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.

I suppose one could say that the Spirit moved me this evening to finish a work which has been sitting upon the tip of my brain for the past few months. Like a flash of lightening, a single line came to me while taking a walk this past autumn, and I was convinced that I would have to write a poem around that line. Even if I were to fail miserably at this task, I knew that it must be done because of an incontrovertible stirring in my heart. I must admit that I post this with trepidation, for it is truly the product of my intuition and heart, guided by inspiration that finally came, forcing me to put pen to paper (or more appropriately, finger to keyboard).

Thanks to that glorious textual construction known in some esoteric circles as the "capital letter," you should be able to tell that this is ultimately a conversation about the effect of the experience of God, Who is Love, as the alpha and omega of creation and how that experience brings new splendor to each subsequent experience in life. However, I truly believe that this can analogously be extended to all those instances of love which open our vistas to the newness of being, exposing ourselves to the refreshing draught of the other (as well as the Other), an experience which can never leave one unchanged.

However, take it or leave it, I now hand over to you for your kind consideration:
Since You Loved Me and I Loved You

No dimness lasts when from above
Is viewed a vale by one in love,
For Love itself renews the mind,
And heart, and soul of humankind.
It is the force which binds the earth
From particle to massive girth.
Vision is clear, opened anew
Since You loved me and I loved You.

Without meaning the sun would rise
Unless in hearts there would surmise
The greater myth which is in fact
A covenantal bond and pact,
For life’s abundant progeny
Are members in Love’s symphony.
Vision is clear, opened anew
Since You loved me and I loved You.

Vistas anew open before
Man when work he does not abhor
And in spirit of unity
Embraces Love’s felicity.
Each task is seen in fullest light
With work perceived as more than plight.
Vision is clear, opened anew
Since You loved me and I loved You.

The autumn tree gleams from its boughs
And to the world renews the vows
Of single Glory splintered through
The world of men in gleam and hue.
Yet colors these would only be
Without Love’s single unity.
Vision is clear, opened anew
Since You loved me and I loved You.

Softest caress from man to wife
Or hand-in-hand for workman’s strife
Express a unity most fair
If only man does stop and dare
To see the spirit thus ascend
As from even bodies we do transcend.
Vision is clear, opened anew
Since You loved me and I loved You.

Each scent of ocean from mist-breeze
Takes on olfaction that does tease
The mind to remember the days
Of youthful loves and joy-filled ways.
Thus even to Love’s single dance
Is found a servant in fragrance.
Vision is clear, opened anew
Since You loved me and I loved You.

Through the lips and on the tongue
Days past like bells in churches rung
Clang forth desiring to be seen
In eye of mind with sight thus preened
By memories of festive life
About the table in rest from strife.
Vision is clear, opened anew
Since You loved me and I loved You.

The ears do hear the babbling brook
And far-off trickle in the nook.
Yet such secluded audibles
Are attached to joyful gambols
And also in the soft retreat
Whispers were passed in Love’s entreat.
Vision is clear, opened anew
Since You loved me and I loved You.

Time itself is but a slave
When placed before Love’s open grave
For Love may die but what is more
Is final triumph evermore.
Above the icy gaze of time
Is Love’s uniting most sublime.
Vision is clear, opened anew
Since You loved me and I loved You.

Being itself has radiance
When it is viewed from in Love’s glance,
For barriers become no more
When hatefulness we do abhor.
Even in death we see great light
For Love hold’s being firm and tight.
Vision is clear, opened anew
Since You loved me and I loved You.

Moments in life may become bland
When without direction they stand,
Yet with strength of tautology
Love stands along ontology,
Brightening all in sensation
As central point of elation.
Vision is clear, opened anew
Since You loved me and I loved You.

Well, I am kind of living in a period of bleakness for some reason, feeling as though I am stumbling day-to-day without direction, at least to a degree. This growing angst has bubbled into a brief poetic form that you will find below. I hope your 2007 is starting off very well!

To see the flame upon the sill
And see its radiance long until
Its glory seems to fade away
And leave me with the darkest day,
This seems to be the lot in life
Now giving me the deepest strife.

That shining drear extinguishing,
Making my soul feel languishing
From icy grip of living death
And coldest blast of darkest breath,
Assaults my eyes with hopelessness
And blots out seemly loveliness.

