Conscience for me but not for thee

Obama Catholics in the Democratic Party continue to work hard to "reduce the number of abortions" by making them moral, legal, free, and now. . .mandatory! Mandatory for doctors to perform them, that is.

Washington D.C., Apr 3, 2009 / 09:13 pm (CNA).- Yesterday, a majority of Catholic Senators rejected a conscience protection law proposed by Senator Tom Colburn that would protect health care workers who object to abortions from participating in the procedure.

Conscience protection has become a topic of debate after President Obama announced that he was reviewing the law and could possible eliminate it. Colburn’s amendment states, "To protect the freedom of conscience for patients and the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions."

The amendment was voted down by a margin of 41-56, in which a majority of Catholic Senators voted against the amendment 9-16. The failure to pass this legislation now leaves the door open for the Obama Administration to rescind the law by executive order and force health workers to compromise their moral convictions.

[. . .]

Yet, 16 Catholic Senators still voted against the protection of these "human rights" including: Begich (D-AK), Dodd (D-CT), Kaufman (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL), Harkin (D-IA), Landrieu (D- LA), Collins (R-ME), Mikulski (D-MD), Kerry (D-MA), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Gillibrand (D-NY), Reed (D-RI), Leahy (D-VT), Cantwell (D-WA), Murray (D-WA).

The nine Catholic Senators that voted for the amendment were; Murkowski (R-AK), Martinez (R-FL), Risch (R-ID), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Vitter (R-LA), Johanns(R-NE), Voinovich (R-OH), and Casey (D-PA).

So, all that business we are constantly hearing from dissenting Catholics about "conscience" being the only rule and reason for every moral act only applies to those who agree with their politics. . .disagree with their politics "in conscience" and you are S.O.L.

Obama's upcoming revocation of the conscience clauses that protect health care workers from performing abortions is nothing more than a move against Catholic health-care. The abortion ideologues in his administration hate the idea that there are hospitals and doctors out there who do not bow before Moloch.

For you Catholics out there who voted for this moral monster, I have a question for you: any buyer's remorse yet?

Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Why someTHINGS and not noTHINGS at all?

Way back a hundred years ago, I made a "D" in ECON 202. That's when I decided that perhaps International Banking wasn't the right major for me! When I announced--quite proudly--to my family that I had changed my major to philosophy, my Banker Mom and Real Estate Dad asked, "What the hell is philosophy?" I'm sure my answer then wasn't very reassuring, but now I would say, "Philosophy teaches us to ask questions like: 'what the hell is philosophy?'" Reassuring? No, not really.

However, this question--on the nature of philosophy--is as common to philosophers as diverse in temperament and style as Joseph Pieper (Thomist) and Martin Heidegger.

Here's the opening paragraph to Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics:

"Why are there beings at all instead of nothing? That is the question. Presumably it is no arbitrary question. 'Why are there beings at all instead of nothing?'--this is obviously the first of all questions. Of course, it is not the first question in the chronological sense. Individuals as well as peoples ask many questions in the course of their historical passage through time. They explore, investigate, and test many sorts of things before they run into the question 'Why are there being at all instead of nothing?' Many never run into this question at all, if running into the question means not only hearing and reading the interrogative sentence as uttered, but asking the question, that is, taking a stand on it, posing it, compelling oneself into the state of this questioning."

People who ask this question--why is there any at all instead of just nothingness?--are philosophers. . .even if they think themselves Bankers or Real Estate Agents.

Heidegger continues:

"In great despair [. . .] when all weight tends to dwindle away from things and the sense of things grows dark, the question looms. Perhaps it strikes only once, like the tolling of a bell that resounds into Dasein* and gradually fades. The question is heartfelt joy [. . .] The question is there in a spell of boredom, when we are equally distant from despair and joy, but when the stubborn ordinariness of beings lays open a wasteland in which it makes no difference to us whether beings are or are not--and then, in a distinctive form, the questions resonates again: why are there beings at all instead of nothing?"

And I would say: in that open wasteland--there, right there--is exactly where we make our stand for or against Christ! Our "being here" is either being perfected in Being Himself (i.e., growing in holiness). or we are wasting as beings and making no difference at all.

