Perspectives of a Catholic

The Need For Truth

2008-05-17T05:05:00.000-07:00

" If I ask 'what is truth?' I either expect an answer or I do not. Pilate did not. Yet his belief that the question did not require an answer was itself his answer. He thought the question could not be answered. In other words, he thought it was true to say that the question 'what is truth?' had no satisfactory answer. If , in thinking that, he thought there was no truth, he clearly disproved his own proposition by his very thought of it. So, even in his denial, Pilate confessed his need for truth. No man can avoid doing the same in one way or another, because our need for truth is inescapable." (1)

It could seem that the attitude of Pilate is manifest in our culture in that many have given up in despair any hope of coming to truth while at the same time living as there is. But that is what we are as human beings.
It is the duty of every person to seek and find truth and live it. It is in the very nature of humanity and we stop that search to the detriment of our souls. It states in the Vatican II document Dignitas Humanae, :

It is in accordance with their dignity that all human beings, because they are person's, that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore bearing personal responsibility, are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and to direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth."(2)

We are constructed as entities that can not exist unless there were some truth that must be embraced and made the foundation of our existence. Without this intuition of a transcendent foundation for all that human existence above the ethos of nature red in tooth and claw , human existence is an absurdity that is not in line with the rest of the universe as perceived by secular science. While many thinkers have indeed said this on paper, by and large people don't accept this, even , ESPECIALLY , in their despair.

This is why dogma, a dirty word in today's zeitgeist, is so important. If people are to come to truth there must be a truth for them to come to. Truth by definition is something which the human conscience perceives when seeking, not something defined or decided by the conscience to satisfy one's whims.

1. Merton, Thomas, A Thomas Merton Reader, Image Books, Doubleday, New York, 1974, p. 120

2. Vatican II Council, Constitutions, Decrees, Declarations, Costello Publishing Company, Northport New York, 1996, p. 553

Note

This will be my last post for a while. This may seem like a joke considering that My posts are few and far between to begin with but that's just it, I have trouble posting consistently. I started this blog when I wasn't quite ready. I have not much time right now to give this much attention. I have many questions and conflicts I have to sort out and I defintily have to get my spiritual life back in gear.
I have alot on my plate right now. When the Pope visits the U.S. and I don't write about it it is certain that I have to straithten some things out.
I will definitly resume. It may be days, months, weeks, years, I don't know. but when I am ready I will be posting again.

Yours in Christ

Frank J. Capone

Question of Fairness

2008-04-17T18:58:00.001-07:00

I came across an editorial the other day written by Jeff Jacoby concerning the short film, Fitna, a film about Islamic Jihadist violence made by Geert Wilders, a Dutch Parliamentarian. The film portrays the war being waged by Muslim extremists in the name of Islam, inspired by their interpretation of the certain verses in the Koran. The film shows atrocities committed by Jihadist and other heinous acts such as honor killings and be headings. Footage is shown of Islamist teachers inciting their followers to kill the "infidels" .

The film has become controversial , not because of the violence it depicts , but because it is seen as "anti Islamic"(by UN Secretary General Ban Ki- Moon) and offensive, causing hatred, by the European Union Presidency. Now, I have not seen the film so I don’t know the exact Wilder’s approach. If indeed Wilders did not qualify his assertions by making it plain that he was exposing just one interpretation of Islam and that most Muslims condemn the violence portrayed the film then it does deserve criticism. Of course it would also help if the majority of Muslims who are not fanatics were heard from more often.

However, the film should have been criticized only, not condemned out of hand. Jihadist violence is something that has to be dealt with, especially by the Muslim community. But Jacoby brings out one thing in this article that is true. In speaking of the West’s reaction he states that " They would never have reacted that way to a film that criticized Christianity or the United States or European traditions- and the Islamists Know it."(Boston Globe Wednesday April 3 2008. P. A11)

Indifference to Catholicism

How true that is! Why is it that intellectuals in the West defend other religions or ethnic groups from every real or imagined slander but say next to nothing when Christianity is portrayed negatively? While The Golden Compass had to tone down its anti Catholicism because it was too direct even for secularists tastes, in general there is no backlash against films that portrays Catholicism in a negative light. This is likely because films usually do it in a more subtle way, such as using
past history which, on its surface, can’t be argued against.

