Contra the Utilitarian View of Conversions
An evangelical Christian once told me she needed to pray for this particular person because they could be a great witness. He was a good-looking, outgoing fellow. And I've found myself thinking similar things - like "wow, wouldn't it be great if Bill Mahrer became a Christian!". I would pray for somebody's conversion not for them per se but for what they could do for God. It seems an non-personalist approach, a utilitarian, means-to-an-end type of deal doesn't it? What about praying for the person who - on the outside at least - looks like a poor bet?
August 06, 2003
What about Andrew Sullivan?
Amy describes Ur-blogger Andrew Sullivan as "a life-long Roman Catholic and has some degree of attachment and self-identification wrapped up in - what? I'm not sure - perhaps the externals of Catholicism".
One of the characteristics of Catholicism is that it teaches that creation is good. Beauty is good. Art is good. The body is not something to be ashamed of. So the senses can be used as teaching tools rather than disparaged. The very stones of cathedrals catechize.
Another great facet of Catholicism is, of course, the sacraments, especially the Eucharist - the true Body & Blood of Christ. Once you go there, everything else pales.
I've commented in the past that given the hierarchical nature of Catholicism, it makes no more sense for the Catholic to ignore what the Church says on faith and morals as it would for an Amishman to have a microwave oven and a satellite dish. It's an oxymoron. But I realize now that there is so much richness to the Faith that some stay in the Church for different reasons. Maybe the sacraments, the beauty of the church, the peace of a Mass. No wonder there are so many so-called "cafeteria Catholics"! There are many reasons to be attracted to the Church, not just the beauty of its doctrine. So unless we want to hold our services in warehouses, smash all the icons and have a sacrament-less church in a vain search for "purity", there will be Catholics attracted for other reasons.
I never left the Church even though during stretches in my past I was mortally unfaithful to her teachings. Bottom line is that one can never know when a grievous sinner will change. The Church remains open 24/7. For Andrew Sullivan we can pray.
I don't mean to minimize the tremendous damage of "Catholic Lite", merely that I can understand it. As George Weigel wrote:
Amy describes Ur-blogger Andrew Sullivan as "a life-long Roman Catholic and has some degree of attachment and self-identification wrapped up in - what? I'm not sure - perhaps the externals of Catholicism".
One of the characteristics of Catholicism is that it teaches that creation is good. Beauty is good. Art is good. The body is not something to be ashamed of. So the senses can be used as teaching tools rather than disparaged. The very stones of cathedrals catechize.
Another great facet of Catholicism is, of course, the sacraments, especially the Eucharist - the true Body & Blood of Christ. Once you go there, everything else pales.
I've commented in the past that given the hierarchical nature of Catholicism, it makes no more sense for the Catholic to ignore what the Church says on faith and morals as it would for an Amishman to have a microwave oven and a satellite dish. It's an oxymoron. But I realize now that there is so much richness to the Faith that some stay in the Church for different reasons. Maybe the sacraments, the beauty of the church, the peace of a Mass. No wonder there are so many so-called "cafeteria Catholics"! There are many reasons to be attracted to the Church, not just the beauty of its doctrine. So unless we want to hold our services in warehouses, smash all the icons and have a sacrament-less church in a vain search for "purity", there will be Catholics attracted for other reasons.
I never left the Church even though during stretches in my past I was mortally unfaithful to her teachings. Bottom line is that one can never know when a grievous sinner will change. The Church remains open 24/7. For Andrew Sullivan we can pray.
I don't mean to minimize the tremendous damage of "Catholic Lite", merely that I can understand it. As George Weigel wrote:
"The answer to the current crisis will not be found in Catholic Lite. It will only be found in a classic Catholicism--a Catholicism with the courage to be countercultural, a Catholicism that has reclaimed the wisdom of the past in order to face the corruption of the present and create a renewed future, a Catholicism that risks the high adventure of fidelity."
Never play with your template. It is addicting. That's St. Dominic on the right and St. Therese on the left. This design shan't last long. It looks like the saints are goalposts!
The Comments feature is now on-line again. You could be in the next Video Melioria mailbag feature (if you want - I go by the Steven Riddle email policy).
