Separation, Faith, and Love

Christians often lament that we are “far from the home we love,” that is far from eternal unity with God. My question for you is this: Are you ready for that eternity, and if not, how will you become ready? The answer must, of course be, by means of life here and now. Primarily, I am thinking about the nature of physical and perceptual separation and how this plays into Love.

One of the classic clichés is that “distance makes the heart grow fonder.” Thought of practically, this is of course true, for any relationship which lasts a prolonged separation of persons comes out with a special bond. I think of those I know who dated with great success while in college away from their beloved and see now the fruits of their labor shown forth in multifarious expositions of compassion. Even a negative weasel like me finds great solace in seeing this kind of actualized love.

Well, if this is the case for physical separation on Earth, how much greater the case must be in the separation of God from his creation. If undertaken with the proper disposition of the heart, the striving of creation for the Creator is much more intense than any interpersonal love between separated humans. Faith is intense when an employer hires a new employee, even if that person has impressive credentials. How much more so is Faith expressed in those persons who believe in an unseen Creator who nonetheless is involved in the world and who has come to the world in the form of a man?

It doesn’t stop at Faith, though, for Love and Faith are interlocked. Love requires faith in the beloved, it requires a trust in the reciprocity of their love. Since Faith is much greater in that which is neither seen nor experienced directly, Love abounds as well. This distance, because of the great amount of Faith which it requires, enables the greatest amount of Love. The world becomes the “training ground” of the soul by making it truly pine for the Living God beyond all else; it trains us to seek God first with an intense love. While this love may require amelioration in the afterlife, its beginning in this life most definitely prepares the human for an eternal beatific vision.

Of course, this post can’t end there, for we have ended up speaking of Faith and Love; Hope too must enter. “Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). Faith is the realization of hope in another, a choice for an unknown hoped-for. Hope moves to Faith and Faith to Love, and Love is what remains as the center of all our activity. We walk in Hope and in Faith of a better tomorrow, but it is the journey of Faith today that makes that better tomorrow of True Love possible.

Turn the Radio Off

There was a story last week that got lost in the Imus mix but managed to intrigue me enough to remain in my brain until now. Although it appears that the bill will not be passed, there was proposed legislation in Michigan to buy an iPod for every student there “for educational purposes.” Now, all theories of Apple influence in this bill’s promotion aside, this is perhaps the most asinine idea that I have heard in a while (and not because I think they will be used for “non-educational purposes”). Indeed, let’s just assume that these children would utilize these iPods only to get educational podcasts (and also assume that the government doesn’t regulate that selection – now there’s a bogus reality if I ever proclaimed one).

Non-thinking is becoming endemic in our culture as we forget what it is to ponder the mysteries of life. In my opinion, the iPod is quite related to this and only exacerbates the problem. I barely have to fire sixteen neurons to remember images from my days at Saint Vincent College, where I could regularly see people in the gym or merely walking across our small campus with white ear buds in, drowning out the world and themselves. It seemed then (and now) to me that nobody wanted to think or discourse with another human being anymore. The constant din of music stopped thought dead in its tracks.

Now, to call iPods a tool for “educational use” constitutes a radical redefinition of what “education” means, stripping it of its Latin etymology: e-ducere, to be led out. To place the din of Apple’s noise-box into an educational policy makes that education nothing more than a non-ducation. There is no leading of the self anywhere but merely being where one is. “Education” becomes very atomistic, disconnected, and nothing other than the imparting of “facts” from the source being listened to. Ray Bradbury was prescient in his classic work Fahrenheit 451 when he discussed this very issue and how it destroys culture. Silence is necessary for human development, for it gives one time to reflect upon the world and the self. C.S. Lewis once said in The Screwtape Letters that Hell was filled with continuous noise. Given that Hell is nothing more than the radical separation of the self from any others, I believe that noise would indeed be an element of Hell, for continuous noise is most definitely not edifying for personal relationships.

These types of developments do only not affect those in education but instead profoundly play into all of our daily lives. I have often been tempted to purchase an iPod but have always stopped short because there is something that doesn’t jive with me about it. Instead, I realize that I listen to a copious amount of music and radio as it is and often find myself thinking that I should take a look at the world, cogitate, and (in the words of my favorite band, Reel Big Fish) “Turn the Radio Off.”

Tyranny in Many Unspoken-of Styles

Talk radio has been a-buzz with the Imus controversy these past couple of days, and I have basically steered-clear of it until now. I wasn’t too worried at first because it seemed like a classic case of an overly-hyped reaction to a shock-jock on the radio. However, it seems clear to me now that this is not at all the case and has instead become a sideshow of tyranny in oh-so-many different forms.

I would say that what we are seeing in the calls to have Imus kicked off the air is the very essence of the “Tyranny of the Majority.” In so many ways, the ideas of majority-rule and open democracy are absolutely grand ideas. However, it was against this one fear that the Founding Fathers protected us as a nation: that the Majority would no longer seek the Truth in its actions but instead would act in accord with appeals made by relative powers. In practical matters, we often live in a purely democratic way, using egalitarian principles to govern our actions and choices. This includes how we view the media and truly how the ratings in that industry work.

It goes without question that ratings in the media are based purely on democratic principles, for they are driven completely by the amount of listenership/viewership for a given program. As people become disenfranchised with a broadcaster, they no longer listen and thus eliminate that person from the market. In the Imus controversy, many have called for him to be fired. In a way, this is understandable and remains in the prerogative of the employer to actually answer such calls. However, what vocal minorities may do is usurp the majority on purely emotional bases instead of on ones which are completely rational. In effect, what occurs is a Tyranny of the Mass, a Mass which has been usurped by power-mongers.

Now, I have realized through this day that there is hope in this situation and all is not lost. Many (including myself) have thought this could be the death knell of free speech in the media because of the inordinate fear of groups that speech may be misused. Instead, I believe that this will become the impetus of a greater democratization of the media, so long as people are willing to take the time to work as individuals.