Yet through it all, I know it true
That Love will conquer through and through,
For at each time of loss to hate
The Bride of Christ communicates
With Lord above who does enfold
Her in His mantle from of old.

This hope stands there before my eyes
When life seems dark as I surmise
The end of West and lack a road
To travel upon to Love’s abode,
And Faith informs me that death’s election
Ultimately ends with Resurrection.

Today, on this last day of 2006 A.D., I would like to pause and reflect upon those lessons which I have learned, hoping beyond hope that my follies and foibles, as well as my successes and jubilations, will serve the common good of my three to four readers as we move forward into a new year.

I suppose I should begin by saying that each year I learn a little more about why everyone celebrates the beginning of each New Year. I have always had an a priori distaste for the celebrations which appeared to me as wholly bacchanalian revelry in which people desired to lose themselves in the end of a year in order to embrace the "new opportunities" of the upcoming year. While this dismal caricature of New Year's celebrations doubtlessly exists, I have, only with the slowest of wits, come to appreciate those celebrations which surround the unfurling of the new year. Because of my often self-deprecating nature, I have often avoided the social situations which are concomitant with New Year's Eve. Of course, I have found myself all the more miserable for being like this and therefore use that misery as the lens through which I try to understand my own misunderstandings and misguided steps. (It is often through misery that we come upon the boundaries of our being, forcing us to reevaluate our positions in light of our destroyed self-perceptions.) The joy that was missing in the past has been experienced fully these past three years as I have spent my time with friends, celebrating what has been and what will be. The very presence of our beloved friends and family serves as a guiding sail by which we steer our courses through the turbulent waters of the future. The celebration of New Year's Eve thus becomes a microcosm of what I call "conservative-progressivism" in the spirit of the beloved G.K. Chesterton of what the somewhat more pugnacious Bill O'Reilly would call "liberal-traditionalism." We look backward to the previous experiences that we have had among our beloved, strengthening those bonds of love which have united us in the past year and provide the source material for the activity of the coming new year, the base for all activity henceforth.

Now, since many people my age like to indeed make New Year's Eve into nothing more than a drinking party, I will at least express my resolute rejection of any celebration of this holiday which seeks to lose oneself in order to leave behind the old and usher in the new. I have more respect for Qoheleth as he says, "There is nothing new under the sun" than I have for the modern man who says "There is nothing under the sun which I desire to remember." Such is an act of un-violent suicide that does no justice to our hopes for a new year but instead promotes a culture in which life is abhorred and nihilism runs rampant, leaving humanity as nothing more than an amalgamation of walking corpses, shambling through the pathways of each day trying to scrape a living off the rocks of broken dreams and forgotten pasts. Where we lose the microcosmic nature of New Year's Eve, we lose our humanity, for we deny ourselves the sight of true progress, which embraces the past, particularly in the love which we have for one another, for it is only by that love that we shall progress through the ages and only through, with, and in Love that we will become a truly united humanity.

Now that I have been a wind-bag, let me go off on my original topic: Those lessons which I have learned this year, 2006 A.D, in descending order of importance and not in chronological order.

First and foremost, I am slowly learning that long-learned, often-ignored lesson about the relationship between busyness and holiness, namely that everyone else is right when they assure me that busyness and holiness are not directly proportional but are often indirectly proportional. I am the type of person who likes to keep busy beyond measure because the silence often unnerves me, leaving me in a zone of discomfort which seems to be wholly undesirable instead of thoroughly purgative and uplifting (which it truly is). I am learning how to be busy and be human, how to strive for true activity which does not avoid the glorious humanity which I have but instead brings me more into contact with myself so that I may truly devote myself to God and others and not devote a shell of a who I am. I have learned that keeping busy for its own sake is a road which leads straight to the cold, lonely recesses of Hell, a road which cuts one off from others, dehumanizing them by abrogating the dialogical bonds which make us most human. To a great degree, I learned this by the difficult road, that same well-worn way by which I learn almost all the important lessons of life. I look back to my senior year of college and see many good memories but also see many chances that were abandoned because I didn’t myself slow down, didn’t allow Matthew Kenneth Minerd to step forth onto the stage with his heart wide open, ready to accept the world and be embraced or rejected by it. Instead, I became my own island of busyness and lost the chance to truly enjoy my last year of school while also maintaining a responsible schedule, something which I have only done once in my life during a blissful two years known as my Sophomore and Junior years of college. Alas, the lesson to take from this is that I must not allow being busy to be my aim in and of itself but always focus myself on the more arduous and fulfilling task of loving God and the world to the fullest, even though such love opens my heart up to the most supreme of pains as well as the most sublime of joys.

