what it says it is, “If one holds the church capable, under the guidance of the Spirit, of declaring her belief on a specific point, it follows that assent to such a declaration might require abandonment of a contrary personal opinion” (2).  This does not mean that to believe in the teachings of the Church is to have no right to a personal opinion.  Belief in the Church does, however, call for acts of faith, humility, and obedience concerning Catholic teachings.

            What I have learned along the way is that Church teachings about individual topics cannot be separated from the bigger picture from which they are deducted. In order to understand such topics, we must first understand the Church itself.  That bigger picture is not just what the Church decides to think about particular topics; it is the Church's rendition of Divine Revelation, history, and natural law.  Understanding all of these things is not always easy for us.  It can be very difficult without having faith that the Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, as she reveals to us the Truth of Jesus Christ.  To have this faith, we can be aided by humility in the face of a teaching that may be difficult for us to understand at first, and trust that the Church's statements, must have infinitely more knowledge and experience behind them than our short lifetime on earth has yet or even will.  As we strive to understand what the Church teaches us, our faith and humility will hopefully lead to obedient behavior.  It is based on that same humble trust that faithfully recognizes in the Church infinite wisdom beyond our own comprehension. 

 

Notes:

1. Fulton Sheen, Preface to Radio Replies Volume 1, Catholic Apologetics Online: Radio Replies. http://www.radioreplies.info/vol-1-preface.php  (accessed March 9, 2012).

2. Michael Ivens, S.J. , Understanding the Spiritual Exercises, (Trowbridge, Wiltshire: Cromwell Press, 1998), 260    

[found on Google books]

3. See note 1.

Update: I posted an afterthought to this post here: Look for the Church

Excuse Me Sir, You Look Like a Sinner

Bright Maidens topic: To Admonish the Sinner

Bright Maidens facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/BrightMaidens 

I am always amused at one of the last scenes in Guys and Dolls, when the gambler Sky Masterson has managed to force a dozen or so of his fellow gamblers to attend a prayer meeting at the local save-a-soul mission by winning their souls in a dice game.  The leader of the mission looks out at the riff-raff gathered in her mission and announces in delight, “I have rarely attended a meeting in any of our branches which could boast of so many evil-looking sinners.”  She might just as easily have been addressing a college fraternity, Las Vegas, or the United States Congress.

Admonishing the sinner is never easy and it is a duty that many shy away from.  We do not want the sneers, the accusations of intolerance, narrow-mindedness, judgmental behavior or other assaults that come our way.  Even the Catholic Church herself often seems to try to avoid this duty, when she hesitates to invoke Canon 915, which bans public figures from the Holy Eucharist, who profess themselves Catholic even when they live in a state of fornication or who publicly advocate abortion.  And, of course, when was the last time any of us saw a good excommunication?

There are several reasons why admonishing the sinner is difficult, and a couple that it is downright dangerous.  First, it is hard to tell a person that they are sinning when they do not believe in sin.  If one asked an average college student, for instance, if they believed in objective morality, that student would almost certainly reply that objective morality does not exist because different cultures and people have thought different things.  Passing the disastrous lapse in logic by—obviously that a person does not believe in a thing is not evidence that it does not exist—the consequence of this is that such a person can hardly believe in sin.  How can it be wrong to break a law if one does not exist?  If there are no rules, then one cannot violate the rules.  

Second, people do not like being told that they are sinners.  I am the same way.  When my wife complains about my driving, my first reaction is to say, “I know,” or “Yes dear, I did indeed see that enormous truck about to plow into us, I was just making sure that you did.”  Many people are too convinced of their own unique specialness; many in our generation and later generations have been told that they are ever so special from youth.  This hardly invites a person to consider their own sinfulness. 

Third, many today do not believe in the devil.  Believing in sin is much easier when one believes in a father (by way of imitation not creation) of sin.  Today, however, we hear little about the devil even from the pulpit.  And a presidential candidate can be dismissed by the popular media as unfit for office because he believes that the devil is attacking America.  

