Light posting this week!
I'm starting to feel the bad effects of going w/o my HBP meds. Crankier than usual (is that really possible?)
Homily due for tomorrow's Mass. Look for the podcast too. . .
Last Sunday's homily due. . .
Paper due Thursday. . .
Weekend trip starting Friday. . .
Good News: my Liguori Press editor liked the proposal and the sample litanies I sent. If I can get the full manuscript to her by May, the book will be available August 2009!
Speaking of books, thanks for the recent activity on the WISH LIST!
19 January 2009
17 January 2009
Just another pro-abortion politician
Let's put to rest this notion that the Born Alive Protection Act was kind of devious GOP trick to force poor B.O. to vote against one of his largest bankrollers, the abortion industry. This vid is a side by side comparison of the Illinois state bill and the federal bill. In the vid B.O. states that he supported the federal bill (to assist infants who survive an abortion) but opposed the state bill b/c it was "constitutionally flawed." The vid clearly shows that except for a few P.C. touches on inclusive language, the two bills were identical.
So, why does he say that he supported the federal bill but not the state bill, which are identical bills? You have think like a politician. By supporting the federal bill--which he could not vote on b/c he was not in the Senate--he could come out and say that he supports medical care for infants who survive abortion. Good for him. By opposing the idential bill in the Illinois Senate--where he could vote and did--he could give his bankrollers what they wanted: the defeat of a law that would require them to spend more money on a second doctor for every abortion they perform.
What's really interesting here is that B.O. chaired the committee that ran oversight on this bill. He and the Democrats voted to add "Roe v. Wade neutrality langauge" identical to the federal bill, so nothing in the bill, if passed into law, could be construed as a infringement on a woman's "right" to abort her baby. Once this language was added--with B.O.'s vote to amend--he voted against the final bill. In other words, he voted in committee to make sure the bill would not be used to challenge abortion in the courts--just in case it passed the Senate--and voted against the whole bill when it was released from committee.
In another Youtube vid there is an audio of B.O. arguing against the bill on the grounds that requiring an abortion clinic to have another doctor on hand to treat the unsuccessfully aborted infant would be a burden on the woman's initial decision to abort. He says nothing about the burden of the surviving child as it dies without help.
And let's not forget that this is the same man who supports abortion b/c he doesn't want either of his daughters "punished with a baby."
Like I said: just another politician.
So, why does he say that he supported the federal bill but not the state bill, which are identical bills? You have think like a politician. By supporting the federal bill--which he could not vote on b/c he was not in the Senate--he could come out and say that he supports medical care for infants who survive abortion. Good for him. By opposing the idential bill in the Illinois Senate--where he could vote and did--he could give his bankrollers what they wanted: the defeat of a law that would require them to spend more money on a second doctor for every abortion they perform.
What's really interesting here is that B.O. chaired the committee that ran oversight on this bill. He and the Democrats voted to add "Roe v. Wade neutrality langauge" identical to the federal bill, so nothing in the bill, if passed into law, could be construed as a infringement on a woman's "right" to abort her baby. Once this language was added--with B.O.'s vote to amend--he voted against the final bill. In other words, he voted in committee to make sure the bill would not be used to challenge abortion in the courts--just in case it passed the Senate--and voted against the whole bill when it was released from committee.
In another Youtube vid there is an audio of B.O. arguing against the bill on the grounds that requiring an abortion clinic to have another doctor on hand to treat the unsuccessfully aborted infant would be a burden on the woman's initial decision to abort. He says nothing about the burden of the surviving child as it dies without help.
And let's not forget that this is the same man who supports abortion b/c he doesn't want either of his daughters "punished with a baby."
Like I said: just another politician.
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
What!? No lashing out?! No cracking down?!
Imagine that!
I don't think the Demonic Overlords of the Decrepit Media are gonna be happy about this. . .
An article from the leftie-media about the Vatican that doesn't contain the words "crackdown," "lashes out," "silences," or "condemns."
You can't trust anyone to be consistent these days.
You can't trust anyone to be consistent these days.
I don't think the Demonic Overlords of the Decrepit Media are gonna be happy about this. . .
Insanity: me & Italian Customs (Updated)
Update (09/27/10): PLEASE, help me understand why this post is getting hundreds of hits a week! If you found this post thru a search engine or linked on another site, could you drop me a comment? I'm very curious about why this post is so popular.
I am surrendering to Italian Customs and asking them to simply return my meds to the U.S.
Their demands for documentation proving medical necessity are obscene and even if I managed to put together the stacks of proof they want, I can only keep a one month supply of each med.
I give up.
75 days before I return to the U.S. I may just decide to stay.
Challenge: why reduce but not outlaw?
A quick challenge to those who support the "reduce the numbers but don't outlaw" with regard to abortion:
You hold that abortion should remain legal but that we should find ways to reduce the number of abortions. Why do you think the reduction of the number of abortions is a worthy goal?
For the sake of the argument, ignore the option of both outlawing abortion and working to reduce the number of abortions (this is the Church's position).
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
You hold that abortion should remain legal but that we should find ways to reduce the number of abortions. Why do you think the reduction of the number of abortions is a worthy goal?
For the sake of the argument, ignore the option of both outlawing abortion and working to reduce the number of abortions (this is the Church's position).
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
16 January 2009
Done, doing, will be done. . .%$#@ posteitaliane
OK. . .
The thesis outline is done and submitted. . .the project I'm proposing is WAYYYY too big for a 70 page thesis. . .
