It would appear that Mike Huckabee is a man of great courage. He had the audacity to say "merry Christmas" in his latest political add and actually point out who the Christmas holiday is actually referring to! Doesn’t he know that he is in for a lot of criticism? Hasn’t he gotten the memo, the one that said that Christianity has been marginalized and doesn’t belong in public life?
Criticism
Yes, the sensitivity police have jumped on this situation. There is even the suggestion that parts of the book shelf in the background of the add are shaped like a cross, thus sending a subliminal message! (If someone was openly talking about Jesus Christ in an add why would he use subliminal images?) The critics are talking about this as if it were a violation of the separation of Church and state. Joanna Weiss of the Boston Globe writes "The implied message, observers say, seems to be twofold: that there is one important religion and one candidate who represents it best."(1)
Secular paranoia
I think those observers are wrong. They are merely reading their own insecurities into the situation. They are so afraid of theocracies they feel that any public mention of religion is a seed for religious oppression or that any religious expression in synch with the majority of the spiritual sentiments of much of the population is tantamount to triumphalism. But all Huckabee is doing is extending a Christmas greeting to the vast majority of Americans who have at least some knowledge of what Christmas is supposed to be about. Whatever the founding fathers meant by separation of church and state, they did not mean that the majority had to hide their spiritual sentiments.
Fine response
I like the way Huckabee responded. He didn’t respond with anger and venom. He used humor to respond as well as reason and tact. In doing so he went against the stereotype of the fundamentalist fanatic, thus making it harder for the critics. It is a fine example of the Christian patience in the face of unfair attacks that our Lord desires us to exibit.
Christians here to stay
Whether the secularists like it or not, the majority of Americans are at least nominally Christian and many are devoutly so. We are not going anywhere.It’s been that way since the founding of the colonies. It is all well and good to be sensitive to religious minorities, it is the right thing to do. But why can’t the sensibilities of the majority also be respected?
Boston Globe, Dec. 19 , 2007, p. A17
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Musings on The Golden Compass
<
But in thinking about it I should not have been that surprised. After all, fantasy adventures are supposed to appeal to that part of humanity that reaches out for that which transcends our ordinary existence. Pullman’s atheism likely turned many off. When you deny that there is a transcendence then what savor can any fantasy story written by him or any atheist possibly have.
As it is his story reads more like science fiction than fantasy. It involves a parallel world with the technology of the late 19th century. It involves the search for "dust", that is subatomic particles that supposedly influence human behavior. It also involves searching for a way to travel to other parallel worlds. This of course runs afoul of the Church(no Protestant reformation in this world) because it smacks of heresy.
Here is where Pullman’s attitude makes itself manifest. He frames the narrative as a conflict between dogmatic conformity verses "free thought", the pressure to toe the line as opposed to objective inquiry. He takes liberties with the story of the Fall as told in Genesis, adding a few twists to fit his parallel world. This is typical rationalist railing against the "evil Church " ,as it supposedly squashes free inquiry in order to hold on to power that permeates much of Science Fiction.
Many secularists were wailing and gnashing their teeth when the movie allegedly toned down the anti Church elements in the book. But they needn’t have gotten all bent out of shape. They did not tone it down but merely disguised it. It is true that the movie did not use the word "church" (using the word magesterium instead)but it portrayed the "magesterium as even more power hungry than the book! Also, the word "heresy" is still used, making it obvious who is being referred to.
To most the book and movie seems merely to rail against ‘organized religion" and not spirituality in general. But Pullman seems to be influenced by sci-fi writers such as Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clark and Robert A. Hienlien among others. I have read many of their works and believe me, they have no use for any belief in transcendence but were firmly wedded to a positivistic world view where anything can be explained without reference to a deity. Pullman uses the same language and ideas these writers and rationalists in general use to undermine religion in general.
Its funny though, Pullman wrote these books as a response to C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books. It doesn’t appear that Compass, will beat Narnia at the box office. This may well reflect the fact that spirituality is stronger in this country than many believe. It also shows that we need not be afraid of atheists and rationalists expressing their views in movies and tv. Let them do so, we will respond, not with hysterical rancor , but with their own weapons, reason and argument, secure in the knowledge that human spirituality can not be easily dismissed.
Well I finally seen The Golden Compass. (And read the book)It is a shame I did not do it sooner in order to stay current. But then the fact that it is not current and that it did not do as well at the box office as expected in this country is news in itself. Apparently the calls for boycott the film by Christians on account of the author Phillip Pullman’s atheism have worked! I was sure the controversy would have boosted ticket sales, as controversy usually does.
Fantasy appeals to Transcendance
But in thinking about it I should not have been that surprised. After all, fantasy adventures are supposed to appeal to that part of humanity that reaches out for that which transcends our ordinary existence. Pullman’s atheism likely turned many off. When you deny that there is a transcendence then what savor can any fantasy story written by him or any atheist possibly have.
More like Science Fiction
Pullman's Outlook
Here is where Pullman’s attitude makes itself manifest. He frames the narrative as a conflict between dogmatic conformity verses "free thought", the pressure to toe the line as opposed to objective inquiry. He takes liberties with the story of the Fall as told in Genesis, adding a few twists to fit his parallel world. This is typical rationalist railing against the "evil Church " ,as it supposedly squashes free inquiry in order to hold on to power that permeates much of Science Fiction.
Secularist grumbling
Many secularists were wailing and gnashing their teeth when the movie allegedly toned down the anti Church elements in the book. But they needn’t have gotten all bent out of shape. They did not tone it down but merely disguised it. It is true that the movie did not use the word "church" (using the word magesterium instead)but it portrayed the "magesterium as even more power hungry than the book! Also, the word "heresy" is still used, making it obvious who is being referred to.
Sci Fi outlook
To most the book and movie seems merely to rail against ‘organized religion" and not spirituality in general. But Pullman seems to be influenced by sci-fi writers such as Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clark and Robert A. Hienlien among others. I have read many of their works and believe me, they have no use for any belief in transcendence but were firmly wedded to a positivistic world view where anything can be explained without reference to a deity. Pullman uses the same language and ideas these writers and rationalists in general use to undermine religion in general.
Desired Christian response
Its funny though, Pullman wrote these books as a response to C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books. It doesn’t appear that Compass, will beat Narnia at the box office. This may well reflect the fact that spirituality is stronger in this country than many believe. It also shows that we need not be afraid of atheists and rationalists expressing their views in movies and tv. Let them do so, we will respond, not with hysterical rancor , but with their own weapons, reason and argument, secure in the knowledge that human spirituality can not be easily dismissed.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Advent Reflections
The Advent season is upon us again. During this time of year we are assaulted with all the bustle and high pressure commercial hype. We are everywhere exhorted to buy this and that in order to keep the economic engine humming. The latest technological inventions in video games and music apparatus are trotted out at this time as well as high profile CD and DVD releases. With all this emphasis on commercial activity it is almost enough to make one forget what this time of year really means.
Almost.