*Dasein: an insanely complicated concept to translate. . .a human being who has become aware that his/her existence is a site where Being is made present to other existing things and all the subsequent weirdnesses of anxieties, etc. that accompany this awareness.

Prayer!

Please pray for my poor laptop!

Just this morning a vertical line appeared on the monitor. I asked one of our techie-friars about it. He asked how old my laptop is. . .five years. . .he shook his head, "Probably gonna die soon."

NOOOO!!! I have to finish the semester and get my book manuscript in. . .

So, pray! Please.

Thanks & Remember

As always. . .

. . .my deep appreciation and gratitude for the recent activity on the WISH LIST!

I have been blessed with many arrivals of new gifts in the last few days.

Thank You notes will go out tomorrow (4/01). Also, as always, my Book Benefactors will find themselves on my daily prayer list, including my Sunday Mass intentions.

Occasionally, I get emails about the List. . .please remember that I have three different areas of interest at the moment: 1). prayer in all its catholic forms; 2). the relationship btw faith and science; and 3) questions in the philosophy of religious experience.

The first corresponds to my upcoming book from Liguori Publications. The second to my academic work on the license/doctorate in philosophy. And the third in my overall preaching/teaching.

Any Dominican worth his salt has to juggle at least three intellectual/academic interests at one time!

No Garden, No Cross

Fifth Sunday of Lent: Jer 31:31-34; Heb 5:7-9; John 12:20-33
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Jesus is troubled. What should he say? “Father, save me from this hour” or “Father, glorify your name”? He chooses to glorify God’s name. Why? He says, “…it was for this purpose [to glorify God’s name] that I came to this hour.” By glorifying God’s name he fulfills his purpose. Does this glorification of God’s name accomplish any vital tasks other than praising the Father? Yes. Jesus says to the crowd at that time of judgment, “. . .the ruler of this world will be driven out. And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself." What Jesus says and does is the engine of our salvation; his word and deed makes us sons of the Father. What does he say? “Father, glorify your name.” What does he do? He dies. And then he rises from death to take us with him. So, why is Jesus troubled? To rise with him, we must die with him and our deaths must be in service to him. We cannot hope to escape the betrayal of Judas, the passion in Jerusalem, the nails and wood of the cross, and then expect to be part of a glorious Easter harvest. If we will follow Jesus up from the earth, we must follow him on the earth. This is what troubles our Lord: “. . .unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit.” To rise, we must fall; to produce much fruit, we must die.

Are you ready to die? I mean, are you ready to follow Christ and produce the fruit he produced by dying on the cross? Most of us hope to avoid the kind of death that Christ died. And most of us will. At least in the particulars. Few of us will be scourged. Or forced-marched to a burning landfill and nailed to a cross. Few of us will be subjected to public ridicule and executed to spare the nation the wrath of its foreign military governors. Few of us will be accused of blasphemy, religious sedition. If we are killed for the faith, it will be incrementally. Slowly. Almost invisibly. The proverbial frog boiled by degrees of increasing heat. The Enemy’s strategy this time around is far more subtle. More understated and restrained. This time we will be accused of hating ourselves, our neighbors, our God; we will be accused of standing against truth, against the beauty of creation, against the goodness of our human natures. This time, we will be charged with being insufficiently humane, unremarkably merciful. And like all the other times, we will die. . .for preaching the simple truth of the gospel.

God’s will be done; therefore, we are troubled. So, what do we say: “Father, save us from this hour” or “Father, glorify your name”? We could ask our Lord to save us from this hour. We could. But why should we? Can we honestly claim we didn’t know what was in store for us? Can we look God in the eye and say, “Hey, this wasn’t in the brochure!”? No, to claim such a thing would be a lie. If you know what it means to be baptized into his death, then you know what it means to be resurrected into his life. If you will rise, you will die. Why would you beg God to save you from the very thing you signed on for? Yes, you were promised a garden. . .and you will have it! Look for the path marked “Gethsemane.” Ask yourself: why do I deserve a better life and death than Christ? You might say, “Didn’t Christ die so we wouldn’t have to?” No. No, he died so that we might have eternal life and have it most abundantly! That path—the Way to an abundant life, an eternal life—cuts straight through Gethsemane. There is no detour.

