#headandheartcatholic.com

[headandheartcatholic]

Is a Lasting Love Still Possible?

For the Heart

The color red, countless hearts, Cupid and his bow, candy and roses all indicate that the day dedicated to those in love has arrived. The association of lovers with St. Valentine’s Day goes back at least as far as the Middle Ages in England and France.  February the 14th is around the time of year when birds would find mates, so this day also seemed appropriate for two people to show signs of that love.[1]

Yet, despite our celebration of Valentine’s Day, do people still believe in the possibility of a lasting love?

We definitely think a lot about love. La Bohème, Romeo & Juliet, West Side Story, the poetry of John Donne and countless other poems, songs and dramas throughout history have continuously revealed that to love and to be loved is our deepest desire.  How many times has a young man looked into a young woman’s eyes on a starry night and promised to be hers ‘forever’? That promise, converted into a life-long commitment in marriage, has the power to bring about life:  newborn life and a fuller and richer life for each other as companions on a journey.

Yet, if this life of love is so wonderful and so greatly desired, why does it seem so difficult to achieve? About half the marriages in America end in divorce.[2] Prenuptial agreements, settling the terms for an eventual separation, show resignation to an imminent divorce.  Domestic violence affects countless people.[3] Fewer people are tying the knot,[4] and more and more people are simply living alone.[5]  It seems that in our culture with so many broken homes and broken hearts that we have decided that it is better simply not to risk it: “I’ve been hurt before.”  

So, to satisfy desires we settle for ‘friendships with privileges,’ ‘hooking up,’ cohabitation, or pornography. The problem is that while these stopgap measures may bring momentary pleasure, they will not bring us lasting happiness.[6] Furthermore, these substitutes for love not only put off commitment to a life-long love, but make it harder for one to commit later in life.

How then can we build a loving relationship that lasts?

One key ingredient is to understand what love actually is. Love is not a feeling. Feelings come and go. Love is self-donation; it is a decision to put the other first. St. Augustine summed up one of the central questions of life as “a struggle between two kinds of love: between the love of God unto sacrifice of self, and self-love unto the denial of God.”[7]  However, the same could be said about human love: either love of the other unto the point of self-sacrifice, or love of self to the point of sacrificing the other. How admirable to see the love of a mother, a father, a friend or a professor who always seems to be there for others.

Additionally, you must train yourself to love. To give yourself you must possess yourself, which means self-control of one’s whims and desires for the good of the other.  If a young man or woman has the habit of simply doing what feels good in the moment, he or she will not be capable of persevering when love becomes difficult. Nevertheless, to grow into a mature and self-giving love, even amidst the difficulties, is something beautiful.

Finally, rely on God’s grace. Our Lord, source of love and marriage, offers us his help. That is why he made marriage between two Christians a sacrament.[8] The habits of prayer, individually and as a couple, regular Mass attendance and confession are crucial to growing closer to God and to each other.

Do not give up on love. It is possible. As Pope Benedict XVI so beautifully stated: My dear young friends, I want to invite you to "dare to love". Do not desire anything less for your life than a love that is strong and beautiful and that is capable of making the whole of your existence a joyful undertaking of giving yourselves as a gift to God and your brothers and sisters.’ [9]

Oh, and by the way, it seems that there were actually three saints named Valentine. All died willingly for their faith in God.[10] Now that is love.

Fr. John Bullock, LC

TKC!

Image: dimitrisvetsikas1969 / 11792 images

[1] cf. ‘St. Valentine’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15254a.htm

[2] https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/

[3] http://www.ncadv.org/

[4] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-single/201805/half-century-fewer-people-marrying-what-explains-it

[5] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/11/the-share-of-americans-living-without-a-partner-has-increased-especially-among-young-adults/

[6] https://www.bravotv.com/personal-space/are-married-people-happier-than-single-people-study

[7] Cf. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Salt of the Earth, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, p. 282.

[8] Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Kindle Edition, n. 1601.

[9] Papal Message for 22nd Youth Day, "A 'Discovery' of Love,” February 5, 2007, Zenit.org.  

[10] cf. ‘St. Valentine’ in the Catholic Encyclopedia at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15254a.htm  

[headandheartcatholic]

Letter to an Atheist about Religion & Dialogue

For the Head

Dear Greta,

I read your article ‘Why should atheists have to show respect for religion?’[i] [here]. [Warning to reader: Greta’s article contains vulgar language.]  

As a Catholic priest who has often reflected on questions such as atheism, agnosticism, and the multiplicity of religions, I felt compelled to reply. I want to affirm the importance of religious truth; encourage serious religious dialogue, and, argue for the unity of faith and reason.

