Monday, December 31, 2012

Virtual-itis: Part One




VIRTUAL-ITIS:  A Socratic Dialogue with a Modern Christian. 
The dialogue takes place during sleep, in a dream.
                                                        
        Only the soul can experience an absence that is  presence, an emptiness that is  filling, a longing that is an enjoying.  Such an experience occurs when the soul awakens and comes alive in the remembrance of Selfless Love.  Today this experience is more and more absent to us and as a result our hungers have no meaning.  We fill ourselves obliviously with empty data, factoids, and bytes.  Diversions, distractions, multiply like virtual loaves. Only in the silent, empty desert will the Mystery of Selfless Love once again dazzle us.
                                                
Voice: Why do you sleep so fitfully? What bothers you?
Modern Christian:  What? Who are you? Am I dreaming?
V:  You may call me Socrates. I was sent to help you know yourself better. Yes, you are dreaming, but the dream is real, more so than the daytime hours you spend walking around in a fog.
MC: How can I be sure? Maybe I am having a nightmare, or going crazy. 
 V: You are already driving yourself crazy. Yourwhole life is a nightmare of worry and anxiety. Do not be afraid of me. You have nothing to lose and much to gain. Tell me: what is bothering you?
MC:  Well, I am having a hard time making decisions.  I can’t sort out my thoughts and feelings and come to a conclusion.   One day one thing seems good to me, the next day something else. Why can’t I be as sure of myself as I used to be?  
V: You may have a common yet unrecognized virus that infects much of the world's population,  a virus called  “virtual-itis.” This is a sickness that comes from a loss of contact with reality. How serious the sickness is depends on how far removed you are from reality. May I ask you some questions? I need to see how badly this virus affects you.  
MC:   What harm can it do?. Ask away. What would you like to know?  
V: Does your mind feel like a cargo crate or like your stomach?
MC:  I don’t understand.  My mind doesn't feel like anything. Not like a cargo crate, not like my stomach. What are you getting at?  
V:  A cargo crate can be empty or full. But it is indifferent to both emptiness and fullness.  It is neither happy nor unhappy over what is placed in it.  Like a cargo crate, your stomach can be empty. But the stomach knows it is empty.  That’s why you feel hungry!  So the stomach is not indifferent to being empty.  Nor is the stomach indifferent to what gets put in it.  It wants tasty food that nourishes it, food that contains the vitamins, minerals, carbs, and proteins which the rest of the body needs.  And after it gets that stuff, the stomach knows what to do with it.  It knows how to break it down and what to send where.  The stomach finds satisfaction in fullness and frustration in emptiness. 
MC. Okay, okay, enough already!  I see what you mean. But I thought the mind was like a blank slate. Isn't that  how the mind works, something like a slate on which you write information?  I thought being a brainy, knowledgeable person meant you had gathered up a lot of information and knew how to use the information to get what you wanted.
V:  That would reduce the brain pretty much to a computer memory bank.  But the brain is more  like a smart cat playing with a ball of string. The cat pokes it, rolls it, runs around it, pounces on it, backs off and leaves it there,then jumps on it again. Of course, if it is a mouse or a canary instead of a ball of string, when the cat is finished playing with it, he finally eats it.  That’s the way the mind works. It plays with an idea, looks at it from one angle and then another, compares it to this and that. The mind questions and pokes the idea and rolls it around before deciding whether or not to leave it be or eat it. Sometimes the mind will swallow it.  And once your mind swallows the idea, it also knows what to do with it.  
MC: Sorry, you are losing me.  What are you getting at? 
V:  Just as the stomach cannot use any old thing we put into it, the mind is meant to take in truth. The hunger of the mind is for truth. The mind is nourished by truth, not just by information or data or factoids.  Today we seem to have forgotten that a mind cannot be healthy without truth. We think just having a crate full of data is enough to fill us. 
MC:  I see what you're saying.  What food is to the stomach,  truth is  to the mind.  How about this: two people discussing an idea are like your two cats, playing with a ball, rolling it around, back and forth to one another. Isn't that a good image for two persons having a discussion or a brainstorming session or even a debate? As they toss the idea around they clarify it, see it differently, and maybe help it acquire depth they didn’t know was there before.   That’s what you mean by the mind being like a playful curious cat, and not just a blank slate, right? 
V: Yes.  You do begin to see!  Healthy people have that kind of mind that is inquisitive, searching, and hungry for truth. They are interested in learning more and more about the truth they already know.  Unhealthy people have a mind like a crate or slate, they don’t care what is inside or written on it, nor have a sense of what to do with what they have inside. The truth to them is just a lot of data or information.  You, on the other hand, may get healthy by talking to me. 
MC. By healthy or unhealthy I presume you are referring to this virus you are talking about?  Virtual-itis?  
V. Yes.   A crate type mind is one symptom of the disease.  Another is a spectator mentality.  That means you...
MC. Wait a minute! I don't buy everything you have said. It is your opinion, and you have a right to it. But I see things a different way. I have a different value system. You don't have any right to impose your way of seeing on me. I am free to see things the way I want therm to be.
V. No you are not. You are free to accept reality or deny it. But once you deny reality, you separate yourself from truth and start living by self deception.
MC. This conversation is over! Go away! Sneak into my head some other day. I don't want to play mind games with you any more right now.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Pope Benedict: The Coming of Christ to us

Christ...is the living Torah, 
God's gift to us, 
in whom we receive all the wisdom of God.
In being united to Christ, in the 'co-journey' and the 'co-life' with Him,
we ourselves learn to be upright men, we receive the wisdom that is truth, 
we know how to live and die, 
because He is the Life and the Truth...

In early Christianity, it was like this: being free from the shadow
of groping along in ignorance- 
What am I ?
Why am I?
How should I move forward?-
being made free, 
being in the light, 
in the fullness of the truth. 
This was the fundamental awareness, 
a gratitude that radiated around and united people in the Church of Jesus Christ...

No one can say"I have the truth"- this is the objection raised- and rightly so,
 no one can have the truth. 
It is the truth that possesses us, 
it is a living thing! 
We do not possess it but are held by it.
Only if we allow ourselves to be guided and moved by the truth, 
do we remain in it. 
Only if we are, with it and in it, pilgrims of truth, 
then is it in us and for us.

 From Pope Benedict's Mass homily on September 2, 2012, Mariopoli Center, Castel Gandolfo

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Mystery in Relationship with Us

"The Most Holy Trinity is relationship.
Grace is relationship.
The Church is relationship.
Priesthood is relationship. 
Consecrated Life is relationship. 
Marriage and Family Life is relationship. 
Education is relationship. 
Formation is relationship." 


The Sign
I  first saw the above quotation hanging on a wall in the administration building of Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut. The wall-hanging was meant to embody the "raison d'etre" of the place, the reason why the seminary exists, its goal, purpose, rationale, philosophy, theology, spirituality, methodology, and anything else that could be said about an institution whose purpose is to train men for the priesthood. I read it through the first time, simply because it was something to do as I was  waiting for 10:00 am to arrive so my meeting would begin. Then I read it a second time, more slowly and attentively, because the first reading had started working on me, working in me, waking me up to ramifications and implications. So I sat down and thought about it a bit, until I got distracted by people passing by and nodding a greeting to me.  Next the meeting took place, and an hour or so later, I drove back home, forgetting about the sign till it sprang up in my mind later in the afternoon. I knew I wanted a copy, and the friend I had met with soon emailed it to me. It has been the basis for reflection ever since.

What is it a sign of?
In general, of our involvement with Mystery, of Mystery's involvement with us,  as well as the Mystery of our involvement with each other. How Mystery sustains us, connects us, interrelates us, moves us, inspires us, works in us, purifies us, teaches us,  helps us grow, etc. It is a sign of the coherence and meaning all things have because of Mystery, and of how that meaningful coherence would be unrecognized and unexpressed except through the unique creature that each one of us human beings is,  and how even through us Mystery remains always greater than whatever meaningful coherence we get a glimpse of.

Why is everything reduced to "relationship" in the quotation?
"Reduced" is the wrong verb to use.  It would be better to say "open to". Relationship is not reductive nor limited in meaning even though our understanding of relationship  is.  For example,"reduction" would be the right term to use in talking about relationship if we make the mistake of thinking our intelligence is the measure of relationship. This would be an example of rationalism, a misuse of reason that limits its reach.

 Relationship is so open,  elastic and expansive that it unites God and all of creation, heaven and earth, time and eternity. For us, for God, for all creation, to be is to be with. Relationship is the heart of everything. It pertains to Father, Son and Holy Spirit; to Creator and creature; to time and eternity; to matter and spirit; to the Sacraments that make us one with God and one another in Christ; to family life and consecrated life; to any and everything that is. The initiative of relationship come from  Mystery, as well as the grace and freedom in us to say "yes" to the initiative. One of the marvels of relationship with God is we have the freedom to say yes or no to it.

Mystery is always in right relationship with us. It would be impossible for Mystery not to be in right relationship with us, since our very being depends upon it. From our side,  relationship with Mystery can go wrong in an infinite number of  ways, while there is only one way of it being right. How can that be? Can Mystery be in right relationship with us even while we are in wrong relationship with It? How is it possible for us to be in wrong relationship with It? By finding ways to say "no" while Mystery mercifully continues to say "yes".