Much of contemporary life is full of tales of an individual striking out in a flat world to make a big name for himself or herself. This is where the hope lies. Individuals, holding the means of communication in their own hands, instead of in the hands of corporate or governmental overlords, will speak their minds and be judged by the many with something closer to impunity, so long as their intentions are pure. Where the Truth is abhorred and not proclaimed, people will not go once they see the light. This will weed out the bad seeds from the good ones. However, this hope requires a full measure of light-bearers.

Political Correctness and the Fall of the West

Since I love droning on about “the Fall of the West,” I thought it would be appropriate for me to approach this beloved subject once again although from a new, perhaps more pessimistic standpoint. Many tell me I should be quiet and realize that the West has already fallen. I cannot agree with that but will admit that the West is falling. I suppose that I would like to be part of that which supports it during the fall, perhaps being a small voice to keep humanity from losing something great

The overall timbre of my blog as of late has been relatively disparaging of contemporary culture (and should be so). This points, of course, to the singular reality of our day: The West is destroying itself, and we are merely living in its death throes. A massive nail in its coffin is foul Political Correctness. This is the product of much decadence and only stokes the fires of the Fall.

In many ways, Political Correctness is the final product of years of relativism. By viewing pluralism as nothing more than a permissive setting in which everybody’s worldview is equal; relativism has brought us to the point where everybody’s worldview is equally meaningless. This has had two main effects in the culture: (1) Many have become hopeless and live only for instant gratification. (2) Many feel that they should empower their destroyed worldviews by silencing all others by means of cultural stigma. It is (2) which will be focused on in this entry.

Having been born of relativism, Political Correctness stokes those fires with great ferocity, for it cuts off all dialogue under its dark mantle of fear. A great example of this is when one discusses the Founding Fathers of America and the enduring meaning of the Constitution. Relativists who are so ready to be permissive in all things cultural will not bear that many of the Founding Fathers had difficulty with the slavery issue, leaving it for future generations in order to at least start this great nation of America. In this situation, Political Correctness silences all who would defend the founding of America on the grounds that it eventually led itself to the abolition of slavery. Instead, people would rather say that we were nothing more than an imperialist, hate-filled nation from the start. Often coupled with this is the role of missionaries in the Americas. While many tactics used were underhanded, not all was a loss, for a new, more enlightened worldview was brought to the American Continent. Although much could be gained by means of better dialogue, much progress was still made. However, the Political Correctness police will once again step in and silence me for trying to defend something to which an arbitrary stigma is attached (even though I blatantly qualify my statements).

The whole sum of Political Correctness is the silencing dialogue, the very thing it claims to overcome, and this will most definitely contribute to the continued Fall.

An Uncultured Response

Welcome back, my friends! I hope that you had a wonderful Easter and were able to take some time to relax with family and friends. I must apologize for my lack of posting an Easter reflection and an entry on Monday. I too was busy spending time with my family and friends. However, I am back in action in the tiny chair of the Coding Catholic and am ready to pontificate once again.

There is a dynamic by means of which liturgy and culture are linked, a dynamic which simultaneously enriches the liturgy and, more importantly, lifts up the culture beyond that which it could attain on its own. In the past fifty years, we have seen the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church undergo many changes to its liturgical style, many good, and some bad (in my opinion). At the core of this movement, which really had its roots even before the Second Vatican Council (and truly even before the Liturgical Movements in Europe and the U.S.) is an affirmation which has been at the heart of the Catholic Church in the existence of various Rites.

While the structure and acceptance of varied Rites has changed throughout the years, they have remained a vital component to the liturgical formation of the Church as a whole. They have brought cultural experiences (with their profound cultic links) to the Church. Each with its own liturgical and theological style, these Rites truly show how distinct communities, in a specific geographical locations, can contribute to the Church as a whole.

However, we come to America, where the Roman Rite is predominantly the Rite of Catholicism. While one may argue that an American Rite might indeed make sense, I will shape my brief thoughts on the American Church with the larger context of the Roman Rite. In America, there are two distinct (although not unrelated) cultures at play. If America is to help the Church (and world) at large, one must discriminate between these two threads.

Thread one is that of the high ideals upon which America was founded: Government must allow for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, in accord with the dignity of the individual, yet not forgetting the necessity of a degree civic unity at a federal level. Thread two is that of Paris Hilton, MTV, and (to a degree) the ACLU, in many ways that which could be defined as “popular” culture. It is precisely this second thread that frightens me when it comes to the liturgy. I would much rather “batten down the hatches” and completely close the liturgy off from dialogue with a culture that has no desire to dialogue with goodness. I therefore do not see any imperative to mix and mingle the liturgical experiences of the Church with anything which has its core in the decadent portion of American culture. It is only when the pluralism of thread two becomes like that of thread one that we should be willing to have a true dialogue.

Hoping for a Truly Better Future

I was reading Psalm 78 last night and found myself reflecting on the following verses:

Hearken, my people, to my teaching;
...
So that the generation to come might know,
Their sons yet to be born,
That they too may rise and declare to their sons
That they should put their hope in God,
And not forget the deeds of God
But keep his commands
And not be like their fathers,
A generation wayward and rebellious.

So often we talk about the need “to give our children a better tomorrow” to give them “a better future” and also hope that they will be “better off than we are today.” Usually, this means a variety of things, often including: A cleaner environment, a more just society, a more fiscally responsible country, better work for them. It is not very often that we hear (or – for that matter – say), “I want my child to be more holy than I am. I want him or her to love with more affection and tenacity than I have in my life, for I have been reprobate in my days.” Now, this is implicit in good parenting that this is wished, but it never seems to be given the central location of a truly formed hope for the future, when indeed it should.

I was at a lecture on the administration of healthcare in a crisis situation (like an influenza outbreak, etc). The lecturer briefly spoke about the big scare in 2004-2005 over a possible pandemic of influenza, prompting panic in doctors’ offices across the country as it was realized that there was a shortage of vaccines. Intriguingly, we ended the season with extra vaccines. After all this panic, why was this so? I no small part, it was thanks to the altruism of individuals who decided that they were in good enough health to sacrifice their chance for a vaccine in order to assist others. In this case, the formed consciences of individuals made for a presumably safer tomorrow for the community as a whole. (This can’t be directly proved, for the influenza scare was never realized.)