The Comments feature is now on-line again. You could be in the next Video Melioria mailbag feature (if you want - I go by the Steven Riddle email policy).
Inequalities
Whether nature or nuture, most agree that gays don't choose being gay. So I wonder if part of the issue of homosexuality and religion isn't simply a refusal to believe God gives unequal size crosses to people. Because there is no doubt gays are being asked to carry a larger cross than most. In an egalitarian society like ours, that is a difficulty. But God doesn't allow more difficulty than than we can bear. Do we really believe that? Are we willing to accept that life below is a test and that even in the Garden of Eden there was a small cross to bear - that of forsaking the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Are we humble enough to accept free will - i.e. testing - and inequalities of not only of talent but of cross?
Commentary
Jesus, the saints and even the pagan philosophers said that illumination is somehow contingent upon virtue. In other words, I may see only to the extent
that I am good.
With regard to doctrinal statements and our knowledge of them - I think the trick is to have faith that it doesn't matter whether the jury came in 12-0 or 7-5. We either believe the HS is protecting these men (who often seem to have no clue themselves what the truth is) or we don't.
I have no problem with the fact that the culture affects these things. But personally I don't want to be in the vanguard of change unless I am a virtuous person to the point of sanctity. I trust the Pope more than myself or Andrew Sullivan or others.
Every Church age has had its seemingly insurmountable difficulties. Consider the Arian difficulty. We have our problem of having too much knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes - be it Church councils or the modern historical-critical studies of Scripture. Our reward shall be greater for it.
Whether nature or nuture, most agree that gays don't choose being gay. So I wonder if part of the issue of homosexuality and religion isn't simply a refusal to believe God gives unequal size crosses to people. Because there is no doubt gays are being asked to carry a larger cross than most. In an egalitarian society like ours, that is a difficulty. But God doesn't allow more difficulty than than we can bear. Do we really believe that? Are we willing to accept that life below is a test and that even in the Garden of Eden there was a small cross to bear - that of forsaking the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Are we humble enough to accept free will - i.e. testing - and inequalities of not only of talent but of cross?
Commentary
Jesus, the saints and even the pagan philosophers said that illumination is somehow contingent upon virtue. In other words, I may see only to the extent
that I am good.
With regard to doctrinal statements and our knowledge of them - I think the trick is to have faith that it doesn't matter whether the jury came in 12-0 or 7-5. We either believe the HS is protecting these men (who often seem to have no clue themselves what the truth is) or we don't.
I have no problem with the fact that the culture affects these things. But personally I don't want to be in the vanguard of change unless I am a virtuous person to the point of sanctity. I trust the Pope more than myself or Andrew Sullivan or others.
Every Church age has had its seemingly insurmountable difficulties. Consider the Arian difficulty. We have our problem of having too much knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes - be it Church councils or the modern historical-critical studies of Scripture. Our reward shall be greater for it.
George Will made some humorous comments on Imus. When Imus asked what a conservative does on vacation, he replied "we loosen our tie". Says he goes to the beach but doesn't walk on it to avoid sand in his wingtips.
His vacations are this: he reads books and goes to baseball games while his family does "whatever". Says that "family vacations" is an oxymoron because everyone is in such close proximity...
His vacations are this: he reads books and goes to baseball games while his family does "whatever". Says that "family vacations" is an oxymoron because everyone is in such close proximity...
August 05, 2003
TLC Behind the Scenes
I saw a guy I used to work with on TV. He was on 'Trading Spaces', a show where families do a home improvement on a room in the others' house. He wrote:
TLC says "life unscripted"? There is nothing unscripted about TV....They have a complete plan and we're coached, persuaded, directed, and sometimes told what to say. In fact, we had to re-do severl scenes since no swearing, drinking etc. I started to fall off a ladder and said of sh** and the director yelled CUT - this is a family show - re do it.
Good thing he didn't hammer his thumb!