The other major lesson that I learned this year was that the world may not end at the hands of an Axis of Evil in the coming months. For a while, I was quite afraid of this occurrence and truly did not think I would live to see the beginning of 2008, or if I did live to see it that I would not know that it was happening because of supreme isolation and communication fall out in the wake of a massive nuclear war. Instead of worrying each day about the fall of the West from the outside, I have instead decided to concern myself with the ways that I, Matthew Kenneth Minerd can defend the West from the inside against those who despise our own glorious heritage that has brought forth this splendid nation and into which the savior of the world was born. However, I have also learned that this must be a task of humility and that I must always remain a tool in the hands of the Truth which guides the paths of all humanity through this life. Instead of trying to come up with my own ideas of how I can chivalrously save Western civilization, I must always remain a Collaborator in the Truth and an Apostle of Love, never separating these two roles but seeing them as a dynamic duo by means of which disparate human activities are united by the power of Love in the face of Truth, a unity which requires the work of many, the dialogical interchange of ideas and, more importantly, being.

The final, least important, lesson of this past year was the fact that my vote doesn’t count, not because of its numerical insignificance as much as the fact that the American electorate only has the babbling of partisan politicians to guide them through the storm of elections. This was the first time I have ever voted for a candidate instead of against another, and I was sadly disappointed in the fact that so many people bought into the diversionary tactics used by Mr. Robert Casey. Now, let me first of all say that I don’t doubt that Mr. Casey is a good man, at least as good as a politician can be given the fact that the government will only suck your soul out unless you have an iron-clad lock box around it. I don’t doubt that he truly has a vision to help America and do not at all desire (nor intend) to lob partisan labels at the man. However, I was thoroughly disappointed not at his attack ads (which are so common place that we must be disappointed in all politicians for them) but instead at his ads which spoke in a positive sense about his platform on the issues. It was nothing more than wispy desires for better lives for seniors and children, more successful education for children, and other such things that are embraced by all human beings, even our long-ago progenitors with clubs and a burning amazement for fire (no pun intended!). What truly disappointed me about this one ad received in the mail was greater than any other attack ad seen this year, for it was an insult to Mr. Santorum on a deep level, inferring that he was against such fundamentally human and Christian platforms. I was dismayed that so many people would vote for someone who played such a partisan card that tried to make a direct correlation between being a Republican and being a monster who wants the death of old people and schools to be built out of mud taken from the gravesites of the aforementioned dead old people. Now I don’t think that the Casey campaign fully meant to vilify Mr. Santorum to that degree but do indeed believe with a firm conviction that he was playing into the partisan standard that makes the Democratic Party “for the little man” and the Republican Party “for big business,” a standard that is useless if people would only think, for the entire government is partially in the pocket of big business, Democrat and Republican alike. I am a registered Democrat who is an independent thinker, Catholic first, Minerd/Szepesi second, and then an American, relegating any party affiliation merely to a functional level of primary/local elections giving not a single damn about the D or the R so much as T and L, Truth and Love. So what is the point of this last rant for 2006? Namely, it is that I do not know what it was that people found in Bob Casey that was so delightful that it merited the overturning of a tried-and-tested senator, a senator who has indeed made mistakes but who is also willing to speak with conviction and not with smoke an mirrors. He at least had a listing of fifty “controversial” viewpoints instead of a small list of feel-good platitudes. Do I think that people were stupid for doing this? Of course not, for they may have had more information that I did on Mr. Casey. However, I know from personal experience (and am disappointed) that many people voted against Mr. Santorum because he is Republican and that they thought he was nothing more than a war-mongering, grandma-hating person who likes to catch fish in bottle tops and wear them as jewelry while shoving cigarettes into their mouths in order to increase second hand smoke in schools when he visits them to burn them down with the same smoke-producing cigarettes. Well… that may be a bit over the top, but nonetheless, I would like to see partisanship end on both ends. I have just used this as an example because Mr. Santorum has a clear vision on many things and remains open to the other side more than people give him credit for, particularly insofar as he publicly stated that he thinks that the Republican party is weak on social programs to lift the poor up. Even though his policies on this might be a bit different than some on the other side would want, he is indeed united with them in the ideology itself, something very important and often-unheard of today.