Despite all the commercialism there are still more than a few hints in the air of the spirituality that should be more in evidence at this time of year. Christmas specials on TV and Christmas movies stress the more spiritual(If not specifically Christian) aspects of the holidays such as giving to the less fortunate and spending time with family and the emphasis on loving one’s neighbor. Even the lonely and less fortunate among us feel a particular sting at this time because they sense that there is a goodness this time of year signifies that indicates that there plight is something that is not right in this universe.
There seems to be a certain amount of merriment surrounding this time of year with the decorations ,parties, music, etc. It seems that even the mundane activities are permeated with a certain sense of transcendent joy. It is as if there is a sense that this time of year signifies that there is something to human existence that points to something more than mere materialism.
Thomas Merton spelled this out when he wrote “In the special and heavenly light which shines around the coming of the Word, all ordinary things are transfigured.”(1) It is like people in the West deep down sense something of the world transforming event that was and is the Incarnation, that many seem to sense, however dimly, that there is something Divine about Advent that commercialism can’t completely hide or extinguish.
As always, the Church through Christ has the answer for this intuition of the part of humanity. As then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote,” The last word about being is no longer the unamable absolute but love, which makes itself visable in the God who himself becomes a creature and thus unites the creature with the Creator.”(2) Karl Adam writes” For Christ our Lord is the incarnate revelation of God’s love, nor is the Body of Christ anything else but the implanting and growth of that same love, in all those who are incorporated into Christ.”(3)
Again, now Pope Benedict XVI writes in his recent encyclical Spe Salvi concerning the visit of the wise men
“ This scene , in fact, overturns the world view of that time, which in a different way has become fashionable once again today. It is not the elemental spirits of the universe, the laws of matter which ultimately govern the world and mankind, but a personal God governs the stars, that is, the universe. It is not the laws of matter and of evolution that have the final say, but reason, will, love_a Person. .....above everything there is a personal will, there is a spirit who in Jesus has revealed himself.”(4)
There was a popular song out a decade or so ago titled”What if God were one of us?” by Joan Osborne. It makes me wonder if she ever went to Sunday school because to the Christian GOD IS ONE OF US! That is the reason for the joy of Advent. “He shall be called Emanuel, GOD WITH US”. Again, now Pope Benedict XVI writes in his recent encyclical that the advent of Christ signals that God of love rules the universe, not impersonal forces, that we are free. God became man because of His love for us and thus showed us the true nature of divinity. In the midst of the pagan despair(a despair that is returning in this post modern world) He came to the world and conquered death and showed humanity that death and sin are not the defining aspect of human existence, that there is something beyond. that the meaning of life transcends the mundane experience of much of our existence.
All this much of humanity in the West seems to sense, however dimly in some. It is as if they sense that there is more to our human existence than the post modern nihilism that is creeping into the psyche of many. It is our duty of those of us who have been given the knowledge of significance of the incarnation to advance this knowledge. The Church’s celebration of Advent points to the God who broke into the space-time continuum and became part of the material world by becoming man to show this. Thus it is that we in the Church can show the direction their intuition leads by our words and especially our deeds. Thus we can show that the spiritual inclinations that still make themselves felt at this time of year are not mere sentimentalism or the wishful dreams of human imagination but are a manifestation of that part of the human person that senses the existence of a higher reality.
End notes
1. Thomas Merton, A Thomas Merton Reader, Image Books, Doubleday, New York, 1989P. 360
2. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Truth and Tolerance, Ignatius Press, San Francisco CA.2003, P. 84
3. Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, Image Books, Doubleday, 1954, P. 146
4 Pope Benedict XVI, Papal Encyclical Spe Salvi ch 5.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
James Carroll and the recent Beatifications
James Carroll is at it again!
In an article that appeared in the Boston Globe Last Monday Dec. 3 on page A11 he criticizes the beatification of the 498 Spanish martyrs who were killed in the Spanish Civil War. The Pope said that these were "heroic witnesses of the faith who, moved exclusively by love for Christ, paid with their blood for their fidelity to Him and His Church." Carroll raises some doubt about this.
Political motivation
"The Pope was implying here that these martyrs were not motivated by politics, even as the Vatican insisted their beatification was not meant to be political either. But one could wonder."
What!!
It takes a lot to get me steamed but this does it. Carroll is accusing the Church of being political in its decisions to beatify and canonize. He believes that the canonization of Thomas More, for example, was done in order to inspire the Spanish to resist the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War. Like they needed any more motivation than the fact that the Republicans were communistic and atheistic and thus out to destroy the Church!
But here’s the kicker. He states;
"One need not deny the individual innocence of the 498 ‘Spanish martyrs’ to understand that their celebration may have effects that are anything but innocent. The facts that these people were probably targeted merely for wearing cassocks or religious habits, and that they symbolize the many who fell to the grotesque excesses of Civil War violence are not enough to justify such glorification."
In an article that appeared in the Boston Globe Last Monday Dec. 3 on page A11 he criticizes the beatification of the 498 Spanish martyrs who were killed in the Spanish Civil War. The Pope said that these were "heroic witnesses of the faith who, moved exclusively by love for Christ, paid with their blood for their fidelity to Him and His Church." Carroll raises some doubt about this.
Political motivation
"The Pope was implying here that these martyrs were not motivated by politics, even as the Vatican insisted their beatification was not meant to be political either. But one could wonder."
What!!
It takes a lot to get me steamed but this does it. Carroll is accusing the Church of being political in its decisions to beatify and canonize. He believes that the canonization of Thomas More, for example, was done in order to inspire the Spanish to resist the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War. Like they needed any more motivation than the fact that the Republicans were communistic and atheistic and thus out to destroy the Church!
But here’s the kicker. He states;
"One need not deny the individual innocence of the 498 ‘Spanish martyrs’ to understand that their celebration may have effects that are anything but innocent. The facts that these people were probably targeted merely for wearing cassocks or religious habits, and that they symbolize the many who fell to the grotesque excesses of Civil War violence are not enough to justify such glorification."
Was Carroll paying attention in seminary? The Church has been canonizing and beatifying martyrs for near 2000 years! To choose death instead of taking the easy way out during difficult circumstances is one of the best, if not the best, ways to affirm the truth of the Christian experience. It is an insult to these martyrs and to the Church to imply that politics were a motivating factor in a process of canonization that is long and meticulous.
Carroll's complaint
The bee in Carroll’s bonnet is the allegation that the Church supported Fascist regimes such as Franco’s during this time period. This is a subject that needs to be examined in context . Maybe Carroll has a legitimate point to make .(maybe) But that is a separate issue and the beatification ceremony should be kept out of the conversation. He should not be pointing a finger at the Church saying this act was political when he himself wrote this diatribe his own agenda in mind.
Carroll's agenda
Carroll, a former Catholic priest, has criticized the Church for a long time now. It seems the Church can’t make a move without him criticizing her and complaining about some heinous act in history allegedly committed by her. It appears he is angered by the fact that the Church won’t go away and won’t play ball with the secular Zeitgeist . It makes one think he is trying to make his former Catholicism disappear like an obsessive compulsive continually scouring a stain in his suit that won’t come out!