Hope-language is massively popular in contemporary culture. To use the word “hope” is to be truly caring and truly liberal in your outlook for the world. Perhaps we should take some time to revisit the very obvious relationship between the individual and the community. Perhaps, just perhaps, in the midst of a pluralistic society, we can find the fortitude to assert that Goodness and Truth do indeed exist and can be grasped by individual persons. This fortitude would provide the mortar for holding together society in true, lasting justice. Hope is indeed an audacious affair, for humanity often shows the colors of the Fall with brilliant darkness. However, we are also quite aware that the human person is the locus of the Image of God, the point at which creation is lifted from the biosphere to the noosphere, from the realm of the practical to the realm of Love.

Believing in the Eucharist

Well, today I was thinking of writing on the fallacious connection between pluralism and relativism but decided to spare you that. Instead, I decided that it would make more sense to discuss a subject near and dear to me during the Triduum which begins this evening.

In Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican faiths, the Eucharist stands at the center of all worship. More than mere lip service in remembrance of Jesus’ invocation to “do this in memory of me, the Eucharist is proclaimed as the profound encounter with Christ’s very essence. It is an encounter in which bread and wine are transformed into His most sacred Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. To many, this seems like a matter of blind faith, totally unrelated to reason (and indeed perhaps unreasonable). However, during the past couple of years, I have realized that there are ways to understand as well as believe, although faith is never abolished in such understanding.

I always joke with my friends, saying that I am too simple-minded to really understand the multiple facets of theology and therefore need the lens of “God is Love” in order to understand all theological ponderings. Once again, the concept comes in handy as we look at the Eucharist. Isn’t it the most profound exposition of God’s love that He would give his being to humanity in the Eucharist? Indeed, if one believes in the salvific acts of Christ on Earth, one would have to believe that God would afford a chance to be united with these acts throughout all time. At the final analysis, this is all that the Eucharist is: God’s ontological outpouring which unites us with his death and resurrection. Beyond that, a central point of unification in the Eucharist allows for true Christian brotherhood, for it is a concrete way in which all are united to Christ (and hence to each other).

Now, many spiritualists would argue, “God’s Spirit is the outpouring of God’s life among mankind.” Well, I agree and would say that the spirit works in marvelous, sundry ways. However, the Eucharist is an affirmation of the highest spiritualization of the world. In the Eucharist, we bodily receive Christ, not just in some ethereal spiritual way but in a concrete way which affirms the holiness of creation.

These ponderings by no means blow away faith (as can be seen by their relatively speculative and inductive nature). However, it does beg the question, “Why can’t we just 100% prove the Eucharist and move on?” In its nature, the Eucharist is an act of Thanksgiving and assent of belief. The bodily reality of the Eucharist is not the only side to it. Instead, the bodily serves the higher function of ontological unity in Love, a reality which requires trust and faith. Therefore, the act of faith which is made when the communicant responds “Amen” to the proclamation, “The Body of Christ” is absolutely necessary in order to be fully receptive of the ontological/spiritual reality which occurs in each Eucharistic celebration.

The Religion vs. Relationship Diatribe

Alright, prepare for a rather random entry on this Wednesday of Holy Week. I was perusing the profiles of friends on Facebook (a time-wasting affair in which we youth often get embroiled) and came upon the chosen religion for one of my friends. What he had for his religion was “religion without a relationship is meaningless.” Alright, I’m going to concede the point to him but will not let it go there. This subject is near and dear to my heart, for in high school, I seriously considered converting from the Catholic Church precisely because of this argument. It seemed to me that what one needed for salvation was an “intense personal relationship with Christ,” something “not religious.” For someone who wanted such a relationship, the banalities of “religion” with its rigid norms and phariseeisms had to be avoided like the plague.

Of course, in and of itself, religion is necessarily relational, for it is nothing more than a re-ligation of mankind to God. To posit anything on the contrary is preposterous. However, as a Roman Catholic, I think I have an interesting view on this entire diatribe, for the Church is often the great example of Babylon to all “relationship-loving” Christians. To them, we are nothing more than Pharisees in medieval liturgical garb.

Indeed, it is the Liturgy itself which is a major point of contention for non-Catholics, for it seems like the recitation of set prayers in order to move the hand of God to our will. (If they bothered to investigate our beliefs, they would know that such a view is abberant in all good Catholic theology, but alas, they often do not even look beyond the depth of our skin.) From my experiences (which I will admit are limited), it is believed that a relationship is only possible when individualism reigns, allowing the individual, without encumbrance, to experience the divine life, almost like experiencing some sort of divine ecstacy. Because of this, shared liturgical worship is viewed as an abberation, a destroying of man’s capacity for union with God.

I would argue, however, that the Liturgy is the only way by which the Church, the Body of Christ, can truly communicate with God. Proper Liturgy allows for a relationship with the Divine precisely because relationships are never individualistic but are lived out in a network of related individuals. Additionally, if that relationship is truly to be grounded in Love, it requires that the relationship transcend even the barrier of time. Although the Liturgy changes with the passage of years (as it should), it still remains an organic experience of the Body of Christ through the ages. Of course, one cannot speak of the Catholic Liturgy without reference to the Eucharist. In the Blessed Sacrament, we partake in the very being of God, drawn upward by his loving hand toward the fullness of relationship with the Trinity, transcending all boundaries. Indeed, stuffy Catholic religion allows for a far greater relationship than the chumminess of relationship-only Christianity.

Globalization and the Cross

I recently finished Thomas L. Friedman’s book The World is Flat, a text which chronicles the flattening of the world by means of technology (particularly collaborative platforms). While the text is very informative (and in many ways right on target with its analysis of the world of new collaboration), it continually struck me as missing something. Of course, as someone with an interest in theology, I noted the conspicuous lack of religion from the mix of Mr. Friedman’s analysis (except for references to political-religious extremism in Islam). While I realize that the purpose of his text was to investigate and analyze the flattening of the world, I have also realized what is the grain of sand which was vexing me at times in his text.