An old Scholastic adage helps me to understand relationship  a bit:"Receptum in recipiente segundum modum recipientis,"which in English comes across as: What is received (the receptum) is in the receiver (in recipiente) according to the mode of the receiver (segundum modum recipientis). What we have of Mystery in us depends on our capability of receiving It. That capability is built into us, and is itself received, as is our very being.  In a sense that capability is our whole being as well as a part of our being. I didn't start myself up or bring myself into being. My existence was given me, and is given me at present as well. My being and everything in it is constituted by my relationship with Mystery. Even that, however,  is an inadequate way of expressing the way things are.

Why? It is true, isn't it? 
Yes. But it is "more" truth is than I am able to intuit, consciously experience, or fully comprehend.  Why? Because I am not the measure of Mystery. Can a painting comprehend the painter, a symphony its composer, or a statue its sculptor?  No. Each is an expression of its maker, but there is more to the maker than a particular expression. No creature can ever be the measure of the Creator. As creatures, we can only be something of an image and likeness, since that is what is given us to be. Yet Christ is both the painter and he  who jumps into his painting, the author who becomes a character in his book, the potter who becomes clay he molds. Relationship with Mystery is present, yet inexplicable, unforeseen and unforeseeable, unfathomable in its gratuitousness..
 Since it is my nature to be created, at every moment of my being I have to be held in being by Mystery. I am not self sustaining. If I were, I would not be a creature, one whose being is out of nothingness and who has no ground of being except Mystery. At root, I am only because Mystery is. The question for me is not Hamlet's famous "To be or not to be", since I inescapably am. Rather, the question is how I choose to be.

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Flannery O'Connor: on Mystery and the Educated Mind

"The type of mind that can understand good fiction is not necessarily the educated mind, but is at all times the kind of mind that is willing to have its sense of mystery deepened by contact with reality, and its sense of reality deepened by its contact with mystery."  Flannery O'Connor

I came across that quote some time ago as I was reading Heather King's blog, Shirt of Fire. My face lit up  with delight and the thought ran through my mind: I have to put that in my blog. It sounds just like something Giussani would say. I don't know if Fr. Giussani ever read Flannery, but I'm sure he would have loved her if he did. They both have the type of mind that sees reality in relationship to mystery, and mystery in relationship to reality. It must come from life long practice, because it sure isn't an ego skill like being a professional writer or theologian or a teacher, but a faith virtue that is ingrained in disciples by  following their Master. Since Christ Himself is the right relationship between all of reality and the Mystery of  God His Father,  and since Christ lives that relationship in our human flesh,  our following Him in faith gives us in the correct perspective towards God and man. 


Friday, December 7, 2012

Prayer: Sainthood for Fr. Giussani

O Merciful Father, we thank You for having given your Church and the world the Servant of God, Fr. Luigi Giussani. He, with his life lived with passion, taught us to know and love Jesus Christ present here and now, to ask Him with humble certainty that "the beginning of every day be a yes to the Lord who embraces us and makes fruitful the soil of our heart for the accomplishment of His work in the world, which is the victory over death and evil."

 Grant, O Father, through the intercession of Fr. Giussani, according to your will, the grace we implore, in the hope that he will soon be numbered among your saints.

 Through Christ, our Lord. Amen

                                                                                                            Veni Sancte Spiritus. 
                                                                                                             Veni per Mariam

Friday, November 30, 2012

For the Fun of It: Multi-tasking

Multi-tasking is:

1) a necessity if I am to accomplish all that has to be done,

 2) a great way to burn up calories and nervous energy, 

3) a convenient way to avoid focusing consciously on what God wants me to deal with,

4) a way to dodge the promptings of grace and do my own will instead, 

5) great technique to appear useful, important and creative to myself and others while aimlessly running around in circles and accomplishing nothing; 

6) a way of not letting myself sit and see consciously what is bubbling in my subconscious;

7) what is demanded by modern life if we are to survive its hectic pace;

8) what Martha does so that Christ will be impressed with her, and what Mary does not do because she is impressed with him;

9) what I do to avoid the challenge of honesty, intimacy, and openness with another human being;

10) all or any of the above in any combination you like.

11) Multi-tasking is......(please add your own clarifications and contradictions)

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Faith Home-Schooling

Faith Homeschooling is not simply one fact of life among many, but the fact of life, the basic building block on which all education rests.  I wish there were a more satisfying verb to use instead of homeschooling, but home-educating,  or home-teaching don't fit. Nor do the expressions home-catechizing, or teaching religion at home. Why not? Home–educating or home-teaching do not carry the serious import that schooling carries. Schooling is foundational, while teaching and educating carry a temporary nuance with them. The same is true of home-catechizing, or teaching religion at home. Another problem with catechizing and teaching religion: both imply that Faith Formation is separate from other subjects that are taught. I can't find a better way to express it: there is nothing more important, more foundational  than the faith home schooling children receive from parents during their early years.  

Every mother is called to be a teacher and school her children at home by virtue of being a mother. The same is true of every father.  What they teach, and how well they fulfill or fail their call will be a decisive factor in the lives of their children.

 We all enter the world the most helpless of animals. From birth, we are naked and defenseless. Nature provides us hands with fingers, feet with toes, mouth and tongue, and intellect with reason, but these and our other organs take a long time to develop. It will be years before we reach a small degree of self mastery, and more years still before we are able to master the world around us to some degree. Left to ourselves at birth, with nothing more than what nature gives us, none of us could survive.

 Our parents act as our eyes, hands, tongue and reason during our early years.  It is fair to say that our birthing process does not reach its end until and unless mom and dad train and teach us what to do, say, think, and feel, long before any formal teaching of subjects begins. Through Baptism, in the case of believing, practicing Catholics, parents become the very eyes hands, mouth and intellect of the Mystical Body for their children. The spiritual formation in Faith, Hope and Love which parents give children is meant to condition and transform every other subject they teach.   This Faith formation of children is not something more, or something extra, added on to an otherwise “normal” education.  Rather, it is the lens we give our children to look through in studying everything else.  This matters more than anything else our parents give us during the years before we start “school” subjects at home, or enter a school system. Why? Because Faith home schooling begins the process of a mysterious coherence of all that is learned in our young (and later mature) minds. Without the Mysteries of Faith as the foundation for the rest of our learning, knowing reduces itself to a gathering and manipulation of data in order to gain some desired end. Given the ends aimed at by the public school system, and the difficulties of providing proper Catholic or private schooling for children, any responsible parents who can home school, should do so. In any case, all Catholics today need to consciously give a religious Faith formation to their children.

 Each mother is the first teacher of her child because she stands nearest to her child in the order of nature.  She molds and shapes her baby by the way she relates to the infant. The child literally is putty in her hands, receiving the stimulus she gives, reacting, and thus being shaped into the form she imposes. Homeschooling begins as soon as the infant is placed in mother’s arms. She is his home. This schooling is more important than the child’s right to food, shelter and clothing, because it will determine his character and therefore his future destiny.  The child begins to feel, to learn what to like and dislike, to “see”  what is good and bad, right and wrong, by everything the mother says and does with it. The child absorbs her moods, tone of voice, touch, feelings, etc., without realizing his mother is shaping his character and molding him into person he will grow into. This is why everything the mother says and does is of crucial importance. Her words and deeds are the lessons and curriculum which teach him the attitudes and habits that open or close him to future learning.

  We adults make a huge mistake if we think children are not in the habit of noticing things.  Not noticing is a habit of us adults who have become hardened in unconsciousness. Like sponges, children soak up everything.  They miss nothing of what is going on around them. They do not start out in the same world we grown-ups live in, even though they end up there by the way we form them. This is why what the habits they learn, consciously and unconsciously, before they can read, write, and reason are most important.  

A child will not be capable of virtue as an adult, or of leading a life according to reason, if the hunger for what is good and true and beautiful is not planted in him long before he sets foot in any school building. A child has to have right habits instilled in him long before he can act on his own account.  What habits he acquires in his early years will depend mainly on the habits and thinking of his mother, father, and the other persons he grows up with.

 Most parents will say they want their children to “have a good life”, or to “be happy”. When asked what a good life is, or what happiness is, they are not always very articulate.  Yet, their attitudes about goodness and happiness are being transmitted to their children all the time.

 A child sees what gives mommy pleasure, what makes her cry, what she likes and dislikes, what she fights for, what she lets go of, what she rejoices in, and what she is afraid of.  He does much the same with daddy.  By imitation the child learns courage or cowardice, temperance or self indulgence, honesty or deceit, from the start of his life. This is how a child develops his heart’s ability to move towards, away from, or against all that life presents to him. Thus are his habitual attitudes and actions formed.  His lived experience with mother and father settles him into a basic feel for what happiness and the good life are. Suppose a child learns that a lie is a good way to avoid danger. He will probably tell the truth as long as it is convenient. But when the truth would expose some fault or failing of his, a lie would then be the best way out.  What is good in his mind is not the truth, but the deception that helps him avoid punishment. He has learned that deception is a good skill for him to master. He will then define goodness as being good at something, such as making money, programming a computer,  playing golf or cheating at cards. He will not know that he is deceiving himself and setting himself up for a life that will end in misery. Between the cradle and school, the home schooling he has received will predetermine what he turns out to be. The attitudes,  the movements of the heart,  that open or close him to what is good, true, and beautiful have already been formed in him.

