Various & Sundry
My summer resolution: instead of eating two big meals each day, I'll eat lots of big meals each day.

Am I being legalistic if I worry if I’m too legalistic?

Nothing is more attractive than other people’s humility.

Heaven is...turning on C-Span and finding yourself at the beginning of an hour long interview with William F. Buckley. Bank error in my favor.

The best Catholic magazine on the market: Crisis. Couldn't put down the latest issue.

The unbearable lightness of riding, 2 hours, drunk on sunshine. Found that elusive ‘perfect’ rural road, that rarest of beings in urban Ohio. How difficult to retrieve from its obscurity! To the end of a seven-mile bike path, then veered off and went miles down a semi-country road until there it lay like a perfect jewel in the sun. I knew it immediately. I knew it as if by some sort of muscle memory - here was the road of perfection. I turned and followed it for three blessed miles, passed by only one car, a road capable of summoning songs shot through with nostalgia. Unbidden came “Oklahoma!”, and it was an “Oklahoma” moment, a corny moment, a moment those ordered fields stretched out to infinity, the soil roiling in the midday heat with Norman Rockwell farms scattered here and fro, silo’s strong and silent and seeming permanent, giving mute voice to a purity lost. I felt I was moving in the Mojave desert - so desolate and dry and sunny it was - but I was surrounded by new-born green fields and an occasional ancient oak. Here you can see the whole evolution of civilization - from thick forest to meadow clearing to farm to small town. You take Manhattan. I’ll take dusty Midwestern fields and old red barns under an unbending sun.

Advice received concerning on the Summas
The two works have different purposes. The Summa Theologiae was written for Catholics, especially for beginning theologians who have a solid grounding in the philosophy of Aristotle. The Summa Contra Gentiles was written earlier and is dlirected towards convincing Jews, Muslims, and heretics of the truth of the Catholic Faith. There is a lot of interlap between the two works, but you'll find that the same subject is often approached in a slightly different manner because of the different purpose. Also, I found that the Summa Contra Gentiles is more difficult in some places. For example, in the proofs of the existence of God, if you compare the two works you will find that the Summa Contra Gentiles is wordier and more involved--in the Summa Theologiae he has really cleaned up the arguments and has done away with superfluities or questionable premises.

: I think a better introduction to St. Thomas would be any of his works on the Scripture--there is no comparison to his commentaries, and they are more accessible than the Summas. Also his Catechetical Instructions (There's a beautiful volume being published by Roman Catholic Books) are an excellent beginning and reflect his thought in the Summa, but they were written as sermons, so they are much more accessible than the works written for students of theology. - Reb

The link for the Cardinal Ratzinger mug is working now. If I buy it I'll have to hide it from my evangelical wife. (Apologetic discussions tend to provoke more heat than light; we emphasize our common beliefs rather than differences). Some men hide porn, I hide Karl Keating and Hilare "bellicose" Belloc.

Re: Amy's site - It beggars the imagination that people should be surprised that on a Catholic blog there is criticism of St. Rudy of New York, the former mayor. If it follows that most of Amy's readers are Catholic, then you would think that it follows that they believe that abortion is wrong, i.e. murder. So how is it that we are supposed to take in the disconnect that we should celebrate and/or vote from someone who is pro-choice but would provide us better gov't? Should we trade a tax cut and lower crime for the greater crime of abortion?

I think it must be that whole East coast Catholic versus Midwest Catholic difference. East coasters have no problem with the Mario Cuomo and Teddy Kennedy. The Midwesterner is somewhat more likely to vote pro-life (witness the current two Ohio senators). Ultimately, of course, it won't be solved by politics anyway. It's a heart issue; a matter of conversion. It's easy to get discouraged when half of Catholics vote for Clinton. Amy Welborn's pretty orthodox, so you would expect an orthodox audience. So when even she is getting snarked for linking to an anti-Rudy article, then I think, damn, what hope have we. We've lost our saltiness, this correspondent most definitely included. I continually forget what T.S. Eliot wrote:

There is only the fight to recover what has been lost
And found and lost again and again: and now, under conditions
That seem unpropitious. But perhaps neither gain nor loss.
For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.

Nancy Nall blogged an interesting piece on the Amish and on an article from the Fort Wayne newspaper.

Granted the Amish are prejudiced and ill-educated, but aren't they also an experiment of life before TV? Shouldn't they be different because of that (besides just being superstitious & prejudiced?). Everyone says TV and movies have altered us; shouldn't they have longer attention spans at the very least? Seemingly affected by neither Nietsche or TV (but automobile's, yes) the Amish could be a test of Jonah Goldberg's thesis.

I remember years ago on my first visit to Berlin, Ohio seeing a beer can near one of their fields and being *shocked*. I shouldn't have been. Not that beer is a specifically American thing, but our culture is so dominating and so assimilating that I should rather be surprised when any of us put up the least resistance to it. I recently finished "Crossing Over: An Exodus from Amish Life" by Ruth Garrett and she talks about the massive switch of going from full-body covering to buying lingerie at Victoria Secret. Sadly, the book barely touches on her sudden exposure to movies and television and what effect they had on her if any (she loves movies though initially by the violence).