No detour, for sure. But there is hope; here it is: “…when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself." Though we may understandably fear the death we have signed up for, part and parcel of that death is the promise—the guarantee—the death is not the end; that is, death is not our end, our purpose. We were not created to die. We do not live to die. Though our bodies fail us, and we cease to live, we do not stop being exactly who God made and remade us to Be. In fact, in Christ, we are made perfectly who were first made to be. And only in Christ—perfect God, perfect Man—can we be perfectly who we are made to be for all time. When Christ dies on the cross, humanity dies with him. When Christ rises from the tomb—dead for three days, three nights—humanity rises with him. If you and I will be among those who rise with Christ, we must be among those who die with Christ. As Christ himself teaches us: “Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there also will my servant be.” If you see a detour here, you need to have your eyes checked.

Where are you? Whose path do you follow? Which Way do you go? You, like every man and woman ever created, will be offered a bag of thirty silver coins. The Powers of this world want one thing for this price: a simple, easy compromise; an answer from one who has chosen to follow the Way of Truth and Life—“So that the many may avoid persecution/pain/inconvenience/anxiety, tell us what we want to hear; tell us that this Christ is a fraud; tell us that his good news is simply one message among many equally valuable options; tell us that we do not have to suffer the cross in order to rise again; tell us that we can disobey and still reap the harvest!” At this moment, who are you? Where are you?

Before you answer. . .before you commit. . .hear again: “[Jesus] learned obedience from what he suffered; and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.” If you will learn, if we will be saved. . .we will first suffer. We will obey. And in obedience, we will glorify the name of God our Father!


Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Stats never lie, the Media usually do

Commenting on the post, More Condom Lies, reader Mark makes the following observations:

And the condomaniacs get away with it because John Q Public doesn't understand that probability is multiplicative, not additive; the odds (of preventing infection) go down as he continues his risk-taking.

NIH advertises an 86% effective rate for condoms in preventing pregnancy. Lets put that in terms we can understand:

Would you jump out of a plane with 99 others skydivers, knowing that 14 parachutes wouldn't open? then get in and do it again and again and... the probability of surviving 10 jumps is only 22%, 20 jumps and its down to 4%, and there is only 1% chance of surviving 30 jumps.

The probability of surviving 100 jumps is .0000282%.

Now, no one will tell you the probability of a condom's effectiveness preventing HIV infection (because to run a test would be highly immoral and even considered unethical by the secularists), so the only thing we can go on is the high failure rate of condoms in preventing pregnancy.

I deeply appreciate this sort of analysis because I need a calculator to add together more than three double-digit numbers. Sad, I know. . .but true.

What's also sad but true is the consistency with which the Old Media lashes the Church for its stubborn refusal to emerge from the dungeons of medieval alchemy and embrace the enlightened wisdom of postmodern scientism. That these very same squawkers repeatedly choose to ignore the facts that their much-vaunted science provides them in favor of politically-correct propaganda is telling. What does it tell us? It tells us that we can safely ignore their self-serving homilies extolling unbridled condom hedonism and pay attention to the facts.

And those fact are these. . .

--from Edward Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies:

“The pope is correct,” Green told National Review Online Wednesday, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”

“There is,” Green adds, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”

Green added: “I also noticed that the pope said ‘monogamy’ was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than ‘abstinence.’ The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates (the other major factor is male circumcision).”

To summarize both the Holy Father and Professor Green:

+ Condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of HIV at the level of populations.
+ Greater availability and use of condoms increases HIV-infection rates.
+ Monogamy reduces HIV-infection rates.

Our Betters in the Old Media (and some in the Church) would have us believe that monogamy and abstinence are impossible. Condoms are the only answer. These, of course, are the same people who tell us that abortion is perfectly moral and should remain legal. Why? Isn't it obvious? When the condom fails--and it will--they don't want all those cute, chubby little kids running around reminding the Great Unwashed that the Condom Gospel they have heard preached from the pulpits of the NYT, CNN, the White House was really just self-serving propaganda. Better to just get rid of the evidence. . .

Abortion is holy work: following our inner-Episcopalian

Chris Johnson of MCJ notes the recent selection of The Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale as the president of the ill-named Episcopal Divinity School. Johnson notes that Ms Ragsdale is a pro-abortion priestess of the Episcopal Organization. . .a rather radical supporter of abortion, in fact. He asks:

How radically pro-abortion is Katie Rags? This radically pro-abortion:

[From a Ragsdale homily]: "And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight — only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.