Church still perserveres
But despite the best efforts of Carroll and others the Church will keep on proclaiming the truth and holding up the witness of martyrs as examples to follow. It will not become a Latin version of neo paganism nor another branch of Unitarian Universalism. The Church will certainly not secularize. The Church is meant to be in opposition to these things, not part of them. James Carroll and his like won’t fare any better than the gates of hell.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Here is a piece I wrote for Traditional Catholic Reflections in 2006. Some of the contents may be somewhat dated but on the whole it is still relevant. It reflects what I believe about the current Iraq conflict. Some of the writing needs editing and I cringe at it. But I don't have a rough draft so I can't edit it. I hope the reader will bear with me.
Reflecting on the Iraq War and Christian Principles
By Frank J. Capone
"However rooted in history she [the Church] may be, she is not the slave of any epoch or indeed of anything whatsoever which is temporal. The message she is bound to pass on and the life which she is bound to propagate are never integral parts of either a political regime or a social polity or a particular form of civilization, and she must forcefully remind people of the fact, in opposition to the illusive evidence to the contrary which derives simply from the bonds of habit."---Henri de Lubac (1)
It has been over three years since the United States invaded and occupied Iraq. The initial reasons given for going to war, the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the connection to Al Qaeda, have since been shown to be false or worse. This, combined with the violence occuring daily in Iraq have combined to seriously erode support for the war domestically and have caused President Bush's approval rating to plummet dramatically. Many who initially supported the war have since changed their minds and are speaking and writing against it. Yet in spite of these facts there are many who still support this war. Granted, there are some who may admit that the invasion was wrong but feel that to just up and pull out now would unleash terrible consequences on Iraq. They believe that we have to at least stay and clean up the mess we made. One can understand that viewpoint but there are others who believe that this was a just cause even if it was undertaken under false pretenses. Why? One wonders how anybody can still hold this military adventure to be a Just War after the sham has been exposed!
Perhaps there are a combination of reasons for this, such as an antipathy towards Left wing ideology, fear of a resurgent Islam, and a desire to stay loyal to one's country, right or wrong. Also, let's not forget September 11 2001. It did happen and thousands of innocent people were murdered. Such a heinous act is bound to have a tremendous psychological impact on many. Whatever real or imagined grievances Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists have against the U.S. in no way justifies such a malicious crime! Having said that, does it therefore follow that criticism of American policy is tantamount to a lack of patriotism or siding with leftist ideologues or downplaying the threat of terrorism from Islamic fundamentalists?
My Own Experience
Perhaps thinking back on my own experience could offer some perspective on this. When this war first started I was initially supportive of it. I believed Colin Powell when he went before the U. N. and presented his evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction waiting to be used against us. I believed also that Al Qaeda was in league with Saddam Hussein and that both intended to perpetuate more attacks on American soil. After all, I thought, why would they lie about such things when such lies would be exposed after the war? (I guess that is now the 200 billion dollar question). I supported this action not from any nationalistic sense of mission but merely because I felt that the U.S. needed to defend its citizens from possible terrorist attacks. I took leave of my critical faculties, unfortunately. However, once it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction, opposition to the war became for me a no-brainer. But I will not let myself of the hook that easily. Why didn't I see through the rhetoric? Why did I let fear distract me from sober analysis?
The Reflexive Left
Part of the reason was that my judgment was clouded both by my anger towards terrorism and by my ideological opposition to the Left wing world view that I believed was the foundation of much of the opposition to the war. It appeared to me that they criticised the invasion simply because they were leftists and that criticizing anything the U. S. does is their raison d'etre. Therefore it was easy for me to dismiss their arguments. To be sure, much of what many on the Left says makes it easy to disregard them, like the college professor who wished for "1000 Mogadishus," or those who believe that the U.S. started this war simply to get the oil. Many on the Left do appear to have moral blinders in that they will denounce any wrongs committed by the U.S. but appear to downplay the wrongs committed by other countries or organizations as if the wrongs commited by America are always worse. It seems they do not hold others to the same moral standards they would hold the U.S to. They probably don't intend this, but that is sometimes the impression nonetheless. Therefore it was a small step from dismissing the Left to dismissing the antiwar movement that in the minds of many is associated with it.
But in so doing one can be acting like the proverbial drunken man on a horse! In trying to keep from leaning too far on one side of the horse the rider will wind up leaning too far on the other side. An aversion to the leftist weltanschauung can in its turn lead to support of anything America does simply to oppose critics of the U.S. The war in Iraq has been presented in terms of giving the Iraqi people a better way of life and defeating terrorism. Supporters speak of the war in terms of "defeating Islamic terrorism by draining the swamps of dictatorship and fanaticism in which it breeds..."(2) But does it therefore follow that anything the U.S. does should be supported simply because of any real or imagined political and moral superiority? This was the thinking of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. They believed they represented the superior civilization, therefore they were justified in using military force to promote it. We in the 21st century are supposed to be beyond that sort of thinking.
Western cultures in general and ours in particular, though now secular, still retain much of their Christian foundations. But Our Lord was the very opposite of an Alexander or Caesar. He left the world His Church, and through the Church, the Divine principles of love and brotherhood and nonviolence. The earliest Church grew through reflecting divine love and forbearence, not through force of arms (that disastrous turn came later with Constantine's conversion). We should never regress to the mindset of the pagan Romans. If America is to be the champion of democracy and human rights it must do so through the power of example, not Smart Bombs.
The Rise of Radical Islam
Another factor could be the fear of a rising Islamic civilization and the perception that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Hamas are representative of most of Islamic culture. It is believed by many that there is a movement to "Islamify" the West and that terrorism is a part of that. It is not the scope of this essay to analyse this fear but even assuming that there is some truth to it among the radicals does not therefore justify naked aggression. St Paul writes; "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12;21).
Pope Benedict XVI said last Palm Sunday at Mass:
"Whenever we think of Jesus we must remember injustice must not be solved with more injustice, niether violence with more violence. We must remember that bad can only be overcome by good...This cross must be an instrument of Peace and reconciliation between men and nations." (3)
As Catholics we must hold to higher priorities than a commitment to a nation or a particular ideology. We are to be instruments through which the light of Christ shines to all the world and not be so provincial as to presumptuously identify that Light with our national policy. While loyalty to country is fine so long as such loyalty is in harmony with God's will, there are times when we must take a stand against it. We as Catholics have a Just War paradigm based on 2000 years of Christian contemplation. We cannot put the policies of a given nation above this. Raymond G. Helmick of Boston College writes:
"When the war begins, every government appeals at once to the church to get up the cheering section and proclaim that 'God is on our side.' We never belong there. Our role as proclaimers of shalom demands that we be searching actively for alternatives to violence. But we have all seen churches fall right into the trap and preach national exclusivism and God's wrath, as if they were qualified to declare it, upon the enemy."(4)
This does not mean we are being unpatriotic. In Western democracies in general and American democracy in particular it is believed that dissent is very healthy for society. W.E.B. Duboise writes:
" ...the hushing of the criticism of honest opponents is a dangerous thing. It leads to some of the best of the critics to unfortunate silence and paralysis of effort, and others to burst into speech so passionately and intemperately as to lose listeners. Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched -criticism of writers by readers, of government by those who are governed, of leaders by those who are lead, this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society.'(5)
Critical Judgement of Both Left and Right
I made the mistake of letting my opposition against certain world views cloud my critical judgement somewhat. It was a humbling lesson to learn. More sober reflection has brought home the fact that opposition to a policy of my country does not mean that I am sympathizing with the radical Left or downplaying the crimes of Saddam Hussein and it certainly does not mean I am soft towards terrorism.