"We look not to what is seen but to what is unseen; for what is seen is transitory, but what is unseen is eternal." - 2 Cor 4:18

Robert Bauer of Hokie Pundit asks if we can be Christian and follow the American dream. He says: "To my Protestant sensibilities, it seems as if you're saying "um, so long as we don't kill anyone and put our $5 in the plate every week, it's all good." Also, if I'm understanding him correctly, he's asking why all Christians don't give up all their money and become missionaries because Jesus and the disciples lived a pretty austere life, and were told to even reject their families. Several times they went out as beggars with only one tunic apiece.

I wade into these murky and dangerous shoals by saying my take on it is that first and foremost we are radically damaged due to original sin. Damaged beyond belief. And so therefore we start life in a huge hole but have the ability, via baptism, to receive grace. Now just as Jesus healed sometimes very quickly and sometimes more slowly (witness the man whose blindness gradually dissipated), so does our growth via grace sometimes move fast, sometimes slow.

The point is that we don't heal ourselves. We don't say to God, "I'm going to be a Mother Teresa" and move to Calcutta. Rather God says to us, "you're going to be a Mother Teresa..." Why? Because a) maybe that is not God's plan for us (i.e. bloom where you are planted) and b) we can't manufacture the grace necessary for that tremendous sacrifice. That has to come from Him. Just as priestly celibacy is possible only from Him. Someone who doesn't have a vocation to the priesthood and yet attempts celibacy...well..you see the results.

All of this is hopefully not an excuse for our laziness and/or sin. And the danger, of course, is more likely that we will miss God's call than we will volunteer for something God hasn't called us to - but the point is that it imprudent to do something 'heroic' (that might have more to do with our self-glorification than His) without his backing.
"Story of a Soul" by St. Therese of Liesux makes the point that little things mean a lot to God.

Also, don't we, in a sense, test or tempt God if we put ourselves in a situation that demands his grace? Does the Christian scientist who refuses medical help to their child because they prefer to rely on God's help not error from a lack of prudence? Is that different from someone who, without perceiving a definite call from God, gives away all their money?

I may sound dogmatic here, and I don't mean to. I'm still trying to sort it all out. I do agree that we are called to much more than $5 in the plate and to not kill. But that's where "Story of the Soul" is so powerful because it convincingly argues that when we hold our tongue instead of criticizing someone at work or refrain from talking behind someone's back those are little acts of praise that sound large in heaven.

Obligatory Disclaimer: As Bill O'Reilly says, "tell me where I'm going wrong". It's very possible I am dead wrong about all this and should hie me to a monastery and wear a hairshirt. In fact, I have a feeling Dorothy Day would disagree...

Catholic blogger email on seeing saints 'in context':
I mean to write about that someday. What are the limits? Of course we can't judge people of the past according to our own standards. That's ahistorical and unfair. But then what happens? If we rationalize OT violence, or the violence of the Crusades (I know, I know... a small part of an extended war between Islam and the West which Islam came very close to winning) or the Inquisition or the forced baptisms of untold natives from the Gauls to Native Americans, why not rationalize contemporary sexual laxness? Why not say..well...you gotta see it all IN CONTEXT of a sexually permissive culture, so that means it's all okay.

And in a sense it is, I guess...to the extent that the culture defines us, we're less culpable for our failure to live up to the ideals of Christ...but it doesn't make any of it okay, and it doesn't make any of it a reason for celebration...right?

From Amy' s site, excerpted letter from Cyprian: "Considering His love and mercy, we ought not to be so bitter, nor cruel, nor inhuman in cherishing the brethren. Lo! a wounded brother lies stricken by the enemy in the field of battle. There the devil is striving to slay him whom he has wounded; here Christ is exhorting that he whom He has redeemed may not wholly perish. Whether of the two do we assist?"

Merton is the pluperfect opposite of a fundamentalist and the study of extremes is interesting. The health & wealth, smiley-faced Christianity with its allergy to the idea of anyone but Christians will be saved is at one end, and Merton's flirtation with Eastern religions and disgruntled, independent demeanour is at the other...Merton loathes those who subscribe to any sort of Catholic sacramental "magic". I just finished a book about the Amish, and all is not as it appears (surprise). The idyllic privitism and purity some picture just ain't so.

Email response:
I know - Merton had an independent, critical spirit, which I'm sure he hoped the monastery would help mold and even..overcome. He went in some interesting directions at the end of his life, that's for sure.