Forces of collaboration around the world (including the expanded abilities which come with outsourcing, insourcing, and offshoring) are a fantastic set of tools for making the world more technologically efficient. In many ways, they are indeed drawing many people together in ways previously unthought-of. However, there is a void being dug out by these flattening forces, one which is in many ways being filled by a sense of loss of religion. To the massive changes in interpersonal communication and relationships, we are seeing the growth of mega churches, massive communities based on some form of Protestant Christianity. This is merely an affirmation that the economic and political aspirations of man will never fill humanity’s void, for humanity, at its core, desires and needs love.

Yesterday’s office of readings included a text by Saint Augustine in which he said something related. He says (of Saint Paul), “…But he did not say that he boasted in Christ’s wonderful works: in creating…or in ruling the world… Rather, he said: Let me not boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I have been drilling this for a while but think it is appropriate. Once again we have here an affirmation that Christ came primarily for the Cross and not for all of his beloved teachings. While they have a place of primacy in the lives of Christians, the first reality of Christ was neither intellectual nor moral but instead loving.

The Cross always stands at the center of Christ’s life as what he came to do and accomplish. With Christ as the head of humanity, the cross must be the lens through which we not only see his humanity but ours as well. The disparate parts of our lives are not able to be united by broadband and efficient supply chains. Indeed, as such technology replaces true, face-to-face relationships, the gains we have had in efficiency will be offset by apathy and depression as people are deprived of the only force which truly matters to them: Love. While great things have occurred as the world has flattened, we must always remember that all hope and boasting must first be in Love. After that, we will have a true foundation for collaboration and unity in the world.

The Warning of the Palm

Well good morning, afternoon, or evening, my friends. I know that after the respite of the weekend, you are fully eager to read my latest cogitations. Therefore, without further adieu, I shall begin!

This week, Christians around the world celebrate Holy Week, the most important week of the liturgical calendar, commemorating the final days of Jesus Christ before his crucifixion. To open Holy Week, churches and ecclesial communities begin with Palm Sunday, celebrating the triumphant entrance of Jesus into the city of Jerusalem. While I was standing at the Cathedral of Greensburg this weekend, palm in hand, listening to the Passion being read, I thought about the significance of the palms in the hands of the members of the congregation.

We are often facilely asked to reflect on “who would we have been during Holy Week.” Would we have been like John and remained at the foot of the cross or would we have denied Christ like Peter? Worse yet, would we have been like Judas Iscariot? We are warned not to assume that because we hold our palms, we are devoted members of Christ’s body, ready to go with him every step of the Way of the Cross. In my opinion, it takes a lot of allegorical removal to even begin to view the palms as a positive sign instead of as a warning.

The events of Palm Sunday of the past, when viewed in light of the death and resurrection of Christ, must always serve as a warning to us. On Palm Sunday, the crowds gathered in a throng, celebrating the new savior of Israel, one who was going to bring Israel from bondage under Rome and establish Mount Zion as the highest of all political hills in the world. Of course, we all know that this vision was dismally shattered, ultimately ending with Christ’s crucifixion.

The lesson of the palm seems to me to be the following: Unless you are ready to make your palms into a cross and bear suffering for the sake of others and for the sake of your union to God, put them away and look no more as though you want to wave them high. There is a new lesson for the world during Holy Week: Ideology is not equivalent to following God who is Love. Love, as the main criterion of true religion, is only possible in interpersonal dialogue, not in group-based mania. The actions of the tyrannous throng of the majority do not affect the salvation of Christ by their palm-laden zeal for him. Instead, these ideologues must learn a lesson in what it means to truly be human: To be united to God in Love and through suffering which ultimately brings us out of ourselves.

And so, holding the palm really should serve as this warning: Are you ready to follow your King, the pantocrator, who proclaims “Love; Above Al l Else, Love” or do you just want to play politics?

Love, Contraception, and All of Us Stuffy Catholics

Well, I have actually hated some bits of the past few days of blogging to be quite honest. Although I was able to tie things back to deeper realities than modern events at times, I still felt as though I had sold my soul and was beginning to sound like a political pundit. Today, I would like to use an earlier blog as the educational opportunity about which I spoke, namely on the subject of contraception.

Now, I am quite aware that many, if not most people, reading this wonder, “What about contraception? There is no controversy with it…. except with the Catholic Magisterium and the Mormons.” I would like to just breach the surface in this short reflection and talk about why the Church’s stand on contraception, while seeming stuffily anti-sexual, anti-love is nothing more than an affirmation of the true Form of Love.

I suppose we should begin by asking “Why is sex an act of expressing love?” The most blatantly obvious is the fact that showing one’s naked body to another is the removal of many barriers of protection. In a materialistic way, it is truly laying oneself bare before another, an act which should only be done before one who loves you. However, if you end here, there is not much left. Indeed, I would argue, at this point, that the act of sex, used with contraception only for itself, is not an act of love but only of manipulation and use of the other for pleasure. I am willing to hear the arguments, but to me, heaving and grinding don’t intrinsically bring two individuals closer together in love.

However, I must stress this heavily: I do not think that the act of sex is intrinsically evil, not in ANY way whatsoever. Nonetheless, this begs the question: What makes uncontracepted sex a true experience of love? In such an encounter, another element is involved, an element which is absolutely necessary for love to truly be itself: Time. Love always looks toward eternity: “You shall be my beloved forever.” Therefore, if a sexual encounter is to be truly loving, it too must look to eternity. In the case of uncontracepted sex, the sexual act is one that affirms, “I love you enough to mix our destinies. I am willing to have a child with you, even though that appears to limit my freedom. I am willing to take that chance, to bind our tomorrows, for I truly love you.”

The Catholic ban on contraception is nothing more than a protection on sex, an aggrandizement of sex, indeed the salvation of the sexual act. Without a gaze for the future, the sexual act becomes nothing more than a materialistic utilization of both parties involved. For sex to truly be itself, it takes an endless love, one which says, “You are mine and I am yours, come good or ill.” This is why sex is the restatement of the marital vows: “I do… till death do us part.”

Politics as Usual

Well, after having talked on wonderful theological and philosophical subjects for the past couple of entries, I feel that I am about to sell out my humanity as I prepare to discuss a very recent political episode.