Next, admonishing the sinner can be downright dangerous.  A person could become angry.  One could forever ruin a relationship with a family member by refusing to attend her re-marriage ceremony to a divorced man.  It can be dangerous for other reasons, including to our own spiritual welfare; this is perhaps the greatest danger.  In admonishing the sinner, a person might forget that he is one himself.  He might find himself the sort of hypocrite of whom Our Lord said “many will say to me “Lord, Lord,” who will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”  Or else, “remove the splinter first from your own eye...”  To this I suggest the following caution, that the only person who is a good Catholic, is the one who knows that he is a bad Catholic.  

Nonetheless, to admonish the sinner is our moral duty, to God and to the sinner himself.  We are all responsible for each other’s salvation.  “Go and make disciples of all nations...”  To shy back from this duty is like the woman who refuses to confront her husband’s alcoholism because of the fear of the immediate inconvenience to her, or immediate discomfort to her husband.  Yet, there is no alternative.  Admonish the sinner and while doing so, “remember man that thou art dust,”  and “go and sin no more.”

Evangelization

Bright Maidens topic: To Instruct the Ignorant

Bright Maidens facebook link: https://www.facebook.com/BrightMaidens 

Along with the Pastoral Council at my parish, I have been reading a book by Fr. Robert S. Rivers, entitled From Maintenance to Mission. In this book he explains that as Catholics we are called by our Baptism not only to be disciples of Christ, but to be disciple-makers, and to evangelize. Beginning to understand what exactly is meant by the terms "disciple-maker," and "evangelization," is the first step to being able to actually be a disciple-maker and to personally evangelize. I would like to reflect on a few things that I have been learning from Fr. Rivers's book, and some steps toward evangelization.

One very important thing that Fr. Rivers addresses is what evangelization is not. The concept of evangelism is often confused with the ideology that many public evangelizers seek to spread, and clarification is often needed to remove the act of evangelization from the stereotypical context that is often attached to it. "Fundamentalism and evangelism are not the same thing," explains Rivers, "...Fundamentalism is a narrow and incomplete understanding of scripture... Evangelism, on the other hand, is a real and vital element of the Christian faith." (1) Even with the understanding that we ought not to confuse the act of evangelization with the subject matter being evangelized, we may still be intimidated by the idea of having to evangelize.

When thinking about the idea of evangelization, we may be nervous at first about what exactly it involves doing. We may be hesitant to begin talking about our faith life, our personal beliefs, or our conversion journey if it is not something we are used to. We may wonder how much it requires knowing and fear being asked a question that we cannot answer. We may think that we ought to be experts about our faith in order to effectively share it at all. Contrary to all of these fears, and among the things that I most enjoyed learning from this book, is how simple evangelization can actually be for an individual person. Fr. Rivers explains that in order to be a disciple-maker, you do not need to be an apologist, and you do not need to have all the answers, but gives the simple criterion that, "A disciple-maker always invites and is always willing to be a companion on the journey" and the assurance that "our concern is not success but fidelity to the task" (2).

 

The task itself may seem intimidating at first, but can be easily broken down into smaller ideas. A recent post on the Women of Grace blog shared seven evangelization pointers given by Timothy Cardinal Dolan (3). I have summarized them here, so do refer to the WOG post cited below:

1. Keep the quest for God alive ... even those who boast of their secularism have an innate longing for the divine.

2. “Be not afraid.” Be confident in our message, which comes from Jesus Christ, but do not believe that our work is done and we have triumphed.

3. The new evangelization is not about presenting a doctrine or belief-system, but a Person, whose name is Jesus. We should evangelize "not a something, but a Someone,” Dolan said.

4. Because Jesus is the Truth, evangelization is linked to catechesis.

5. Be joyful evangelizers. “The New Evangelization is accomplished with a smile, not a frown!” he said.

7. Martryrdom. All Christians are called to be ready to suffer and die for Jesus. “It was Pope Paul VI who noted wisely that people today learn more from ‘witness than from words,’ and the supreme witness is martyrdom. Sadly, today we have martyrs in abundance.”