Diplomacy
But it does not follow that the moral bankruptcy of the terrorists, or that of Saddam Hussien for that matter, means that any pre-emptive war of aggression taken against them is therefore to be considered right simply because it is taken against those percieved as enemies. The real or imagined moral superiority of the U.S. does not mean that any means it employs are justified by any good ends it may wish to bring about. The Gospel invites diplomacy not war.
This means that any opposition to American policies is not anti-American and certainly not anti-Christian. After all, what can be more American than to exercise the right of citizens to criticise the actions of our government, especially when it gets to the heart of what this country should be? What can be more Christian than to try to reflect the Light of Christ and to hold our nation to the high Christian principles on which Western civilization was built?
_____________
End Notes
1. De Lubac, Henri. The Slendor of Church, Canterbury Books, Sheed and Ward. N.Y 1956. p. 54 2. Jacoby, Jeff. Boston Globe, August 25, 2005 3. Pope Benedict XVI. Quoted from Dominican Today, http://www.domincantoday.com/app/article.aspx?=12256 4.Helmick, Raymond J. Forgiveness and Reconciliation Religion, Public Policy, and Conflict Transformation. Templeton Foundation Press, Philedelphia 7 London-Copywrite 2001. p. 87 5. Duboise, W.E.B. The Soul of Black Folk. Barnes & Noble Classics, New York 2003 First Edition 1903 p. 38
Reflecting on the Iraq War and Christian PrinciplesBy Frank J. Capone
"However rooted in history she [the Church] may be, she is not the slave of any epoch or indeed of anything whatsoever which is temporal. The message she is bound to pass on and the life which she is bound to propagate are never integral parts of either a political regime or a social polity or a particular form of civilization, and she must forcefully remind people of the fact, in opposition to the illusive evidence to the contrary which derives simply from the bonds of habit."---Henri de Lubac (1)
It has been over three years since the United States invaded and occupied Iraq. The initial reasons given for going to war, the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the connection to Al Qaeda, have since been shown to be false or worse. This, combined with the violence occuring daily in Iraq have combined to seriously erode support for the war domestically and have caused President Bush's approval rating to plummet dramatically. Many who initially supported the war have since changed their minds and are speaking and writing against it. Yet in spite of these facts there are many who still support this war. Granted, there are some who may admit that the invasion was wrong but feel that to just up and pull out now would unleash terrible consequences on Iraq. They believe that we have to at least stay and clean up the mess we made. One can understand that viewpoint but there are others who believe that this was a just cause even if it was undertaken under false pretenses. Why? One wonders how anybody can still hold this military adventure to be a Just War after the sham has been exposed!
Perhaps there are a combination of reasons for this, such as an antipathy towards Left wing ideology, fear of a resurgent Islam, and a desire to stay loyal to one's country, right or wrong. Also, let's not forget September 11 2001. It did happen and thousands of innocent people were murdered. Such a heinous act is bound to have a tremendous psychological impact on many. Whatever real or imagined grievances Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists have against the U.S. in no way justifies such a malicious crime! Having said that, does it therefore follow that criticism of American policy is tantamount to a lack of patriotism or siding with leftist ideologues or downplaying the threat of terrorism from Islamic fundamentalists?
My Own Experience
Perhaps thinking back on my own experience could offer some perspective on this. When this war first started I was initially supportive of it. I believed Colin Powell when he went before the U. N. and presented his evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction waiting to be used against us. I believed also that Al Qaeda was in league with Saddam Hussein and that both intended to perpetuate more attacks on American soil. After all, I thought, why would they lie about such things when such lies would be exposed after the war? (I guess that is now the 200 billion dollar question). I supported this action not from any nationalistic sense of mission but merely because I felt that the U.S. needed to defend its citizens from possible terrorist attacks. I took leave of my critical faculties, unfortunately. However, once it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction, opposition to the war became for me a no-brainer. But I will not let myself of the hook that easily. Why didn't I see through the rhetoric? Why did I let fear distract me from sober analysis?
The Reflexive LeftPart of the reason was that my judgment was clouded both by my anger towards terrorism and by my ideological opposition to the Left wing world view that I believed was the foundation of much of the opposition to the war. It appeared to me that they criticised the invasion simply because they were leftists and that criticizing anything the U. S. does is their raison d'etre. Therefore it was easy for me to dismiss their arguments. To be sure, much of what many on the Left says makes it easy to disregard them, like the college professor who wished for "1000 Mogadishus," or those who believe that the U.S. started this war simply to get the oil. Many on the Left do appear to have moral blinders in that they will denounce any wrongs committed by the U.S. but appear to downplay the wrongs committed by other countries or organizations as if the wrongs commited by America are always worse. It seems they do not hold others to the same moral standards they would hold the U.S to. They probably don't intend this, but that is sometimes the impression nonetheless. Therefore it was a small step from dismissing the Left to dismissing the antiwar movement that in the minds of many is associated with it.
But in so doing one can be acting like the proverbial drunken man on a horse! In trying to keep from leaning too far on one side of the horse the rider will wind up leaning too far on the other side. An aversion to the leftist weltanschauung can in its turn lead to support of anything America does simply to oppose critics of the U.S. The war in Iraq has been presented in terms of giving the Iraqi people a better way of life and defeating terrorism. Supporters speak of the war in terms of "defeating Islamic terrorism by draining the swamps of dictatorship and fanaticism in which it breeds..."(2) But does it therefore follow that anything the U.S. does should be supported simply because of any real or imagined political and moral superiority? This was the thinking of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. They believed they represented the superior civilization, therefore they were justified in using military force to promote it. We in the 21st century are supposed to be beyond that sort of thinking.
Western cultures in general and ours in particular, though now secular, still retain much of their Christian foundations. But Our Lord was the very opposite of an Alexander or Caesar. He left the world His Church, and through the Church, the Divine principles of love and brotherhood and nonviolence. The earliest Church grew through reflecting divine love and forbearence, not through force of arms (that disastrous turn came later with Constantine's conversion). We should never regress to the mindset of the pagan Romans. If America is to be the champion of democracy and human rights it must do so through the power of example, not Smart Bombs.
The Rise of Radical Islam
Another factor could be the fear of a rising Islamic civilization and the perception that terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Hamas are representative of most of Islamic culture. It is believed by many that there is a movement to "Islamify" the West and that terrorism is a part of that. It is not the scope of this essay to analyse this fear but even assuming that there is some truth to it among the radicals does not therefore justify naked aggression. St Paul writes; "Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12;21).