I'm reading Thomas Merton's last journals ('67-68) and it is positively purgatorial. It's hard to endure the juxtaposition of his early, inspiring work The Seven Storey Mountain and his last journals. They are certainly honest. And so what if he's not a saint? Just because you are a monk (or bishop) doesn't make you better than anyone else. Merton comes off as an Edward Abbey - crabby, nature-loving, beer & bourbon drinking, hater of America, etc...Maybe all heroes have feet of clay and I should get over it. It's certainly a familiar pattern - the bright-eyed, idealistic youth moving towards a cynical, curmugeonly older age.

Merton on his monastery: "Is this institution worth preserving? Maybe - but let someone do it who do it who knows how and is interested. Not me!"

Veni Sancte has a very interesting post on 1968, the year of the Church's Maginot line (i.e. Humane Vitae). He says that "The teaching of the Church is shaped by human experience and human experience is shaped by the teaching of the Church. What happens when the circuit is disrupted? Especially difficult is finding the source of the disruption. The teaching Church is blaming the learning Church and the learning Church is blaming the teaching Church. If history is any guide, I would place my money on the learning Church as coming out ahead. When the learners are telling the teachers that what they are teaching is not the learners’ experience of human existence, nothing can be taught."

But I don't think the learning Church is protected from error. And therein lies the difference. The teaching Church has no choice in teaching that contraception is an evil, if she believes it to be so, regardless of what the learning church thinks or "experiences". The choice in how hard to crackdown is whether or not the Church wishes to risk becoming a remnant, like the Amish. And in these days when bishops act like CEOs, one senses they won't take that path. And so we will probably continue to muddle through with an increasingly polarized Church.

Interestingly, Islam & Mormonism are two fast growing religions that have in common they ask a lot from their adherents. The perfect way to marginalize oneself as a Church is to be weak and capitulate and ask nothing...(Jesus must've understood this in asking that we become perfect as the Heavenly Father is perfect). Mormons, of course, are expected to do two years of missionary work and fast from caffeine, alcohol, etc...Muslims are expected to pray five times a day and fast one month a year. So I don't quite understand why Humane Vitae should've been the lightening rod it has become in the sense that practicing it be considered so unreasonable. My wife and I use NFP and don't find it unduly burdensome.

Perhaps the point is that American Catholics find an undemocratic Church a scandal in of and itself. Democracy is in our very blood now; dissent as natural as breathing. Tocqueville wrote in 'Democracy in America': Two things must here be accurately distinguished: equality makes men want to form their own opinions; but, on the other hand, it imbues them with the taste and the idea of unity, simplicity, and impartiality in the power that governs society. Men living in democratic times are therefore very prone to shake off all religious authority; but if they consent to subject themselves to any authority of this kind, they choose at least that it should be single and uniform."

My mother experienced the confusion in 1968, and the confusion was born mostly because the authority became fractured and no longer uniform. She went to a priest to confess her use of birth control and the priest told her, "it's okay, that's not really a sin". This disconnect was what turned her off. In the next sentence Tocqueville writes that "Religious powers not radiating from a common center are naturally repugnant to their minds." It was at this point my mom became of the "learning Church" and dissented from the teaching of Humane Vitae. The tendency in a democracy is to hold one's own opinion as gospel, unless there is a single, uniform authority. And because that authority was fractured in 1968, by dissenting priests and even bishops, we are still suffering the consequences.

Cranky Professor brings back pleasant memories of Rome...(Fade to flashback music)...I've this vivid memory of the pushy Italian nuns at St. Peter's who formed an impentetrable line for Communion making it difficult to merge...Instead of waiting for the rows ahead of them to empty, they came up from rows back. Charitably, we chalked it up to their great hunger for the Eucharist..

We searched for our grail, the little French restaurant run by lay missionaires called "l' eau Vive" where the cardinals of the church party and where, after dinner, comes the ritual singing of Ave Maria in French, sung in such sweet and childlike tones that the hair on your skin stands up. We found the little restaurant, where JPII frequented before his papal promotion and where discreteness is the word, but not easily. I ask various people where "Le Monterone" is...A policeman knows but isn't telling, another local tells but doesn't know. The pleasure of looking and finding was greater, and it is that little area of Rome I consequently remember most - the little café Le Euastochio where big shots sip cappuchino, where religious shops line the square like a geiger counters triggering the nearness of the eccleciastical restaurant.

One night in Rome venturing out after a couple glasses of wine (the in-room refrigerator had provided the wine at no immediate cost other than my signature on a sheet of paper), I walked in the light rain to a new (i.e. hundred year old) church. I peaked inside it's slightly ajar doors, and inside were the comforting images of saints. I stealthily moved in and saw that some sort of singing practice was going on. The language barrier being such, I could make out nothing of their sounds; it was completely opaque. I felt like a voyeur, an outsider, and lurked in the shadows. A man in his late 40s, with a look of annoyance, began the long trek down the aisle. Reading body language, I scattered. I bolted out the door, delighted that I'd provoked a response, and then observered from a distance as the man looked left and right and left again, and then closed the church doors completely. I was on vacation, and if I could enter the locals lives, even in a perfectly annoying way, then at least I was impacting.