 

What I take away from both Fr. Rivers's book and Cardinal Dolan's pointers is that evangelization is something that we can begin to do in our everyday life, if we simply make ourselves open to the possibility. It can begin as simply as talking about how much you enjoyed the Sunday liturgy if you are asked on Monday morning how your weekend was, or mentioning how much you are looking forward to Easter, now that it Lent is here. We can be willing to share why we believe what we do as Catholics and why it is important to us. We can try our best to answer another's questions and also be willing to help find the answers that we may not have, both for the other person's as well as our own fulfillment. Evangelizing does not require expertise, it only requires willingness to share, with the goal that eventually sharing our religious life may eventually become for us as easy as sharing other aspects of our lives that we already do freely share.

1. Robert S. Rivers, CSP, From Maintenance to Mission: Evangelization and Revitalization of the Parish, (New York: Paulist Press, 2005), 46.

2. Ibid., 58-59.

3. "Cardinal Dolan’s 7-Point Evangelization Plan," Women of Grace Blog, February 20, 2012, (accessed February 25, 2012) http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=12625

The Paradox Surrounding Conception

“This is the paradox of America’s unborn. No life is so desperately sought after, so hungrily desired, so carefully nurtured. And yet no life is so legally unprotected, and so frequently destroyed.”

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat 1/3/11 (1)
.

This quotation is a pretty concise observation of what is so very disturbing about the attitude of mainstream culture toward the conception of human life. In mainstream society we observe not only a rejection of the sanctity of human life, but also a rejection of the sanctity of the covenant of marriage (which in turn causes a distortion of sexuality’s proper context as well as a degradation of the value of the family) and most of all, a rejection of God.
 .

Rejecting God inherently becomes a rejection of at least some aspect of human dignity. Fulton Sheen has said, “…a person is a person only when seen in an image of God” (2). If God does not exist, then man cannot possess His image. The connection between sexuality and the sanctity of life exists because of that image of God, the imago Dei, which we all not only possess but are also called to uphold in our own lives (3). The revelation of the imago Dei, as Anderson and Granados explain in Called to Love, begins in the family (4). The basis of the family is the covenant of marriage, which itself is the vocation to having a family. What has been happening in recent decades though, has been the separation of sexuality from marriage, and the rejection of God from human love.
 .

Mainstream culture has become a culture of using our bodies to suit personal desire, especially where sexuality and conception are concerned. The way conception is viewed in society is often very distorted by personal desire, and that desire is usually toward one of two extremes. The more obvious extreme is the view of the conception of children as a burden to be avoided, in favor of engaging in non-marital and contracepted sex (A previous topic of mine). At the other extreme, the mindset seems quite the opposite. Once a couple has decided that they want to conceive children, they may develop a sense of entitlement that they believe allows them to pursue conception as an instrinsic right and by any means necessary (or desired). The general attitude seems to view the conception (or contraception) of children as some sort commodity, which can merely be either acquired or rejected upon desire. It is insisted that children are something that can be avoided at will through an abuse of sexuality, and also insisted that children may also be produced at will by an imitation of sexual function. Thus, medical science has developed a myriad of technologies that offer us both the ability to falsify the correct reproductive aspects of our bodies, and to imitate the biological function of sexuality.
.

I have been casually following a series of articles on NPR entitled “Making Babies: 21^st Century Families” (Found here). The articles are about various situations surrounding the use of IVF. These articles show a human sexuality that is becoming increasingly consumerized, an attitude partly permitted by advances in technology. The scenarios show the mindset that conception is primarily something for parents to procure for themselves. These behaviors are not symbolic of how God calls us to love, but are a sign of the misunderstanding of His call, which results in a distortion of the means of following it. Marriage is the vocation to family, and it is right that married couples should wish to become parents. The problem arises when the means by which they try to fulfill that vocation becomes an inappropriate one. IVF is immoral is not just because it is something artificial, but because of what it is specifically an artificial simulation of. It is an artificial simulation of the very means by which a husband and wife are called within their love to be co-creators with God of the human person (which bears the imago Dei).
.

The "cafeteria style" set of sexual ethics that has developed is based upon want, desire, gratification, selfishness, use, and most of all, subjectivity. People are quick to take from sexuality whichever of its single aspects that suits their purposes at the moment, but are strikingly hesitant to recognize sexuality as the whole of all its facets and to accept it in its proper context: as a physical expression of the vows of matrimony, being together “free, total, faithful and fruitful” (5).