I saw a guy I used to work with on TV. He was on 'Trading Spaces', a show where families do a home improvement on a room in the others' house. He wrote:
TLC says "life unscripted"? There is nothing unscripted about TV....They have a complete plan and we're coached, persuaded, directed, and sometimes told what to say. In fact, we had to re-do severl scenes since no swearing, drinking etc. I started to fall off a ladder and said of sh** and the director yelled CUT - this is a family show - re do it.
Good thing he didn't hammer his thumb!
I always like reading Richard Brookhiser. Here he is (via the Corner) on gay marriage:
The great question is: Are we bodies, and if so, what effect does that have? Emerson wrote about "the iron wire on which the beads are strung." He thought the iron wire that controlled our destinies was temperament. Is there also a dash of biology in the alloy? Do our bodies give us options, and limit options? Are we discarnate souls, or dying animals? And should the law care?
The great question is: Are we bodies, and if so, what effect does that have? Emerson wrote about "the iron wire on which the beads are strung." He thought the iron wire that controlled our destinies was temperament. Is there also a dash of biology in the alloy? Do our bodies give us options, and limit options? Are we discarnate souls, or dying animals? And should the law care?
Superstition
Steven Riddle had an interesting post the other day about a disturbing strain of Catholicism.
The formula, said to be a private revelation to Saint Bridget, reminds me of the scapular and the instruction that whoever wears it will avoid hell. Our Dominican father points out that the intention of wearing the scapular must be to clothe yourself in solidarity with the Carmelite order and therefore to follow God. It follows that if you follow God you will be saved.
I think some of this type of stuff is related to fear. My guess is that the more one teaches about hell and its dangers and likelihood, the more you will have superstitious "amulet" type deals to dodge hell and give us security. Since the moderns believe hell to be mostly empty, we are less likely to fall for superstitions.
But to my ears, some of it sounds similar to OT Leviticus type stuff. Even in the NT, there is the story of the woman who was healed after touching Jesus' garment which sounded close to superstition. She could've asked Jesus for healing, although I guess she did - in a way. Perhaps that is what people are indirectly doing with these devotions.
Regardless, it certainly gives a bad witness. The Protestant preacher I listen to said he'll never forget the time when he was a child and he went on a car trip with his uncle, a Catholic. He'd just pulled out of the driveway and went down the street before becoming panicked and agitated. He raced the car back home. He ran into the house like a man possessed and came back out to the car. He had forgotten his St. Christoper medal. Ouch.
Of course, as Kathy suggested, it's possible this story got embelled, much as the fisherman's fish gets bigger with each re-telling.
Steven Riddle had an interesting post the other day about a disturbing strain of Catholicism.
The formula, said to be a private revelation to Saint Bridget, reminds me of the scapular and the instruction that whoever wears it will avoid hell. Our Dominican father points out that the intention of wearing the scapular must be to clothe yourself in solidarity with the Carmelite order and therefore to follow God. It follows that if you follow God you will be saved.
I think some of this type of stuff is related to fear. My guess is that the more one teaches about hell and its dangers and likelihood, the more you will have superstitious "amulet" type deals to dodge hell and give us security. Since the moderns believe hell to be mostly empty, we are less likely to fall for superstitions.
But to my ears, some of it sounds similar to OT Leviticus type stuff. Even in the NT, there is the story of the woman who was healed after touching Jesus' garment which sounded close to superstition. She could've asked Jesus for healing, although I guess she did - in a way. Perhaps that is what people are indirectly doing with these devotions.
Regardless, it certainly gives a bad witness. The Protestant preacher I listen to said he'll never forget the time when he was a child and he went on a car trip with his uncle, a Catholic. He'd just pulled out of the driveway and went down the street before becoming panicked and agitated. He raced the car back home. He ran into the house like a man possessed and came back out to the car. He had forgotten his St. Christoper medal. Ouch.
Of course, as Kathy suggested, it's possible this story got embelled, much as the fisherman's fish gets bigger with each re-telling.
August 04, 2003
Where the Miracles Lay...or is it Lie?