Goya's Ghost

The most recent example of this that I have seen is Goya’s Ghost. In this film, a work of fiction set in Spain during the 1790s, we have the Inquisition restarting its crackdown. A young girl is questioned by the inquisition when she is spotted not eating pork. She is suspected of being a closet Judaizer, tortured, made to confess, then imprisoned for 13 years. This film is apparently meant to be an observation of the effects of oppression on people. The girl who was tortured went insane, the priest who did it was himself tortured by her father to prove that confessions made under torture mean nothing. He then tried to free the girl, after raping her, then had to flee to France when he himself was under suspicion. He came back to Spain 13 years later as an agent of Napoleon Bonaparte and became an oppressor under the auspices of the French Revolution.
Anyway the point is that this is a slander on the Church, being portrayed intrinsically as an agent of oppression. Never mind that the inquisition would not have tortured anyone on just the word of one informant saying she refused pork without the corroboration of witnesses. Nor would they have kept her in prison after she confessed.

The Golden Age

Then there is the movie Elizabeth, the Golden Age. This is set during the late 16th century during the reign of Elizabeth I of England. Here we have King Phillip of Spain portrayed as a fanatical Catholic despot waging "holy war" to bring Europe back to the Catholic Church, while plotting to kill Elizabeth. There is truth to this though it is likely that the real history was more complicated, considering that Catholic France was antagonistic towards Spain and that Phillip was at odds with the Pope in many areas thus making the image of a united Catholic world bent on destroying heretics portrayed here a fiction.
In this film neither Catholics nor Protestants smell good as they are both portrayed as oppressors. But Elizabeth was portrayed as a paragon of humanism. In one scene she says that the invasion of Spain by England would mean the inquisition and the end of free thought.(as if that were the essence of Catholicism) Never mind that she herself cracked down on the Puritans. Then there is the scene of the battle of the Spanish Armada. Besides being historically inaccurate it is a bit of humanists propaganda. In one scene we see Phillip praying before a candle for victory while we see Elizabeth decked out in armor in another. When the tide of battle turned in England’s favor we see Phillips candle being blown out while we the sun breaking out on Elizabeth’s face, apparently symbolizing the triumph of the light of humanism over the snuffed out light of "superstition" and dogmatic religion.

King Arthur

Then there is one of the worst examples of anti-Catholicism of all. A few years ago a film called King Arthur. This flick purported to be a de-mythologizing of the Arthurian legend. It is set during the late 5th century, when the Roman Empire was just about to withdraw from Britain. It is about a Roman military leader, a disciple of Pelegius who eventually drives out the Saxons and becomes King of Britain.
In this movie the Church is portrayed as being corrupt and worldly. In the 5th century!? I can understand if it were set during the renaissance. Not necessarily agree, but I would understand. But the 5th century? The Church was still trying to survive at this time and was still in a controversy with the Arians, who had considerable power. There was no corruption at this time in church history. Then the film asserts that Pelagius was murdered because of his beliefs when in fact we don’t know how or when he died! This was meant to cast a bad light on the Church
Then there is the most offensive scene of all. In this scene Arthur and his band of Pagan soldiers come upon the estate of this Roman nobleman they were trying to rescue from the invading Saxons. Here they discover a prison into which pagans were thrown and left to starve. This was done by Christian holy men who explained that this was done so that there souls would be saved, apparently to get rid of there paganism through suffering and death. They said this was the will of God, to which the pagan Lancelot replied "not my God." This is clearly a direct slam against the Church in favor of paganism.
This is a slander against the Church!! That never happened at any time during Church history. If something like this was portrayed in the history of any other religion there would be hell to pay and rightly so. I listened to the directors commentary to see if the director mentioned where he got the idea for this slander. All he talked about in this scene was costume design!

Where's the Outrage

These are just some examples of the shots being taken at the Church in particular and Christianity in general. So why aren’t Western leaders expressing outrage at this? Shouldn’t they be consistent in there political correctness? The rationale for political correctness is that any kind of identification of a people, whether it be religious or ethnic, as a danger or potential danger, creates a potential for strife, often leading to genocide. This has proved to be true throughout history as seen in Nazi Germany, Turkey with the Armenians, Rwanda, Soviet Union, etc. It is in this context that political correctness has to be understood, even its excesses.

Why not Catholics

So why doesn’t this apply to Catholics? Is it because we won’t take to the streets and threaten death to the infidels? If that’s the case I take it as a compliment and evidence that they know that we aren’t fanatics but can take criticism. But that is no excuse for slander and misrepresentation.