With great fanfare, the American Democratic Party announced that they were in to eliminate the culture of political corruption laid into place by the American Republican Party. Mind you, I think that the Republicans sold out the American populace as well as their own base, so they indeed needed to be cleaned out. However, when a cleanout happens, shouldn’t we perhaps use clean water to scrub out the pipes? Oh no, we Americans are so naïve that we think we can just run to the other career politicians to fill the void. Of course, what we did was replace scum with crud and have ended up all the same.

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, gave a press conference on a set of legislation in the House and Senate which not only funds the war in Iraq but also is laced with pork projects (no surprise from any – Republican or Democratic – politician). The clincher, however, is a provision to end the Iraq war with a set date, an action which all involved know will have only one of two consequences. On one hand, if the President passes the bill, they will have a definite end to the war, something which they want. However, the more heinous option is if the President vetoes the bill, which is more likely to be the case.

Ms. Pelosi has (in words at the press conference) confirmed that this bill is nothing more than partisan hackery being done to force a veto. In her own words, she said that if President Bush vetoes this bill it will mean: He doesn’t support the soldiers; he doesn’t support veterans whose hospitals need funding; he doesn’t support farmers throughout America. In other words, by the means of a single provision, the pullout date for the Iraq war, the Democratic Party is loading their gunwale for the 2008 election to have commercials about the heartless Republicans who don’t care about the troops, veterans, farmers, etc.

This is but another example that politicians are nothing but a bunch of partisan hacks. The Republicans had their chance to change the way we do business but failed in many ways. Now it is time for the Democrats to screw up in all the same ways. To all of you who thought you were getting a positive change by replacing one set of politicians with another, even if you didn’t agree with their policies, I have one thing to say: “I told you so.”

Our government reflects our culture, a culture which is highly corrupted by crass individualism and relativism. Only by means of a cultural revolution will we have the bedrock necessary to rebuild this wonderful country, flushing out the filth that fills it. Until then, it will be politics as usual.

From Relativism to Loving Judgment (or Better-Yet Discernment of Fault)

Well, we move now with a seamless transition to a subject which has come up over and over in my life and was brought to the forefront once again by my attendance at the musical Godspell as well as at Mass this weekend. A classic claim which is raised against all Christians (and perhaps even more so against Catholics because of our long heritage) is that we are nothing more than a bunch of judgmental hypocrites. Often cited to us are words like "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" (Cf. John 8:1-11) or "How canst thou say to thy brother: Brother, let me pull the mote out of thy eye, when thou thyself seest not the beam in thy own eye?" (Cf. Luke 6:42). Now, first of all, I believe that you can see the relativist undertones to the accusations hurled at Christians using these scripture verses. In but a moment, you will see why I think that their twisting of Christ's words is the most vile of misuses of scripture.

Before that, however, let us have several words about “judgment.” Relativism has taken such deep roots in our Western mind that it is often difficult for us to even justify the use of the word, let alone enact any sort of discernment of the actions of another person. It is often considered the quintessential hypocrisy to tell someone that they have done something wrong. I ask you this: Does not Love require that we rebuke the faults of others (and also be open to such a rebuke from those who love us)? I would argue yes because Love demands the most of us, that we become the best person possible. It is quite unloving to allow someone to persist in self-destructive behavior and is therefore unloving to not rebuke the faults of another. Now, let us turn to the “forgotten” parts of the verses cited above.

In the Gospel of John, we are so ready to hear Jesus rebuke the crowd that we often miss 8:11, “Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.” Jesus has prevented the condemnation of the crowd; he has stopped them from passing an immutable, ontological judgment on the woman for her adultery. However, he has not let her go off free of rebuke. Helping her up, he does tell her to “sin no more,” and does so lovingly to prevent her from taking part in the self-destructive act of adultery. Luke 6:42 is another one of the oft-unfinished verses from the Bible and is truly the standard of how to discerningly judge. It ends saying that one must remove the beam in his eye before removing the speck in another’s. It doesn’t say “remove thine beam and leave thy brother’s mote untouched.” Indeed not! It merely affirms that a pure heart and conscience are necessary to inspire conversion and truly discern fault in another person.

Rosie, Al, the Acceptance of the Rise of Relativism, and the Death of Liberalism (Part III)

Now, in very short order, we have discussed the relationship among some popular figures (Rosie O’Donnell and Albert Gore) and some undercurrents of relativistic thought. Now, I know that it would be preposterous to claim that these individuals are nothing more than walking putsules of relativism, waiting to explode with modernistic thoughts that would deny truth. However, there are definitely shades and shadows of relativism, particularly in how they lack the capacity to have open dialogue on issues. Now, why does the growth of this type of thought matter to you and me?

Well, although there are a variety of schools of liberalism, at its core, liberal thought is nothing more than an affirmation of the importance of the individual first. I think that nobody can refute this basic tenet of liberalism, even though everyone can find something to complain about when they look at any full school of thought in isolation. Nonetheless, liberal thought affirms the primacy of the individual, the importance of the one among the many. While this can lead to radical (and even crass) individualism, it also is extremely exaulting for each and everyone of us to realize this fundamental truth of liberal thought.

Now, relativism seems like “true liberalism”, making the individual a god, for it sets forth an epistemology (a philosophical school on the nature of knowledge) which is based wholly on the perceptions of each and every individual. This means that to each person, his or her worldview is completely determinative of reality, that his or her thoughts and ideas are absolute unto themselves.

You may cry havoc and tell me that I should cut my fingers off and let the relativists go, for this seems acceptable and even aggrandizing of man. I ask you this, though: Is humanity made bigger by means of individual work or by its capacity to collaborate, to realize that there is something bigger? If someone is able to perceive (at least part of) the nature of an all-embracing Universal Truth, is that not more aggrandizing than telling him that he should remain a god unto himself. Truly relativism, in the last analysis, only tells people that their beliefs and ideas are not important enough to be shared with others. (Although power can force such ideas, coercion is not equivalent to sharing.)