Look at the basic concern of most people have, money.   Since money buys material possessions, and material possessions are necessary for life, it is easy for a child to get the message from his parents that life is all about making money, or that money is the way to happiness. They may, in fact tell him the exact opposite message verbally and say, “Money can’t buy happiness.”  Yet those words will not impact him if he sees that their hunger for money and possessions is the driving force or the organizing principle around which the whole of family life is set up. Again, what else will the child think if it is ingrained  in him that he should “study hard in school” so that he can “get a good job” when he grows up?  No matter what he learns, it is secondary, a means to making money.  What is good, true, beautiful, has no value in itself and is not worthy of pursuit. Only wealth has value. This is another way of giving the child the message that knowledge and truth are not important in themselves. Nor is loving what is right and good.  None of that matters much in comparison with being wealthy. That is the good life, the happy life: getting more and more money!

This is the conventional wisdom of the day, but there is no reason why any mother and father who love their children have to educate them in accordance with the way the majority of people think.  The common opinion is not necessarily the correct one. In spite of what others do, parents should not let their children play as they please,  or listen to whatever music happens to be popular at the moment,  look at whatever they like on TV, nor have unsupervised access and use of the internet. It would be a wise practice to read to the child instead of letting him watch cartoons on TV, and play games with him instead of letting him play video games on computer.

If good moral habits developed in us naturally as we grew physically, and if our minds and hearts had no difficulty in latching on to what is right and good and using it correctly, children would need no supervision or guidance. It would be fine to leave them to their own devices until they went to school to get an education. Since children have an innate desire to know but do not know the proper way to satisfy that desire, the duty of parents is to lead their children to the good habits that will enable them to do so. The habits will then become second nature to the children and enable them to go where their first nature, by itself, cannot.  Parents who do not perform this duty end up incapacitating their children for the very education they want them to acquire.

 Special attention needs to be paid to leisure, play and music in these early years.  Why these three things? Because they have a great deal of influence in moving a child’s heart, fashioning his habits,  and forming his character. Leisure and play are not the same, although most adults think of childhood as a time when the two are synonymous.  Many adults think that the best thing to do with a child is leave him alone so that he can use his leisure time to play at whatever he wants.  It is up to him if he wants to spend hours in front of the television viewing cartoons, letting one image after another deaden his imagination and at the same time excite his nervous system.  Listening to mother or daddy read to him would be infinitely more rewarding, because it would stimulate his imagination and develop his creativity.

 Nor should a child be left to listen to whatever music happens to be popular in the culture of the day. The more vulgar the music, the more disordered the cravings it will awaken in him. Good music awakens our hearts to joy, moves us towards lofty and noble sentiments, and leaves us in harmony. Bad music strengthens base passions, disorders our appetites, and leaves us unsettled.

Play can also have positive and negative effects.  It should not be confused with wasting time, entertainment or diversion. Play, even the most simple, should have a plan and purpose to it. It may seem like meaningless activity to the child, but his play with mommy and daddy leads him into the development of different skills. The child may not always grasp the rules and structures of the games his parents involve him in, but the discipline of repetition opens him to further creative development.  A game with no rules, or one where you make up the rules as you go along, leads to nowhere but boredom, frustration and anarchy. 

None of these observations are more than common sense.  As such, they risk being a needless   restatement of the obvious. But today the meaningless, irrelevant, and harmful multiplies and flourishes in most homes. Parents and children are tempted by more distractions than they have ever known.  Education is for the future. What kind of a future are we preparing our children to face? What kind of future are we making them capable of?  How are we influencing them to make use of their freedom in light of their eternal destiny? Our lives, our families, are more insecure and fragile than they have ever been. Realizing the enormity of the difficulties, many parents understandably prefer to avoid all attempts at education. (“Let the professionals do it”, they tell themselves!) Yet it is the main function of parenting. Buying their children more and more things will not substitute for the personal attention only they can give. Nor can they wait till the children get older and  then pass the task on to the professionals.  No school teachers can relieve them of their burden.

The education of our children before they reach the use of reason is a sacred responsibility that cannot be delegated. There is no way to avoid it. Once parents realize what they mean to a child during his early years, they are compelled to turn to the God who has gifted them with children and pray for His blessings on their efforts, and His mercies on their many failures.  Their many frustrations and inadequacies are the very material of their prayer that moves the heart of God. They should kneel and pray with their children daily. This act alone teaches more than any lesson can communicate. There is no other way for parents to fulfill the impossible task He has given them. “Suffer the little children to come unto Me,” Christ said. By prayer, parents make it possible for their children to approach the Lord here, and see His face hereafter.  Daily prayer with their children shows them that adults never stop being God’s little ones.


 

Monday, November 26, 2012

Karl Stern on Jesus Christ

        1.)   "Someone once remarked that you should try experimentally to live for one day as if the Gospel were true, even if you do not believe it. In the same way I invite you to think of the nature of Man if Christ had been God-Man and died for your and my salvation.The whole study of anthropology as conceived by philosophers and psychologists is at once deepened in a very peculiar way. It is as if a great, but albeit two-dimensional, picture received a third dimension and came to life. If, as Auden once remarked, it is the function of the poet to introduce order into chaos, then God is our poet."

        2.)   "Christianity teaches that the climax of human perfection is to love infinitely and to be able to be hated infinitely. This degree of maturity has been reached perhaps only once in human history, in the person of Jesus Christ."

The Pillar of Fire, Karl Stern, pp. 207- 8;  p. 249

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Life Online

 How do you view the World-Wide-Web? As another form of entertainment? 

No, a lot better than that,  and a lot worse tooThe Internet is much more seductive and addictive than TV, or movies or any form of entertainment. And  it is also much more open to both good and evil.



Why do you say that? 

Because of the extremes the Internet embraces, the good and bad uses of the Internet.  Look at Internet addiction, for example. TV is to Internet as marijuana is to heroin or cocaine. TV, the lesser or milder addiction,  prepares the way for the stronger and more overpowering. The Internet can get us so caught up in our own grandiosity that we become completely blind to how stuck we are on ourselves, and are totally convinced that we are very self giving and generous with all the people we are in touch with online. The Web easily becomes Ego-inflation under the guise of  self-donation. The self-deceit the Internet invites us to engage in is infinite in scope.



That sounds extreme and exaggerated. The Internet is only a tool that can be put to whatever use one wants to use it for. It's not evil in itself.  Like marijuana, for example: marijuana can be put to bad use, but it can be used for medicinal purposes too. 

We're saying the same thing. Anything good can be put to a bad use. And the bad use, the abuse, does not deny the goodness of the proper use. But the abuse of the Internet is more harmful than other abuses precisely because the Internet seems so benign as a tool. 


 What proof do you have that the Internet can be so good and so bad? 

Look at the evidence for yourself.  One example where you can find the data is on the Internet: look into the volume of porn sites, the variety of porn that is available nationally and internationally, plus the ever increasing amount of money spent on Internet porn. It is in the billions of dollars. Think of the money, hours, energy, lives wasted, both by the purveyors and the users. Incalculable. That's just one example of tremendous misuse. It is also possible to participate  in Twelve step programs on the Internet, which is certainly a good use,  to deal both with alcohol or sex addictions, but the participants are minuscule in proportion to those of us who are addicted.


Don't you read blogs, or news reports, or do research online? 

Yes. The Internet is a good tool for that. But, by its nature, the Internet encourages superficiality, not depth. 

But the intellectual work of the greatest minds is made available on or through the Internet! The Web is like a world library at your fingertips. That's not superficiality. 

It may be out there, but it is buried under mountains and mountains of  error, opinion, misinformation, half-truths, trivia and nonsense, so the wisdom of the ages is hardly at your fingertips. No search engine can perform the work of sorting out the fool's gold from the real thing. Search engines have no sense of value, no way to prioritize or measure worth.  You know the verse in the Gospel where Christ talks about a drag-net that collects all sorts of things, good and bad, and then the angels sort it out? That's not a bad image of the Internet, except we aren't angels when it comes to sorting out, and easily lose ourselves in enthusiasms that are self destructive. 


 Doesn't the Internet facilitate global communication? Isn't that a great boon?You can be in touch with people everywhere! 

Yes, but communication has many levels, levels of intimacy and trust, and takes time to develop. Some people actually do speak the truth  with love on the Internet.  But many of us are just narcissistic and exhibitionistic, instead of humbly and honestly communicating. I still cherish a hand written letter as the most thoughtful and honest communication, even though some blogs come close. Face to face conversation is next, telephone conversation is third, email is fourth, and texting doesn't even make my list. I hate cell phone chatter. It doesn't seem like real conversation, just constant wordiness without any real depth to it. I'm not saying that real communication doesn't take place on-line, just that the quantity of  the posing, posturing and spinning proliferates.