The book proposal for Liguori Publications is due tomorrow. . .so, work, work, work. . .
Yes, there will be a Sunday homily. . .
The thesis outline is done and submitted. . .the project I'm proposing is WAYYYY too big for a 70 page thesis. . .
The book proposal for Liguori Publications is due tomorrow. . .so, work, work, work. . .
Yes, there will be a Sunday homily. . .
And, just to brighten my day, I received another letter from Italian customs informing me that my latest shipment of meds from the U.S. is being held hostage in Milan. Just for the record: four shipments of meds have been sent from the U.S. since July 2008. I've received exactly one. I have already run out of one med. I'm quickly running out of a second, which is not prescribed in the E.U.
Pray for my sanity.
Pray for my sanity.
15 January 2009
The Folly of a Pro-abortion Catholic
During the 2004 and 2008 Presidential campaigns, Kerry-Catholics and Obama-Catholics argued that Catholics could "in good conscience" vote for these two abortion rights extremists b/c both wanted to "reduce the number of abortions rather than outlaw abortions all together." This alleged reduction would be achieved through "eliminating the socio-economic pressures that make abortion attractive to poorer women." I still wonder how one reduces an undesirable behavior by making it moral, legal, and free of charge? Regardless, last November, some 48% of Catholics bought into this fantasy and helped to elect this nation's first promoter of infanticide to the White House. Yes, our soon-to-be Great Leader believes that it is morally and legally permissible to kill children and/or to let them die if they survive their mother's attempt to kill them.
Aquinas argues that we move from wisdom to folly as we sin. Each sin weakens the gifted-ability of the conscience to recognize the Good and the intellect/will's ability to choose the Good and do it. In other words, in the same way that choosing and doing the Good makes choosing and doing the Good easier and easier, sinning makes it harder and harder. At some point, the conscience is no longer capable of distinguishing between Good and Evil, and our inordinate passions consistently win the battle of conscience as we mire ourselves in folly.
Case in point: Eric McFadden, the former head of "Catholics for Clinton," "Catholics for Kerry," director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for Ohio's Democrat governor, former field director for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, past president of Catholics for Faithful Citizenship, most recently Hillary Clinton's State Faith & Values Outreach Director for Ohio, a Knight of Columbus who supported Obama, and a pro-abortion Democrat was arrested yesterday for running a prostitution ring that included minors.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics for Faithful Citizenship are both front groups run by former Democratic Party officials. Both groups provide "cover" for Catholics who support abortion under the conscience-killing rubric of "Catholics are not one issue voters," that is, it's OK to support pro-abortion politicians so long as those politicians support only those parts of Catholic social justice teaching that agree with the Democratic Party's socialist tendencies.
Once your conscience tells you that it is OK to kill your child, running a prostitution ring that includes children is easy-cheesy. The idea is that "on-balance" McFadden was attempting to reduce the number of child hookers by providing them a fair wage. I wonder if he let them unionize?
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
Aquinas argues that we move from wisdom to folly as we sin. Each sin weakens the gifted-ability of the conscience to recognize the Good and the intellect/will's ability to choose the Good and do it. In other words, in the same way that choosing and doing the Good makes choosing and doing the Good easier and easier, sinning makes it harder and harder. At some point, the conscience is no longer capable of distinguishing between Good and Evil, and our inordinate passions consistently win the battle of conscience as we mire ourselves in folly.
Case in point: Eric McFadden, the former head of "Catholics for Clinton," "Catholics for Kerry," director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for Ohio's Democrat governor, former field director for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, past president of Catholics for Faithful Citizenship, most recently Hillary Clinton's State Faith & Values Outreach Director for Ohio, a Knight of Columbus who supported Obama, and a pro-abortion Democrat was arrested yesterday for running a prostitution ring that included minors.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics for Faithful Citizenship are both front groups run by former Democratic Party officials. Both groups provide "cover" for Catholics who support abortion under the conscience-killing rubric of "Catholics are not one issue voters," that is, it's OK to support pro-abortion politicians so long as those politicians support only those parts of Catholic social justice teaching that agree with the Democratic Party's socialist tendencies.
Once your conscience tells you that it is OK to kill your child, running a prostitution ring that includes children is easy-cheesy. The idea is that "on-balance" McFadden was attempting to reduce the number of child hookers by providing them a fair wage. I wonder if he let them unionize?
Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.
Report: Apostolic Visitation of US seminaries (UPDATED)
[NB. The link to the actual report is now fixed.]
In response to the sexual abuse scandals that hit the Church square-on in 2002, the Vatican initiated in the fall of 2005 an "Apostolic Visitation" of all American seminaries and schools of theology that teach seminarians.
The review boards interviewed seminarians and recently ordained priests in order to evaluate contemporary priestly formation in the U.S. Interviewers asked questions about academic work, moral formation, spiritual life, faculty fidelity to the magisterium, etc. I was interviewed for this visitation just six months into my priesthood.
The final report has finally been released. Overall, diocesan seminaries are given very high marks for substantial improvements, especially in the tightening up the loosey-goosey "it's-all-about-me" formation programs, for instilling a sense of priestly identity in the seminarians, and for appointing strong, faithful priests to serve as rectors.
I am embarrassed but not surprised that seminaries and schools of theology operated and staffed by religous orders are consistently thumped for not making the cut. The critical language of the report is very restrained in pointing out problems. However, that these schools were singled out at all is very, very telling. Like most official documents of the Church, if there's even a hint of negative critical language, it is carrying a very painful slap. . .even if the hand is covered in the finest silk.