Notes:

(1) A good quotation printed in one of the parish bulletins for "Respect Life Month." I tried, but can’t find the actual article.

(2) Fulton Sheen. Three to Get Married. (New York: Scepter Publishers, 1996), 7

(3) Cf. The explanation of the imago Dei: the imago Dei includes not only the image of God, but also the likeness. The “likeness” is the dynamic part of the imago Dei, which man is called to continuously perfect: “man is born as God’s image, but he has to complete the imago Dei through his free yes to God.”

Carl Anderson and Jose Granados. Called to Love: Approaching John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. (New York: Doubleday, 2009), 85.

(4) ibid., 86.

(5) Christopher West. Theology of the Body for Beginners. (West Chester, PA: Ascension Press, 2009), 89.

The Light of the “Dark” Ages, the Dark of the “Enlightened” Age

William Manchester’s book, A World Lit only by Fire, well exemplifies the general modern attitude to the “Dark” Middle Ages. The Dark Ages represented only a brief and regrettable period in the world’s inevitable march to change, progress, and the Enlightenment of the modern world. Under influence of the light of reason, modern man learned, or at least believed he learned, that God was dead, that man was only a cosmic accident (or according to Loren Eiseley, a cosmic orphan) in a random universe. Enlightened as he became, he cast off the chains of traditional morality and his silly, quaint ideas of good and evil. He learned to be tolerant, that truth and ethics were relative, and that what was true for him need not be true for someone else. The history of his most enlightened century, the twentieth, showed the effects of these beliefs, with two world wars, several genocides, rampant abortion, and its use in culling the weak from society by killing unborn children likely to be handicapped later in life. If this is the world lit by the sun of science and progress, one cannot but wonder at the darkness of a world “lit only by fire.”

When one asks why the Middle Ages were dark, one is typically told of their dreariness, of the fasts and vigils, the fire and brimstone, the intolerance, oppression of the human spirit all combined with narrow dogmatism of a faith unenlightened by science and reason.

Yet, when I look at the Medieval Christian world, I find that this picture is simply not true. As Chesterton said, the modern world was right to go by the facts, it was simply not considering the facts. Turning to the Middle Ages, I found a world lit, maybe by fire, but it was fire of a certain kind. I found a world of epic and romance, troubadours, tales, religion and ritual, chivalry, soaring cathedrals, faith, and reason. In brief, I find the world of Sts. Francis and Thomas Aquinas. In Francis, one had the fasts and vigils, but also a joy and gaiety almost too big for the world to hold. But the world could hold it, because it was a bigger world. Moderns, little understanding Francis, will insist on seeing him as a proto nature worshiper, and his Christianity as little more than an unfortunate and unnecessary tag-on. But in reality he loved the world because to him it was a sign-book of the love of its Maker. It was a larger world. A tree was not only a tree, but something that showed the spiritual value of suffering (since when pruned, it grew back even better the next year). Likewise to St. Patrick, a clover was not just a cover, but a sign of the Trinity, while to thousands of medieval preachers, sex was not only sex, but a sign of Christ’s union with His Church.

In Thomas Aquinas too, one sees the fasts and vigils, but also a mind thoroughly willing to consider the most modern science and philosophy. Willing to tell the conservatives that they need not fear reason, to tell the liberals that they need not fear faith, and to tell them both with a courtesy and reason with which they could hardly argue.

The modern secular humanist boasts of his love of humanity, but St. Francis really loved humanity. He embraced both the poor and the leper and all men who came to him. The modern secular humanist boasts of being on the side of science and reason (at least until science and reason are no longer on his side ). Thomas really was on the side of science and reason, but he was on the side of something else too. Like Francis, Bonaventure, Dominic, and others he saw the world as lit by a kind of fire, the same fire that lit him. That was the love of his divine master, for love of whom Francis was permitted to receive his wounds, and for love of whom, Aquinas, when offered by his Lord a reward for his writings, replied only, “I will have Thyself.” That was the world of medieval Christianity; it is the world Christianity today offers, if only we are enough “lit by fire” to see it.