Pope Benedict XVI said last Palm Sunday at Mass:
"Whenever we think of Jesus we must remember injustice must not be solved with more injustice, niether violence with more violence. We must remember that bad can only be overcome by good...This cross must be an instrument of Peace and reconciliation between men and nations." (3)
As Catholics we must hold to higher priorities than a commitment to a nation or a particular ideology. We are to be instruments through which the light of Christ shines to all the world and not be so provincial as to presumptuously identify that Light with our national policy. While loyalty to country is fine so long as such loyalty is in harmony with God's will, there are times when we must take a stand against it. We as Catholics have a Just War paradigm based on 2000 years of Christian contemplation. We cannot put the policies of a given nation above this. Raymond G. Helmick of Boston College writes:
"When the war begins, every government appeals at once to the church to get up the cheering section and proclaim that 'God is on our side.' We never belong there. Our role as proclaimers of shalom demands that we be searching actively for alternatives to violence. But we have all seen churches fall right into the trap and preach national exclusivism and God's wrath, as if they were qualified to declare it, upon the enemy."(4)
This does not mean we are being unpatriotic. In Western democracies in general and American democracy in particular it is believed that dissent is very healthy for society. W.E.B. Duboise writes:
" ...the hushing of the criticism of honest opponents is a dangerous thing. It leads to some of the best of the critics to unfortunate silence and paralysis of effort, and others to burst into speech so passionately and intemperately as to lose listeners. Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched -criticism of writers by readers, of government by those who are governed, of leaders by those who are lead, this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society.'(5)Critical Judgement of Both Left and Right
I made the mistake of letting my opposition against certain world views cloud my critical judgement somewhat. It was a humbling lesson to learn. More sober reflection has brought home the fact that opposition to a policy of my country does not mean that I am sympathizing with the radical Left or downplaying the crimes of Saddam Hussein and it certainly does not mean I am soft towards terrorism.
Diplomacy
But it does not follow that the moral bankruptcy of the terrorists, or that of Saddam Hussien for that matter, means that any pre-emptive war of aggression taken against them is therefore to be considered right simply because it is taken against those percieved as enemies. The real or imagined moral superiority of the U.S. does not mean that any means it employs are justified by any good ends it may wish to bring about. The Gospel invites diplomacy not war.
This means that any opposition to American policies is not anti-American and certainly not anti-Christian. After all, what can be more American than to exercise the right of citizens to criticise the actions of our government, especially when it gets to the heart of what this country should be? What can be more Christian than to try to reflect the Light of Christ and to hold our nation to the high Christian principles on which Western civilization was built?
_____________
End Notes
1. De Lubac, Henri. The Slendor of Church, Canterbury Books, Sheed and Ward. N.Y 1956. p. 54 2. Jacoby, Jeff. Boston Globe, August 25, 2005 3. Pope Benedict XVI. Quoted from Dominican Today, http://www.domincantoday.com/app/article.aspx?=12256 4.Helmick, Raymond J. Forgiveness and Reconciliation Religion, Public Policy, and Conflict Transformation. Templeton Foundation Press, Philedelphia 7 London-Copywrite 2001. p. 87 5. Duboise, W.E.B. The Soul of Black Folk. Barnes & Noble Classics, New York 2003 First Edition 1903 p. 38
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Thanksgiving Reflection
I have been thinking about the Thanksgiving holiday lately. It is remarkable that this holiday does not involve buying and receiving presents or going out one night and getting free candy of having barbeques and watching fireworks or hunting for colored eggs. Until recent years there was not much decorating either. Other than the buying food there is not much of a commercial aspect to the day.
Instead it is a day when families get together and share arguably the biggest meal of the year and reflect on what they are thankful for. It is an indication that the best aspects of people in this country have not been smothered by the hyper consumerism of American culture.
We may do well to reflect on the roots of Thanksgiving observance in this country. When the Pilgrims had their feast in 1621 they were following an ancient Anglo -Saxon custom of having a feast after a successful harvest. This was called the Harvest Home festival. This involved days of feasting and games. This was in thanks giving to the gods (or God after converting to Christianity) for insuring their survival for another year.
So when the Pilgrims went through a terrible winter and had a successful crop they followed this custom. So many of the aspects of this American holiday harken back to old European customs. It is hard for us to appreciate what they felt in those days and the gratitude they felt for a bountiful harvest. The Pilgrims could have easily starved if the crops did not grow and even in Europe famine was not uncommon if harvests failed! Then there was the threat of plague and the possibility of death even from a cold. It seemed that death could take them at any time and in many ways.
They lived with these threats constantly. It seems that we in Western civilization can’t fully appreciate how precarious life was then. We run out of food we just go to the local supermarket and complain about having to haul too many bags up the stairs. We catch a cold and take some Nyquil and call in sick the next morning. It seems we have lost a bit of that appreciation for life because it doesn’t seem that precarious now.
Or is that an illusion?
I think so. Maybe we don’t have the threat of starvation these days nor will we die from a cold but we do have plenty of other diseases such as cancer to kill us. Tornados, earthquakes, or hurricanes can strike at any time. We have car accidents and heart attacks and even the threat of terrorist threats that shatter any illusion we have that we have complete control over our life situation. Death or other calamities can still take us at any time, they just take different forms.
There are many who are firmly anchored to Truth who are fully aware that this vision Western society has of prosperity and power over nature is an illusion. Perhaps Thanksgiving celebration is an indication that many more sense it deep down. They give thanks because they intuit that they are contingent beings who don’t have power over either over nature nor the circumstances of there lives. This may be the only time of the year that many would openly thank God for their blessings but still, it would seem that they sense something of the dependence we as creatures have on the Creator. When we thank Him we acknowledge that we are not gods that can bend reality to our will but are beings that have a need to connect to Him who is the source of our existence.
At the end of the day that is what it really comes down to, thanking God for the love He bestows upon us by granting us our very existence. After that everything else is just gravy. We will do well to think on this at Thanksgiving. Despite our increased technology life is still precarious and thus we still have a sense of how precious the Pilgrims and other people in history regarded the life they lived and how they believed that it depended on something greater then themselves. . Also, when we enjoy the food ,family and fun these things also point to that which is greater than ourselves.
It isn’t that God needs our thanks. He doesn’t. It is we who need to thank Him, in order to order our thoughts and our being to the Divine and thus bring human nature to where it should be. It is in this that we find the true purpose of Thanksgiving.
I have been thinking about the Thanksgiving holiday lately. It is remarkable that this holiday does not involve buying and receiving presents or going out one night and getting free candy of having barbeques and watching fireworks or hunting for colored eggs. Until recent years there was not much decorating either. Other than the buying food there is not much of a commercial aspect to the day.
Instead it is a day when families get together and share arguably the biggest meal of the year and reflect on what they are thankful for. It is an indication that the best aspects of people in this country have not been smothered by the hyper consumerism of American culture.We may do well to reflect on the roots of Thanksgiving observance in this country. When the Pilgrims had their feast in 1621 they were following an ancient Anglo -Saxon custom of having a feast after a successful harvest. This was called the Harvest Home festival. This involved days of feasting and games. This was in thanks giving to the gods (or God after converting to Christianity) for insuring their survival for another year.