Unfair portrayals

Is it because we aren’t considered a vulnerable minority? Maybe. But a strong majority today can be a vulnerable minority tomorrow. Furthermore, it can become so precisely because of slander and misrepresentation built up over the years. At any rate it shouldn’t matter. Unfair portrayal of any group are wrong in and of itself regardless of the status of the group being offended.
Make no mistake, these portrayals I have brought out are unfair! They are not honest portrayals of a dark and complicated part of the history of Christian civilization but propaganda meant to show the alleged danger of dogmatic Christianity per se, showing the superiority of secular humanism. It is the common belief of some atheists that the Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular was the greatest purveyor of evil in human history! These films and many others in theater and tv do nothing to alleviate that notion. In a few generations such ideas could lead to anti-Catholic pogroms instigated by future political regimes that look upon Christians as a threat that would undermine the foundations of their political apparatus.

Past History Dealt with

They don’t seem to realize that Vatican II has dealt with much of past history and has given the Church a different outlook. It has affirmed the concept of religious liberty and the sacredness of all human life. It has affirmed that oppression and demonization are not intrinsic to Catholicism and never really were. Pope John Paul II has apologized for the wrongs committed by Christians in the name of the Church. They no longer need to fear oppression from Catholics.

Demand for Consistency

So if Western intellectuals want to be consistent and fair they will denounce unfair portrayals of Christianity just as they condemn such concerning other faiths and ethnic groups. Yes there are practices in Christian civilization that have to be dealt with honestly. But it has to be understood that they are not intrinsic to the Christian faith. They were done in spite of the teachings of Christ. To treat these things as intrinsic to the Christian message is dishonest and unfair and presents the danger of inspiring hatred of Christians.

As Christians and Catholics we have the same right to compete for the mind and heart of society as any other world view without slander and misrepresentation. We may be dogmatic but then, every outlook is dogmatic in its fashion. For example, just try to teach intelligent design in public schools. To believe in tolerance and equality means that those concepts apply to Catholics too. I hate to think that there is a hatred for Christianity in secular society, but what is one to think when Christians aren’t given the same courtesy in the media that most other religions and ethnic groups are getting.

2008-03-26T16:50:00.000-07:00

Whatever Happened to Easter?

In musing on this past Holy week I am struck by the apparent lack of enthusiasm for the Easter season in our culture. Christmas is a big deal with all the hype and commercialism and the prevalent protests speaking out against said commercialism. Despite the indifferentism towards religion in society there is plenty of reference to the birth of Christ and loving one’s neighbor during the Advent season and that is all to the good. But Easter? All we have is a glut of chocolate bunnies and eating pizza on Good Friday and the NCAA basketball tournament! Holy Week does not even seem significant enough to overly commercialize it and nobody cares enough to complain about the commercialism that does exist. My daughter thinks it is because there is no exchange of gifts on Easter. I fear there is more than a little truth to this.

The Joy of Easter

But shouldn’t Easter be "the most wonderful time of the year"?
After all, Easter is supposed to be the celebration of the resurrection of Christ! Before this event the outlook of humanity was " life stinks then you die". Death defined human existence and gave it no significance beyond the grave and thus gave little meaning to our existence, particularly those on the margins of existence (that is to say, most people).

Our Lord’s resurrection changed that. In rising from the dead He demonstrated that death is not the final arbiter of Human meaning. Pope John Paul II wrote;

"The Lamb that was slain is alive, bearing the marks of his passion in the splendor of the resurrection. He alone is master of all events of history: he opens its ‘seals’ (cf rev 5:1-10) and proclaims, in time and beyond, the power of life over death. In the ‘new Jerusalem’, that new world towards which human history is traveling, death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.’(Rev 21:4)" Evangelium Vitae, Pauline Books and Media, Boston MA. 1995, p. 165-166

With His ressurection He blasted the pagan despair into nothingness. There is meaning to human life beyond what happens to us in our 4 score years on Earth. There is a reason for our transcendant longings that death can no longer make a mockery of. Considering this the resurrection should be celebrated with great intensity. The veil of the temple is rent, revealing the nature of the God who brought forth our salvation. This was revolutionary in ancient times. Nothing like this had been proclaimed before.

Western Amnesia

But in its amnesia Western civilization seems to be forgetting that more and more. It is increasingly going back to the despair it had during the pagan Roman empire. Death was so taken for granted in those days that death was used for entertainment during the gladiatorial games. We don’t have that now, not real death anyway. We do it digitally now what with increasingly graphic video games. Then of course there is the film industry and its slasher films.

Our Lord Forgotten

It seems the crowd no longer wants to crucify our Lord anymore, but just ignore Him and pass Him by.