I actually agree with a key point in your article: truth about God matters. I much prefer the honest atheist who says, ‘I think you’re off your rocker,’ to those who insist that we should not fret over the silly little details about God and religion. While the former may be confrontational, the latter is condescending, and, as you put it, ‘shows a callous disregard for the truth.’ Any serious thinker about the matter of God and religion, regardless of his or her position, will not treat the subject superficially. I found your indignation at such an irrational approach very similar to my own, and refreshingly honest.

I also agree with you that we can respect another person’s freedom of speech, while disagreeing with his or her ideas. Ideas only have value to the degree that they are true, and to discover the truth should be the very purpose of dialogue. Ironically, it is often the desire to be polite at all costs that has eroded real dialogue in our culture. We are afraid to have meaningful conversations with those who differ with us due to our fear of confrontation, so we merely talk about ‘the other side’ rather than to them. I too have been guilty of this.

I disagree, however, that the only two types of religious believers are either: a) intolerant theocrats who shun, outlaw and brutalize those who think differently from them; or, b) uncritical ecumenicalists, who reduce religion to personal preference with no reference to the truth. I believe there is a third category of religious believer: one who takes faith seriously while continuing to deepen his or her understanding of perennial issues such as good, evil, life, death, and the afterlife. Furthermore, struggling with difficult questions and insufficient answers is not exclusive to religious believers; that includes atheists, agnostics and all people. I would also argue that the same applies to the temptation of shunning, outlawing or brutalizing those who think otherwise. Atheistic regimes in the 20th Century were quite brutal. The capacity for cruelty is something against which we must all be on guard.

The Catholic understanding of faith and reason is that the two need not be at odds. At its root, the problem of both a fundamentalist approach to religion and the intellectually vapid ecumenicalism is a negation of the role of reason in matters regarding faith. Pope John Paul II wrote that a faith deprived of reason and stressing feelings and experience, ‘runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition.’[ii] Faith does not preclude thought; faith requires it. While certain questions do not allow for easy answers, the Catholic Church has developed a very rich intellectual patrimony showing that it does not shy away from tough questions. Inversely, reason needs faith, otherwise it risks ‘losing sight of its final goal.’ That is, if we cut off a priori the possibility of man’s transcendence, could we not risk missing that which is most important?[iii]

Finally, where are the believers and non-believers to meet? We should meet on the common ground of our reason, or philosophy, which seeks after the deeper truths that empirical science alone cannot answer. They key, as you rightly said, is truth, truth and respect in an ongoing dialogue. In the process, perhaps we can learn something from each other.

Respectfully,

Fr. John Bullock, LC

TKC!

Photo by Joshua Ness on Unsplash

Originally Sent to Greta Christina: Sunday, March 29, 2015 11:58 AM. Current post contains changes.

[headandheartcatholic]

Four Travelers, a Mountain, & a Guide

For the Head

Does it matter what religion you are?

Imagine an enormous mountain.  Its base has a vast circumference and its peak is usually shrouded by clouds. Some sides of the mountain contain sheer cliffs, others rocky inclines, still others a wooded area. It has streams, crevices, level areas, fields, and even a small forest. Now imagine that at the top of the mountain there is a resort that is immensely hospitable, has wonderful food and lodging. To arrive at the resort is the only purpose of travelers who find themselves on the mountain.

Now, there were four different travelers on this mountain.

One traveler found himself alone in a flat and wooded area, with trees so densely packed and tall that he was not even aware of being on a mountain; much less, that he should scale it to arrive at the magnificent resort. As a result, he simply wandered in circles.  He had moments of enjoyment, but the bigger picture of the mountain escaped him. To break out of his meandering, he would have to move beyond the trees.

A second traveler realized that he was at the base of the mountain, and that he should go to the top, where there were rumors of a resort.  He knew nothing more. He was diligent and worked hard at it, but would often come up against sheer cliffs, waterfalls and other insurmountable obstacles.  Discouraged, he would have to turn around and try again.

A third traveler knew he was on a mountain, that he had to go up to the resort, and that he was on a path. Nevertheless, the path was not always easy to follow. In some spots, it would branch off in two or even three directions. In other parts, the path would simply end. At times, it seemed to our traveler that he was going in circles.

A fourth traveler knew he was on a mountain, that he had to go up, and that there was a path. Additionally, he had an experienced guide to show him the way and assist him with various tools.

Who is most likely to reach the resort?  

The mountain is our life. The resort is heaven.

The man in the woods is the atheist. He does not see beyond the immediacy of this life. He is unaware of the transcendent purpose during his time on the mountain.  He runs the risk of ‘meandering’ through life.