So when the Pilgrims went through a terrible winter and had a successful crop they followed this custom. So many of the aspects of this American holiday harken back to old European customs. It is hard for us to appreciate what they felt in those days and the gratitude they felt for a bountiful harvest. The Pilgrims could have easily starved if the crops did not grow and even in Europe famine was not uncommon if harvests failed! Then there was the threat of plague and the possibility of death even from a cold. It seemed that death could take them at any time and in many ways.
They lived with these threats constantly. It seems that we in Western civilization can’t fully appreciate how precarious life was then. We run out of food we just go to the local supermarket and complain about having to haul too many bags up the stairs. We catch a cold and take some Nyquil and call in sick the next morning. It seems we have lost a bit of that appreciation for life because it doesn’t seem that precarious now.
Or is that an illusion?
I think so. Maybe we don’t have the threat of starvation these days nor will we die from a cold but we do have plenty of other diseases such as cancer to kill us. Tornados, earthquakes, or hurricanes can strike at any time. We have car accidents and heart attacks and even the threat of terrorist threats that shatter any illusion we have that we have complete control over our life situation. Death or other calamities can still take us at any time, they just take different forms.
There are many who are firmly anchored to Truth who are fully aware that this vision Western society has of prosperity and power over nature is an illusion. Perhaps Thanksgiving celebration is an indication that many more sense it deep down. They give thanks because they intuit that they are contingent beings who don’t have power over either over nature nor the circumstances of there lives. This may be the only time of the year that many would openly thank God for their blessings but still, it would seem that they sense something of the dependence we as creatures have on the Creator. When we thank Him we acknowledge that we are not gods that can bend reality to our will but are beings that have a need to connect to Him who is the source of our existence.
At the end of the day that is what it really comes down to, thanking God for the love He bestows upon us by granting us our very existence. After that everything else is just gravy. We will do well to think on this at Thanksgiving. Despite our increased technology life is still precarious and thus we still have a sense of how precious the Pilgrims and other people in history regarded the life they lived and how they believed that it depended on something greater then themselves. . Also, when we enjoy the food ,family and fun these things also point to that which is greater than ourselves.
It isn’t that God needs our thanks. He doesn’t. It is we who need to thank Him, in order to order our thoughts and our being to the Divine and thus bring human nature to where it should be. It is in this that we find the true purpose of Thanksgiving.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Musings of a Skeptic
By Frank J. Capone
It is only by abandoning all idea of considering itself as its own end that mankind can be gathered together.(1)
Now that I have your attention let me say that I have not rejected the Faith in any way , shape or form. I am still committed to the Gospel, however impure a vessel I may be. My imperfection is one reason I embrace the Good News because I know the kind of person I will become if I stray from way revealed by revelation! Another reason is my conviction that the appreciation most of humanity has for beauty, the desire for the good and the urge to relieve suffering, and the tendency to morality, imperfect though it may be , makes no sense without the conviction that the existence of humanity indicates the higher purpose of a transcendent Intelligence. So why is this essay titled the Musings of a Skeptic? It is precisely because I am a believer that I am skeptical. What is the meaning of this paradox, you ask? That’s the million dollar question!
A few months back I received in the mail an advertisement to subscribe to what is basically an atheistic magazine, complete with a form letter from the executive director and an offer for a free book with the subscription.( Ahh, they know the way to my heart) This magazine (called The Skeptical Inquirer) claims to be merely a magazine that will "subject the claims of the supernatural, the paranormal, and the occult to the scientific method (emphasis mine) and let the facts speak for themselves".
In the form letter the director writes:
"To one extent or another, all of us- you ,me, and even the most prestigious members of the scientific community, including Einstein himself-can all to easily fall under the near hypnotic spell of what’s been called the ‘transcendental temptation’...
...the longing for powers over and above the physical universe that we call upon in time of need to suspend the granite -hard, unyielding, often unsympathetic natural laws upon which this amazing universe of ours is founded.
And all of us have to constantly safeguard ourselves against letting this apparently innate, high-order wishful thinking take over and deal a knockout punch to our better judgement-to say nothing of our common sense."
Heavy stuff this. In other words we must suppress something that is innate in us! While it is true that these quotes do refer to belief in UFOs and ghost sightings and occult phenomena on the fringes that we ourselves don’t believe, these things are lumped in with faith in transcendence in general, not appreciating there are distinctions. But Here is another quote
"Skepticism ultimately leads to knowledge...which leads to effective action...which leads to success... which leads to optimism concerning one’s ability to deal with the world. It is faith, not skepticism, that leads to a childish reliance upon unproven notions... which leads to ineffective action...which leads to failure... and ultimately, to pessimism, cynicism, and bitterness."
Leaving aside the gaping holes in this statement (John Paul II, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, the abolitionist movement proponents of ineffective action? failures leading to pessimism and bitterness?!) It seemed to me rather ironic that I received an ad like this when in my feeble attempts at writing for TCR I did not give any indication of skeptical tendencies. Not according to atheistic definitions anyway. But then I thought, "Isn’t skepticism a matter of perspective? After all, if one believes in one concept then one is skeptical of the opposite!
I am skeptical of the notion that the supernatural yearnings of humanity can be lightly thrown aside and that doing so would lead to "optimism concerning one’s ability to deal with the world. I am skeptical that science has debunked the "transcendental temptation" I am skeptical that humanity is nothing more than an accidental conglomeration of carbon and other chemicals with no more significance than bacteria! I am skeptical of evolution and evolutionism! I am skeptical that the human tendency for love, beauty, goodness, morality, etc. ultimately means nothing..
To illustrate this last point I will take another example from another atheistic ad I saw in a magazine recently. This was for www.atheists .org . On page 15 of the June 2007 issue of The Nation. The ad was to call attention to the persecution that atheists sometimes go through and to offer help. Nothing wrong with that. Persecution is wrong and must be stopped. But what struck me was the picture of a beautiful family on it. Presumably this was the family that experienced some form of oppression that the ad referred to. This photo appeals to the best aspects of our humanity, calculated to evoke the dignity of people and their right to determine for themselves what they believe.
Again, nothing wrong with that but wait! Isn’t this is a contradiction of the atheistic creed? Think about it, the only way love of family and the dignity of people has any meaning beyond human emotionalism is if people are meant for something more than existing for a few decades , if there were a higher purpose to our existence. If you love family and morality, if you embrace the concept that people have infinite worth then this implies a sense that there is something beyond ourselves that gives meaning to these human aspirations! Reason and science aren’t sufficient foundations for this, only the "transcendental temptation"!
So in appealing to us in this way these atheists are really tapping into something that is (ahem) transcendent. While rejecting the concept of transcendence they appeal to the very part of human nature that intuits it! This would appear to validate what Thomas Merton wrote; " There is in every intellect a natural exigency for a true concept of God: we are born with the thirst to know and to see Him, and therefore it cannot be otherwise."(2)
Hence, I am skeptical that atheism is a sufficient basis for any concept of human existence and I wonder if many atheists are really atheists deep in their souls. What’s that atheists? You still don’t think I am a skeptic? Is it only skepticism if religious belief is being questioned? Or can the weapons of skepticism be wielded against any belief system? Make no mistake, your outlook is , in fact,a belief system . You , atheist, are no different from religious believers in this respect. You believe there is no supernatural being. You believe miracles don’t happen. You believe reason and science can bring about the perfect society. But you can’t prove any of this. Are we supposed to take it on faith that existence can be explained without reference to God?