Additionally, the walling-up of the individual prevents the greatest of ontological realities, Love, from penetrating into the lives of humans. At its core, love is a task of dialogue, an interpenetration of my I with your I, the interaction of my I with your thou. If my “I” and all that goes with it are relative and only power can be used to force my person and worldview onto you, love would be impossible, for there would be no chance for the dialogue of being necessary in love. No interpenetration of the subjective is possible where power must be used to overcome the other person.

Rosie, Al, the Acceptance of the Rise of Relativism, and the Death of Liberalism (Part II)

Well, my friends, your favorite bloviator has returned to the blogosphere to pick up where he left off last week, discussing the links between several popular figures, relativism, and the death of liberal thought.

As I said last time, at the core of Rosie O’Donnell’s defense is the fact that she has the power to assert her opinion the most strongly on the show The View. Now, I do know that she comes to the table with facts, but notice how she rarely wants to analyze the facts in a different light and how she has no true openness to dialogue. Now, this is something we all do from time to time, so it is of great importance that we heed the rotten, relativistic root of these attitudes.

Like Rosie, Mr. Albert Gore is just as guilty of invoking the tyranny of opinion to suppress dialogue about global warming. However, Mr. Gore’s power lies not in his individual ability to speak but instead in his invocation of “scientific consensus,” a term which merely indicates the tyranny of a majority. Notice how the defense offered by Al is not about well-tested hypotheses which have been cross-tested against opposing views. Instead, we receive his thesis as the gift of a majority vote on a matter. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has a quote attributed to him saying, “Truth is not determined by a majority vote.” Alexis de Tocqueville, having experienced the French Revolution as well as studied post-Jacksonian America, spoke of this tyranny of the majority which was merely the dark twin of the tyranny of the king. In the case of Al Gore’s invocation of the majority to support his view, he is working from a semi-relativistic framework which doesn’t speak in terms of an Absolute but instead in terms of incontrovertible evidence, ultimately meaning evidence which cannot be over-powered.

Now, these proclaimed “truths” are most-often absorbed by individuals by means of passive acceptance (or at least semi-passive). Unquestioning minds will grasp onto the arguments raised by these power-wielding speakers and will believe their relative world views without question. This need not be a naïve acceptance, for if the proposed idea synchronizes well with the listener’s own biases, then he or she will accept them because they are acceptable in his or her relative worldview. In either case, the acceptance of said argument is derived from the power to proclaim (and believe) a given relativistic argument.

Tomorrow, we will wrap up these reflections with a few thoughts on how the general acceptance of relativistic arguments is nothing more than the death of liberal thought. More importantly, I hope to show you why we must keep the frame of liberal thought alive against this storm. Until then, best wishes!

- MKM

Rosie, Al, the Acceptance of the Rise of Relativism, and the Death of Liberalism (Part I)

Well, it is time to get down and dirty with popular culture for a few moments this evening. There is an eerie growth of silencing in the world which I have experienced personally and have seen out in the popular culture. In my own life, I have often been told to "cool it" with my opinions because they were contentious in comparison with those of others. Ironically, this pugnacious young man has never attempted to silence those whose viewpoints differ from his. Instead, I (shift from 3rd to 1st person, please) have always enjoyed intellectual sparring, even if (much to my chagrin) I end up with egg on my face at times. If anyone means a damned thing by liberalism, that is it, my friend. Oh yes, I just labeled myself within the box of liberalism, at least insofar as liberalism is an affirmation of the liberty of the individual to find the Truth (with a capital "T"), wherever it may be.

Now, what does this have to do with Rose and Mr. Albert Gore? Both are explicit examples of the greatest threat to liberal thought: relativism. At its core, relativism proclaims that there are no absolutes by which actions, objects, experiences, etc. can be evaluated and judged. For the relativist, the relative view of the individual, his or her lens on the world, is the absolute standard. This means that nothing can be held in common, for all is relative to the lonely individual. The only means by which an accepted "truth" can be declared are: (1) Power; (2) Apathetic Acceptance.

In the case of Rosie number one is blatantly obvious, particularly in an exchange on the show The View on March 20. Now, Rosie is quite known for making her opinions known on the show, spouting off on a variety of topics and making claims that are unfounded (and often uninformed). Without a doubt, she has her right to free speech, and her pontification does not bother this pontificator one bit whatsoever. In the final analysis, our arguments are placed under the scrutiny of the Truth and will be judged by others in that light (except to the relativists…) Anyway, on said episode, Rosie silenced her co-host, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, telling her that she was not to be blathering on her opinion, an ironic bit of advice from the pontifex maximus of opinions. However, Rosie, by means of her overbearing personality, has silenced the opposition on this matter.

Notice that it is not the Truth which is invoked in this matter but instead merely the power of her to overcome Elizabeth. This is indicative of the first path to a “truth” in relativism: Power. For Rosie, there is no absolute measure by which to ascertain the Truth… except for her own opinion. Although everything is relative to her, the opinion which she holds is “higher” than Elizabeth’s because she holds the power to assert it.

On Monday, I will continue with this reflection mini-series. Until then, enjoy life! :-)

Liberalism, Conservatism, and the Long-Forgotten Primacy of Truth

There was an article by Fr. Thomas J. Euteneur blasting Sean Hannity for legalistic rhetoric about Lenten abstinence from meat and for imprudence in declaring his views on contraception. (The article is available at: http://www.hli.org/sl_2007-03-09.html)

Let me begin with saying that I agree with Fr. Euteneur in his reflection on the situation. Mr. Hannity has done exactly what so many other Catholics do in profusely apologizing for eating a chicken sandwich but disagreeing with major Church teachings. On one hand, people would like to live with a peppering of religiosity in their lives but seem to desire to live in their own relative moral spheres. The issue here, however, is not with Sean Hannity so much as it is with the primacy of Truth and how that should inform one’s worldview.