The second man, who realizes that he should go to the top but no more, is a spiritual person. He realizes that this life contains some kind of afterlife and a corresponding responsibility to strive for it, but little else. Some of his confused ideas about God and the afterlife could even lead him to the sheer cliffs, making the journey more complicated.

The third traveler is an Evangelical Christian. He knows Christ, who is the way, or the path. He studies the Bible assiduously. Yet, he draws different conclusions each time he reads the Bible, and finds that his pastor disagrees with the neighboring pastors. So at times, his journey is rather confusing, and frustrating.

The fourth traveler is the Catholic. His guide is the pope and the Church’s Magisterium, which lead him to the truth about Christ and life’s journey. The Church also provides him with several tools: sacraments for nourishment, strength and healing; the saints as examples, teachers, and intercessors; and the community of his fellow Catholics. The Catholic still has to climb the mountain. It is still an arduous journey to the resort, but he finds it much easier to avoid common pitfalls if he follows the path and obeys the guide.

Now, every comparison has its limitations. It is true that everyone, even the atheist, can make it to heaven.  It is also true that God loves everyone, and will take into account his or her particular circumstances. However, it is equally true that the more information and assistance we have, the more likely we will succeed in getting to heaven. Therefore, to know the truth about Jesus Christ as taught by his Catholic Church and to avail of all the tools it offers us is a tremendous blessing.

Yes, it matters what religion you are. As such, let us humbly, but boldly, proclaim Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church.

Fr. John Bullock, LC

TKC!

Photo:    https://pixabay.com/en/climber-rock-wall-vertical-984380/

[headandheartcatholic]

A Flea Market, a Fiddle and an Old Man

For the Heart

Tom was surprised to find himself at the flea market, not merely as a potential customer, but with a booth of his own. He had recently cleaned out the house inherited from his parents, and considered this venue more advantageous to sales than his own front yard. As he unpacked iron-wrought lamps and old records, he came across a fiddle, worn and dusty, which had resided in the attic for as long as he could remember. Nevertheless, the fiddle was intact, had all the strings and the bow. Tom had done a cursory dusting off, and placed it on the table with some of the other of his curious wares. He hoped for $20 to $30 dollars from someone with a nostalgia for music to purchase it as a possible decoration piece.

Half way through the morning, despite the large crowds at the Flea Market, sales had been rather disappointing for Tom. He was even beginning to wonder if he would make back the money it cost to rent the booth. Just then, an elderly, bearded man slightly bent and supported by a cane absent-mindedly stopped at Tom’s booth. When he saw the old, dusty fiddle, his eyes grew wide and he reverently cradled it. With the sleeve from his shabby jacket, he began to dust it off. He carefully tuned it and, to Tom’s surprise, began to play a classical piece: soft and melancholic. The old man and the violin were transformed. They came alive, and seemed to be transported beyond the market. The maestro and his violin were one.  A crowd began to gather around Tom’s booth to listen to the impromptu concert. The hustle of the crowded flea market dissipated into a silence and awe at the melodic beauty. Then the music stopped. The old man handed Tom the violin, and with a grateful smile simply said, ‘Stradivarius,’[i] and walked away.

Jesus always saw in those that he met their potential for greatness. He placed it in them. For example, when Jesus met the tax collector Matthew, he knew his ‘dust’ better than anyone did. However, Jesus saw through that to the real Matthew. Our Lord saw in Matthew an apostle, an evangelist, and a saint. That was Matthew’s vocation. He only needed to be open to our Lord’s invitation.  

What do we see when we look at others? There is certainly dust. They have their faults, their imperfections, their sins. That is real. But can we see with the perspective of God, beyond the dust to the original beauty placed in them by their Creator? The goodness, placed there by God, always outweighs the negative. Do we actively seek out the objective good in others? Can we go so far as to help them see the good in themselves? Are we convinced of their ability to do something beautiful?

More often than not, the one we have the most difficulty seeing beyond the dust is ourselves. We are keenly aware of our weaknesses and sins. We tend to overwhelm, and wonder if God could actually do something with our mess. We give our dust greater power than the maestro of our soul. Allow God’s grace to work in your life through prayer, the sacraments, and through service. Do not be dismayed that the dusting off takes some time, or that new dust occasionally reappears. The effort is worth it. We were created for greatness in the hands of our Lord.  

May the concert of your life bring glory to the Maestro.

Fr. John Bullock, LC

TKC!