Well, my friend, thank you for making it thus far through another raving of this coding Catholic. I hope to have an expanded reader base in 2007, although nothing so surprising is certain. The one hopeful fact is that my readership base is so small that it wouldn’t take much to increase it. ;-) In all seriousness, though, thanks for sticking to this blog even when it was not updated with much frequency. This coming year I hope to give some mind to more frequent updates, even if they are but small insights into other works of mine while I am swamped with busyness.

By God bless you and all your beloved as we begin 2007 A.D., and may the Love and Joy of our Father be yours forever.

- Matthew Kenneth Minerd, The Coding Catholic

From the annals, I have pulled another old poem, nearly as old as the last posting to this wonderful blog. This one is a bit dearer to my heart, for it's meter feels a bit tighter and is also on a theme more theological. For better or for worse, you may read on. Enjoy... I hope!

Hope For Awe

Above the earth, beneath the sky,
man walked without a care.
There was no thought that he would vie
with hunger or despair.

The moon, the sun, the shining light
of heaven's night and morn,
impressed on him an image bright
of hope and joy new born.

All things were new unto his eyes
and thus filled to the brim,
he let his intellect arise
to name the world for Him.

It was his place, divinely said,
to use his mind as such.
Yet in this gift his mind was led
to higher thoughts untouched.

Thinking this gift was made for lust,
for arrogance unfurled,
man thought that he was more than just
a steward of the world.

And thus was served the great death-pill
to man through such hubris.
He soon began to think his will
to hold God's divineness.

Alas, O man, your prideful will
has enslaved all mankind
to sin, to sweat, to have our fill
of death's icy cold bind.

And yet this fault does little stop
the Great Creator's plan.
Such acts cannot traverse the top
of His good will to man.

Out of this darkness from the sin
of fallen man did come
a better Word, both God and kin
conquering sin's death-numb.

By words and deeds did Death enter
through man's own prideful lot,
yet in reply to death's letter
a Word salvation brought.

O man, rejoice for in this Word,
mankind, free from death's claw,
sees all the sights, hears all you heard,
and once again has awe.

Briefly stated, I found this poem among the annals upon a thumb-drive of mine. It is by far not a work that I am overly proud of but is alright. I believe that it is the first poem that I wrote in college after not writing for years.

Enjoy or not at your discretion! I will post another relatively soon. It is another old one that is a bit more religious in tone.

A Scholar’s Change
Erudite, the young man sat alone by the dim fire.
He pensively considered how he came unto this mire.

Philosophy, mathematics too, and also chemistry,
these things and more he sought under his lonely thinking tree.

All of his days he spent as such, from youthful confidence
and now he saw that all he knew was not worth a coin-pence.

His life had been a story of such arrogance and pride,
he thought he'd stand upon his own and in no one confide.

His students thought he was gleeful, with energy in class,
but to those whom he was closest, a smile would seldom pass.

And so was he, in doubt of mind when unto him did come
what seemed to be the very form of beauty in its sum.

Out in the field, he saw such grace and allure that he rose
to watch her sing and dance without a hint of worldly woes.

He went outside and spoke with her, the maiden pure and fair,
for curious he was to know why she was singing there.

And so she looked into his eyes and told him simply this:
"Some people live only to spread both bliss and sweet goodness."

Yet when she peered into those deep and utmost lonely eyes,
his heart was locked in wonderment and from the depths did rise.

He saw his life, his work complete, his praises sung by all,
yet at his grave stood only those who shouldered his small pall.

Yet while he gazed at her deeply, he saw another sight
that gave him hope that there may be a brighter source of light.

He saw that he could live beyond his book-filled fantasies,
that life could mean more than musing on grave realities.

And she, in looking, saw the face of someone trying much
to be patient and kind although it was so out of touch.

For long they walked that summer day and deep into the wood
they ambled speaking and singing of all things fair and good.

And so it happened that this man who thought he was alone
came home each day to hear her sing and talk of all they'd done.

At length they wed and many saw the vows be taken then,
and joy there was in all the guests who came to visit them.

The scholar's work was lessened some and yet he saw much more
that all work done must strive to help mankind with spirits poor.

While there were troubles, there was joy and life sprung forth with glee,
and all gathered around them oft their happiness to see.