The West has largely forgotten our Lord. It has forgotten the good news that the resurrection brought forth. The joy of life that the resurrection made possible is receding from our memory. In its zeal to form a society that won’t tyrannise people for their beliefs it departing from the very basis for believing in the worth of all people and the brotherhood of humanity. When the West forgets the Christian world view completely, what then will it base its moral structure if not Christ the King?

Matter of Inconsistency

2008-02-23T19:31:00.000-08:00

The Vatican recently confirmed that Fr. Vasyl Kovpak of the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church has been excommunicated for schism. He was a Lefebvrist ,a movement of those who don’t accept some of the teachings of the Vatican II Council. This movement was named for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who consecrated four bishops years ago without permission of the Vatican with the idea of preserving what he believed was purity of Catholic doctrine. What gives one pause is that while this man is excommunicated for insubordination while not rejecting a single point of doctrine The Pope has dinner with Hans Kung , a man who rejects Catholic teachings, and is still allowed to full communion in the Church.

Not a Mere Traditionalist Rant

Now, I am not a traditionalist, at least not yet. As of now I have not found in the documents of Vatican II any break with traditional Catholic doctrine . To be honest, some of the things traditionalists say concern me. Having said this they do raise some issues that need addressing. This issue quite frankly puzzles me.

Main Question

My question is, why was this priest excommunicated when he did not deny any doctrine but was charged only with a disciplinary infraction while an out and out pagan like Hans Kung is still allowed to function as a priest in the Church? This seems to me to be grossly inconsistent. What message is this sending to the faithful? Is it okay to trample on Church teachings ? Is it a worse sin to be insubordinate to the hierarchy than to subvert Catholic Truth? I personally do not think for one minute that Pope Benedict embraces syncretism or some universal Church that Catholicism and other religions will assimulate into. I have read too much of his writings to believe that. So what gives?

No Presumption Intended

Now , it is beyond my pay grade to demand excommunication. I am only a simple layman. Far be it from me to be overly critical of a man that has forgotten more about theology than I will ever know. But is it asking too much to have clarification of this issue? Is it wrong to wish that a stronger stand were taken against Kung so that much of the speculation will cease and that the faithful can see clearly which way direction the Church is going one way or the other?

Fear of Ridicule?

I would have understood if it were simply a case that the Church is reluctant to excommunicate anybody for fear of negative public opinion. I wouldn’t agree, but I would have understood. But this recent excommunication of Fr. Kovpak would indicate that this is not the case. Could it simply be a case of keeping your friends close but your enemies closer? Perhaps. If that is the case it is too risky in my opinion and looks too much like an endorsement of Kung’s teachings.

Question of Publicity

I am inclined to think that it is simply a case of avoiding what could be a stressful controversy if Kung were to be excommunicated. I believe that if he were to be excommunicated he would be an overnight sensation. Critics of the Church will be all over it. James Carroll would practically cannonize him, Another Galileo as it were. His book sales would sky rocket. There could be TV appearances and radio talk show interviews. Thus his teaching would spread like wildfire both in the Church and outside it. Kung himself probably can't wait to be excommmunicated for these reasons, which may explain why he hasn't just up and left the Church!

Out of Limelight

As it stands now many people still don’t know Hans Kung from King Kong. Perhaps the Pope wants to keep it that way. Maybe his holiness figures that tucked away in relative obscurity Kung can’t do much damage. But then, maybe he shouldn’t have had dinner with Kung in the first place and raised his public if he wasn’t ready to pull the trigger on excommunication. Pope John Paul II didn’t give Kung the time of day thus keeping him out of the limelight.

Maybe its Time

Personally I think its time for controversy. If Kung were to be excommunicated there will be a lot of negative publicity and Kung will get much attention. But then so will the Church. After all, the publicity surrounding The Passion of the Christ worked to the Church’s advantage, as did the controversy concerning the book The Da Vinci Code. The Church was able to use the attention to promote her own teachings. The Church can do the same with the extra if and when it comes down on Kung. It can explain why it excommunicated him and why his teachings are incompatible with Catholic teachings.

Clear Stand by Church

Once it is certain where the Church stands and the confusion is alleviated it can be a more effective witness for truth. To be that effective witness what is needed is clarity as to what the Church is It may be that this potential shake up is just what the Church needs if for no other reason than to achieve said clarity. If many leave the Church because of this that is their choice. The Church is not supposed to be an institution that assimulates into secular culture but one that is in opposition and an alternative to it. There is supposed to be something different about Catholicism and in order for that difference to be preserved its doctrinal integrity must stay intact. It can’t straddle the fence by letting men like Kung stay around and spread a quasi paganism with impunity.