I and many people of faith far more intelligent than I have critically examined these assumptions and have rejected them. As your Enlightenment forbears have done in the 18th century to the spiritual world view, so have we done to yours, wielding the skeptical weapons your Enlightenment ancestors themselves have forged .The Enlightenment is over. You who think that reason is enough to base society on are behind the times. Most of humanity is skeptical of that now. The spiritual aspect of humanity can’t be suppressed. We have not meekly submitted to the pronouncements of scientist and philosophers who have rejected spirituality out of hand as if they were the new priests and prophets of the atheistic secularism but have rejected the materialistic dogmatism that is prevalent in the academic world and have done it with objectivity and reason. In doing this it is we, people of faith, who are the "free thinkers" now!
Yes it can make one angry when atheists accuse believers being gullible and unintelligent. But Our Lord said to rejoice when we are reviled for His sake. After all, if they are trying to throw jabs at us this we must be doing something right! No need to be insecure. After all, this increased militancy of atheists may be a reaction to the fact that atheism has lost the war! Humanity, by and large, won’t give up belief in the transcendent even if many live as though God doesn’t care what we do. Notwithstanding secular propaganda much , if not all of the good done in human history has been inspired by belief in God and , by extension, belief in Humanity’s infinite worth. Contrary to their cherished beliefs theism can be and is defended by reason and logic, if not proven by the parameters of scientific philosophy.
It is our job as believing Catholics to do just that in a spirit of love and understanding. We cannot react with anger and rancor or we are just wasting our time. Keeping our cool may in the long run be more effective. In doing this, in doing the works of charity God wants of us, in living out the moral law we reflect the love of God and thus affirm His reality. Hopefully those who observe us will see this and, their spirits will open up to the proddings of the Holy Spirit deep in their souls.
End Notes
1. Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Catholicism, Christ and the Common Destiny of Man, Ignatious Press, San Francisco California, 1988, p. 367
2. Merton Thomas, A Thomas Merton Reader, Doubleday Dell Publishing
Group Inc. New York, 1989, p. 240
By Frank J. Capone
It is only by abandoning all idea of considering itself as its own end that mankind can be gathered together.(1)Now that I have your attention let me say that I have not rejected the Faith in any way , shape or form. I am still committed to the Gospel, however impure a vessel I may be. My imperfection is one reason I embrace the Good News because I know the kind of person I will become if I stray from way revealed by revelation! Another reason is my conviction that the appreciation most of humanity has for beauty, the desire for the good and the urge to relieve suffering, and the tendency to morality, imperfect though it may be , makes no sense without the conviction that the existence of humanity indicates the higher purpose of a transcendent Intelligence. So why is this essay titled the Musings of a Skeptic? It is precisely because I am a believer that I am skeptical. What is the meaning of this paradox, you ask? That’s the million dollar question!
A few months back I received in the mail an advertisement to subscribe to what is basically an atheistic magazine, complete with a form letter from the executive director and an offer for a free book with the subscription.( Ahh, they know the way to my heart) This magazine (called The Skeptical Inquirer) claims to be merely a magazine that will "subject the claims of the supernatural, the paranormal, and the occult to the scientific method (emphasis mine) and let the facts speak for themselves".
In the form letter the director writes:
"To one extent or another, all of us- you ,me, and even the most prestigious members of the scientific community, including Einstein himself-can all to easily fall under the near hypnotic spell of what’s been called the ‘transcendental temptation’...
...the longing for powers over and above the physical universe that we call upon in time of need to suspend the granite -hard, unyielding, often unsympathetic natural laws upon which this amazing universe of ours is founded.
And all of us have to constantly safeguard ourselves against letting this apparently innate, high-order wishful thinking take over and deal a knockout punch to our better judgement-to say nothing of our common sense."
Heavy stuff this. In other words we must suppress something that is innate in us! While it is true that these quotes do refer to belief in UFOs and ghost sightings and occult phenomena on the fringes that we ourselves don’t believe, these things are lumped in with faith in transcendence in general, not appreciating there are distinctions. But Here is another quote
"Skepticism ultimately leads to knowledge...which leads to effective action...which leads to success... which leads to optimism concerning one’s ability to deal with the world. It is faith, not skepticism, that leads to a childish reliance upon unproven notions... which leads to ineffective action...which leads to failure... and ultimately, to pessimism, cynicism, and bitterness."
Leaving aside the gaping holes in this statement (John Paul II, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, the abolitionist movement proponents of ineffective action? failures leading to pessimism and bitterness?!) It seemed to me rather ironic that I received an ad like this when in my feeble attempts at writing for TCR I did not give any indication of skeptical tendencies. Not according to atheistic definitions anyway. But then I thought, "Isn’t skepticism a matter of perspective? After all, if one believes in one concept then one is skeptical of the opposite!
I am skeptical of the notion that the supernatural yearnings of humanity can be lightly thrown aside and that doing so would lead to "optimism concerning one’s ability to deal with the world. I am skeptical that science has debunked the "transcendental temptation" I am skeptical that humanity is nothing more than an accidental conglomeration of carbon and other chemicals with no more significance than bacteria! I am skeptical of evolution and evolutionism! I am skeptical that the human tendency for love, beauty, goodness, morality, etc. ultimately means nothing..
To illustrate this last point I will take another example from another atheistic ad I saw in a magazine recently. This was for www.atheists .org . On page 15 of the June 2007 issue of The Nation. The ad was to call attention to the persecution that atheists sometimes go through and to offer help. Nothing wrong with that. Persecution is wrong and must be stopped. But what struck me was the picture of a beautiful family on it. Presumably this was the family that experienced some form of oppression that the ad referred to. This photo appeals to the best aspects of our humanity, calculated to evoke the dignity of people and their right to determine for themselves what they believe.
Again, nothing wrong with that but wait! Isn’t this is a contradiction of the atheistic creed? Think about it, the only way love of family and the dignity of people has any meaning beyond human emotionalism is if people are meant for something more than existing for a few decades , if there were a higher purpose to our existence. If you love family and morality, if you embrace the concept that people have infinite worth then this implies a sense that there is something beyond ourselves that gives meaning to these human aspirations! Reason and science aren’t sufficient foundations for this, only the "transcendental temptation"!
So in appealing to us in this way these atheists are really tapping into something that is (ahem) transcendent. While rejecting the concept of transcendence they appeal to the very part of human nature that intuits it! This would appear to validate what Thomas Merton wrote; " There is in every intellect a natural exigency for a true concept of God: we are born with the thirst to know and to see Him, and therefore it cannot be otherwise."(2)
Hence, I am skeptical that atheism is a sufficient basis for any concept of human existence and I wonder if many atheists are really atheists deep in their souls. What’s that atheists? You still don’t think I am a skeptic? Is it only skepticism if religious belief is being questioned? Or can the weapons of skepticism be wielded against any belief system? Make no mistake, your outlook is , in fact,a belief system . You , atheist, are no different from religious believers in this respect. You believe there is no supernatural being. You believe miracles don’t happen. You believe reason and science can bring about the perfect society. But you can’t prove any of this. Are we supposed to take it on faith that existence can be explained without reference to God?