I bet you belong to Facebook or one of the other Internet social enclaves? 

 Yes, I like to see what like -minded people think, to stay in touch with people I don't see on a day by day basis, and to enjoy their perspectives.


Fine, but you already know what like -minded people think. 

True. But there is comfort in numbers, fun in the camaraderie, and strength in the mutual support..



Do you think true dialogue is possible on the Internet?  Only rarely. Exposure to opposing points of view certainly can take place. But genuine movement  towards truth? I think that requires a more personal setting. The Internet creates the illusion of intimacy, not the real thing.


       


Monday, November 12, 2012

Family Church is Church Family

Why do you say that to generate is not human generation if it does not generate a people?


Giussani: Procreation isn't truly human if it doesn't create a people in as much as generating one single  person, a principle of further generation is initiated. By its nature, a generation doesn't ever finish, it always expands, it's destined to always expand. And it is only the concept of family that "concludes" the generation; the generative idea is the concept of family. The family is, in miniature, a people. But if a family is closed in on itself, it is no longer a generator, even if it has nine children; to be a generator, a family must be open to the possibility that it communicates itself to others, that it creates other families. It might not create families; for example, two can be married without creating children, but they live their humanity in such a way that they communicate to other families in the block of houses something that makes the others have thoughts, feelings, gestures, that are more human: this is a dawn, a beginning of a new people.


Does the value of the Church lie in the particular Church or in the total Church?


Giussani:  Either it is in the total Church, or it is not in any Church. The particular Church does not have the value of Catholicity, of totality; it does not have the capacity to express a meaning of everything, because  being a particular Church, it exalts its particular aspects, its circumstances. Only the universal Church, that is, the Church as a unity around the Pope, only that is truly a culture that challenges the culture of the world...

The only universal claim that is fulfilled, fulfilled even among three who live in a little house, secluded, is the Church. Therefore a person who doesn't have a consciousness or a conception or a sense of that totality is not a part of a people, and is not the source of a people, is not a facilitating factor for bringing one to the reality of a people: this is adequately given only by faith.

Is It Possible  to Live This Way? Vol.2  Hope, pp. 140-141






Friday, November 2, 2012

Love: Human and Divine, Created and Creating

 Christian Smith: Love is relating to persons and things beyond the self in a way that involves the purposive action of extending and expending of oneself for the genuine good of others whether in friendship, families, communities, among strangers, or otherwise.

Mars Hill Audio Journal, vol 112, disc 1 track 2


David Schindler: Love is the basic act and order of things. Love is that which first brings each thing into existence, and that in, through, and for which, each thing continues in existence.

Mars Hill Audio Journal. vol 112 disc 1 track 3

 1.  Read both statements, not just for the idea or concept expressed, but asking that the truth they both express may grasp your heart. This means you, or I, as reader, is asking God for the grace to let what is being said penetrate us to the center of our being, our core, or heart of hearts. We are asking that our reading take place at the level of a prayer.
       
 2.The first statement sees love as a human act, something I or you do, our choice, an exercise of our free will. We are the source of the activity, the loving. We are in charge, so to speak. Love depends on our decision. To some degree, that's true. But none of us would be able to love if love were not done to us first.

3.  The first quotation would not be possible for us to enact without the second already being in place.
The second quotation sees love as what God is, or who God is, the Source and Origin of all that is. It calls to mind the Paul's words where he says in Acts "In him we live and move and have our being" (17:28). We have our being in him. We are rooted, or grounded in him. Not just that we are in his grasp like a child is in a parent's arms, but more than that, we we live and move in him, which means he lives and moves in us, much as branches live attached to a vine, or as the sap in a tree flows throughout the whole tree through all the branches. This is more than the soul, the breath of life, the soul God breathes into man.  It is grace,  the movement of the Spirit which energizes us. In him we live and move, because we have our being in him. He sustains us with or without our awareness of him, with or without our cooperation. Unlike a child who can squirm out of his parent's arms and run about, we cannot separate from him even when we deny we are in his arms.

4.The God who is the ground of our being, in whom we live and move, is present in us and through us whether we are aware of Him or not. He is closer to us than our pulse, our breath. He is much closer to us than we are to ourselves.

He, being Creative Love, is the stage on which the drama of our lives is acted out by us. We are somewhat like dancers who perform on the stage floor. We are concerned with our movements, appearance, performance and the applause we hope for, but take for granted the floor which make our dance possible.
Better yet,  God is the context, from which, and in which, we are making the choices that determine our destiny.
The second quotation brings the idea of order into love, which is something we usually do not associate with love. In God, I see love as self-giving: the Father generating the Son from all eternity by giving his own divine nature to the Son. The idea of order usually springs into my mind with the Son, the Logos. the intelligent/intelligible Mystery in whom and through whom all things are made. Surely the self gift of the Father includes the Infinite Wisdom that is in him, otherwise order would not be in the Logos. But my little pea-brain can only manage to handle one concept at a time.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Gerard Manley Hopkins: The War Within Us

                                              In Honor of 

                                    St. Alphonsus Rodriguez

                                   Laybrother of the Society of Jesus

Honour is flashed off exploit, so we say;
And those strokes once that gashed flesh or galled shield
Should tongue that time now, trumpet now that field, 
And on the fighter, forge his glorious day.
On Christ they do and on the martyr may; 
But be the war within, the brand we wield 
Unseen, the heroic breast not outward-steeled, 
Earth hears no hurtle then from fiercest fray.
Yet God (that hews mountains and continent,
Earth, all,  out; who, with trickling increment,
Veins violets and tall trees makers more and more)
Could crown career with conquest while there went
Those years and years by of world without event
That in Majorca Alfonso watched the door.

 The Poems of Gerard Manley Hopkins,  (fourth edition) p. 106

( Question: How can a poet can evoke  so much more, in fewer words, than a philosopher, theologian, or psychologist who writes volume upon volume?)

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Cardinal Newman: Christ hidden and revealed in his disciples

       The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not” John 1:5               

 I say that Christ, the sinless Son of God, might be living now in the world as our next door neighbor, and perhaps we not find it out…

True Christians look just the same to the world as the great mass of what are called respectable people. But in their hearts they are very different. They make no great show. They go on in the same quiet ordinary way as the others, but they are really training to be saints in Heaven. They do all they can to change themselves, to become like God, to obey God, to discipline themselves, to renounce the world; but they do it in secret, both because God tells them to do so, and because they do not like it to be known. Moreover, there are a number of others between these two with more or less worldliness and more or less faith. Yet they all look about the same to common eyes, because true religion is a hidden thing in the heart: though it cannot exist without deeds, yet these for the most part are secret deeds, secret charities, secret prayers, secret self denials, secret struggles, secret victories…

 And yet, though we have no right to judge others, but must leave this to God, it is very certain that a really holy person, a true saint, though he looks like other people, still has a sort of secret power in him to attract others to himself who are like-minded. To influence all who have anything in them like him.  And thus it often becomes the test; whether we are like minded with the saints of God, whether they have an influence over us. And though we seldom have means of knowing at the time who are God’s own saints, yet when all is over we have; and then on looking back at the past, perhaps after they are dead and gone, if we knew them we may ask ourselves what power they had over us, whether they attracted us, influenced us, humbled us, whether they made our hearts burn within us. And alas! too often we shall find that we were close to them, had means of knowing them and knew them not, and that is a heavy condemnation upon us, indeed…

The holier a man is the less he is understood by the men of the world. All who have a spark of living faith will understand him in a measure.  The holier he is they will for the most part be attracted the more; but those who serve the world will be blind to him, scorn and dislike him, the holier he is….


Parochial and Plain Sermons, pp. 880-1

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Cardinal Newman: Trust in God

     1. "God was all complete, all blest in himself, but it was his will to create a world for his glory. He is almighty. He might have done everything for himself. But it has been his will to bring about his purposes through the beings he created. We are all created for his glory. We are created to do his will. I am created to do something or to be something for which no one else is created. I have a place in God's councils, in God's world which no one else has. And whether I be rich or poor, despised or esteemed by men, God knows me and calls me by my name.
     2. God has created me to do him some definite service. He has committed some work to me which he has not committed to anyone else. I have my mission. I may never know it in this life. But I will be told it in the next. Somehow I am necessary for his purposes. As necessary in my place, as an archangel is in his. If indeed I fail, he can raise another, as he could make the stones children of Abraham. Yet I have a part in this great work. I am a link in a chain,  a bond of connection between persons. He has not created me for nothing. I shall do good. I shall do his work. I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth, in my own place, while not even intending it, if only I keep his commandments and serve him in my calling. 
     3. Therefore I will trust him. Whatever, wherever I am, I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve him. In perplexity, my perplexity may serve him. My sickness, my perplexity or sorrow may be the necessary causes of some great end which is quite beyond us. But he does nothing in  vain. He may prolong my life, he may shorten it. He knows what he is about. He may take away my friends, throw me among strangers, he may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me, and still He knows what He is about.
       O Adonai, O Ruler of  Israel, O Thou that guidest Joseph like a flock; O Emmanuel, O Eternal Wisdom, I give myself to thee. I trust thee entirely. Thou are wiser than I, more loving to me than I am to myself. Deign to fulfill thy high purposes in me. Work in and through me. I am born to serve thee, to be thine to thy instrument. Let me be thy blind instrument.  I ask not to see, I ask not to know,  I ask only to be used."