Photo on <a href="https://visualhunt.com">Visualhunt.com</a>

Visualhunt.com

[i] A Stradivarius is one of the violins, violas, cellos and other string instruments built by members of the Italian family Stradivari…  during the 17th and 18th centuries. According to their reputation, the quality of their sound has defied attempts to explain or equal it, though this belief is disputed. The fame of Stradivarius instruments is widespread, appearing in numerous works of fiction. [Cf. ‘Stradivarius’ in Wikipedia].

[headandheartcatholic]

Is Faith Irrational?

For the Head - 2nd in a 2 part series [LINK TO PART ONE]

In the previous post, we have seen that faith is ‘to hold something for true which we ourselves cannot directly know or prove.’[1]  We also saw that we hold something for true because we trust the person who communicated that truth to us.  Nevertheless, even if faith is reasonable, would it not be better, more certain, to know that to believe? Additionally, can the arguments in favor of a natural faith legitimately support the reasonableness of a religious faith?

a. Faith vs. Knowledge

A person might hold that, ‘Direct empirical knowledge is better than faith when it comes to arriving at truth. Faith alone seems tenuous at best, a second rate solution.

How do we know anything directly? There are two routes: experience and deduction.

I know something through experience to be true because I have seen it to be so. For example, I know that when I let go of an apple, it will fall down and not up. I see the law of gravity in action. This principle is the foundation of the empirical sciences: our repeated experiences, or experiments, confirm our theories about the material reality around us.

The other means of knowledge is deduction. Logical deduction ‘is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion… If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true… (For) example: 1. All men are mortal. 2. Socrates is a man. 3. Therefore Socrates is mortal.’[2]  That is, our intellect, while starting with the senses, is able to grasp truths beyond the merely empirical.

Faith is the third way by which we can arrive at the truth, through the mediation of a messenger.  The reality we access by faith is no less true for having arrived at it by faith. So if the plane is really in good flying condition, that truth is independent of whether I personally check it or if someone else checks it, or for that matter, if no one checks it.

Now, one might argue that my faith could be mistaken, which is possible. However, it is also possible that his or her experience or deduction could be mistaken. Have you ever taken one person for another at a first glance? Have you ever gotten a logical process, like a math problem, wrong? Who hasn’t? Both direct knowledge and the mediated knowledge of faith have failed us in the past, but both have also led us to truth.

I would even argue that faith could be more certain than my own experience, because if the person telling me about something knows more about the subject than I do, it is more reliable. My mechanic can give me more information about what is wrong with my car in five minutes than I can ascertain by looking at it an entire day. The very system of education relies upon faith: you trust that your professors or teachers know more about a given subject than you do. Rarely do you crosscheck the information given in a classroom, and even less so in a textbook. You believe them because you trust them. Only peer-reviewed articles would come under some scrutiny, and then, only by the peers, and not by everyone who reads them.

b. Natural Faith vs. Faith in God

However, even if a natural faith is legitimate, does that legitimize faith in God? Put another way, is faith in God any different that a ‘natural’ faith? Some would argue that, ‘Faith in the airplane’s fly-worthiness and faith in God are two completely different things. They are on two completely different levels!’  I would agree, because all the examples I have previously given are ultimately empirically provable. We cannot do this with God, who by definition, is immaterial. Let us consider two points.

First, whereas the nature of the object is different, the immaterial God vs. the material airplane, the structure of faith remains the same: you hold something to be true because you trust the person who told you that it was so. As such, we have seen that per se the act of faith is not irrational.

Secondly, while our Christian faith remains faith, it does not mean that it is a complete stab in the dark, a jump into irrationality. There are many hints or ‘signs’ of God’s reality in this world, which inductively point to the reality of a higher being, such as: an ordered universe, man’s spiritual reality and his wrestling with morality, among other things.[3] As Chesterton’s writes in Orthodoxy: If I am asked, as a purely intellectual question, why I believe in Christianity, I can only answer, "For the same reason that an intelligent agnostic disbelieves in Christianity." I believe in it quite rationally upon the evidence. … But the evidence in my case, as in that of the intelligent agnostic, is not really in this or that alleged demonstration; it is in an enormous accumulation of small but unanimous facts…. ….For when I look at these various anti-Christian truths, I simply discover that none of them are true.’[4]  One or two points alone may not convince a person, but as one looks closely and the evidence begins to add up, the case for faith becomes stronger.

Conclusion

Faith and empirical knowledge, faith and logical reasoning are not at odds with each other. They are distinct and legitimate paths to seeking truth. Religious faith and natural faith maintain the same internal logic: holding something for true that we ourselves do not see or deduce because we trust the messenger. That is reasonable.

Faith requires trust in another person, and as such, moves beyond a merely rational process, but it is not irrational.

Do you believe me?

Fr. John Bullock, LC

TKC!