And so the two together trod down life's long troubled path,
helping the stumbling of the other, calming thoughtless wrath.

And in the end, when their souls went to God the creator,
these two lovers were remembered for more than knowing lore.

Indeed a man, with book in hand, may find a maiden fair
and have more joy with love in life than in his book-filled lair.

Well, we are nearly upon the eve of Christmas 2006, so I shall return to the blogosphere to give a small reflection for my non-existent readership. (Oh yes, I am aware that this is my fault. I need to establish an aggressive blog promotion plan and update policy for 2007. I suppose there are consultants out there for that somewhere...) Anyway, I think it would be very appropriate to reflect today on the meaning of Christmas and what it means to appropriate the "spirit of Christmas" throughout all of the year, as Chuck Dickens suggests in his classic A Christmas Carol.
We begin with a question of prime importance: "Who is Jesus of Nazareth?" I believe that this question has only two possible answers. You will have to excuse what you may perceive to be irreverence. I do not believe my thoughts on this to be such but instead to be brutally truthful. Without any additional circumlocution, the following are the two possible answers to the question, "Who is Jesus of Nazareth?":
1) A radical Jew who, in addition to being a "nice guy" was a complete lunatic who thought he was God. He preached a good message, but things have been a bit weird for 2000 years because he had this latent schizophrenia.
2) Emmanuel, God-With-Us, the Incarnate Word which undergirds all creation, is its source, and final destination, its Omega Point. He is the Kingdom of God among us.

Christianity chooses the latter and builds itself upon Faith in this choice. Now, we must seriously ask ourselves, in both cases, is there reason to celebrate Christmas, or is such celebration only relegated to the latter case?

I believe that it is possible in both cases to celebrate the birth, but do not think that it would be celebrated if the consensus were for the former case. If you consider all the great moral teachers, national figures, and social liberators in history, none has garnered such support for birthday celebration as Jesus the Christ. I therefore posit with 100% confidence that it is only in light of those who hold on to the latter belief that anyone else can celebrate Christ under presupposition number one. The continued belief is only possible when Christ’s divinity is believed to be reality. Otherwise, humanity will wax and wane, kind of like it does with President's Day, or the ever-so-popular Flag Day. In both those cases, the holiday is barely celebrated because there is a degree of "eh, so what" that goes through everyone's mind. Indeed, poor Lincoln or The Stars and Strips cannot make people accept gifts like Santa sweaters and fruitcakes year after year with a smile (albeit a sometimes forced smile). It takes a holiday that has something to do with Truth, Love, Beauty, and Goodness to make us endure things year after year of our own volition. (Aside: We are forgetting that the 4th of July is about the Truth and are therefore destroying that noble American holiday. Alas and Alack, this is not the place for such reflections. Let us continue without further adieu!)

Now, with this in mind, we realize that the ontological status of Jesus is the primary motivating fact for the continued celebration of His birth. Why is it important that God became man, and therefore, why is His birth upon earth to be celebrated? The answer: The Cross and the Resurrection. Alright, let's step through this one, though, before we start sounding like atonement-only theologians and take all the beauty out of the Cross. (I have a deep-set dislike for those who would portray the cross as the action of a pissed off God who wanted to have someone to "smash" for the sins of the world.)

What is the Cross but self-sacrifice to God for the sake of humanity? Christ goes readily to the Cross, embracing it as his action. He flinches, indeed asks for it to be taken away from him. However, in the end, this fear of the suffering to come is that which truly allows humanity to be submitted to God fully, through all reservations and fears. It is Christ who says, "remove this chalice from me; but not what I will, but what thou wilt" (Mark 14.36). To walk the fearful way of the Cross without losing faith is to unite oneself to God, to trust, and hence -- in union -- to Love, for Love is unity, it is (in the words of Aristotle) "a single soul inhabiting two bodies." Therefore, the Cross is nothing more than the story of Jesus' love for the Father, a love which raises humanity up, recapitulates Creation by means of humanity. The source of Love, God, comes to Creation to lift the vehicle of Love, humanity, to it's true end, union -- not only by means of love but with Love itself. The vehicle is given the gift of becoming that which it carries.