Schools run by religious are smacked for hiring and retaining dissenting professors (two areas of dissent were noted: blurring the distinctions btw lay/ordained ministries and advocating for women's ordination); for allowing lay and non-Catholic members of the faculty to vote on decisions about ordination; for laxity in teaching orthodox moral theology; among others.
The report is interesting too for its proposed solutions to remaining problems. Listing the proposed reforms together and taking them as a program, you get the diocesan equivalent of a religious order's novitiate! Excellent.
Time will tell. . .the inevitable biological solution. . .if problems in religious order schools can be solved fraternally and to everyone's benefit, or if it's going to take the delivery of a whole bunch of pink slips.
[UPDATE] I want to draw your attention to Clayton Emmer's wonderful blog, The Weight of Glory. Clayton blogs extensively on issues related to Catholic seminary formation. Check it out!
In response to the sexual abuse scandals that hit the Church square-on in 2002, the Vatican initiated in the fall of 2005 an "Apostolic Visitation" of all American seminaries and schools of theology that teach seminarians.
The review boards interviewed seminarians and recently ordained priests in order to evaluate contemporary priestly formation in the U.S. Interviewers asked questions about academic work, moral formation, spiritual life, faculty fidelity to the magisterium, etc. I was interviewed for this visitation just six months into my priesthood.
The final report has finally been released. Overall, diocesan seminaries are given very high marks for substantial improvements, especially in the tightening up the loosey-goosey "it's-all-about-me" formation programs, for instilling a sense of priestly identity in the seminarians, and for appointing strong, faithful priests to serve as rectors.
I am embarrassed but not surprised that seminaries and schools of theology operated and staffed by religous orders are consistently thumped for not making the cut. The critical language of the report is very restrained in pointing out problems. However, that these schools were singled out at all is very, very telling. Like most official documents of the Church, if there's even a hint of negative critical language, it is carrying a very painful slap. . .even if the hand is covered in the finest silk.
Schools run by religious are smacked for hiring and retaining dissenting professors (two areas of dissent were noted: blurring the distinctions btw lay/ordained ministries and advocating for women's ordination); for allowing lay and non-Catholic members of the faculty to vote on decisions about ordination; for laxity in teaching orthodox moral theology; among others.
The report is interesting too for its proposed solutions to remaining problems. Listing the proposed reforms together and taking them as a program, you get the diocesan equivalent of a religious order's novitiate! Excellent.
Time will tell. . .the inevitable biological solution. . .if problems in religious order schools can be solved fraternally and to everyone's benefit, or if it's going to take the delivery of a whole bunch of pink slips.
[UPDATE] I want to draw your attention to Clayton Emmer's wonderful blog, The Weight of Glory. Clayton blogs extensively on issues related to Catholic seminary formation. Check it out!
14 January 2009
Stopping the Marian madness (Updates)
Question. . .
Answer. . .
I just read on the internet that the Holy Father is trying to curb claims about apparitions of the Blessed Mother. What do you think about this?
Answer. . .
Before I can say anything concrete about this story, I will need to read to the actual papal document from the Vatican's own website. Never, never, NEVER trust the media (not even FOXNews) to get a story about Christianity right, especially if the news item is about the Catholic faith. They are invincibly stupid when it comes to telling the simple truth about what we believe as Catholics. Check, check, and triple check again anything they say about the Church.
UPDATE: John Allen has a few more details on this story. Unfortunately, the link takes you the site of the NCR, so have holy water and the Padre Pio Shorter Prayer of Exorcism ready in order to clean your computer of dissenting mal-ware and the infamously destructive McBrien-Chittister Trogan Horse virus. (h/t: Allan).
UPDATE: John Allen has a few more details on this story. Unfortunately, the link takes you the site of the NCR, so have holy water and the Padre Pio Shorter Prayer of Exorcism ready in order to clean your computer of dissenting mal-ware and the infamously destructive McBrien-Chittister Trogan Horse virus. (h/t: Allan).
Now, generally speaking, Marian apparitions are almost always false. . .they are reported by either perfectly wonderful Catholics who truly believe the Blessed Mother is speaking to them, or crackpots with some high priced rosaries to sell, or seriously mentally disturbed individuals in need of pastoral help.
Does the Virgin appear to people and give them messages? It is entirely within the realm of possibility. However, belief in the authenticity of the alleged apparitions and veracity of the alleged messages in no way impinges on the salvation of Catholics. In other words, you can be a perfectly good Catholic, fully redeemed, true, good, and beautiful and never once pay the least bit of attention to any Marian apparition. You can, in fact, actively disbelieve that they occur without eternal consequence.
Why? before any apparition can be considered authentic, the Church--the Body of Christ on earth--must investigate the claims of those allegedly receiving the messages and verify the orthodoxy of the messages. If a message is found to be wanting in terms of its orthodoxy, then we know the message is not from Mary and cannot be held as true. If the message is deemed orthodox, that is, fully in line with the tradition of the Church's teaching on divine revelation, then all Mary is doing is repeating what we already know to be true. If Mary is simply repeating what we already know to be true, then there is no point in claiming that we must all listen to the message. We already have the message.
You will object here and say, "But Father, shouldn't people listen to Mary?" Yes, they should. And she has plenty to say to us in scripture. But not listening to her as an apparition is not going to send you to Hell. Our salvation is determined by one thing and one thing only: the degree to which we freely choose to cooperate in the "once for all" salvific death/gift of Christ on the Cross and his glorious resurrection from the tomb. Nothing an apparition of Mary can say or do can change that.