These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.

I want to thank all of you who protect this blessing – who do this work every day: the health care providers, doctors, nurses, technicians, receptionists, who put your lives on the line to care for others (you are heroes — in my eyes, you are saints); the escorts and the activists; the lobbyists and the clinic defenders; all of you. You’re engaged in holy work."

This is evil.

Please keep in mind faithful Catholics: this woman is a priestess in an ecclesial community that many of our own R.C. "Spirit of Vatican Two" brothers and sisters admire for its wonderfully relevant theology; its attention to "prophetic ministry;" and its democratic polity.

The E.O. didn't end up in the suicidal chaos it finds itself in now by accident. Progressives and radicals engaged in a systemic dismantling of the E.O.'s canon law and tradition with the irregular "ordinations" of 11 women in 1974 in Philadelphia. (Those Catholic women "ordaining" themselves on the boats are imitating these "ordinations.") But long before these acts of rebellion, the theological foundations of a once-beautiful ecclesial community were rotted away by modernist theological dissent on fundamental dogma; episcopal complicity with heresy in the ranks of bishops; compromise with sexual libertines and moral disease; and finally, the adoption of radical feminism and Marixism as legitimate Christian worldviews and foundations for church revolution.

The E.O. is hemorrhaging membership and money. They are mired in hundreds of lawsuits with orthodox dioceses and parishes over property and assets. The Presiding Bishop, a radical feminist, Ms Katherine Schori, is deposing and firing in violation of the organization's canon laws fellow-bishops who oppose her. The organization has been declared "out of communion" with almost 2/3 of the rest of the Anglican Communion for its diabolical violations of scripture and tradition (the E.O. ordained a divorced, "partnered" homosexual man as bishop of New Hampshire). It's venerable Book of Common Prayer is due for yet another overhaul and this time the plan is to scuttle the whole thing in favor of a three-ring binder designed to allow parishes to "cut and paste" as they see fit. One diocese has elected (yes, elected) as its bishop a man who is an Episcopal priest and also a Buddhist priest. Another diocese supports an Episcopal priestess who is also a practicing Muslim. . .this Episco-Muslim teaches scripture at Seattle University, a university "in the Jesuit tradition." And this once venerated ecclesial community has replaced its Christian moral theology with the dubious Utopian fantasy of the United Nations Millenium Goals--a grab-bag of Marxist, globalists "Genie in a Bottle" socio-economic engineering outcomes that will be achieved and administered by the highly efficient, penny-pinching, subsidiarists of the U.N.'s threadbare bureaucracy. Nothing to fear in that!

Folks, this is the folly Catholic dissidents would have the Roman Church imitate. This is where the Obama-Catholics would lead us.

Mark Shea, summarizing Ss. Augustine and Aquinas, says it best, "Sin makes you stupid." Once you have abandoned the possibility of objective moral standards and rejected the reality of intrinsically morally evil acts, preaching the holiness of child-murder is just a step away.

With Dominic at Santa Sabina

Fr. Benedict, OP; Fr. Michael, OP; three young men from Notre Dame, and I went to Santa Sabina this morning. FYI: Santa Sabina is the "motherhouse" of the Dominican Order, i.e. the curia of the Order, including the Master, lives there.

We toured the basilica--even got a chance to go into the old Imperial Roman ruins and the leftovers of Isis' temple underneath the Church! We met a wonderful group of Peruvian Dominican sisters.

The highlight: we celebrated Mass in St. Dominic's cell. I offered my Mass for the benefactors of the Order and especially for my Book Benefactors! You know who you are. . .

Fr. Philip

More Condom Lies

Diogenes gets it right...again!

Simon says, The Pope distorts science

[. . .]

Some of us can remember when AIDS was not yet a problem, back when the public health game was to get all young women on the Pill -- ostensibly to reduce pregnancy, in reality to justify the emancipated sexuality of the advocates. In that period Science (i.e., spectacled men in white lab coats grasping Erlenmeyer flasks) was droning on about the high failure rate of the condom. Condoms were ridiculed by public health advocates as a crude backwoodsy expedient that only the naive or the unscrupulous would employ. Has the science changed in the meantime? No, only the terms of flattering the People Who Count.