Photo by Zac Durant on Unsplash

[1] Cf. Josef Pieper, ‘Was heist Glauben? Grünewald Sprechkassenten, 1998, Hörbuch, ISBNÑ 978-3-7867-2089-8; http://www.gruenewaldverlag.de/was-heisst-glauben-p-352.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

[3] Cf. Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Washington DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 2005 , n. 3.

[4] Orthodoxy (Chesterton, G. K., 95-96)

[headandheartcatholic]

Is Faith Irrational?

For the Head - 1st in a 2 part series [LINK TO PART TWO] 

Is Faith Irrational?

Is faith a mere ‘stab in the dark?’ Is it simply shutting off our intellect to embrace some fantastic story about creation, an ark with lots of animals, a burning bush, miracles and a resurrection? As one atheist put it, ‘Faith is gullibility; [it] is the… excuse people give for believing something when they don’t have a good reason.’[1] Hasn’t the scientific method shown that we should only believe that which has been empirically proven true? That is, does Christianity, or any religion for that matter, belong at the same level as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy – something heartwarming, but in the end not meant to be taken seriously?

So the question, ‘Is it rational to believe?’ is fundamental. Because unless we can show that the very act of faith itself is not contrary to reason, then there really is no point for a reasonable and educated person to continue bothering with a religion that seems to be no more than mere conjecture, sentimentality, and irrationality.

In this post, I will argue that the act of faith is not only reasonable, but also frequently practiced by all people, even agnostics and atheists. To do that I will try to answer three questions: What does ‘faith’ mean? When do we make acts of faith? Why do we make acts of faith?

a. What does ‘faith’ mean?

Now what are we talking about when we say that we believe or that we have faith? [For the sake of clarity, here I am taking faith and belief as synonymous].

First, let us see what faith is not.

Faith is not merely a preference. Often the question, ‘In what religion do you believe?’ is taken to mean, ‘Which one of the many religions do you prefer?’, as if religious choice was something similar to choosing a favorite flavor of ice cream. ‘I prefer Catholicism to Buddhism.’ ‘I prefer cookies and cream to chocolate.’ If, however, our religious faith were merely preference then there would be many things about our Catholic faith that we would not believe. As Patrick Madrid once said, ‘I don’t like the Church’s teaching on the existence of Hell, but I believe it.’[2]

Faith is not merely a sentiment. Often people of faith will say things like, ‘I feel God’s presence in my life,’ or, ‘Can’t you feel God close to you right now?’ While our living of the faith includes an emotional element, we have to take care not to root religious belief solely in our emotions. Otherwise, what do you do when the emotion is gone? That would be a fragile faith indeed.[3]  Additionally, how would you communicate a merely subjective experience of the faith to someone else? What if they do not share your emotion? There has to be a firmer foundation.

So, what is faith? What does it mean to believe? Faith, or to believe, is ‘to hold something for true which we ourselves cannot directly know or prove.’[4] You might object, ‘Isn’t that an oxymoron? Isn’t that irrational?’ Actually, all of us, including non-believers, make countless acts of faith daily. Let us look at some examples.

b. When do we make acts of faith?

When you get onto a plane, do you know if it is in good flying condition? I am not asking you to look into the future, rather, what is the plane’s condition the moment you get on? Is it in good enough a condition to fly? Is it a reasonable assumption that the plane will indeed fly? How do you know? Did you test the hydraulics, the engines, and the fuel lines? No, you did not. You just ‘believed’ the plane to be in good condition.

When you are about to drive over a bridge, do you know that it is in good condition? Did you test its structural soundness?  You might reply, ‘I see other cars driving over it… it must be good.’ Perhaps, but then again, that wasn’t ‘proof’ enough for the bridge in Minnesota that fell during rush hour in 2007. [5] Again, I am not talking about seeing into the future, but the condition of the bridge at the moment you assess it. You did not empirically prove the bridge to be in good condition. You ‘believed’ that the bridge is in good shape.

When you get medication from the pharmacist, do you know that it is the right one?  Perhaps the pharmacist made a mistake, like the case in Northern Ireland a year ago where a woman died because she was given the wrong medication.[6] Did you chemically dissect each tablet? No, you believed that the medicine was good.

Therefore, people, whether religious or not, have frequently ‘held something for true which they cannot directly know or prove.’ This is much more practical or tangible than an opinion or a feeling. It would be practically impossible to function otherwise. You cannot examine everything that you use, even if you were technically qualified to do so. Does the pharmacist chemically analyze every aspirin he takes for his own headaches?