Well, what about people who find comfort and strength from these apparitions? More power to 'em! Go for it! If an apparition brings you closer to God through Christ and his Church, then I say: buy those place tickets and pack your bags for a trip to see Mary. But you are no more "saved" for going and no less "saved" for staying home. If the Church has declared that a particular apparition is false or the messages delivered are errorenous. then you are obligated to avoid those apparitions. Mary, the woman who said YES to becoming the Mother of God, is the model of ecclesial obedience. She would never tell anyone to disobey those given authority by her Son.
What I have no tolerance for is the false claim that Catholics are required to believe in this or that apparition because the Church has approved the apparition. I was told once that belief in the Fatima message is required for salvation. The only thing the Church says about any Marian apparition is whether or not there is sufficient objective proof that the apparitions are supernatural in origin and whether or not the messages conform to infallible Church teaching. Church approval simply means that it appears as though the apparitions themselves are legitimate and that the messages delivered are free form error. Apparitions that deliver heretical message are ipso facto false. Nothing more can be assumed about this imprimatur.
Scripture, tradition, and right reason clearly teach that there can be no new revelation to the Church. None. If Mary appears and proclaims her Son to be the Messiah and asks all present to pray the rosary, fast, do charitable works. Great. But we already know to do all of that. If she appears and proclaims herself to be the Messiah and asks those present to start consecrating bread and wine to become her body and blood for our salvation, it's Satan, lying to them. There was a Marian cult in the U.S. a few years back that actually celebrated "Marian Masses" where the priest "changed" bread and wine in the body and blood of Mary in imitation of the real Mass. He and his cultists would take a "Marian communion" after the regular, sacramental communion. Some of my own Dominican brothers were involved in preaching the gospel to these people and bringing them back into the Church.
Mary herself was no doubt upset at this blasphemy againstg he Son.
No new revelation. Not from a priest. Not from a bishop. Not from a pope. Not from a angel. Not from the Mother of God herself.
Does the Virgin appear to people and give them messages? It is entirely within the realm of possibility. However, belief in the authenticity of the alleged apparitions and veracity of the alleged messages in no way impinges on the salvation of Catholics. In other words, you can be a perfectly good Catholic, fully redeemed, true, good, and beautiful and never once pay the least bit of attention to any Marian apparition. You can, in fact, actively disbelieve that they occur without eternal consequence.
Why? before any apparition can be considered authentic, the Church--the Body of Christ on earth--must investigate the claims of those allegedly receiving the messages and verify the orthodoxy of the messages. If a message is found to be wanting in terms of its orthodoxy, then we know the message is not from Mary and cannot be held as true. If the message is deemed orthodox, that is, fully in line with the tradition of the Church's teaching on divine revelation, then all Mary is doing is repeating what we already know to be true. If Mary is simply repeating what we already know to be true, then there is no point in claiming that we must all listen to the message. We already have the message.
You will object here and say, "But Father, shouldn't people listen to Mary?" Yes, they should. And she has plenty to say to us in scripture. But not listening to her as an apparition is not going to send you to Hell. Our salvation is determined by one thing and one thing only: the degree to which we freely choose to cooperate in the "once for all" salvific death/gift of Christ on the Cross and his glorious resurrection from the tomb. Nothing an apparition of Mary can say or do can change that.
Well, what about people who find comfort and strength from these apparitions? More power to 'em! Go for it! If an apparition brings you closer to God through Christ and his Church, then I say: buy those place tickets and pack your bags for a trip to see Mary. But you are no more "saved" for going and no less "saved" for staying home. If the Church has declared that a particular apparition is false or the messages delivered are errorenous. then you are obligated to avoid those apparitions. Mary, the woman who said YES to becoming the Mother of God, is the model of ecclesial obedience. She would never tell anyone to disobey those given authority by her Son.
What I have no tolerance for is the false claim that Catholics are required to believe in this or that apparition because the Church has approved the apparition. I was told once that belief in the Fatima message is required for salvation. The only thing the Church says about any Marian apparition is whether or not there is sufficient objective proof that the apparitions are supernatural in origin and whether or not the messages conform to infallible Church teaching. Church approval simply means that it appears as though the apparitions themselves are legitimate and that the messages delivered are free form error. Apparitions that deliver heretical message are ipso facto false. Nothing more can be assumed about this imprimatur.
Scripture, tradition, and right reason clearly teach that there can be no new revelation to the Church. None. If Mary appears and proclaims her Son to be the Messiah and asks all present to pray the rosary, fast, do charitable works. Great. But we already know to do all of that. If she appears and proclaims herself to be the Messiah and asks those present to start consecrating bread and wine to become her body and blood for our salvation, it's Satan, lying to them. There was a Marian cult in the U.S. a few years back that actually celebrated "Marian Masses" where the priest "changed" bread and wine in the body and blood of Mary in imitation of the real Mass. He and his cultists would take a "Marian communion" after the regular, sacramental communion. Some of my own Dominican brothers were involved in preaching the gospel to these people and bringing them back into the Church.
Mary herself was no doubt upset at this blasphemy againstg he Son.
No new revelation. Not from a priest. Not from a bishop. Not from a pope. Not from a angel. Not from the Mother of God herself.