Been pondering Amy's startling post concerning the time she spoke to an author who said that no authentic miracles can take place outside the Catholic Church. She reports:
"A person who'd written a book on apparitions, visions and other miraculous things said that there was no way, no how that a "miracle" of any sort, healing included, that occurred in any context outside the Roman Catholic Church could be authentic. Here was his logic: Miracles occur, in part, to point people to the truth - to reveal the truth to them. Hence, any miracle that occurred in any tradition other than Roman Catholicism must be inauthentic, for if it was authentic, it would mean that God was revealing truth through the means of that other tradition, and since those other traditions aren't the True Church, then God would be pointing people to untruths, or something less than the Full Truth so....such events must either be coincidental, natural or demonic - but no way from God."
My initial reaction was that he or she was a Triumphalist. But then....the test of the truthfulness of the OT prophets was their miracles. Jesus said believe in Him because of the miracles if you must, and so it seems there is a biblical tradition of linking the miraculous with truth. And yet God is not bound by the sacraments, so why would He be bound by miracles? Sacraments are gifts of grace, similar to miracles... But isn't conversion to the truth much more difficult if one has seen a miracle in one's own religious tradition?
A relative I know clings to the Medjugorje apparations because, I think, it gives her certitude in the faith. My wife and stepson report the miraculous at their charismatic services - why would they flee the miraculous? If God is there in such a palpable way, why would they leave? Whether they are true who can say? I'm not aware of any other religion who certifies miracles rigorously as the Catholic Church does, at least at Lourdes.
Highly regarded author Fr. Thomas Dubay would seem to agree with Amy's triumphalist author: "Miracles are a conclusive sign of the divine. And by miracles I mean the real thing. I do not mean secondhand reports that may issue from an emotion-filled prayer meeting, good as that may be...I refer to happenings which by rigorous scientific probings can have nothing but a supernatural origin."
One reason miracles are important is because reason is not. Conversions usually do not occur because of well-reasoned arguments which is why apologetics only goes so far (and can have an equal and opposite effect).
John Henry Newman wrote:
Dubay continues, "Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas quoted Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes' bit of advice to him, "You must remember...[that] at the constitutional level where we work, 90% of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Been pondering Amy's startling post concerning the time she spoke to an author who said that no authentic miracles can take place outside the Catholic Church. She reports:
"A person who'd written a book on apparitions, visions and other miraculous things said that there was no way, no how that a "miracle" of any sort, healing included, that occurred in any context outside the Roman Catholic Church could be authentic. Here was his logic: Miracles occur, in part, to point people to the truth - to reveal the truth to them. Hence, any miracle that occurred in any tradition other than Roman Catholicism must be inauthentic, for if it was authentic, it would mean that God was revealing truth through the means of that other tradition, and since those other traditions aren't the True Church, then God would be pointing people to untruths, or something less than the Full Truth so....such events must either be coincidental, natural or demonic - but no way from God."
My initial reaction was that he or she was a Triumphalist. But then....the test of the truthfulness of the OT prophets was their miracles. Jesus said believe in Him because of the miracles if you must, and so it seems there is a biblical tradition of linking the miraculous with truth. And yet God is not bound by the sacraments, so why would He be bound by miracles? Sacraments are gifts of grace, similar to miracles... But isn't conversion to the truth much more difficult if one has seen a miracle in one's own religious tradition?
A relative I know clings to the Medjugorje apparations because, I think, it gives her certitude in the faith. My wife and stepson report the miraculous at their charismatic services - why would they flee the miraculous? If God is there in such a palpable way, why would they leave? Whether they are true who can say? I'm not aware of any other religion who certifies miracles rigorously as the Catholic Church does, at least at Lourdes.
Highly regarded author Fr. Thomas Dubay would seem to agree with Amy's triumphalist author: "Miracles are a conclusive sign of the divine. And by miracles I mean the real thing. I do not mean secondhand reports that may issue from an emotion-filled prayer meeting, good as that may be...I refer to happenings which by rigorous scientific probings can have nothing but a supernatural origin."
One reason miracles are important is because reason is not. Conversions usually do not occur because of well-reasoned arguments which is why apologetics only goes so far (and can have an equal and opposite effect).