Additionally, sincerity of the believer has nothing to do with the validity of the truth he or she professes. Either the plane is in good flying condition, or it is not. Either the bridge is stable or it is not. Either the medication is good or it is not. Sincerely believing something does not make it sincerely true. The believer can be sincerely mistaken.

c. Why do we make acts of faith?

You might reply, ‘It is not irrational for me to believe that a plane will fly if it’s with a reputable company, and checked by the Federal Aviation Administration!’ I agree, it is not irrational on your behalf, but it also not empirical. You chose to believe because you personally did not check it: that is the point. You have to ask yourself the question as to why you believe that, or anything else you believe. Why is it reasonable to believe that something is true without empirically seeing it or logically deducing it? We hold something for true because we trust the one who told us that it is that way.

There are two essential elements needed to trust any given messenger: they are qualified and sincere. Qualified means that they know what they are talking about, such as a doctor or a pharmacist speaking about medication. Thinking them sincere means you are convinced that they are telling the truth.

Therefore, faith is built on a relationship of trust.

In the next blog I will l look at: faith vs. knowledge, and, faith in God vs. natural faith.  

[link to part 2]

Fr. John Bullock, LC

TKC!

Image: Photo by xurde on Visualhunt.com / CC BY-SA [7]

[1] Matt Dillahunty explaining irrationality of faith www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-exGLLwC3c

[2] Patrick Madrid, ‘Why I’m Catholic.’ Lighthouse CD.

[3] St. Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Faith and Reason, http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

[4] Cf. Josef Pieper, ‘Was heist Glauben? Grünewald Sprechkassenten, 1998, Hörbuch, ISBNÑ 978-3-7867-2089-8; http://www.gruenewaldverlag.de/was-heisst-glauben-p-352.html

[5] Source: Breaking Christian News (Exclusive), Aimee Herd, Editor, www.BreakingChristianNews.com

[6]‘7-Month Suspension for Pharmacist Whose Dispensing Error Led to Death.’ C+D Community Pharmacy News, 6/10/2017, by James Waldron. https://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/news/7-month-suspension-pharmacist-whose-dispensing-error-led-death

[7] Photo by <a href="https://foter.com/author2/4785cd">xurde</a> on <a href="https://visualhunt.com">Visualhunt.com</a> / <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/">CC BY-SA</a>  

[headandheartcatholic]

Group Think vs. Free Thinking

For the Head

Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think… [Arthur Schopenhauer][i].

Recently, due to the Tweets of Kanye West, there has been a lot of talk about group think vs. free thinking (here).[ii]  The argument basically goes, ‘don’t let others tell you what to think, think for yourself.’ That seems reasonable enough.  The question is: Is group think always bad and free thought always good?

That depends.

Christianity, among other religions, is often referred to as a crutch for those who don’t want to think for themselves, face the difficult realities of life, or make an effort to improve the world in which we live. It is viewed as the catch-all solution for the intellectually or morally lazy. How did the world come about? God made it. How do I have to act? God will tell me. How do I fix this problem? God will take care of it. What happens with the responsibility of my wrong-doings? God takes care of that too. And as for Catholics, we don’t have to even struggle to understand God or the Bible; the Church will do that for us. We just pay, pray and obey. It is seen as the epitome of group think.

It certainly seems like an easy way out.

Yet Christianity isn’t the only means to conveniently escape the tougher questions of life. Atheism and Skepticism can equally be used as a crutch or a shield. Questions such as our ultimate origin, the meaning of life and our final destiny are quickly dismissed as unanswerable, so why bother? This is also applied to moral issues. A young atheist, living with her boyfriend, told him: ‘But if there’s a God, then we can’t do whatever we want.’  This is very true.

So if Marx’s maxim that religion is the opium of the masses aimed at keeping you happy while you suffer can hold true, then atheism can be dubbed as the morphine which deadens your senses to troubling human and moral issues. As for group think, there are plenty of skeptics insisting that others follow suit:  look at the culture on university campuses.

Atheists may cry ‘foul’, claiming that the superficiality of some atheists doesn’t translate to atheism as such being superficial. Surprisingly enough, I would agree.  However, the same holds true for Christianity. Both can be superficially used to avoid effort on an intellectual or moral level. To quote Peter Kreeft, a Catholic philosopher, ‘The one thing everyone must start with is total honesty… If I decide to stop believing just so that I can commit all the sins I want without feeling guilty, without asking what’s true and what God thinks – that’s dishonest.  And to decide to believe just to avoid the hassle of thinking for myself or just because it’s socially convenient – that’s dishonest too.’[iii]

It’s not enough to believe just because that’s how I was raised, because that’s my tradition. As Pope Benedict once said in an interview: ‘What is interesting is that the concept of tradition has to a great extent made redundant that of religion, and that of confession or denomination – and, thereby, that of truth. Particular religions are regarded as traditions… (and) everyone should respect each other’s (traditions). At any rate, if traditions are all we have, then truth has been lost. And sooner or later we will ask what in fact traditions are for. And in that case a revolt against tradition is well founded.’[iv]

The point is you should follow something because it’s true, period.  That is intellectual honesty.  And that truth may or may not be with the group. The group is not the criterion.