I and many people of faith far more intelligent than I have critically examined these assumptions and have rejected them. As your Enlightenment forbears have done in the 18th century to the spiritual world view, so have we done to yours, wielding the skeptical weapons your Enlightenment ancestors themselves have forged .The Enlightenment is over. You who think that reason is enough to base society on are behind the times. Most of humanity is skeptical of that now. The spiritual aspect of humanity can’t be suppressed. We have not meekly submitted to the pronouncements of scientist and philosophers who have rejected spirituality out of hand as if they were the new priests and prophets of the atheistic secularism but have rejected the materialistic dogmatism that is prevalent in the academic world and have done it with objectivity and reason. In doing this it is we, people of faith, who are the "free thinkers" now!
Yes it can make one angry when atheists accuse believers being gullible and unintelligent. But Our Lord said to rejoice when we are reviled for His sake. After all, if they are trying to throw jabs at us this we must be doing something right! No need to be insecure. After all, this increased militancy of atheists may be a reaction to the fact that atheism has lost the war! Humanity, by and large, won’t give up belief in the transcendent even if many live as though God doesn’t care what we do. Notwithstanding secular propaganda much , if not all of the good done in human history has been inspired by belief in God and , by extension, belief in Humanity’s infinite worth. Contrary to their cherished beliefs theism can be and is defended by reason and logic, if not proven by the parameters of scientific philosophy.
It is our job as believing Catholics to do just that in a spirit of love and understanding. We cannot react with anger and rancor or we are just wasting our time. Keeping our cool may in the long run be more effective. In doing this, in doing the works of charity God wants of us, in living out the moral law we reflect the love of God and thus affirm His reality. Hopefully those who observe us will see this and, their spirits will open up to the proddings of the Holy Spirit deep in their souls.
End Notes
1. Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Catholicism, Christ and the Common Destiny of Man, Ignatious Press, San Francisco California, 1988, p. 367
2. Merton Thomas, A Thomas Merton Reader, Doubleday Dell Publishing
Group Inc. New York, 1989, p. 240
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Welcome
My name is Frank J. Capone and welcome to my blog. I am just a regular guy with a large amount of experience in God’s mercy who wants to express himself. Not that I have anything earth shattering to say, far from it. I am just observing the world from a Catholic perspective and working out how to relate to a cultural environment that undermines the Christian world view. I like to think I do this not on secular terms but from a Catholic perspective.
ME? I am just an average lower middle class guy doing what I can to make life livable for me and my family. I do have a masters in secondary education with a concentration in history but as of yet I am not a teacher. Too many applicants, not enough openings. So I am a machine operator at a tape factory. I have a beautiful wife and two great kids. I am also a member of the Oblate Associate community in my hometown of Lowell MA. This is about as much as I am going to talk about myself. I like to think that this blog is not about me but about Christ and His Church. I merely desire to share my conviction of Truth as it has been brought home to me through observation and reflection.
My main conviction is this; though Catholicism may be "out of step" with the current world view(or lack thereof), as secularists like to assert, that is not the important question. The question to ask is, is the prevailing Zeitgeist compatible with the nature of humanity and what human society should be? To me the answer is no. With that in mind it is our task as Catholics to present the alternative view of Catholicism clearly and with conviction so people can know where to turn when they grow weary of the present culture.
This must be done with love and understanding and sensitivity. In my opinion we must be careful of the over simplified dictum "those who are not for Christ are against Him".That may ultimately be true but in the meantime many who hold to a different outlook than us may in fact be on their way back to Rome. For example, was I for or against Christ when I began my journey back to truth by delving into the writings of Matthew Fox and Joseph Campbell while in a state of de facto agnositcism? My eventual return to the Church as a result of a quest for truth stimulated by these writings(filled with error as they are) indicates that I was for Him, however imperfectly. As Chesterton said, all roads lead back to Rome. It is our job to encourage them on the way. We are to lead them, not push or drag them!
I also believe it is imperative that we be careful in our assessment of historical events and trends vi a vis the Church. We must avoid simple assessments such as the idea that many happenings were from a desire to destroy the Church. The flip side is that simple assertions such as the Church being un democratic and in favor of authoritarian rule must also be discarded. History is too complex for such simplistic attitudes.
Anyway this is the mind set from which I will try to work from. This will not be a blog that will be updated daily. I have no time and I need time to think and assess happenings and attitudes with balance and fairness. I hope through God’s grace to be of some help tp people in their own Journey.
Yours in Christ,
Frank J. Capone
My name is Frank J. Capone and welcome to my blog. I am just a regular guy with a large amount of experience in God’s mercy who wants to express himself. Not that I have anything earth shattering to say, far from it. I am just observing the world from a Catholic perspective and working out how to relate to a cultural environment that undermines the Christian world view. I like to think I do this not on secular terms but from a Catholic perspective.
ME? I am just an average lower middle class guy doing what I can to make life livable for me and my family. I do have a masters in secondary education with a concentration in history but as of yet I am not a teacher. Too many applicants, not enough openings. So I am a machine operator at a tape factory. I have a beautiful wife and two great kids. I am also a member of the Oblate Associate community in my hometown of Lowell MA. This is about as much as I am going to talk about myself. I like to think that this blog is not about me but about Christ and His Church. I merely desire to share my conviction of Truth as it has been brought home to me through observation and reflection.
My main conviction is this; though Catholicism may be "out of step" with the current world view(or lack thereof), as secularists like to assert, that is not the important question. The question to ask is, is the prevailing Zeitgeist compatible with the nature of humanity and what human society should be? To me the answer is no. With that in mind it is our task as Catholics to present the alternative view of Catholicism clearly and with conviction so people can know where to turn when they grow weary of the present culture.
This must be done with love and understanding and sensitivity. In my opinion we must be careful of the over simplified dictum "those who are not for Christ are against Him".That may ultimately be true but in the meantime many who hold to a different outlook than us may in fact be on their way back to Rome. For example, was I for or against Christ when I began my journey back to truth by delving into the writings of Matthew Fox and Joseph Campbell while in a state of de facto agnositcism? My eventual return to the Church as a result of a quest for truth stimulated by these writings(filled with error as they are) indicates that I was for Him, however imperfectly. As Chesterton said, all roads lead back to Rome. It is our job to encourage them on the way. We are to lead them, not push or drag them!
I also believe it is imperative that we be careful in our assessment of historical events and trends vi a vis the Church. We must avoid simple assessments such as the idea that many happenings were from a desire to destroy the Church. The flip side is that simple assertions such as the Church being un democratic and in favor of authoritarian rule must also be discarded. History is too complex for such simplistic attitudes.
Anyway this is the mind set from which I will try to work from. This will not be a blog that will be updated daily. I have no time and I need time to think and assess happenings and attitudes with balance and fairness. I hope through God’s grace to be of some help tp people in their own Journey.
Yours in Christ,
Frank J. Capone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