John Henry Newman wrote:
"Men go by their sympathies, not by argument...The heart is commonly reached, not through reason, but through the imagination, by means of direct impressions, by the testimony of facts and events, by history, by description. Persons influence us, voices melt us, looks subdue us, deeds inflame us."Even in science, Max Planck said that important scientific innovations come about not by gradually winning over and converting its opponents, but by its opponents gradually dying out! A new generation arrives who are familiar with the idea from the beginning.
Dubay continues, "Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas quoted Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes' bit of advice to him, "You must remember...[that] at the constitutional level where we work, 90% of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Having a blog means never having to have a segue, so from the ridiculous to the sublime:
A Bioethicist's Take on Genesis by Ed Rothstein:
and
a book review of Catholicism and American Freedom
A Bioethicist's Take on Genesis by Ed Rothstein:
Genesis is punctuated with human attempts to be radically self-sufficient. This is what was so problematic about Babel's tower, Mr. Kass notes; residents aspired "to nothing less than self-re-creation through the arts and crafts, customs and mores of their city." Genesis is deeply suspicious of cities; it is even suspicious of civilization itself. Its heroes are not farmers (cultivators), but shepherds (guides).
The danger, Mr. Kass suggests, is the snake's promise that full knowledge can be had simply by exercise of human faculties. The snake is, he writes, "an embodiment of the separated and beguiling world of autonomous human reason," a voice of "rationalist mischief."
But civilization cannot be avoided; after Cain and Noah and Babel even God has to acknowledge as much. So, in Mr. Kass's telling, other constraints on hubristic humanity become necessary. In this case it is a covenant, an agreement that God makes with Abraham and his descendants. A covenant binds; it also promises. For Mr. Kass this notion of a transmittable tradition, is crucial; it becomes the central preoccupation of Genesis.
Ultimately the covenant is so precarious that it must be supplemented by binding law. Nothing mitigates Genesis's skepticism about the nature of humanity. As a religious book Genesis is dark and troubling. Its skepticism, common to many religious traditions, also gives religion a peculiar place in modern societies. It can seem illiberal and threatening: it sees limits on humanity's abilities to perfect itself through the use of reason alone.
and
a book review of Catholicism and American Freedom
August 03, 2003
Reporting Live from Irishfest
Spent much of Friday and some of Saturday at Dublin, Ohio's "Irishfest", a festival that lasts three days because Irish wakes and medieval feast "days” usually lasted that long. Who am I to dishonor the ancient wisdom that deems three days the right amount of time to celebrate? I'll head back today for more fiddle-playing.
We heard a wonderfully eclectic batch of bands Friday. Stark Raven began at the stroke of 5pm, while the sun still ruled the sky. By 7 we were listening to a band straight off the boat, five youngish players who looked so Irish you could put them in a movie. Their clothes and mannerisms and facial structures all gave them away long before their accents. The girl singer looked so pluperfectly Irish, at least Irish of a particular variety – mousy, nervous, famine-Irish sort with eyes that mourned even when she smiled. By eight we were listening to a wonderfully-voiced 70+ year old Irish singer who apparently was a hit on the Arthur Godfrey show back in the 50s. My grandmother listened to her records and so we went to listen out of nostalgia. She was a live wire, telling jokes, making audience members in back move forward and having people finish lines from big band music-era hits.
But the real show didn’t begin until 9pm with the Hooligans. Bone escaped from the noose long enough to join me. All before was loss, like earthly life before the New Jerusalem. They played their usual set of greatest hits, one song topping the other in an orgy of adrenalin-producing standards. By the end, their litany of “God Bless Ireland” and “Give Ireland Back to the Irish” was nearly unbearable for its intensity! I could not sing loud enough or disperse the adrenalin that coursed thru my veins. No wonder wars are fought on alcohol and battle hymns.
Two working-class elderly gents kept looking back at us and smiling at us. Hooligan enthusiasts, they seemed greatly cheered by the fact that we knew the words to obscure standards and that the "next generation" were as enthused as they were.* We had something to give him – the surety that the younger Hooligan fans would be as rabid as they were and they had something to give to us – the passing of the torch as it were, and the manly-man gift that white collar types hope blue collar types will give them – legitimacy.