Free thought is nevertheless essential. The Church insists that a person not be coerced into belief - they must be free to discover the truth.[v] That neither translates into meaning that all ideas are of equal value – some ideas are right, some wrong; for example, the idea of racism is wrong. Nor does it mean that ideas shouldn’t be shared with others. The Church presents a unified body of teaching to be considered, and hopefully embraced in the conviction that it is true… but freely embraced.[vi] Christ never forced himself upon others. The Church from the beginning has been called to do the same, although the Second Vatican Council admits that on this point those in the Church haven’t always acted in ‘accord with the spirit of the Gospel.’[vii]

For Catholics struggling with their faith, this is an invitation to dig deeper as to why we believe what we believe and do what we do.  And for non-Catholics, this is an invitation to take a closer look. Ask the tough questions.  In doing so, I remain convinced that you will eventually fall deeply in love with the truth that is Christ and his Church.

Yes, the Catholic Church is a group, but it still wants you to think.

Fr. John Bullock, LC

November 10, 2018

[i]quoted in Atheist Blogger: http://atheistblogger.com/2008/02/15/101-atheist-quotes/

[ii] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/04/27/thanks_to_kanye_groupthink_is_broken_136925.html

[iii] Peter Kreeft, Yes or No, San Francisco, California: Igantius Press, p. 58-59.

[iv] Ratzinger, God & the World, San Francisco, California: Igantius Press pp 34-35.

[v] Cf. Dignitatis Humanae, Declaration on Religious Freedom, n. 1, from the 2nd Vatican Council, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

[vi] Dignitatis Humanae, n. 2

[vii] Dignitatis Humanae, n. 12

[headandheartcatholic]

Cafeteria Catholicism

For the Head

It’s not uncommon to encounter Catholics, often public figures, who maintain that they are Catholics in good standing while publicly disagreeing with numerous teachings of the Church.   Issues they frequently mention include:  abortion, same – sex marriage, contraception and embryonic stem cell research.  

Is picking and choosing what we like about the faith while leaving the rest behind, allowed? Does this coincide with the Church’s understanding of what it means to believe?  In other words, is it OK to be a cafeteria Catholic?

The short answer is no.  Why?

To answer that we have to see why we believe anything the Church teaches.  There are two primary reasons.  First, we believe that Christ is truly the Son of God.  As a result, we believe that what He says is authoritative, period.   Secondly, we believe that the Church speaks truly and faithfully for Christ, particularly in matters of faith and morality.  If either of these two points is not sustained then we have to discard Christianity all together not just some of it.  If Christ is not God as He claimed to be, then He would either be a liar or insane[1].  Why would I listen to Him at all?  It would make no sense to love Him more than my mother and father, to take up my cross and follow Him[2], or to do anything that He said.  It is precisely because we hold Him to be God that we follow Him, which implies obeying Him.

The second piece of the puzzle however is equally as important.  Whenever you believe a news report to be true, you do so precisely because you trust that the messenger is not just sincere but correct in their reporting on the matter.  If you doubt the messenger, you doubt the message.  Christ is the message, the Church is the messenger.   We would know nothing, or almost nothing, about Christ were it not for the Church communicating the ‘Good News.’   The Protestant solution of using the Bible as the only source of authoritative teaching in order to get around the need for a Church just doesn’t work. The Bible itself didn’t fall from the sky but rather came from God through the Church.  Someone had to decide which books were inspired and which were not.  As Peter Kreeft, a noted Catholic author, said, "you can’t have an infallible effect without an infallible cause.[3]” Granted, the Church is a secondary cause to God, but a cause or instrument nonetheless.

So when the Church communicates its understanding of Christ’s teachings, it either has the authority to do so or it doesn’t.  If I believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and teaches the truth about faith and morals, then I accept it.  If it doesn’t, then I ultimately have no foundation to believe any of its teachings.  So if I, as a practicing Catholic,  think that the Church is wrong regarding homosexual marriage, contraception and abortion, upon what foundation do I accept its teachings about social justice and kindness?   I may agree with the Church on certain issues, but the fact that I agree becomes merely coincidental.  I may agree with Muslims that religion is important and with Marxists that there is oppression in the world, but those shared opinions would make me neither a Muslim nor a Marxist.  In other words, it wouldn’t be faith.