The primary motivator in our actions must be our worldview on the Truth and the necessities which are concomitant with that view. However, day-to-day life often weighs us down, making us limit ourselves to the “strictly practical matters.” In the world of community action, this means that our political affiliations often become our formative element. Without realizing it, we often slip into the boxes of “Liberal,” “Conservative,” “Moderate,” “Libertarian,” etc. Our worldview is therefore informed by our surroundings in the box into which we place ourselves. In many ways, such a lens onto the world can be great. However, these “ideologies” suffer from two major flaws. First and foremost, the definition of “liberal,” “conservative,” etc are constantly shifting and are truly relative terms, only making sense in comparison to each other and not on their own. More importantly, since none of these “ideologies” are full participants in the Truth, Truth transcends them. Indeed, that’s the true crux of the problem: Truth transcends all boundaries. For the Catholic, Truth requires both progress (the progress of salvation history…) and conservatism (the eternal love of God, the past events by which salvation progresses…). It is impossible to view the world through anything other than the dual lenses of Truth and Love, for they are a priori to all else; it is from them that all ideologies flow and is to them that all must proceed.

As for the argument from Fr. Euteneur to Sean Hannity, I must say that I am lukewarm. Sean’s problem is that he has allowed Reagan Conservatism, with all of its goods, become the formative principle of his show and many of his ideas. By using such a limited lens, he limits the scope of his vision and is therefore out of line with the Church. However, I think that those (including me) who object to Sean’s views should not open a lambaste against him but should use such a time a teaching opportunity. This is quite a superb time to teach on what it means to publicly call yourself a Catholic, what communion with the Church entails, and even talk about the contentious topics of chicken and contraception.

A New Format; Marry the Man Today

Well, I have been doing some reflecting and self-imposed ass-kicking as of late for a variety of reasons. It was the confluence of two "events" which have brought me to this exciting day for the blog. First of all, I started listening to a podcast by Newt Gingrich and was astounded by something I noticed about the podcast itself. While we may disagree on some of Gingrich's policies, ideas, and actions, I think we can admit that, flawed as he may be, the man is intellectually talented. Therefore, when I noticed that his podcast was merely 1.5 minutes long, every day, I thought, "Wow, Matt. You have always said that constriction breeds innovation. No doubt ol' Newt's doing that with his podcast." Therefore, I have decided to make my blog entries smaller (contained within 250-500 words with an occasional "extended editorial" more of the length of my older entries). The second event was while watching the video podcast for Glenn Beck's television show. (Yes, I get my news from other sources than iTunes. Don't worry!) Glenn referred to how he pontificates on everything, and I thought, "You know, Matt, your blog is really nothing more than your own pontifications on everything. Maybe you should start writing shorter podcasts on a variety of topics more frequently." Therefore *drum roll*.... We have the newer, more concise Pontifications of a Coding Catholic!

Pontification of the Day: Marry the Man Today

In the musical Guys and Dolls, the final non-ensemble song is a piece between Adelaide and Sarah Brown called "Marry the Man Today." (See: http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/guysanddolls/marrythemantoday.htm for the lyrics. Enter at your own risk. I did not get any spyware but will not guarantee anything!) Two years ago, when we were doing this show at Saint Vincent College, Kimberly Andrews and I used to bemoan this song’s lyrics. With a little thought, however, I decided in passing time that I did not dislike this song as much as I thought I did, and here's why.

We often say that those who get married must love their spouse as they are, accepting them as they are. I think that implicitly, this means what I'm about to say, but would like to be more specific. I most firmly believe that love is an ontological reality, that is a reality of being, one in which the lover and the beloved share in each other's very being (in a communion of sorts). Therefore, I do indeed think that one should love someone for who they are, but this love does not require that you love what somebody does. Instead, love demands that the lover always shape the beloved in the Truth, perfecting his/her being, therby making their interpersonal more intense.

"Marry the Man Today" is a mixed bag with respect to this. While it is somewhat fatalistic in the "codependent relationship" way and is manipulative, the song does have a golden kernel: That if you love somebody, you should want to perfect them. Since this is a musical, the scope of the song is much smaller than a personal reflection, but it goes without saying that both parties must be open to these acts of perfection. However, the kernel is this: If I love you for who you are, I will pursue you to my heart's content, even if I don't always agree with what you do. However, I love you for who you are precisely because you are a good person and will not completely scoff at my attempts to help you better yourself.

So, in the final analysis, it's not a bad thing to love someone but what to change what they do. Of course the spheres of ontology and praxis, that is the sphere of practical action, are not completely separate. It is quite possible that the lover may desire to change something the beloved does, with that change only being possible by changing who the person is. Now, this presupposes the belief that humanity, no matter how decadent, is good at its core, although fallen. When I say who someone is I mean moreso "what makes that individual a unique person, capable of loving in a particular way." Since evil is a lack of being, I refuse to even slightly misconstrue it as such.

And so, I stand someone ambivalently for "Marry the Man Today," a song which has its weaknesses but is perhaps not as bad as I once thought.

A Brief Further Exposition into my thoughts on the West and its Fall

In an online conversation with good sir Matthew P. Morley, I had to somewhat (although incompletely) explain my position on the West and its imminent fall. The content of that response is found below.

Well, I suppose we enter into the realm of the relative when we each speak of the "West" without specific definition. I suppose the first bit that should be reflected upon is the role of the Judaism and the Church in the West as both constituent and formative element. While the Judeo-Christian heritage is not strictly Western in character, I would without reservation argue that it most certainly cannot be considered strictly Eastern. (However, it indeed has some characteristics of what I like to call "Eastern Hopelessness in the Created Order," particularly present in Qoheleth. However, the Jewish affirmation of the body and created order as a necessary constituent of salvation sets it apart from the East.) Now, when I speak of the West, I speak in particular of that grand confluence of cultures all around the Mediterranean which took an orientation (although tremulous at times) to the Truth as both cataphatic and apophatic. The fullest refulgence of these convictions was unleashed in unmitigated splendor by the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. Therefore, I see the West as being that construct that is intrinsically bound with the Church, as well as the political sensibilities of the Mediterranean, however flawed they would be at times.

Now, as a matter of rhetoric, I often speak in somewhat highly-pessimistic language. However, I do indeed have hope, precisely because the Church is the bulwark of civilization, the True West. What I lament is the fact that we have fallen from the base which the Faith gave to civilization. My cry issues forth in response to the fall of the political reality which used to have such an undergirding from the religious sensibilities of Faith in the Absolute. Therefore, one could say that I believe that the West will indeed live on and will (as I said in my rant) give birth to something greater: “However, when Zion falls to Rome, Rome to the Vandals, and America to her foes (be they proponents of Radical Islam or Secular Progressivism), the phoenix of Divine Election arises from the ashes anew, with more glorious splendor.”