13 January 2009
Land of Lost Books
Couple of emails asking about whether or not books purchased from Ye 'Ole Wish List have arrived yet. . .
As far as I can tell, I've received most of the books you guys sent me back the first week of November. Thank You notes have been sent for all those books that included a shipping invoice with a return address on it.
I asked one of my former U.D. students whether or not he had received a note I sent him back in mid-December. No, he hasn't. So, if you haven't received a note, knowing posteitaliane, it will arrive in time for your summer vacation. I'm still waiting on three shipments of HBP meds sent to me from Houston between Sept 1st and Dec 10th. I've been spending my out-of-pocket gelato and Nutella money on heart medicine! Hmmmm. . .there's some irony there. . .
I asked one of my former U.D. students whether or not he had received a note I sent him back in mid-December. No, he hasn't. So, if you haven't received a note, knowing posteitaliane, it will arrive in time for your summer vacation. I'm still waiting on three shipments of HBP meds sent to me from Houston between Sept 1st and Dec 10th. I've been spending my out-of-pocket gelato and Nutella money on heart medicine! Hmmmm. . .there's some irony there. . .
The books that I know were purchased but have not yet arrived are:
Wrestling With the Divine, C. Knight
Web of Belief, W.V.O. Quine
Historicity of Nature, W. Pannenburg
Science and the Spiritual Quest, Phillip Clayton
And one sent by my German Angel. . .I can't read my own handwriting from my list to decipher the title.
So, if you sent me a book and haven't received a thank you note yet, it's either b/c you sent one of the books above and I haven't received it, or the shipping invoice had no return address, or posteitaliane has struck again and the book is on a train headed to the Netherlands where it and tons of other holiday mail/gifts will be dumped into a landfill.
Don't they understand that I am only obligated to be patient during Advent? And then ONLY b/c I am waiting on the Lord!?
So, if you sent me a book and haven't received a thank you note yet, it's either b/c you sent one of the books above and I haven't received it, or the shipping invoice had no return address, or posteitaliane has struck again and the book is on a train headed to the Netherlands where it and tons of other holiday mail/gifts will be dumped into a landfill.
Don't they understand that I am only obligated to be patient during Advent? And then ONLY b/c I am waiting on the Lord!?
Coming attractions. . .
. . .this week at HancAquam:
A Dominican disputation: Is God dead?
An outline for my Ph.L. thesis at suppl(e)mental.
A quick look at the ethics of taking "brain booster drugs" at also at suppl(e)mental.
And an announcement about my book proposal to Liguori Press!
Keep checking. . .
Oh, and I got a very sad email from my WISH LIST elf. . .he's been very lonely lately. . .
A Dominican disputation: Is God dead?
An outline for my Ph.L. thesis at suppl(e)mental.
A quick look at the ethics of taking "brain booster drugs" at also at suppl(e)mental.
And an announcement about my book proposal to Liguori Press!
Keep checking. . .
Oh, and I got a very sad email from my WISH LIST elf. . .he's been very lonely lately. . .
Theosis: that we might become God
It is well past Christmas, but there's always a good reason to spice up the season with a wonderful essay on my favorite theological topic: theosis!
From Carl E. Olson at Ignatius Insight:
+
Theosis: The Reason for the Season
December 30, 2008
What, really, is the point of Christmas? Why did God become man?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in a section titled, "Why did the Word become flesh?" (pars 456-460) provides several complimentary answers: to save us, to show us God's love, and to be a model of holiness. And then, in what I think must be, for many readers, the most surprising and puzzling paragraph in the entire Catechism, there is this:
From Carl E. Olson at Ignatius Insight:
+
Theosis: The Reason for the Season
December 30, 2008
What, really, is the point of Christmas? Why did God become man?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in a section titled, "Why did the Word become flesh?" (pars 456-460) provides several complimentary answers: to save us, to show us God's love, and to be a model of holiness. And then, in what I think must be, for many readers, the most surprising and puzzling paragraph in the entire Catechism, there is this:
The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (par 460)So that "we might become God"? Surely, a few might think, this is some sort of pantheistic slip of the theological pen, or perhaps a case of good-intentioned but poorly expressed hyperbole. But, of course, it is not. First, whatever problems there might have been in translating the Catechism into English, they had nothing to do with this paragraph. Secondly, the first sentence is from 2 Peter 1:4, and the three subsequent quotes are from, respectively, St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, and (gasp!) St. Thomas Aquinas. Finally, there is also the fact that this language of divine sonship—or theosis, also known as deification—is found through the entire Catechism. A couple more representative examples. . .[here is the rest of the article].
11 January 2009
Never, Rarely, Always: Dominican Disputation (UPDATED)
In what is probably a doomed effort to tame my intemperate tongue and fiery typing-fingers, I have set myself on a course of re-learning and practicing the ancient tradition of Dominican disputation.
So, more for my benefit than your enjoyment, I present the Dominican method of disputation (in breve). . .
Early Dominican disputation was done in public, usually in universities for the benefit of students learning the crafts of philosophy and theology. The Master (professor) would give a lecture on some topic and then take questions from the students and other Masters. Once asked, the question would be answered first with a list of objections to the Master's real answer. So, if the Master's real answer was "Yes," he would begin by stating what all the "No" answers would seem to be. These are presented in the Summa theologiae as the "videtur" or "it would seem that."
After this, the Master would provide a sed contra, or a "to the contrary," a general answer to the objections that served to lay the foundation for his own answer to the original question. The sed contra was usually a quotation from scripture, a well-respected theologian/philosopher, or saint that directly or indirectly touched on the question.