As Cardinal Pell wrote, “For many people today, conscience suggests freedom to judge God's law by our own personal resources and the right to reject the notion or reformulate this law as we think best. I imagine that to non-Christians this must seem rather odd: If moral and religious teachings bind only to the extent that one's individual mind and will enthuse about them, then pretty clearly the teachings do not bind at all. What "binds" is simply the autonomous self, with all the limitations that our selves are prey to. And to say "I am bound by me" is hardly to make a meaningful moral utterance.[4]”

The Catholic faith isn’t first and foremost a list of rules.  It is an encounter with the living God in the person of Jesus Christ, an encounter with His love and His forgiveness.  Yet this grace, this invitation to communion with God, challenges us to leave our selfish and sinful ways behind.  This is hard, but possible with Christ’s help.  It is only when this challenge is accepted that we begin to truly become what we were created to be.  The moral norms are the necessary guidelines in this process.  Who are we to tell God we know better than He does?

So, what do we do if we sincerely have a hard time grasping or accepting some points of the faith? We pray and we study. “Where a Catholic disagrees with the Church on some serious matter, the responses should not be “that’s that’ I can’t follow the Church here”; instead we should kneel and pray that God will lead our weak steps and enlighten our fragile minds.[5]” This may seem like a hard and arduous road, but do not get discouraged. Christ told us that if we seek we shall find.[6]

As Pope Benedict stated, “In the uncertainty of this time in history and of our society, (we must) offer people the certainty of the complete faith of the Church. The clarity and beauty of the Catholic faith are such that they brighten human life even today! This is particularly true if it is presented by enthusiastic and convincing witnesses.[7]”

Christ has guaranteed complete certainty of faith to the Church, through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is a gift and grace He has freely given us in order that we may have eternal life. Why would we want to leave anything of such a beautiful gift behind?

by Fr. John Bullock, LC

Re-published November 10, 2018

[Originally published April 23, 2009]

TKC!

cf. Fulton Sheen, Life of Christ ↑

cf. Mt 10:37 – 38 ↑

Peter Kreeft, Yes or No, Dialogue 1 ↑

Cardinal Pell on True and False Conscience, Feb 10, 2005, Zenit.org. ↑

ibid ↑

cf. Mt 7:7 ↑

Benedict XVI to Austrian Bishops - Zenith - 2 dec 2005 ↑

[headandheartcatholic]

Tante Elsa

For the Heart

Everybody knows at least one.

Mine was Tante Elsa.

‘Tante’ means ‘aunt’ in German.

Technically, she was my mother’s aunt, whom we would visit in Austria with the rest of my mother’s family every other summer when I was growing up.She tried to enter the convent when she was young, but poor health prevented her from staying. She never got married. Her educational level was basic. She spent most of her life as a cook and a housekeeper – for our extended family’s restaurants, but mostly for my mother’s immediate family. My best recollections of her was when she was already in her seventies, and somewhat bent over due to a lifetime of hard work and possibly Osteoporosis. Yet she did not seem to slow down. She needed a cane, but walked faster than I did when I was sixteen. And she did a lot of walking since shopping in a small town meant going to the butcher, the baker, and so forth.

She was constantly doing something for others, usually cooking and cleaning. She was an amazing cook. Wiener schnitzel and apricot dumplings were two of my favorite dishes. She would iron your clothing and mend it… all the menial tasks. But she always did it with a radiant smile.

Her simplicity stemmed from something much more profound than a lack of education. Once when she and my grandparents visited in Houston, we brought them to the beach. Looking at the ocean and stretching out her arms as if to embrace it, she exclaimed with joy: ‘It’s so big!’ Tante Elsa was humble enough to enjoy the simple beauty of the world.

And all these attitudes were rooted in deep prayer. I often saw her clutching her Rosary beads. Her faith was simple. It was strong.

Tante Elsa was a saint.

Pope Francis writes, ‘I like to contemplate the holiness present in the patience of God’s people: … Very often it is a holiness found in our next-door neighbors, those who, living in our midst, reflect God’s presence... especially by means of a life of faith and charity.”[1]

That was Tante Elsa… our saint next door. Her example spoke volumes, and her prayer undoubtedly had a great deal to do with why my mother and I had our own conversion experiences. Who’s the saint in your life?

Fr. John Bullock, LC

November 10, 2018

TKC!

Pope Francis, Apostolic Exhortation: Gaudete et Exustate – On the Call to Holiness in Today’s World, March 19, 2018. ↑