Take a look at the persons who really care, as opposed to persons for whom "caring" is an ideological posture. Mother Teresa's nuns have been running AIDS hospices in Manhattan, San Francisco, and elsewhere since the 1980s. The caregivers are nuns who come mostly from third world backgrounds; their patients come mostly from first world cities. The nuns are chaste and healthy; yet it's their patients, not they, who came of age surrounded by free condoms, sex ed, and the full force of the public health propaganda machine. If the Lancet were right it should be the other way around: the little sisters would be wasting on the cots and the Manhattanites would be tending to them. Can't help but think that what the Lancet calls the "Pope's error" is a very felix culpa.

Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Reiki: Not Science, Not Christian

Glance around many of the Catholic retreat centers in the U.S. and you won't find a cross, a crucifix, a rosary, or even a tabernacle. What you will find is a labyrinth, dream-catchers, Mother-Goddess statues, and a Reiki room. What is Reiki? Well, for the most part, among disaffected (i.e., "bored Baby-boomers") U.S. religious, it's the latest Let's Use Anything But the Prayer of the Roman Church liturgical craze.

The following document (excerpted) was issued today by the USCCB's committee on doctrine. It directly condemns the practice of Reiki in Catholic facilities.

Let the temper tantrums begin!

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING REIKI AS AN ALTERNATIVE THERAPY
Committee on DoctrineUnited States Conference of Catholic Bishops

A) The Origins and Basic Characteristics of Reiki

4. Reiki is a technique of healing that was invented in Japan in the late 1800s by Mikao Usui, who was studying Buddhist texts. According to Reiki teaching, illness is caused by some kind of disruption or imbalance in one's "life energy." A Reiki practitioner effects healing by placing his or her hands in certain positions on the patient's body in order to facilitate the flow of Reiki, the "universal life energy," from the Reiki practitioner to the patient. There are numerous designated hand positions for addressing different problems. Reiki proponents assert that the practitioner is not the source of the healing energy, but merely a channel for it. To become a Reiki practitioner, one must receive an "initiation" or "attunement" from a Reiki Master. This ceremony makes one "attuned" to the "universal life energy" and enables one to serve as a conduit for it. There are said to be three different levels of attunement (some teach that there are four). At the higher levels, one can allegedly channel Reiki energy and effect healings at a distance, without physical contact.

B) Reiki as a Natural Means of Healing

5. Although Reiki proponents seem to agree that Reiki does not represent a religion of its own, but a technique that may be utilized by people from many religious traditions, it does have several aspects of a religion. Reiki is frequently described as a "spiritual" kind of healing as opposed to the common medical procedures of healing using physical means. Much of the literature on Reiki is filled with references to God, the Goddess, the "divine healing power," and the "divine mind." The life force energy is described as being directed by God, the "Higher Intelligence," or the "divine consciousness." Likewise, the various "attunements" which the Reiki practitioner receives from a Reiki Master are accomplished through "sacred ceremonies" that involve the manifestation and contemplation of certain "sacred symbols" (which have traditionally been kept secret by Reiki Masters). Furthermore, Reiki is frequently described as a "way of living," with a list of five "Reiki Precepts" stipulating proper ethical conduct.

C) Reiki and the Healing Power of Christ

8. Some people have attempted to identify Reiki with the divine healing known to Christians. They are mistaken. The radical difference can be immediately seen in the fact that for the Reiki practitioner the healing power is at human disposal. Some teachers want to avoid this implication and argue that it is not the Reiki practitioner personally who effects the healing, but the Reiki energy directed by the divine consciousness. Nevertheless, the fact remains that for Christians the access to divine healing is by prayer to Christ as Lord and Savior, while the essence of Reiki is not a prayer but a technique that is passed down from the "Reiki Master" to the pupil, a technique that once mastered will reliably produce the anticipated results. Some practitioners attempt to Christianize Reiki by adding a prayer to Christ, but this does not affect the essential nature of Reiki. For these reasons, Reiki and other similar therapeutic techniques cannot be identified with what Christians call healing by divine grace.