(By the way, the picture you see is of the redoubtable Dominican father I've written about in the past).
* -It wasn't just us - many more Hooligan-heads backed us just behind us. I heard later we were so loud that at a nearby tent another entertainer pointed our way and said, "I guess we're going to get louder to overcome them."
Spent much of Friday and some of Saturday at Dublin, Ohio's "Irishfest", a festival that lasts three days because Irish wakes and medieval feast "days” usually lasted that long. Who am I to dishonor the ancient wisdom that deems three days the right amount of time to celebrate? I'll head back today for more fiddle-playing.
We heard a wonderfully eclectic batch of bands Friday. Stark Raven began at the stroke of 5pm, while the sun still ruled the sky. By 7 we were listening to a band straight off the boat, five youngish players who looked so Irish you could put them in a movie. Their clothes and mannerisms and facial structures all gave them away long before their accents. The girl singer looked so pluperfectly Irish, at least Irish of a particular variety – mousy, nervous, famine-Irish sort with eyes that mourned even when she smiled. By eight we were listening to a wonderfully-voiced 70+ year old Irish singer who apparently was a hit on the Arthur Godfrey show back in the 50s. My grandmother listened to her records and so we went to listen out of nostalgia. She was a live wire, telling jokes, making audience members in back move forward and having people finish lines from big band music-era hits.
But the real show didn’t begin until 9pm with the Hooligans. Bone escaped from the noose long enough to join me. All before was loss, like earthly life before the New Jerusalem. They played their usual set of greatest hits, one song topping the other in an orgy of adrenalin-producing standards. By the end, their litany of “God Bless Ireland” and “Give Ireland Back to the Irish” was nearly unbearable for its intensity! I could not sing loud enough or disperse the adrenalin that coursed thru my veins. No wonder wars are fought on alcohol and battle hymns.
Two working-class elderly gents kept looking back at us and smiling at us. Hooligan enthusiasts, they seemed greatly cheered by the fact that we knew the words to obscure standards and that the "next generation" were as enthused as they were.* We had something to give him – the surety that the younger Hooligan fans would be as rabid as they were and they had something to give to us – the passing of the torch as it were, and the manly-man gift that white collar types hope blue collar types will give them – legitimacy.
(By the way, the picture you see is of the redoubtable Dominican father I've written about in the past).
* -It wasn't just us - many more Hooligan-heads backed us just behind us. I heard later we were so loud that at a nearby tent another entertainer pointed our way and said, "I guess we're going to get louder to overcome them."
August 01, 2003
Frugality Tip from my friend Bone
Tired of washing and waxing your car? Unwilling to pay the $2-$7 the local car wash extorts? Unwilling to cough up the fifty cents per month in increased water bills that washing your car at home entails? Then try the new Bone-approved method:
Hambone bought his mini-van in 2001 and never washed or waxed it. His wife was involved in an accident; she was not at fault*. The body shop not only repaired the vehicle but washed and waxed it! For no additional charge.
So, this means all you have to do is have someone drive into your car to get a free wash and wax. Enjoy!
________
* - Bone mentioned that his wife occasionally looks over his shoulder and reads this blog, including this post. Have I lately mentioned what a wonderful wife and mother she is? And how I no longer like alcohol but have developed a fondness for lemonade? :)
Tired of washing and waxing your car? Unwilling to pay the $2-$7 the local car wash extorts? Unwilling to cough up the fifty cents per month in increased water bills that washing your car at home entails? Then try the new Bone-approved method:
Hambone bought his mini-van in 2001 and never washed or waxed it. His wife was involved in an accident; she was not at fault*. The body shop not only repaired the vehicle but washed and waxed it! For no additional charge.
So, this means all you have to do is have someone drive into your car to get a free wash and wax. Enjoy!
________
* - Bone mentioned that his wife occasionally looks over his shoulder and reads this blog, including this post. Have I lately mentioned what a wonderful wife and mother she is? And how I no longer like alcohol but have developed a fondness for lemonade? :)
Mark & Amy
Amy is having a fascinating discussion on personal experience versus the ideal.