The Works of Cardinal Newman, Meditations and Devotions, pp. 300 -302

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Cardinal Newman: On Trust and Abandonment

I believe, O my Savior, that you know just what is best for me. I believe you love me better than I love myself. That you are all wise in your providence, and all powerful in your protection. I am as ignorant as Peter was as to what is to happen to me in time to come. But I resign myself entirely to my ignorance and thank you with all my heart that you have taken me out of my own keeping. And instead of putting such a serious charge upon me, you have asked me to put myself into your hands. I ask nothing better than this, to be in your care and not in my own.

Cardinal Newman on "Providence and the Cross"

"Lord, we know not what is good for us

Or what is bad.

We can't foretell the future. Nor do we know when you come to visit us

 In what form you will come. 

Therefore we must leave it all to you. 

Do you, in your good pleasure, come to us, 

And be with us.

 Let us ever look upon you, 

And do you look upon us, and  

Give us the grace of your bitter cross and passion, 

And console us in your own way 

And at your own time."

I found this quotation among several others I had copied out from some edition of Cardinal Newman's works years ago. The note I had penciled to myself on the side said: Remember to pray this as a way to heal your egocentricity. It was good advice back then. It is good advice now.

Monday, October 22, 2012

Giussani on Friendship in Christ

    "The true companionship, meaning a constructive, creative factor of life, and therefore generator of beauty,  consolation, - repairing what falls down - a positive companionship in this sense can be born only from a friendship. Friendship is the virtue, the energy that constructs the companionship. This is why the Lord, wanting man to know Him, became man and this man generated a companionship. He became present here and now, in every moment of history, within a companionship. And if one claims to have a relationship with the mystery of God and leave out the companionship, and in particular, leave out the authority that guides it, one deceives oneself; it would be an illusion....

    "So what is friendship? Friendship in its minimal state, is the encounter of one person with another person whose destiny he or she desires more than his or her own life. I desire your destiny more than I desire my life.  The other reciprocates this and desires my destiny more than his or her life.  Friendship is like this, and the proof that this is true is that you'd want anyone you'd meet in the diversity of circumstances to understand this, so that everyone would embrace each other. Those who do not experience this must humbly ask the Lord and the Blessed Mother to make it understood to them, because without this, not even the relationship with God is true."


    Is It Possible to Live This Way?  Vol.1 Faith, pp.145, 146

Romano Guardini on Mystery

        "Science is the study of a subject

         by means of the method required by the subject, 

         not by means of some generally applicable method

         that undermines its specific character."




        So, by what method do we study God?

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Peter, James and John: Following Him

 Peter: Isn't it funny the way He called us?  "Follow me", He said, and the emphasis was on me! Like He was going to take us somewhere, somewhere we couldn't go on our own.

 John: Yes, but He had no doubt or question as to where He was going nor how to get there. Wherever it was, He would get us there.

James: Still, it's not really a journey, a trip, a going from one spot to another. He means it as a metaphor, right?

John: No! He definitely means it literally, as a real journey, but a life journey, a real journey through life from this world to the next.

Peter: So why didn't He make that clear from the beginning and say: Listen men, I want you all to join my group and spend your lives with me, here in the present and next in the hereafter? That's really what we're doing, living with him and moving around with him in the hope of getting to heaven, no?

John. No, it's more than joining his group and living together in order to get to heaven. What makes us a group, his group, is the following, the getting behind him, the imitating of him, the absorbing of his thoughts, his feelings, his ways,etc. A group united by following Him is what He wants us to be, not just a bunch of people on the way to heaven.

James: Is following the imitating, the learning from, catching from him what kind of persons we should be?

Peter: Maybe another way to put it is this: it's obeying him, doing what he says, not just putting it into our heads, but carrying it out, living it. That's the following He means.

John: Yes, it is both of those things. The imitating and the obeying shapes us into his followers. The following means keeping our eyes on Him, letting his words into us, letting the way He is and what He does shape us inside, change our thinking and feeling so we live more and more by his thinking and feeling, and make it our own, till we feel about one another the what He feels about us. This is the "group" aspect of following Him: his affection for us, not just individually or personally, but as a whole, as brothers.  He wants us to be more than individual persons who follow Him. He wants his feelings for us to shape us into a brotherhood. And that can only happen if we follow Him together.

 James. Why didn't He explain it to us like that in the beginning? Why did He invite us to follow him without  going into the details of what is involved? It's not fair. He should have spelled things out more.

John Why?  If He had explained everything more fully, would you have said yes?

Peter: I wouldn't have! Being with Him isn't so bad.  I like that part. But being with all of you all the time is what is hard to take.

James: I hope you don't think it is any easier for the rest of us to put up with you?! You're harder than anyone to put up with.

Peter: Why do you say that? At least I'm honest enough to say what I think! I don't keep my mouth shut and hide what I'm thinking like the rest of you.

James: Oh sure, you speak up, but you're just trying  to show us up! You want everyone to be impressed with how smart you are, but half the time what you say is really stupid!

John:  Cut it out! You two are getting off the track, arguing about how difficult it is for us to live with one another. That is the whole point of following Him: learning to live with one another because we follow Him.

Peter:What do you mean?

John: You were asking why He didn't explain in more detail  exactly what it mean for us to live in his company, to be with him day in and day out, right?

Peter: Yes.

John: Well, there is no way to explain that beforehand because it's a lived experience. It has to be lived and experienced before it can be understood and explained. Following Him means: learning how to love one another because we love Him,staying together and putting up with one another out of love for him, actually learning to see one another the way He sees us, letting our love for Him become the source of our love for one another. Because we all share the call to follow, we have to be brothers.

 James: You lost me. Why the emphasis on brotherhood?

Peter:  Me too. What has getting along with one another got to do with  following him? I can follow him even though I don't like everybody in the group.

 John: No, you can't. We can only be as close to Him as we are to one another, and as close to one another as we are to Him. Otherwise we're phony, pretending. He wants to be the bond between us. It is not a matter of acting nice and courteously with one another because He tells us we better get along, and so we do it. It is a matter of the love we have for Him overflowing into the love we have for one another. It's the same love because we share the same call. Our call is a companionship, a sharing, a brotherhood, in the same destiny.

James: Now I'm more confused than I was. What has destiny to do with it?

 Peter: That's right! And besides,  what about you and Him? You have a special relationship with Him, right? And so do I, right? And so does everyone else in the group. We are all individuals, aren't we? Our being called together doesn't do away with the fact that we are all different persons.

John: No, of course it doesn't. The call is personal, but it is also communal, a call for us separate persons to be brothers, and it's the following that makes us brothers, that shapes us in brotherhood. Following him together means that we learn to love one another so that the personal differences become the points of unity, not cause for distance and separation. Does that make sense to you two?

Peter: Let me think about it more.

James: Me too.

John: Look at it this way: Because He calls you and me, I want for you what He wants for you, and you want for me what He wants for me. He wants the same thing for all of us: union with Him, life with him, friendship with him, brotherhood. That's our destiny. It's the future, but it's the present too. We start living our destiny now, and the living of it is what makes it our destiny.The only way we achieve our destiny is by being brothers, and the only way we can be brothers is by following him. Right now we are only starting out, so we can't understand what we are supposed to be,  or the brotherhood He wants us to have, we have to grow into it step by step

James. Let me think about it.

Peter: Me too. Right now it is just words.


Thursday, October 11, 2012

Einstein: on Science and Religion

   1."In the temple of science are many mansions."

   2. "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."

   3. "There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle;  or you can live as if     everything is a miracle."