Once the sed contra is announced, the Master would answer with a respondeo, the "I respond that." Here he pulls on the foundational principles taught to his students, employing basic logic, metaphsyics, common sense, and additional authorative sources.
In the respondeo, the Master would use a peculiarly scholastic technique in arguing his point. Summarized the technique is: "Never deny, rarely affirm, always distinguish." Thus, the scholastics' reputation for "multiplying distinctions."
After the respondeo, the Master would then apply his answer to each objection (the videtur) in a reply and show why each was incorrect given the sed contra and the logic of the respondeo.
Break down of the "Never deny, rarely affirm, always distinguish"
Never deny: this prinicple presupposes charity in requiring the responder to take seriously the objections made to any answer he might give; that is, by never outright denying a conclusion, the Master presumes the good will of the objector and averts any attacks on the person. By disallowing the outright denial of an opponent's premise or conclusion, the 'never deny' pushes us in charity to recognize that even an assertion erroneous on the whole may contain some partial truth. The next two steps in the method assure us of ferreting out whatever truth might be found error. (NB. This technique also tends to kill in its cradle the all-too-often virulent disease we call "flaming").
Rarely affirm: this prinicple frees the Master from the traps in the objections that might inexorably lead him to conclude that the objection is correct. It also serves to push the argument beyond merely polite agreement and force the debaters to explore areas of disagreement that could lead to a better answer.
Always distinguish: this prinicple allows the Master to accomplish the first two principles while still giving him plenty of room to disagree with the objections. By requiring the Master to carefully parse his words, this step in the argument recognizes the limits of language and logic when discussing any truth and acknowledges that there is some hope of finding better and better definitions.
So, in practice, you will hear those who use this method say things like, "If by X, you mean Y, then X" or "I would distinguish between X and Y" or "You are right to say X, but X does not necessarily entail Y" and so on. The goal is to parse proper distinctions with charity until there is some clarity with regard to the use of terms and their place in the argument.
I should add here another good principle of logic: "Where there is no difference, there can be no distinction;" that is, any distinction between X and Y must be based on a real difference between X and Y. For example, all teachers have heard some version of the following: "But I didn't plagiarize my paper, I just borrowed my roommate's paper and put my name on it."
No difference, no distinction.
So, more for my benefit than your enjoyment, I present the Dominican method of disputation (in breve). . .
Early Dominican disputation was done in public, usually in universities for the benefit of students learning the crafts of philosophy and theology. The Master (professor) would give a lecture on some topic and then take questions from the students and other Masters. Once asked, the question would be answered first with a list of objections to the Master's real answer. So, if the Master's real answer was "Yes," he would begin by stating what all the "No" answers would seem to be. These are presented in the Summa theologiae as the "videtur" or "it would seem that."
After this, the Master would provide a sed contra, or a "to the contrary," a general answer to the objections that served to lay the foundation for his own answer to the original question. The sed contra was usually a quotation from scripture, a well-respected theologian/philosopher, or saint that directly or indirectly touched on the question.
Once the sed contra is announced, the Master would answer with a respondeo, the "I respond that." Here he pulls on the foundational principles taught to his students, employing basic logic, metaphsyics, common sense, and additional authorative sources.
In the respondeo, the Master would use a peculiarly scholastic technique in arguing his point. Summarized the technique is: "Never deny, rarely affirm, always distinguish." Thus, the scholastics' reputation for "multiplying distinctions."
After the respondeo, the Master would then apply his answer to each objection (the videtur) in a reply and show why each was incorrect given the sed contra and the logic of the respondeo.
Break down of the "Never deny, rarely affirm, always distinguish"
Never deny: this prinicple presupposes charity in requiring the responder to take seriously the objections made to any answer he might give; that is, by never outright denying a conclusion, the Master presumes the good will of the objector and averts any attacks on the person. By disallowing the outright denial of an opponent's premise or conclusion, the 'never deny' pushes us in charity to recognize that even an assertion erroneous on the whole may contain some partial truth. The next two steps in the method assure us of ferreting out whatever truth might be found error. (NB. This technique also tends to kill in its cradle the all-too-often virulent disease we call "flaming").
Rarely affirm: this prinicple frees the Master from the traps in the objections that might inexorably lead him to conclude that the objection is correct. It also serves to push the argument beyond merely polite agreement and force the debaters to explore areas of disagreement that could lead to a better answer.
Always distinguish: this prinicple allows the Master to accomplish the first two principles while still giving him plenty of room to disagree with the objections. By requiring the Master to carefully parse his words, this step in the argument recognizes the limits of language and logic when discussing any truth and acknowledges that there is some hope of finding better and better definitions.
So, in practice, you will hear those who use this method say things like, "If by X, you mean Y, then X" or "I would distinguish between X and Y" or "You are right to say X, but X does not necessarily entail Y" and so on. The goal is to parse proper distinctions with charity until there is some clarity with regard to the use of terms and their place in the argument.
I should add here another good principle of logic: "Where there is no difference, there can be no distinction;" that is, any distinction between X and Y must be based on a real difference between X and Y. For example, all teachers have heard some version of the following: "But I didn't plagiarize my paper, I just borrowed my roommate's paper and put my name on it."
No difference, no distinction.