9. The difference between what Christians recognize as healing by divine grace and Reiki therapy is also evident in the basic terms used by Reiki proponents to describe what happens in Reiki therapy, particularly that of "universal life energy." Neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on "universal life energy" that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will. In fact, this worldview has its origins in eastern religions and has a certain monist and pantheistic character, in that distinctions among self, world, and God tend to fall away. We have already seen that Reiki practitioners are unable to differentiate clearly between divine healing power and power that is at human disposal.

III. CONCLUSION

10. Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki therapy presents insoluble problems. In terms of caring for one's physical health or the physical health of others, to employ a technique that has no scientific support (or even plausibility) is generally not prudent.

11. In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers. To use Reiki one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science. Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, however, a Catholic who puts his or her trust in Reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one's worship of God by turning one's religious feeling and practice in a false direction. While sometimes people fall into superstition through ignorance, it is the responsibility of all who teach in the name of the Church to eliminate such ignorance as much as possible.

12. Since Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or scientific evidence, it would be inappropriate for Catholic institutions, such as Catholic health care facilities and retreat centers, or persons representing the Church, such as Catholic chaplains, to promote or to provide support for Reiki therapy.

Most Rev. William E. Lori (Chairman)
Most Rev. John C. Nienstedt
Most Rev. Leonard P. Blair
Most Rev. Arthur J. Serratelli
Most Rev. José H. Gomez
Most Rev. Allen H. Vigneron
Most Rev. Robert J. McManus
Most Rev. Donald W. Wuerl

Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Two Summer classes at U.D.

I am teaching two second term summer courses at the University of Dallas: the sophomore core course, Western Theological Tradition, and a senior seminar in English, American Literature.

Reading list for American Lit.:

Twain, M. Huckleberry Finn
Hawthorne, N. The Scarlet Letter
Melville, H. Bartleby the Scrivner
Faulkner, Wm. As I Lay Dying
O’Connor, F. The Complete Stories
McCarthy, C. The Road
Poetry packet

Western Theological Tradition:

Augustine. The Essential Augustine (anthology of Augustine's work)
Davis, L. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787)
Hillerbrand, H. J. The Protestant Reformation (anthology of major Protestant theologians)
Pegis, A. Introduction to Thomas Aquinas (selections from the Summa theologiae)
Richardson, C. Early Christian Fathers (anthology of Patristic writings)
Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum & Lumen Gentium

Being/Not-being: there is no question

4th Sunday of Lent: 2 Chr 36.14-16, 19-23; Eph 2.4-10; Jn 3.14-21
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS. Domenico e Sisto, Roma

Have you given much thought to the difference it would make in your self-understanding if you chose to believe that you are a cosmic accident rather than a created being? Assuming, of course, that you think of yourself as a creature—a wholly made person, made by a Maker—a creature gifted with not only biological life but an immortal soul made for life eternal; assuming you think of yourself in this way, how different would your life be if you decided this afternoon to believe that you are nothing more than the fortunate consequence of cosmic circumstance, an admittedly freakish development wrought from chance chemical reactions, advantageous climatic conditions, aggressive genetic survival, and the heir to all the fortunes an opposable thumb gives this world’s more advanced primates? Would you think, for instance, that this world, this universe needs you? Needs us? Would we have any reason at all to believe that we are any more necessary to the other biological accidents of this planet than if we believe ourselves to be creatures made for a purpose? I would say, we would have less reason to believe ourselves necessary, fewer good reasons for thinking ourselves particularly important. Accidents are accidents; by definition, random clashes of things tossed at one another by chance in circumstance. If you don’t think of yourself as an accident, what difference does it make to you then to read Paul writing to the Ephesians: “. . .we are [God’s] handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them”?

The great German poet, Rainer M. Rilke, in what is arguably the greatest modern elegy, the “Ninth Elegy” of his Dunio Elegies, asks my question this way: “Why, if this interval of being can be spent serenely/in the form of a laurel[…]: why then/have to be human—and, escaping from fate,/keeping longing for fate?...” His question is not an easy one; however, rather pointedly, Rilke is asking: since we have escaped fate by being human—our human choices design our futures not fate—, why continue to long for fate, for destiny? Why do we yearn for a purpose, a story already written out for us? He says, “Oh not because happiness exists,/[…]But because truly being here is so much; because everything here/apparently needs us, this fleeting world, which in some strange way/keeps calling to us. Us, the most fleeting of all.” Fleeting though we are, we are gifted with the use of words. Rilke argues that the ungifted things of this world need us to say the unsayable, to name those things that cannot name themselves, and not only name them but praise them as well, and in praising them, change them: “[…] transient,/they look to us for deliverance: us, the most transient of all./They want us to change them, utterly, in our invisible heart,/within—oh endlessly—within us! Whoever we may be at last.” Whoever we may be at last. . .