As an afterthought, I think that we focus too often on the final effects of no-fault freedom in our society. While the atrocities of abortion, euthanasia, etc. must be prevented at all costs, I think it only to be one symptom of not understanding the true nature of freedom. It is a destruction that spreads far and wide because of governmental intrusion into life, replacing the family and community with our Big Brothers and Sisters in Washington (and, to a lesser but still important degree, the state capitals). This, coupled with the isolation often inspired by (although not necessarily concomitant with) our media-driven society, is tearing the fabric of responsibility from the heart of humanity. Since Truth and Love are ultimately the most responsible of all affairs, we are destroying our capacity for loving and living under the mantle of the Truth by trying to have a no-fault, anti-responsibility society. This is why I find America to be the political promise of the world, for in its essence (although not in its practice anymore thanks to socialism/Marxism) it is nothing more a country founded on the principle of the preservation and promotion of liberty. This ability to be free enables man to truly be himself, to reach his potential, to live in the Truth and to love.

Also, if the spirit so moves you, look at the following post, for the very brief poem that I wrote was truly about these thoughts: http://codingcatholic.blogspot.com/2007/01/well-i-am-kind-of-living-in-period-of.html

After nearly a month of not posting, I now present a semi-rambling reflection which was propagated by a post by John Galardi on Facebook.

Beware, this is a bit rambling but comes to some point, I hope..... I may revisit it to redact it some day and make it a bit more coherent. However, I just wanted to sit down and spew my thoughts on this matter. Without further adieu....

I have been cogitating on this in the back of my mind for the past few days, waiting to reply until the Spirit so moved me. Tonight, graced with the confidence to move forward, I feel that I should laud this post and give my own thoughts to you, Mr. Galardi.

I have been doing a lot of philosophical/theological pondering these past months and have particularly come upon the nature of America, something about which I have neglected much up to this point in my life. However, as we are beset on all sides by the imminent collapse of the West, I have found it most apt to reflect on the two pillars holding the world, acting as God's instruments. In the long tradition of the Western Church, there has always been a perception of the separation (although not a mutual exclusivity) of Church and State. In this degree, I look to the stewardship of the temporal to be in the hands of the State and the eternal mission of Love in the hands of Mother Church.

While the Church remains for me the primary support for the West during this crisis, my gut-instinct was never at rest while I only considered one pillar in the world. It didn't take much reflectionfor me to realize the fact that the political hope of the West (and indeed the world) is absolutely found within the founding spirit of America. Just as the Church is the instrument of God for it is the steward of the Word, so too is America (much to the chagrin of secularists everywhere) founded upon the Absolute. The dignity of the individual, the liberty of the will in this temporal "vale of tears," stands at the core of America (as intended by the founders).

This orientation to the Absolute and its ordering for human affairs in temporality brings with it a mandate. When humanity looks into the face of Liberty, it must, without hesitation, turn from the embrace of Lady Liberty to proclaim the her Truth which is truly at the center of the reality of humanity. This proclamation would indeed be imperialistic to many but, in my opinion, carries with it a mandate to always preserve liberty of choice. (That liberty of choice holds with it temporal and eternal necessities and ramifications. However, this reflection is not to be on law and order, so I will not digress down this path.)

In the world as it is, America remains a bastion AGAINST crude nationalism, for American Nationalism points to humanity in its essence and not just to those of us on this continent. As an agent of Freedom, America must (in order to remain true to itself) promote that Freedom which makes its very existence possible. This is what separates "American" imperialism from the imperialism of any nationalistic entity (or even Union of nationalistic entities). In the face of such relativistic enclaves, America remains a proponent on the side of Freedom, and is all the kinder for being the servant of this most beautiful Lady Liberty. There is no stronger dominatrix than that of Lady Relativism. Her dogma of anti-dogmatism allows for nothing other than enslavement and utter thralldom. American "Imperialism" is never exactly equal to that reality of "Imperialism" which is so often raised in accusation against her, for truly American "Imperialism" remains firmly affixed to Freedom (and therefore humanity in general). It is the Imperialism of Relativism which stands against humanity and would indeed suck the life out of it without reservation, calling itself the steward of freedom when it is nothing other than the steward of imposed thralldom. (We could also discuss the link between Relativists and Marxists which would doubtlessly buttress this case for American freedom which allows the individual to attempt the great venture of life, self-determination which truly builds bonds among human persons. However, I do not look here to even begin to address all the issues I take within the rising Imperialism of Relativism and its concomitant twin, "Progressive" Marxism.)

Now, on a negative note, nations like ours seem to forget their heritage, but Divine providence protects Truth where it is and scourges us in Love. Indeed, slipping into a world of Glamour-Worship and anti-dialogical individualism, America sadly is becoming like Rome and Israel. However, our chastisements, no matter how they come, are to be received penitentially. Hopefully we will be bright enough to heed the call to repentance and to return to the High Call which we have as a nation. Although many see the world through the lens of feeling without thought and "progress" without liberty, there is hope, for even in our worst moments redemption is possible. Indeed, there is even hope if it it comes to the utter dissolution of the West before our very eyes. However, when Zion falls to Rome, Rome to the Vandals, and America to her foes (be they proponents of Radical Islam or Secular Progressivism), the phoenix of Divine Election arises from the ashes anew, with more glorious splendor.

Now, I tend to ramble a bit in a theological mode, not usually in this sort of political mode. However, in order to tie these two distinct, yet prophetically-linked, realms together I should make a note on the relationship of political Liberty and the theological notion of Love. Catholic theology teaches that Love is that reality which undergirds all of reality, and Love is impossible without freedom to choose the other (and the Other). Therefore, the American call to Liberty is inseparable from the reality of Love which leads humanity on to Eternity. In the last analysis, Love becomes the master of the temporal. However, far from removing the grandeur of the temporal affair of Liberty, it enriches it and enables it to become a servant to the ultimate, Eternal orientation of humanity.