The Curious De-Emphais on Confession

2008-02-18T07:24:00.000-08:00

Things can be very frustrating these days for frequent sinners such as myself. There has been a disturbing de-emphasis on confession in church parishes, at least the ones I have been to. Most parishes and churches I know have only 45 minutes a week for confessions, on Saturdays . 45 minutes a week!!?? Are they kidding me? There is the downtown shrine in my hometown that has confessions several hours a day, but that is during work hours and it would take up my whole lunch time just to find parking. I need a lot more time than this what with my busy schedule and all. Saturday is a particularly busy day for me. I do make it, but I shouldn’t have to go through hoops to get to confession, at least the church shouldn’t put the hoops there!

A puzzling question
.
Why is this? Was it Vatican II? Can’t be. The Vatican II documents do not talk about confession much but it did not really need to. Anything one needs to know about confession is in other councils and documents and was not abrogated. So what is it? A perceived change brought about by Vatican II? Perhaps. There have been changes in outlook in the Church since that council. But , so far, I have not seen any of these changes in the Vatican II documents themselves. (Of course I may be eating crow in the coming months) If indeed Vatican II did not abrogate the need for confession then this de-emphasis on the need for confession is indeed puzzling!

The Catechism?

Perhaps the Catechism? This is what it actually says;
"Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church. Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the spirit."(1)
So while the catechism says it is not strictly necessary, it does encourage its frequent use. There is certainly no indication that confession time should be severely limited.

Getting the word out

It may be that the reason there is not much confession time is that not many go to begin with. Come to think of it, this makes sense. Even with the limited time for confession not many go, maybe two or three people. Why is this? Perhaps it is because the need for confession is not emphasized in the churches.
This reminds me of something I saw on EWTN a couple of years ago. On this program a priest related a story of a priest in this certain parish who noticed that not many people were going to confession. He started preaching the need to go to confession and soon the lines were out the door! It seems that if confession were to be emphasized more then people may be stimulated to pay more attention to their spiritual health.

Relationship with Christ

The Christian journey is a relationship with Christ, not merely living by a set of morals. Alfred A. Hubenig, O.M.I., had this to say about St. Eugene De Mazenod;
"And to the Galatians he says, ‘ from my mother’s womb he called me by his grace to reveal his son in me so that I might preach the good news about him to the gentiles.’ (Galatians 1:15) Note Paul says ‘God chose to reveal his son in me,’ not ‘to me’ This means that the grace received by Paul, like the grace received by Eugene, is not mere intellectual knowledge of Jesus Christ. It is a spiritual gift that reaches the very depths of the heart, bringing about an unshakable conviction and a strong attachment to the person of Jesus."(2)

No complacency

So we can’t be complacent concerning venial sin. A lackadaisical attitude towards it could lead to a weakening of our relationship with Christ. I look at venial sin like a tick on a dog. One tick may sting and suck out a little blood. If it is extracted there is no harm done. But if it is left to fester it will suck out more blood and weaken the dog more. More and more ticks will weaken the dog further and seriously compromise its health. Then, when a major illness comes along it will be too weak to fight it off. So it is with venial sin. If we ignore them and don’t deal with them they may accumulate and weaken our souls to the point that our attachment with Christ is compromised and our resistence to mortal sins will be greatly weakened. This dog knows something about this.

Conclusion

So, in my humble opinion, the churches should emphasize confession more. It doesn’t even have to be fire and brimstone, at least not yet. All they need to do is to emphasize that venial sins need to be dealt with in order to improve the spiritual lives of the faithful and to strengthen them from temptations to mortal sins. This is not so the people will obsess about venial sins, but so that they won’t obsess over them but instead form a deeper relationship with Christ.
If confession is emphasized more then it could very well be that more people will take a greater interest in caring for their souls and from there develop a greater interest in the teachings of the Church.

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pauline Books and Media, 1994. P. 366
2. Hubenig, Alfred A., O.M.I., Living in the Spirit’s Fire, Novalis, Ottawa, Ontario Canada, 1995, P. 32.

Note
I am sorry I haven’t posted anything in almost a month. I have been a little busy and also I have been studying about things I am not sure of. I have been pursuing a study of certain things that I don’t wish to bring out at the present time. I need to be sure of things. I hope to be posting some more things in the future.
Frank.