Who are we, at last? Paul says that we are God’s handiwork. This is who we are now and at last. Rilke tells us that “truly being here is so much.” And he is right. Truly being is so much. Too much, perhaps. Just being here is overwhelming—even as rational animals crafted to live immortally and knowing it to be so—simply being so, no more than being so, just this one thing right now, this can be too much. Forget doing. Forget thinking. Forget past and future. Just being exactly who and what we are—just being this here—can be too much. Being God’s handiwork, being made, created in Christ Jesus. . .each one of us composed, molded, drawn, built; from nothing, generated and blessed with breath and memory and intellect and will. And why? Why are we made? To name our inanimate cousins in creation? No. To take them into ourselves and change them? No. To propagate our DNA like herd animals, breeding like livestock? No. None of these is too much. None of these is truly being. Why, then?

Paul writes, “God, who is rich in mercy, because of the great love he had for us [. . .] brought us to life with Christ [. . .] that in the ages to come He might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.” We were brought to life in Christ so that our Father might show us His infinite kindness through Christ. We were created in love for no other reason than to be loved. And we know that are loved by Love Himself when He shows us “the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness…” The oft-repeated and much-loved gospel reading says this perfectly: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.” The ultimate demonstration of the Father’s infinite mercy, His immeasurable kindness. . .is His Son dying on a cross—a death that gave us birth to a new life in Christ. Prophecy and history meet to fulfill God’s will. That was no accident, no random clash of free-floating events!

So, if you don’t think of yourself as an accident, what difference does it make to you then that you are a creature created in love by Love? At the very least, you must think of yourself as the recipient of a divine gift; not only life itself, but every good thing that can given to one who lives faithfully in Christ. Read Paul again: “. . .we are [God’s] handiwork, created in Christ Jesus FOR the good works that God has prepared in advance, THAT we should live in them.” We are creatures created for the good works of Christ so that we should live in these good works. Do you live in the good works of Christ? If you do, then you do not live an accidental life, a life of chance, but rather a life of truth, as Jesus teaches us, “…whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.” Live in the good works of Christ, do these same good works, and your good works are seen as holy works done by God’s will.

Notice, however, what happens when someone begins to think of himself as the product of random processes. Paul says that we are created in Christ Jesus to live in his good works. But if you hold that you are a product rather than a creature, then you will not acknowledge Christ or the good works you were created to use and imitate. Jesus says, “Whoever believes in [Christ] will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned…” Already been condemned. How so? Random products of natural processes have no purpose, no end. Random products are not good, true, or beautiful. They just are. They cannot truly be as beings loved by a Lover. For them, there is no Lover. No love. Random products can feel passion, think rational thoughts, enjoy art, literature, and music. But can they do truly Good Things if they will not acknowledge they are the handiwork of Goodness Himself? To what—beyond their chanced, mechanical lives—does the true, the good, and the beautiful refer? What can love be but the pre-determined firing of neurons in the proper sequence to produce the physiological effect most often labeled “love”? Is this condemnation? Yes, of a sort. Life in Christ is life lived knowing you are living out a divinely-gifted purpose. Life without Christ is life lived knowing you are living until your body parts fail you—a very limited warranty indeed.

We can end with Rilke. . .knowing that we are creatures who “live and move and have our being” in God Himself, our God “who is rich in mercy [and] brought us to life with Christ,” knowing we are not products but sons and daughters, we can shout with Rilke: “Look, I am living. On what? Neither childhood nor future/grows any smaller. . . .Superabundant being/wells up in my heart.”


Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.

Homily Coming Soon!

Yes, there is a Sunday homily in the pipeline. . .it got weird, so some revision was necessary. . .and it is still a little strange.

New Faith + Science posts

Three new posts at my faith + science blog: suppl(e)mental.

Check 'em out!