      Those statements  by Einstein amaze me, almost as much as the startling statements  Fr. Giussani comes out withf. The two are very different men, but have such great minds.They are open to, and in love with Mystery, and much in agreement with each other.
       Why do these three statements of Einstein attract my attention? The only way to find out is to start answering my own question and see what I come up with. Of course, the answers anyone ever gets depend in part on the questions one asks, and those questions probably depend on the way one's brain is wired. That said, my musings may not be what Einstein had in mind when he made his statements, but his words are worth pondering  over anyway.
      1. " In the temple of science"....a temple is God's dwelling place. Science is godlike in the minds of many scientists and people. They worship it. They place their faith in it. Yet this temple of science has many mansions, not  just one God dwelling therein. I presume Einstein is saying that each branch of science thinks of itself as its own authority, and maybe that its method sets the proper standard for "doing science" or that scientific doing is necessary for intelligent, well ordered living. Maybe one branch of science thinks it sets the standards for all the other branches?
            I think Einstein is poking fun at scientific arrogance and conceit. At whose arrogance and conceit in the concrete? At anyone dumb enough to make a god out of science, or attribute to science divine authority. That will include scientists and  us non-scientists, the laypeople, who think we are living smartly and scientifically. Who am I,  a non scientist, to criticize a whole field of endeavor I know next to nothing about?  No one special. But neither is the scientist who speaks his mind about God or religion any expert in that field. So I claim the same right to self expression he has, and I appeal to the great scientist Einstein to give some weight to my rambling.
        Shouldn't the scientific method be followed? Followed where? In thinking? In living? In teaching? Much depends on what the scientific method is, no? Surely, it should be followed within the scope of the science where it applies.Can anyone tell me what the scientific method is? Or what its limits are? That second question regarding limits is,  I think,  what the rest of  Einstein's quote implies: there "are many mansions." Each specific science has its proper place in the temple, where it is appreciated and valued, along with all the others. But none of them sits on the throne as god . Why? Because each science belongs to a particular field. How many sciences are there? How many different fields? I would bet that even scientists cannot answer that question. Is not the science of genetic engineering  a new beginning? Cloning was once science fiction. Now it is a legitimate field in its own right. One day it may be possible to create a servile work force, or  an aggressive warrior class, out of animal and computer parts. What would that science be called? What about the field of science that combines human, animal and computer parts, or just animal and human? No matter what the number of sciences is, that number would have to be qualified by the words "at the present time" or "up to now." Because another discovery would explode  into a new science.
        I think science has to narrowly focus its vision more and more to specialize, to study the microcosm, and find more and more in less and less. I think the scientist surprises himself by discovering the macrocosm in the microcosm. The increase in knowledge is a great boon, but also makes any attempt at a universal perspective more and more unattainable.It is a wonderful benefit to humanity that we discover new means of combating sickness and disease. But each new discovery  that improves life also complicates life, posing new questions as to how it should be used, what norms guide its usage, who sets the standards and applies the norms, or does anybody at all?
        The norms don't come from science itself, that's for sure. Scientist are capable of doing science, that's  also for sure. But of monitoring their own scientific field and the application of its  discoveries? That's NOT like leaving a child with his toys, telling him to go and play, and then chiding him for hurting himself, because the damage done when anyone runs amok with science's toys is  astronomical.
       Should governments and politicians should decide the norms that set the limits of science? Big business? Moralists? The press? The voters? The scientific method? The democratic process? Is there any way for science to answer the question? I bet Einstein would say no to all of the above.
               
      2. "Science without religion is lame"...Why? Lame means to be physically disabled, unable to walk as one would with two good legs. Why can't science walk without religion? It has no where to go, no direction to head in, nothing leading it, guiding it, nor propelling it. So how does it progress? It limps along like it always has, growing incrementally, accidentally, by providence that turns misfortune into a blessing, by inspiration, by blind luck, by stumbling on a breakthrough through a hunch,  instinct, or the "scientific method". What difference would religion make? Religion in what sense? How did Einstein mean the word?
       Religion meaning a sense of God behind it all, behind the universe, the Intelligence, the Mystery, behind the complexity, the order, the beauty, the wonder of all that is. I think this is the sense in which Einstein is using the word, "the religious sense", so to speak. He is not referring to any specific religion like Judaism, or Christianity or Islam, ( I do think he would  never be a polytheist).)
       How does this religious sense help science, and cure its "lameness"? It give science the right attitude with which to do its work, the attitude of wonder, which leads to gratitude and joy.  That's all, but that's a great deal. A scientist who is capable of wonder has his mind and heart open to Mystery, to receiving what Mystery is doing in creation, through creation, and with creation. Such a scientist can be in harmony with what beyond his mental grasp at the moment and be blessed with discovery. The know-ability, the intelligibility of creation is more accessible to such a man, because of the inner sympathy the man experiences with what he is studying.
       Religion without science is blind... meaning what, exactly? Religion can devolve into an empty form or a meaningless practice. Dogmatism means the Mystery is reduced to formulas. Ritualism, that religion is a matter of the correct actions and  precise words. Moralism, faith in God is seen as an ethical code or correct manners. Science, since it probes deeper and deeper into Creation, gives Religion an ever greater grasp of God's greatness, intelligence, goodness, wisdom, power, etc. A simple example may make the point more clearly. Early man was able to see the stars, and when able to count, probably numbered them at a few hundred. When, because of telescopes, man was able to see more and more of the sky above, he estimated the stars at a few thousand. As science progressed, galaxies were discovered that revealed a universe beyond imagination. The horizons of religion extend further and further into the infinite expanse of Mystery, giving man even more to wonder about and question, thanks to science. This happens with the macrocosm of the universe, and also in the case of the microcosm of the cell. Science opens man's eyes more and more widely the more broadly and minutely it explores creation.
      3. "There are two ways to live", Einstein says. Why only two? Why not loads of different ways, given man's infinite capacity for choice? Because all the variety reduces to one of the two at root: either there is a God behind it all,and that means everything is miraculous, even the natural is supernatural, or there is no God and therefore nothing is miraculous, and nothing matters. Matter does not matter. Science does not matter. There is no reason to get out of bed in the morning. No reason to do anything at all.
          Let's take the first alternative Einstein offers: "live as if nothing is a miracle". This reduces to living by instinct. Not by reason, but instinct.Why not by reason? Because reason has already been rendered unreasonable due to its elimination the supernatural. Whatever its use, reason becomes a function
of self preservation, ego enhancement and self aggrandizement. A lot of mental effort may go into that way of living, seemingly highly intelligent,  but for the mind to flourish,  it has to do more than function on the level of animal cunning. Reason feasts and fulfills itself when it goes beyond itself into the reality it cannot measure, Mystery.
        Look at the second alternative: live as if everything is miracle. Everything. Waking up in the morning. Breathing. Walking to the bathroom. Daydreaming while showering. The people you run into. The conversations at work. The work itself. The food you eat. Your friendships. The tiredness you feel at the end of the day. The sleep that restores you. The misunderstandings, disagreements, arguments and conflicts you have. The wounds you give and receive in relating to others. None of that could happen if there is not Mystery behind it all, in it all, sustaining it all, while each of us thinks we are each doing everything on our own. If all we are and do is not the gift of Mystery, including our freedom to do nothing and even to do evil, then there is no meaning to it all, no meaning at all. But awareness of the Mystery Present is the blessing that bubbles into joy, gratitude, appreciation, and peace, as well as humble, ongoing wonder which results in further illumination for  both science and religion.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Czeslaw Milosz: on belief and unbelief


       "A true opium for the people is a belief in nothingness after death - the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murder, we are not going to be judged."

       
       What a wonderful way of exposing the self deceit of atheism, or of some atheists, at least. "There is no pie in the sky after you die", they like to tell believers. "Faith is a false comfort".  But,"So is atheism", believers can reply: "You can give yourself permission to do whatever you want, without any fear of falling into the pit down below after you go. That's why you believe there is no hell to go to".
       Atheism is something to believe in, a faith, a doctrine, a justification for one's behavior, attitudes, philosophy of life, ambitions, dreams, etc.But it is in no way an equal alternative to intelligent faith in God. Atheism narrows the horizon to whatever the atheist decides to fit into his comfort zone, and excludes anything that would break that little world apart. Atheism is a plow horse with blinders on, focused on one thing only, plowing ahead at what he is driven to do, unable to let himself perceive the Beauty and Mystery that are around him.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Heather King Quote: Christ, beyond all labels

              "Christ... never performed magic trick miracles; he didn't pull rabbits out of a hat, or produce gold ingots...he never held the people up as sideshow freaks or floor models to show how great he was...

                "Christ subverted all worldly systems - political, familial, financial: not for the sake of being subversive, but because acting with utter integrity is automatically subversive. He was left of the furthest left and right of the furthest right, both radically liberal and radically conservative. In one breath he could say" Honor you father and your mother" (Mark 7:10) and in another, "Let the dead bury their own dead"(Luke 9:60).


  Magnificat,  p.61

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Merton: The Christ of the Burnt Men

           I hear You saying to me:

           "I will give you what you desire. I will lead you into solitude. I will lead you by the way you cannot possibly understand, because I want it to be the quickest way.
          "Therefore all things around you will be armed against you, to deny you, to hurt you, to give you pain, and therefore to reduce you to solitude.
           "Because of their enmity, you will soon be left alone. They will cast you out and forsake you and reject you and you will be alone. Everything that touches you will burn you, and you will draw your hand away in pain, until you have withdrawn yourself from all things. Then you will be all alone.
            "Everything that can be desired will sear you., and brand you with a cautery, and you will fly from it in pain, to be alone. Every created joy will only come to you as pain, and you will die to all joy, and be left alone. All the good things that other people love and desire and seek will come to you, but only as murderers to cut you off from the world and its occupations.
           "You will be praised and it will be like burning at the stake. You will be loved and it will murder your heart and drive you into the desert. 
             "You will have gifts and they will break you with their burden. you will have pleasures of prayer, and they will sicken you and you will fly from them.
              "And when you  have been praised a little and loved a little I will take away all your gifts and all your love and all your praise and you will be utterly forgotten and abandoned and you will be nothing. a dead thing, a rejection. And in that day you shall begin to possess the solitude you have so long desired. And your solitude will bear immense fruit in the souls of men you will never see on earth.
            "Do not ask when it will be or where it will be or how it will be.. On a mountain or in a prison, in a desert or in a concentration camp or in a hospital or at Gethsemani. It does not matter. So do not ask me because I am not going to tell you.  You will not know until you are in it. 
            "But you shall taste the true solitude of my anguish and my poverty and I shall lead you into the high places of my joy and you shall die in Me and find all things in My mercy which has created you for this end  and brought you from Prades to Bermuda to St. Antonin to Oakham to London to Cambridge to Rome to New York to Columbia to Corpus Cristi to St. Bonaventure to the Cistercian Abbey of the poor men who labor in Gethsemani:
           "That you may become the brother of God and learn to know the Christ of the burnt men."