Tribute to King

2008-01-22T16:38:00.000-08:00

Tribute to King

" Protest should not be merely the politics of complaint, .... It should instead show the way for both personal and social transformation. That’s what excites people and invites them to give their lives for something larger than themselves. The power of protest is not in its anger but in its invitation. The test of protest is whether it points and opens the way to change or merely denounces what is. When protest is both instructive and constructive in a society, it becomes something that has to be dealt with and not merely contained."(1)

Martin Luther King Junior comes immediately to my mind when I read this. He was a man who helped change America not with hatred and violent rhetoric, but non violent protest done with love and a vision of a better way for all people. He was largely responsible for finishing the job started by the founding fathers in being a catalyst for granting civil rights for all Americans. It can be argued, in my opinion, that if they ever wanted to add a bust on Mt. Rushmore, they can do worse that Martin Luther King!

Changing the Wind

What King did was to "change the wind" of American society. The problem with politicians who want to make change is that they feel they have to stick a wet finger in the wind, as it were, to gauge whether the social winds would warrant change. But as Jim Wallis, in his fine book , God’s Politics, explains;
‘ The great practitioners of real social change, like Martin Luther King Jr. And Mahatma Ghandi, understood something very important. They knew that you don’t change a society by merely replacing one wet-fingered politician with another. You change a society by changing the wind.
Change the wind, transform the debate, recast the discussion, alter the context in which political decisions are being made, and you will change the outcomes. Move the conversation around a crucial issue to a whole new place, and you will open up possibilities for change never dreamed of before. And you will be surprised at how fast the politicians adjust to the change in the wind."(2)

Politicians bend to wind

Wallis goes on to relate how King organized the voting rights march in Selma, Alabama after President Johnson told him that it would take 5-10 years to pass such as act. People all over the U.S. people watched the brutal response of the police and two weeks later hundreds of clergy from all over the country and every religion came to march from Selma to Montgomery. All of America watched and American attitudes were changed. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed in five months!

Christian vision

As Christians we would do well to remember this. We are to try to restore the moral vision that is eroding from our ailing society society by changing the wind as King did. We are to attempt to transform culture by presenting a better vision, one soul at a time if need be. We must present a picture of a God of mercy and love, not just judgement. We can not merely point out that certain practices are contrary to moral law of church precepts, though that is a part of it. We must explain with love why what the Church teaches is important. We must present a way of life that shows why what the Church says makes our lives more livable, more in line with reality. We must show in what we say and how we live that what the Church teaches is more than just dry convention but vital and fulfilling way of life.
This of course means that we ourselves must live this out in our lives and not conform to the present secular culture. That is why we in the Church must be true to its teachings.After all if we want to change the direction of the wind, we have to know the direction we want it to go.

1. Wallis , Jim, God's Politics, Harper Collins, San Francisco, CA. 2005, p. 46

2. Ibid, p. 22

2008-01-17T20:28:00.000-08:00

Pope Benedict and the tyranny of Science

Thus the church was not only on the right track when measuring reality by human concerns but it was considerably more rational than some modern scientists and philosophers who draw a sharp distinction between facts and values and then take it for granted that the only way of arriving at facts and values and , therefore reality is to accept the values of science."(1)

A couple of days ago Pope Benedict XVI canceled a speech at Sapienza in Rome Italy in response to protests by students and professors. They protested because in a speech he gave in 1990 in which then Cardinal Ratzinger quoted from philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend when he said concerning the trial of Galileo for his support of the Copernican theory of the solar system, which proposed that the planets orbited the sun; "The Church at the time was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. It’s verdict against Galileo was rational and just."(2)

Not favoring any oppression

Now I am not saying that putting a man on trial for speaking his mind in the civic sphere is right. I personally don’t agree that Galileo should have been threatened with death or imprisonment if he did not recant. We who live in Western civilization enjoy the right to express ourselves without the possibility of death or imprisonment even if we are wrong. We should not desire for a time when people can be threatened with those things for expressing their ideas. But that doesn't mean that the Church also does not have the right to be concerned about how a certain teaching may affect its own community and or impact its own teachings. Freedom of expression is a two way street.
That being said, critics of the Church use the Galileo incident as more than just an example of oppression. They use it to try to show that the Church was backward and opposed to scientific knowledge, out of touch with reality, only concerned with preserving its power, losing credibility when it turned out Galileo was correct. In that the critics are wrong, as are the Sapienza protestors. The Church had legitimate concerns and motivations in taking the action it did.