Mark Shea (to another commenter, not Amy): You are speaking as though the burden of proof is on the Tradition and not on the innovator. My question is why should the Church and ordinary human society be compelled to pretend that gay unions constitute marriage simply because some gays feel really really really strongly? The common sense positions of the Tradition: that it's not according to nature, that it has no place in the Tradition of the apostles carry a lot of weight. Why should I accept these tortured pro-gay marriage arguments, based largely on really really really strong feelings.
Amy (in a post): In past eras, there was no question for most that if your experience did not mesh with Church teaching, too bad. You were wrong and the Church was right, and it was up to you to bring yourself in line.
Of course, over the past couple of centuries, our sense of truth has shifted. And individual's experience is just as important, or even more important than pronouncements from authority, a sensibility exacerbated by our greater awareness of the historical context of authoritative teaching. We know about development of doctrine, we know about battles over doctrinal statements. We may believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in all of this, protecting the Church from error, but we also know Church teachings, as articulated over the centuries, is not unassociated from the cultures in which it is articulated.
So in the present day, it is well nigh impossible for many to simply discount their personal experiences. I am not saying that there is hopeless dissonance - if that were true, then there would be no truth. But given the context in which we are presently working these things out, we have to take into account the value people place on their personal experience as a means to discern truth.
Amy is having a fascinating discussion on personal experience versus the ideal.
Mark Shea (to another commenter, not Amy): You are speaking as though the burden of proof is on the Tradition and not on the innovator. My question is why should the Church and ordinary human society be compelled to pretend that gay unions constitute marriage simply because some gays feel really really really strongly? The common sense positions of the Tradition: that it's not according to nature, that it has no place in the Tradition of the apostles carry a lot of weight. Why should I accept these tortured pro-gay marriage arguments, based largely on really really really strong feelings.
Amy (in a post): In past eras, there was no question for most that if your experience did not mesh with Church teaching, too bad. You were wrong and the Church was right, and it was up to you to bring yourself in line.
Of course, over the past couple of centuries, our sense of truth has shifted. And individual's experience is just as important, or even more important than pronouncements from authority, a sensibility exacerbated by our greater awareness of the historical context of authoritative teaching. We know about development of doctrine, we know about battles over doctrinal statements. We may believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in all of this, protecting the Church from error, but we also know Church teachings, as articulated over the centuries, is not unassociated from the cultures in which it is articulated.
So in the present day, it is well nigh impossible for many to simply discount their personal experiences. I am not saying that there is hopeless dissonance - if that were true, then there would be no truth. But given the context in which we are presently working these things out, we have to take into account the value people place on their personal experience as a means to discern truth.
Walker Percy Interview
When is it okay to be called a slut? When the word "book" precedes it. Which is where I got the news of this previously unpublished Walker Percy interview:
When is it okay to be called a slut? When the word "book" precedes it. Which is where I got the news of this previously unpublished Walker Percy interview:
In writing novels I often find that it works to turn things upside-down and to set forth a character, say, a woman with severe free-floating anxiety as more interesting, more hopeful, possessing greater possibilities than, say, another perfectly adjusted symptom-free woman. To say this is to say a good deal more than that illness is more interesting than health.
Q: The work of Gabriel Marcel has had a tremendous impact on your philosophy. For Marcel, hope - real hope - lives only in the face of near impossibility or real despair. Is your hope of this variety? For what do you hope? And how does hope differ from faith?
WP: I would agree with Marcel that even in the worst of times - for example, in the twentieth century, when man is behaving at his most perverse, apparently intent on self-destructing - there is always an extraordinary trait in man of paradox...
Faith, I would think, is the actual belief that what one hopes for is attainable. A man dying of thirst in the desert may hope for water and have no faith that he will get it. But suppose there is a second man, who stands atop the next dune and makes a signal to him, perhaps with semaphores, signifying two H's and an O. Now the first man is entitled to faith.
Writers are the "Protestants" of art, with nothing but their Scripto pencils and Blue-Horse tablets; painters are the "Catholics," with concrete intermediaries, clay, paint, models, fruit, landscape, etc. This is why writers drink more and painters live longer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)