                                  SIT FINIS LIBRI, NON FINIS QUAERENDI

Thomas Merton:  The Seven Storey Mountain,  pp  422, 3

         

Monday, September 17, 2012

A Tribute to my Bishop, by Fr. Joseph Maduka Ukwu

            The following remarks are an introduction to Fr. Joseph's tribute to Bishop Anthony, and explain its posting on my blog. If you are from Nigeria, skip the remarks and scroll down to the tribute. If not, reading the introduction may be helpful.
           It so happens Fr. Joe was in the middle of a visit here in the states when he received a phone call from Nigeria, telling him of  Bishop Anthony's death, and calling him home to help with the funeral perparations.
           Joe had time to speak at length about Bishop Anthony, and I was deeply impressed by how close he felt to his retired  Ordinary. I am used to the priest-bishop relationship we have here in the Northeast, so the deep friendship between Joe and his bishop came as a surprise to me. Another surprise was that bishops in Nigeria are addressed as "Your Lordship". I call my Ordinary "Archbishop", and when writing or addresing a letter, "Your Excellency". I don't think those terms are especially formal, nor overly familiar. I would probably choke, however, before I could call my bishop "Your Lordship".  Of course, the use of the terms is purely cultural. and in Joe's situation, his customary salutation would be as natural and normal as my saying  "Archbishop", or "Your Excellency" . Nonetheless, I was surprised that Joe could regard anybody he called "Your Lordship" as a friend and brother, indeed as a spiritual father. Titles do have a way of emphasizing difference and creating distance between persons.
          The first memory Joe shared was his confrontation with Bishop Anthony a few weeks after his ordination.The bishop had him running from one outpost to another, without any break in between. After doing this a few times, Joe was exhausted, especially when he saw that the other newly ordained in his class were getting much better treatment than he was. He didn't mind a tough assignment now and then, but as a permanent diet, well, it was more than he could stomach. He called the bishop's office to make an appointment, discussed his problem a bit with the priest in charge of the bishop's calender, and was given a time to come in. So, in he went, to have it out with the bishop about the unfair treatment he was receiving, protesting about the hardship and difficulty he was going through, only to be utterly disarmed by the bishop's response. That is the first encounter   Fr. Joe describes in his tribute.
         The term "Iroko" also calls for explanation. In English , the Iroko is called the Ironwood, or Teak wood Tree. It is a rich cultural symbol throughout Nigeria. In Joe's essay, the tree stands for a man of great stature, not so much because of physical strength or height, but because of his character and leadership ability.

            The Iroko has fallen! A rare gem is gone!

           You were a role model and a paragon of virtue for me, Most Rev. Dr. Anthony E Ilonu. My encounters with you taught me more than I can say. You exemplified humility. I remember the first time I took issue with you, how attentively and calmly you listened to all my frustrations and imagined injustices, and how gently you spoke to me when I was finally done venting my anger. You took the time to explain your reasoning  to me, step by step, and you ended by softly saying: "I sent you because I knew you were equal to the task." As I left you that day, somewhat embarrassed at my misjudgment, the priest who had advised me to express myself frankly told me: "Never argue with a man who has nothing to lose." If ever there was such a man, that man was you. You had nothing to hide, nothing to defend, no arrogance or pride, no Ego that you were trying to protect, no high opinion of yourself. Your humility totally disarmed me. You did not use your authority as a bishop, but brought yourself down to my level and explained things to me. 

          You taught me devotion to prayer. Most days, after you returned from the cathedral building site, I would see you with your breviary, moving up the path to the fountain, or praying the rosary. As you left on pastoral visits, your first point of call was the rectory chapel to say or complete your office.

          You were a hard worker. From the time you got the land to build the cathedral, you spent your time, energy, and creativity making that site take the shape it has today. I will never forget the day I went down with you, all the way down, to the  cathedral foundation, how we narrowly escaped death when the sandy wall caved in on us.

           In financial matters, regarding money and what it can buy, you taught me not to be attached to mammon.I learnt from you how to live a life of sacrifice, how to give of myself and what ever material goods I have for the good of others. Your simplicity still confounds my imagination. At the creation of Kafanchan diocese, your drove down to Kaduna, where John and I were studying communications, to visit and see your flock. You did not look for a bishop's residence, a convent, or a classy hotel where you could he comfortable during your stay, but came to rough it out with us in our cramped apartment.

          Your meekness was such that, no matter what the insult, slight or great, you controlled your emotions and kept calm. I will never forget one incident that took place in your office. I was rushing in to resolve an explosive situation and restore order, and you calmed me down saying, "Joe, Take it easy, handle it kindly". When there were confusion, doubt, or arguments on pastoral matters, you were always there to clarify the issues,  speak plainly and humbly, and settle matters peaceably. 

         You were creative in your pastoral zeal for your flock. You were a genuine pioneer in the way you began new parishes in the bush country and the hinterlands. Instead of imposing a building on the people that they were not ready for, yours was an organic, step by step approach that grew out of the development of the people's faith. Your creativity was criticized by many at first, but today it has been adopted by many dioceses in Nigeria, because it has borne lasting fruit. For ordinations to the priesthood, you went to local parishes, as well as to distant villages and outposts that were hard to reach because of the terrain, in order to bring the Gospel to the people. You did not sit back, fold your hands, and wait for the government to restore the Catholic schools and property it had confiscated in the civil war, rather you took action. You planned and built Nursery and Primary schools in all the parishes that could sustain them. You did the same with Secondary and Vocational Schools, putting them under the protection of Our Lady, and naming them "Queen of the Apostles" Secondary and Technical Schools.

          Your attachment to Mother Mary amazed me. Your zeal to build a magnificent cathedral dedicated to the Immaculate Conception kept a pledge made by our bishops during the civil unrest. They were slow in assisting you, yet you went ahead and fulfilled the promise they made to God  because of your devotion to Mary, and your own commitment to honor Her in the diocese.

          You were rushed to the hospital on your feast day, Your death came in the early hours of the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, just a day before the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.The timing is an eloquent testimony that Our Blessed Mother took you in her very hands and led you to her Son in heaven.

         My reflections on your life and my personal encounters with you make the meaning of your coat of arms clearer and clearer to me: "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis...". Not to us, O Lord, not to us. May all power, glory and honor be to You, O Lord! May it be our joy and glory to serve You as priests, serve You as Bishop Anthony did. May we learn from your life Pa Anthony, what it means to be a priest, father, brother, man of God, and disciple of Jesus Christ.

May your gentle soul rest in peace. Omeka Omaghizu jee nke oma. Oje na-nwayoo...Ijeomaooo.


             

             

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Part Six: Priesthood of the Future


   Beyond Clericalism
 What is the proper sense of self a priest should have in relating to other priests and to people? He should be a disciple focused on, and lost in, Jesus Christ. The priest “creates” himself, he forms his character, and he develops his personality in response to the Christ event. This response is what it means to live as a disciple. Clericalism made and makes it easier for priests to be churchmen only, rather than disciples, easier to be official functionaries than to follow the Master, easier to go through the motions, rituals, and activities, than to go through the continuing conversion required of us as “clay vessels” in Christ’s hands.   Clericalism makes it possible to reduce the Christ event to moralism, ritualism, legalism,  dogmatism, or to an ideology like any other, instead of a lived relationship to Christ in Faith, Hope, and Love. Clericalism promotes a codependent system whereby empty forms could become a substitute for the adventure of a real spiritual life.