Knee jerk reaction

I find it amazing that these professors and students think they are honoring Galileo by protesting the appearance of the Pope because he agrees with Feyerabend. In protesting they are exhibiting the same attitude that the Church allegedly displayed towards Galileo. These protesters should actually take the time to read Feyerabend’s essay Galileo and the Tyranny of Truth, found in his book, Farewell to Reason. It will open their eyes to reality.

Feyerabend's Essay

It just so happens that I have the privilege of owning this book and have read the essay. It is one of the most provocative essays I have ever read. Anyone who wants to delve into matters of science and faith as they relate to life should read it. This essay contains many points that can be the starting point for many essays. One quote is appropo here;

" But a democracy cannot simply bow to the assertions of scientists and philosophers, it must examine these assertions, especially when they touch on fundamental matters; for example, it must examine this claim of ‘objectivity’. In other words it must enter upon a philosophical analysis of scientific claims just as it must enter on a financial analysis of local and national budgets."(3)

Church's motivation

This is what the Church was actually doing with L,affair Galileo. As always, historical context must be taken into consideration. Religious wars were raging during Galileo’s time concerning just how the Bible was to be interpreted. The Reformation was in full swing. At the same time millions still looked to the Church for guidance in those tumultuous times. Along comes this layman exceeding his paygrade by telling how the Bible should be interpreted, making radical claims.. Feyerabend writes; "Galileo did not simply ask for the freedom to publish his results but wanted to impose them on others. In this respect he was as pushy and totalitarian as many modern prophets of science- and as uninformed."(4)

The Church had the right, nay, the duty to examine this situation.

Were his theories proved accurate? From our perspective it would seem they were since heliocentrism was proved with the discovery of stellar parallax in the 1800s!but Feyerabend points out in his essay that Galileo’s case wasn’t all that strong. "And almost all philosophers of science today would have agreed with Bellarmino that Copernicus’s case was very weak indeed."(5)
The aforementioned Cardinal Bellarmino was master of controversial questions at Collegio Romano who wrote to a Carmelite monk concerning the Copernican system. Feyerabend quotes extensively from it. This quote in particular is noteworthy;

"If there were any real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe and that the earth is in the third heaven, and the Sun does not go around the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we would have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved true."(6)

Contrary to scientistic myth , the Church was open to the possibility that Copernicus was right. But Bellarmino goes on to say;"as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown me. ....In case of doubt we ought not to abandon the interpretation of the sacred text as given by the Holy Fathers."(7)

Church wanted proof

Thus the Church did not want to make any radical judgements till proof was offered. In this sense it acted no different than modern scientists today, who don’t accept any scientific discoveries until they are subjected to rigorous peer review and are supported by proof.(except, of course for the theory of evolution and the exclusion of a cosmic designer ) Galileo did not have proof and thus the Galileo affair should not be viewed as the Church trying to suppress a scientific principle regardless of its truth simply because it threatened the Church’s world view.

Threatened myth

Ahh, but we can’t let the truth get in the way of a workable mythology can we? Make no mistake, this more balanced view by Feyerabend, supported by the Pope, threatens this scientistic quasi mythology. This mythology posits that Galileo was a quasi martyr of a power hungry Church that was discredited in defending a geocentric world view simply because that is what the bible taught. Thus there is a conflict between the scientific outlook and that of religion.

Part of this myth is the notion that Copernicus caused a trauma when he yanked man from the center of the universe and thus shook the foundations of religion. Thus rationalists and atheists try to score points against faith with this myth, trying to make religion look primitive and, well, unintelligent.

But, as mentioned before, the Church had no problem with the Copernican system per se. Copernicus even received the official imprimatur. Also, man not being in the center of the universe was not much of a problem. Jacques Barzun writes;

" True, the humanists felt the dignity of the human being, because his powers were achieving wonders, but it was not because of his cosmic location. He was still under God, no matter what Ptolemy or Kopernik might say. Montaigne himself found no cause for men to be proud. The notion of medieval or early modern man saying to himself ’I am the center of the universe and what a glorious thing it is!’ is an invention of SCIENTISM centuries later."(8)

Reactions

The myth dies hard, as the Pope found out. But I suppose we really shouldn't be surprised. Many react badly when myths they live by are threatened. Any suggestion that many of the actions of the United States in her history were less than virtuous, for example, are treated by many as unpatriotic and subversive of the good the U.S is supposed to represent. The flip side of that is that any teaching that the U.S has done anything virtuous at all is treated as reactionary and supportive of an oppressive imperialism. There was even a clamor when a sports writer had the audacity to suggest that the blood on Curt Chilling's sock during the baseball post season of 2004 was paint, thus attacking the mythology that is Red Sox baseball! It is the same in this case.Many in the scientific cummunity have knee jerk reactions when the myth of their very own patron saint takes some hits.