Questions about habits (Updated)

[NB. Thank you all for the great comments on this post! I believe that my initial assertion--habit-wearing can stir conversation and controversy!--has proven to be true. I remember one thing my novice master told us the first time we met in a novice chapter, "Brothers, we can wear the habit as a weapon--to intimidate, to segregate, to hide. We can also refuse to wear the habit, and this too can be a weapon--to intimidate, to segregate, to hide. The habit can be made into a costume to hide who you are. It can be an outfit to accessorize. It can be a symbol of power and authority you do not rightfully have. It can also be a sign of your preaching." In my mind, "to wear or not to wear" is not the question. The question is: what is the Dominican habit to a Dominican?]

If you want to start an argument among Dominican friars you could not do it more quickly than to ask: "So, why don't you guys wear your habits all the time?" The next sound you will hear is the room exploding.

My first argument as a Dominican--during the pre-novitiate retreat, no less!--was about when and how often we should wear the habit. My first yelling match in the novitiate was over the habit. My first challenge to authority in the Order was about wearing the habit to class at our Dominican owned and operated school of theology (that's right, we were forbidden to wear our habit at our own school!). I've turned down teaching opportunities at Catholic schools where wearing the habit would be discouraged.

You might think then that I am almost never out of the habit. You'd be wrong. I spend most of my day in shorts and a tee-shirt. I go out shopping in street clothes. I travel in civvies. Generally speaking, I wear the habit here in Rome on three occasions: to class, to ministry, to liturgical celebrations (and when you consider that I am almost always doing one of these or all three, I'm in-habited more often than not). I have worn it to show visitors around town. And to dinner if someone is treating me.

Religious habits in Rome are like cats in the forum--many and variously colored. The white Dominican habit is very striking. Add the black cappa and you have what we like to call "The Cadillac of Habits." I'm told that we Dominicans must always wear the black part of our habit when walking around in Rome. Apparently, only the Holy Father may wear white in urbe. I've never seen this written down anywhere, but some of the friars insist on it and others dismiss it. The Norbetines and one other male religious group in Rome have habits almost identical to ours. Some of the African sisters' groups have bright pink habits. Some have a deep indigo. Others a pale yellow. The strangest habit I've ever seen belongs to the Heralds of the Gospel. These guys look like knights w/o their armor!

So, why not wear the habit all the time? There are many practical reasons: 1) it's white, so it gets very dirty, very quickly; 2) it's not the most utilitarian garb--lots of flowing material makes working in libraries, etc. difficult; 3) it's hot, sometimes very hot depending on the material. None of these alone nor all of them together are perfect reasons not to wear the habit all the time. More like a list of excuses, really. Sometimes wearing the habit draws the wrong kind of attention--anti-clerical types, religious nuts (and I mean the dangerous, mentally unstable types), people wanting to convert you, people demanding apologies for the abuse heaped upon them by Sr. Mary of the Five Wounds when they were in third grade, etc. However, you also get positive attention as well--kind comments about being a priest, requests for blessings and prayers, sometimes a quick confession, often simple questions about something Catholic in the news.

For the OP's there are no hard and fast rules for wearing the habit. I've noticed that among some of the European friars, the habit is pretty much dead. Here at the Angelicum, OP students and profs wear them to class. We wear them to meals and prayer. I often see the younger friars leaving the university in habit. Sometimes I will see a friar in the cloister hallway wearing just the tunic and belt, indicating to me that he's in habit while in his room. I've even seen friars coming out of the bathroom in full kit! That's dedication right there.

Some wear the habit as a sign of consecration. Others because it is a way to maintain poverty. Many because they need the reminder that they are religious. And even a few as a form of obedience. There may be one or two in the Order who wear it for all these reasons. There are some who refuse to wear the habit because they see it as a medieval garb inappropriate for the 21st century. The habit is a sign of male authority. The habit encourages clericalism. The habit is weapon, a shield, a barrier, a mask, an obstacle. It's too monastic. I've heard otherwise perfectly sane and highly intelligent OP's say all of these things. Fortunately, these friars are in a tiny, tiny (and shrinking) minority.

Now, watch the combox fill up with OP arguments!


Unsigned comments will be deleted. Permission is given to re-post or reprint with attribution for non-commercial use only.