Since every human being is a mystery, no one can ever claim to perfectly know or understand another. The” you” I know is the result of my perceptions of you, and my perceptions of you are largely dependent upon my perceptions of myself as well as how you impact me. Inevitably I will project onto you what is not there, but simply baggage I carry because of who I am. You will do the same in your perceptions of me. Neither of us is ever in full touch with ourselves or the real human person the other is. Complicating this truth is the changing Culture we live in. At any given point of time, America has a somewhat established and yet somewhat fluid way of seeing and treating men of the cloth. Also, men of the cloth, clerics, have come to expect a certain level of treatment based on past experience and have difficulty dealing with shifts in their social standing. This fixed-fluid social reality of Clericalism is as unstable as the greater Culture it fits into, so it is highly volatile!  In addition, because American Culture is increasingly secular, Grace is a constant challenge and surprise as it brings the unforeseeable action of God into the picture. (Clericalism, of course, makes Grace unnecessary, because it enables the priest to operate out of his own ego.)
Take the situation of any priest ordained, in 1977, or in 2007. He is part of a church system and social structure that is in place but also in flux because of the influences both natural and supernatural. The Culture of the Day, the influence of Grace, all interpenetrate priest and people to varying degrees. The priest daily has to decide if Grace will shape him.  If he makes no decision, he will be a product of the Culture. Culture’s power is to cultivate, perpetuate itself and its hold on society. Culture is an ecosystem that fosters and rewards the organisms in it to take on and incarnate its values. It is never a neutral grocery store in which one can freely pick and choose from assorted options. God’s Grace, however, creates its own culture built on man’s free response to it, which flies in the face of the predominating social culture. It will always be easier for a priest or any Christian to act out of the influences of the culture around him than out of the graces that come from above.
The most any priest can do is live up to his call to be a disciple and define himself by his relationship to the Christ event. If he functions only as a churchman, he works without grace, with only his personal charm, intelligence, will power, character, etc.  In short he becomes like any professional who functions on an ego level without God. If he lives as a disciple, he puts his skills and talents as a churchman in the service of Christ.
The priest has to live from grace to grace, inspired, sustained and led by the promptings of the Spirit. The Law of the gift is the operative principle of his priestly existence. No matter what natural gifts he has, they can never accomplish what he achieves by faithful discipleship. How can a priest take himself seriously when he says “I absolve your sins?” How can he do anything but laugh at himself when he says “This is my body”? Nothing he does as a priest is the result of his natural, human capabilities. His communion with Christ, his discipleship, consists in realizing that his ‘nothingness’ is precisely what makes him Christ’s instrument. Ordination makes him the property of Jesus Christ. That is the beauty of the Sacrament. Clericalism, on the other hand, encourages the self deception that he can somehow belong to Christ and still be his own man.

  The surprise is not to find forms of Clericalism and codependency in the Church.  The surprise would be if church were free of it. That will not happen till the kingdom has come in its fullness. Grace builds on nature but cannot be superimposed on it. Clericalism prevents authentic human relationships . The infused virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity cannot plant themselves in a human nature that is not open receptive to them.  Their purpose is to open us human beings to the Christ Event. An ungraced humanity ends up being inhuman.  I am incapable of recognizing who I really am as a human being or who another is, without the help of grace. I have to be living as a fallen-but-graced self in order to relate to another in a manner that is not codependent.  To live unaware of my fallen state, or to live unaware of my need for God’s grace, is already to be in a state of wrong relationship to others, and therefore codependent.

 Are there more serious matters than Clericalism for the priest to concern himself with?  Not really. Poverty, world hunger, drugs, racism, injustice, trafficking in human beings, genocide, abortion, etc. – all  obviously destroy countless people on a daily basis. That is the real world the priest is called to bring Christ’s love to. He cannot communicate Christ’s love to anyone unless he is first living in it. Clericalism prevents him from doing what he is called to do in Christ’s plan. Remember Christ’ words about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who “…. preach but do not practice” (Matt. 23:33).  “They bind heavy burdens hard to bear and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with their finger. (vs.34)” Certainly the point is that false piety should not be imitated.  But Our Lord is saying that it should not be winked at either. The collusion in Clericalism is the winking, the unspoken agreement that neither priest nor laity has to live the stuff that is preached, only pretend that they do. Priests are called to lead by example, not by word, and not by posturing. Artificial niceness reduces the faith to good manners and a pleasant demeanor. Courtesy and politeness can be no more than protecting one's personal space from interference and preserving one's individualism.
Once pretence is portrayed as the norm for people to live by, it becomes the “heavy burden” Christ speaks of, the one that cannot be borne.  What is so unbearable about it? The split it causes inside us who try to carry the burden by living one way and believing another. The longer the split is lived, the more ingrained and deformative it becomes.  In the short term such a psychic split prevents spiritual growth in priest and people.  In the long term, it leads to spiritual death, the “second death” that lasts forever.  (Rev.2:11 and 2O:14)  It is inevitable that either we end up living the way we believe, or we end up believing the way we live.
 Clericalism is based on the priest’s covenant with his false self: “I will pretend to be better than I am, I will project that image before all, I will lay on them my expectation that they will deal with me as if my idealized image were my real self, I will resist with all my might any attempt on the part of God or man to break through my façade, and I will build my life on this lie. To this I pledge myself.” That is a narcissist’s vow, a “Baptismal Promise” to his false self, which ultimately leads to his self destruction.  If a priest continues to shape himself on the basis of what he is not, he is acting as if what he is did not really exist. Thus he grows further and further away from his real identity as well as more and more incapable of recognizing that he is doing so. He becomes so blinded and so bound by his behavior that he falls in love with his false self and never sees that he is his own worst enemy.
      As with every human being, it is the priest’s real self that is called to be holy.  His calling is to put his humanity in the service of Christ, as Christ put his humanity in the service of all. How is the priest to do this? The way Christ calls him to do so at the Last Supper, by drinking from the cup of suffering that will result in his transformation and salvation. By eating the bread that will enable him to give himself up for the people he serves.  He is called to make of himself the victim and sacrifice he offers in the Eucharist. The priest has to become what he offers, live the sacrament he celebrates, that is what his vocation calls him to.
Why not just say that his calling is “to grow in holiness”? Certainly that is true, but it is also vague and vacuous. In our culture, holiness is the impossible dream of Don Quixote, and only possible by denying, repressing, or falsely “transcending” one’s humanity. The priest has to witness to Christ by being a man whose real human self is immersed in Christ’s gift of his divine-human self to His people.  This is the way he is to grow in holiness and lead his flock to Christ.  Any other life style makes his call to Orders a hoax.   
The priest may live his sacrifice by serving his people in many ways: by working in a poor, or rich, or ethnic parish with the various ministries that entails; by specializing as a priest teacher, high school principal/chaplain/guidance counselor, hospital chaplain, chancery official, etc... No matter what the ministry, the element of self sacrifice is an essential part. Even in retirement, the component of self sacrifice is never absent. Today it is an ironic fact of priestly life that forced retirement is imposed on some priests because they have been wrongly accused of sexual abuse of minors.  What greater sacrifice than to suffer this kind of victimization precisely because of one’s configuration to Christ by the Sacrament of Orders? It is reminiscent of John the Baptist’s plight as he awaits death in Herod’s dungeon instead of being allowed to work in the marketplace for the Messiah. What could be more sacrificial than the slow martyrdom of forsakenness and abandonment?
Brotherhood 
What should facilitate and strengthen the priest today are: 1) the brotherhood of the priesthood and the communal  nature of church life.  At present,  the individualism of American Culture as well as the anticlerical attitudes among priests and people make ministry more difficult than it has to be.
                How do we priests get beyond Clericalism?  First, recognize that it is real, it exists, and its hold is firmest when it is not recognized. One of the surest signs of addiction is denial, and Clericalism is an addictive life-style. Since addiction is complex, the cure is multifaceted.  Look at some of the main ingredients in the stew that create the climate of Clericalism in the USA: individualism, priestly formation, low morale and mutual mistrust among clergy, a lone ranger style of ministry, ignorance of one’s human nature with its innate needs for communication, and shifting social expectations. With a stew like that, how could any priest or person be so stupid as to think he could deal with the dilemma by himself?  Brotherhood is the basic, ongoing need that has to be part of priestly lives in the future in order for the present system not to perpetuate itself.
                In American culture a sense of community is no longer the foundation of society; autonomous individualism has replaced it. Our society may be communal in some places more than others, but it is so only superficially, and as a whole, a spirit of individualism predominates. In underdeveloped countries, such as the African Continent, where the individual is seen as an extension of the people, a sense of community is as natural, and tribal brotherhood is as normal as breathing. In America neither community nor a sense of brotherhood can be assumed. Education into both has to begin in the seminary with young men who are already on the road to being largely individualistic. Their formation in community and brotherhood cannot be left to their personal initiative because American males would see individualism as a positive part of their personality and be unaware of their need for brotherhood in the priesthood.
                If formation is to involve the whole person and make him capable of communion with God and man, it has to start with the actual human nature of the seminarians. As students they need to absorb the truth of Monsignor Giussani’s words, “To be good priests, you first of all, have to be men, to feel what men feel. Live the relationship with everything that becomes present. Live the truth of your humanity. Cry because you need to cry - or you are afraid, because the problem is difficult and you feel the inadequacy of your strength. Be human; live your humanity as an aspiration, as a sensitivity to problems, as a risk to face, as a faithfulness to what God makes urgent in your soul. In this way, reality will appear to your eyes in a new way.” When seminarians and priests live those words with one another, Clericalism will fade away. Living that humanely will open them to the Christ who calls them to be brothers in his priesthood.
                The seminary has available to it the firm foundation of Christian Anthropology established by John Paul the II from his writings both as a bishop in Poland and later as Pope in Rome, in which he bases the dignity of the human person on Scripture, Philosophy, and Theology.  But this treasure is largely left buried, like gold that has not yet been taken from a mine. Seminaries in this country need to build their formation programs on the riches left to the Church for the formation of generations of priests to come. ALL candidates for ordination, whether recruited from abroad or native born need to benefit from John Paul II’s teachings in order to form the brotherhood that will enable them to be priests after Christ’s own heart. A seminary or diocese that does not base their priestly formation on a well developed Christian anthropology will only continue to codependent clerical system that now exists.