Call for balance

Hopefully this controversy could lead to a more balanced discussion of this matter in the public sphere. Maybe the scientific community will see that it has the potential to become as oppressive as any totalitarian political system. Maybe they can discover that one can be a "free thinker" and still believe in God. But I won’t hold my breath. A physicist at La Sapienza, Marcello Cini, stated; "I thought, and continue to think, that his visit was ambiguous and an attack on the independence of culture and the university."(9)

No Marcello, what you and your students pulled, that was an attack on the independence of culture and the university. It is you and others of like mind that stifled free thinking and inquiry in service of a scientific orthodoxy. In this post modern age it is the people of faith and philosophers like Feyerabend who are the free thinkers now!

1.Feyerabend, Paul, Farewell to reason, Verso, London, 1987, p. 253
2. Boston Globe, p. A8, January 16, 2008
3. Feyerabend, Paul, Farewell to reason, p. 261
4. Feyerabend, p. 249
5. Ibid, p. 257
6. Ibid, P. 255
7. Ibid, P. 256
8. Barzun, Jacques, From Dawn to Decadence, Harper Collins, New York, NY. 2000, P. 193
9. Boston Globe, P. A8, January 16, 2008

Plunging In

2008-01-15T15:58:00.000-08:00

"Lord God, help us who have dipped a foot into the waters of life to plunge in over our heads, dead to the old ways and fully alive to the new, for the sake of Jesus, who gave his life for those He loved. Amen."

It is amazing how sometimes a phrase or two from a simple prayer can have depth of meaning and can impact one like a sudden gust of wind in the face. Such a thing happened to me last week at the monthly meeting of the Oblate associates of Mary Immaculate. The above prayer was one of the ones used in the prayer service. I was struck by the opening line. How many times , especially recently, have I merely dipped a foot into the waters of life as opposed to plunging in head first, fully immersed in the Christian life.

Too much dipping

I have been guilty of just wading in lately, distracted by holiday activities, house cleaning, various events, undefeated football seasons, etc. There is nothing wrong with all this and most of these activities are necessary. There is no sin in these per se.
But it must be remembered that the Christian life is about our relationship with God, not merely following rules and moral precepts. It says in scripture;
" Therefore , as you have received Jesus Christ our Lord, so walk in Him; be rooted in Him and built up on him, and strengthened in the faith, as you also have learnt, rendering thanks abundantly."(Colossians, 2: 6-7)
Thomas Merton writes;
"But morality is not an end in itself. Virtue, for a Christian, is not its own reward. God is our reward. The moral life leads to something beyond itself-to the experience of union with God, and to our transformation in Him."(1)

Need for constant growth

I have learned lately that halfway measures won’t do. It may be possible to go through the motions for awhile, not committing outward sin. But if I let life distract me from feeding my soul, by contemplation, communing with God, growing in knowledge then eventually, because I haven’t built up enough of a relationship with God to dread cutting myself of His grace, I will fall. If I don’t do what is necessary to continually be transformed in Him, I will regress.

Can't neglect God

Thus, in order to grow in His likeness, we must plunge in His waters. Dipping our foot is not enough. Our earthly relationships won’t work by neglecting to spend time with our loved ones, it is the same with God. We do have to do our duties and live our vocations, but in doing so we can not forget our lives belong to Him. We can’t let anything distract us to the point where we forget to strengthen and deepen our relationship with God and plunge in the waters of His grace.

1. Thomas Merton, The Thomas Merton Reader, Image Books, Doubleday, Ny. Ny., 1974, p.375

Huckabee and Merry Christmas

2007-12-20T19:37:00.000-08:00

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

Musings on The Golden Compass

2007-12-19T16:43:00.000-08:00

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

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.

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.

2007-12-12T18:07:00.000-08:00

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.

James Carroll and the recent Beatifications

2007-12-11T03:26:00.000-08:00

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."

Yes they are!!!

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.

2007-11-22T16:47:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-20T20:15:00.000-08:00

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.

2007-11-06T09:04:00.000-08:00

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

2007-09-06T09:08:00.000-07:00

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