Unlearning what we never learned in the first place
While digging around the internet for a review of a book I'm using in my thesis, I found over at First Things, this wonderfully "on-target" post by the recently deceased Fr. Richard John Neuhaus:
In March 1993, we published “Mainline Churches: The Real Reason for Decline” by Dean Hoge and his colleagues, who had done a careful study of the Presbyterian Church (USA). When all the other variables are taken into account, they argued, the real reason is a lack of belief. R. Scott Appleby, professor of history at Notre Dame, applies that analysis to contemporary Catholicism. “The challenge of Catholic education and formation in our media-driven, cyberspace age is no less than this: older Catholics must be restored to and younger Catholics introduced to a sense of Catholicism as a comprehensive way of life-as a comprehending wisdom and set of practices that bring integrity and holiness to individuals and to the families and extended communities to which they belong and which they serve.” The years after Vatican II, he writes, saw the rise of the first “post-ethnic generation” of American Catholics, people for whom Catholicism was no longer an intact culture (or subculture) but one choice among others in the religious marketplace. In addition, Catholicism today is marked by many voices-right and left, liberal and conservative-claiming to define what is authentically Catholic. “In the realm of ideas and Catholic self-understanding, change came most powerfully with the introduction of genuine pluralism into American Catholic theology once Thomism was supplemented, and in many arenas supplanted, by narrative, feminist, liberationist, and other inductive theologies grounded in experience.” The result is “a rich farrago of theological options, many of them rich and enlivening but experienced by Catholics piecemeal and without benefit of an overarching view of ‘the Catholic thing.’” In his address to the Catholic Academy for Communication Arts Professionals, Appleby concludes with this: “Catholic communicators must be leaders among those who package the faith, not as a series of discrete bits and bytes but as organic, interdependent sets of beliefs, insights, and practices by which one may lead a morally coherent and spiritually fruitful life.” Mr. Appleby’s cultural critique is, I believe, pretty much on target. He is also right in understanding our current circumstance in terms of a crisis of belief. But is the problem that a manualist Thomism has been displaced by narrative, feminist, liberationist, and other inductive theologies? In religious studies courses, perhaps, as well as in many departments of theology misleadingly called Catholic. Without discounting the influence of the systematic academic unlearning of Catholic teaching that students had never learned in the first place, most Catholics have never heard of the liberationist and other theological fashions Appleby cites. What they have heard and believed and internalized is that there is no such thing as authoritative Catholic teaching; that Catholicism is a matter of “discrete bits and bytes” to be accessed according to felt needs. We do not need communicators who will “package the faith” more attractively. We need teachers and exemplars-parents, priests, bishops, religious, academics-who invite a new generation to the high adventure of living the faith. That adventure is compellingly depicted in Scripture and living tradition, including Vatican II and its authoritative interpretation by the Magisterium, and not least by John Paul II. Mr. Appleby is right in saying that Catholicism is a comprehensive and coherent culture shaped by a story entailing truth claims that require a response of faith. What is missing from his account is any reference to where and how that story is authoritatively told. I am not sure that the faith can or should be “packaged,” but I am sure that no skills of the communication arts will make up for uncertainty about the faith to be communicated
Religious Priests and Diocesan Priests
My post below on questions for those discerning a religious vocation has prompted more questions about the differences between "religious priests" (RP) and diocesan or secular priests (DP).
In the Catholic Church there are two kinds of priests: religious and diocesan. The primary canonical difference between the two is based on who serves as an immediate ecclesial superior. For RP's the immediate ecclesial superior is the local prior, abbot, or major superior; that is, a member of that priest's order/monastery who exercises canonical authority in virtue of holding an office within the order/monastery. My immediate ecclesial superior is the prior of this convent. For DP's, the immediate ecclesial superior is always the bishop of the priest's diocese.
Practically, this means that a friar's/monk's/nun's ministry and life in the community is directed by a fellow friar/monk/nun who is elected to authority by the community. For DP's, their ministry and life in the diocese is subject to the bishop. Now, all religious orders within a diocese are subject to the bishop in so far as that bishop must approve any religious ministry in his diocese. Bishops have no authority over the internal workings of a community. So, if a priory or monastery elects as prior/abbot someone the bishop doesn't like, he is not empowered to dispose of that election. He can revoke the faculties of the priests in the house, or fire any offending religious who works for the diocese. But he cannot step into the internal affairs of religious.
There are other prominent differences between RP's and DP's. One big difference is the taking of religious vows. RP's are made religious priests by making solemn vows regarding poverty, chastity, and obedience. DP's do not make religious vows. At ordination, all priests promise chastity and obedience to an "ordinary" superior. For religious priests at ordination, we make these promises to both our immediate superior and the bishop. DP's do not take a vow of poverty b/c they are considered "self-employed" by the IRS. RP's usually have access to community cars, funds, medical care, room and board, and other essentials for daily living. DP's provide most of these for themselves as "employees" of the diocese. In practical terms, the vow of poverty is about not owning anything in one's own name. RP's cannot own a car. DP can. Same goes for houses, boats, etc.
Another big difference is spirituality. RP's often belong to order's with long traditions in certain kinds of spirituality. Think: Ignatian Exercises for the Jebbies. Or the spirituality of "prayer and work'" for the Benedictines. Dominicans consider our daily lives lived according to the constitutions to be our spirituality. There is a spirituality for DP's. The big difference is that DP's rarely live in community. There prinicple spirituality revolves around their ministries in direct service to their parish.
This brings up several other differences rooted in ministry:
DP's work within the limits of their dioceses (there are exception for academics and others)
RP's can work anywhere in the world where their order has a house.
DP's usually work in parishes or ministries that directly serve the laity (exceptions: ditto)
RP's often work in universities, hospitals, secular jobs, etc. where the focus is not necessarily on serving the parochial laity directly (exceptions: many RP's serve parishes)
DP's have fewer opportunities to "switch ministries" b/c their immediate superior (the bishop) has responsibility for ministries only within his diocese and parishes need priests
RP's have much more flexibility in this regard b/c their assignments are made by superiors who have responsibilities beyond a diocesan border (e.g. yours truly assigned to Rome rather than a university in my province)
DP's have fewer opporunities for advanced study b/c of the pressing needs of their dioceses
RP's are usually encouraged to pursue advanced study if there is need
DP's have a more flexible daily schedule and tend to be more available for one-on-one interaction b/c they do not have community responsibilities (cooking for six or more brothers, taking care of community cars, accounts, etc.)
RP's are much more restricted by community obligations in their daily schedule and availability (communal prayer, meals, recreation time, etc.)
One interesting development since Vatican Two is the blurring of some of these lines between RP's and DP's. It is not at all uncommon now to find DP's living in small communities in urban areas where parishes are clustered together. In fact, many younger DP's are insisting on living in community as a way of maintaining accountability and fostering fraternity. At the same time, many religious, in the name of ministerial necessity, have moved out of community life and set up house in apartments or rectories to live alone. For the most part, this development was a reaction to the perceived restrictions of the community rule that some felt stifled their ministries. This trend among male religious is waning fast and in some cases actually forbidden.
One simplistic way of understanding the essential difference between RP's and DP's is to think of RP's as a bunch of guys living in a fraternity house (shudder) and DP's as guys who live by themselves as single men. This image (though deeply flawed) at least points up the day-to-day differences that emerge from the differences in living by yourself and living with your family.
Practically, this means that a friar's/monk's/nun's ministry and life in the community is directed by a fellow friar/monk/nun who is elected to authority by the community. For DP's, their ministry and life in the diocese is subject to the bishop. Now, all religious orders within a diocese are subject to the bishop in so far as that bishop must approve any religious ministry in his diocese. Bishops have no authority over the internal workings of a community. So, if a priory or monastery elects as prior/abbot someone the bishop doesn't like, he is not empowered to dispose of that election. He can revoke the faculties of the priests in the house, or fire any offending religious who works for the diocese. But he cannot step into the internal affairs of religious.
There are other prominent differences between RP's and DP's. One big difference is the taking of religious vows. RP's are made religious priests by making solemn vows regarding poverty, chastity, and obedience. DP's do not make religious vows. At ordination, all priests promise chastity and obedience to an "ordinary" superior. For religious priests at ordination, we make these promises to both our immediate superior and the bishop. DP's do not take a vow of poverty b/c they are considered "self-employed" by the IRS. RP's usually have access to community cars, funds, medical care, room and board, and other essentials for daily living. DP's provide most of these for themselves as "employees" of the diocese. In practical terms, the vow of poverty is about not owning anything in one's own name. RP's cannot own a car. DP can. Same goes for houses, boats, etc.
Another big difference is spirituality. RP's often belong to order's with long traditions in certain kinds of spirituality. Think: Ignatian Exercises for the Jebbies. Or the spirituality of "prayer and work'" for the Benedictines. Dominicans consider our daily lives lived according to the constitutions to be our spirituality. There is a spirituality for DP's. The big difference is that DP's rarely live in community. There prinicple spirituality revolves around their ministries in direct service to their parish.
This brings up several other differences rooted in ministry:
DP's work within the limits of their dioceses (there are exception for academics and others)
RP's can work anywhere in the world where their order has a house.
DP's usually work in parishes or ministries that directly serve the laity (exceptions: ditto)
RP's often work in universities, hospitals, secular jobs, etc. where the focus is not necessarily on serving the parochial laity directly (exceptions: many RP's serve parishes)
DP's have fewer opportunities to "switch ministries" b/c their immediate superior (the bishop) has responsibility for ministries only within his diocese and parishes need priests
RP's have much more flexibility in this regard b/c their assignments are made by superiors who have responsibilities beyond a diocesan border (e.g. yours truly assigned to Rome rather than a university in my province)
DP's have fewer opporunities for advanced study b/c of the pressing needs of their dioceses
RP's are usually encouraged to pursue advanced study if there is need
DP's have a more flexible daily schedule and tend to be more available for one-on-one interaction b/c they do not have community responsibilities (cooking for six or more brothers, taking care of community cars, accounts, etc.)
RP's are much more restricted by community obligations in their daily schedule and availability (communal prayer, meals, recreation time, etc.)
One interesting development since Vatican Two is the blurring of some of these lines between RP's and DP's. It is not at all uncommon now to find DP's living in small communities in urban areas where parishes are clustered together. In fact, many younger DP's are insisting on living in community as a way of maintaining accountability and fostering fraternity. At the same time, many religious, in the name of ministerial necessity, have moved out of community life and set up house in apartments or rectories to live alone. For the most part, this development was a reaction to the perceived restrictions of the community rule that some felt stifled their ministries. This trend among male religious is waning fast and in some cases actually forbidden.
One simplistic way of understanding the essential difference between RP's and DP's is to think of RP's as a bunch of guys living in a fraternity house (shudder) and DP's as guys who live by themselves as single men. This image (though deeply flawed) at least points up the day-to-day differences that emerge from the differences in living by yourself and living with your family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)