It is this union which allows for the Resurrection. The Cross is meaningless without the Resurrection, for the Resurrection is the affirmation of the power of Love. "He is risen" (cf. Mark 16.6) and "The Father has raised Him" (Cf. Galations 1.1). The two phrases refer to the same ontological and relational truth, namely that it is by means of the reciprocally shared love between the Father and the Son that the Resurrection is possible. Christ's love for the Father allows him to rise and it is the eternal Father's love which sustains and “holds” the Son through even death. Therefore, the Resurrection is nothing more than the historical event which proves that Love is stronger than death, that love overcomes all, even the physical cessation of life. The Cross and the Resurrection are inseparable events, dependent upon and drawing their strength from the power of Love.
Now, have we just hopped aboard Matt's ADD expressway or are we coming to the crux of the matter (no pun intended!)? Let us draw the story together. The very life of Christ is animated by His Cross and Resurrection, for that is self-giving love which ultimately unites humanity to God. Through our loving union with Him, we can become brothers of the Son. (Ultimately, this is why the Eucharist, as understood in Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran circles is of absolute importance, for it is true ontological union. Indeed, the only proof that is needed for the Eucharist is the answer to this question: If God is Love, would he not allow for direct union with that Incarnate Love that sustains humanity even through death? Nonetheless, this is a different subject for another day. We will perhaps treat it in another entry!)
Alright, so the life of Christ draws its commission and driving force from the power of His Love which is fully actualized on the Cross and proven by the Resurrection. Well, that's great and is something that should rightfully be celebrated. However, why is it the birth that must be celebrated and not just the Cross/Resurrection? Well, for this, we must back up 9 months before Christmas to the Annunciation and conception of Christ. We could bicker about the historical significance of the virginal-birth narratives. However, no matter what your tenor, if you believe proposition number two above, then you must believe the following without reserve. The act of God's incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth is not the product of human choice but is instead fully the act of God. Jesus is indeed the only human being to choose His own birth at the "fullness of time" (Cf. Galatians 4.4-7) and does so in order to bring the fullness of Love to humanity.

Therefore, today we celebrate Love which chooses its own genesis, knowing the pain and suffering concomitant with its birth and life. On this Christmas we celebrate the warmness of God's embrace as He chose to walk among us and die to Himself so that our humanity may be divinized. That is the warm-and-fuzzy message of Christmas. However, that is not the commission given to believers on Christmas, for the embrace of God is something not taken easily without Love which requires death to self.

While it may at first seem somewhat depressing, we must see the commission of Christmas not in the manger but in the confluent event of Manger-Cross-Resurrection, the entire life of Jesus. The Nativity teaches us that it is right and proper to be apostles of Love, and that means that each day must be seen as a choice for the genesis of love. Each day is a nativity in so far as we choose to appropriate for our own lives the spirit of the Cross, of chosen self-death to others and, ultimately to the Father through Christ, empowered by the Spirit of Love. Therefore, Christmas is the open invocation to make Love our own, but Love is not an easy affair. It is humble enough to lay in a manger, selfless enough to have no place of rest, zealous enough to wander upon the roads of ancient Palestine, so untiring that it ceaselessly heals the sick and feeds the poor, and submissive to the point of Crucifixion. Love demands all; it requires that no barrier be left, no stone unconverted in our hearts, no possible wound be prevented on account of fear.
Now, this is somewhat of a somber look at the Love which Christmas requires of each of us. My goodness, it is quite daunting to think of this warm holiday which is so cheerful while looking toward the Crucifixion. Indeed, one may want me to stop and leave that for Good Friday, for that seems to be the proper place for thoughts about the Crucifixion. However, such Love as Christmas requires can only end with resurrection and ultimately the Resurrection. Every cross has its resurrection, every pain is answered by the realization that we are held in Love more tightly, that we no longer are our own but are instead united in the very motion of all Creation: singularly united Being which finds its point of coalescence in our Alpha and Omega, Jesus Christ, Love Incarnate, the humble Babe of Bethlehem.

My friend, I thank you for your time and for all you do for the world. May the graces of the Christmas Season set your heart on fire with Love for God, humanity, and all of Creation. God chose to become man so that humanity could be raised to the Godhead through the Love of the Cross. May that Love be yours now and forever, and may we venture together into 2007, united in Love.

God bless you and all of yours. Enjoy your Christmas!
- Matthew Kenneth Minerd
December 24, 2006

Well, it is ironic that I haven't been posting for a long while. I'm certain that the three or four of you out there who read my blog have been weeping bitter tears of anguish, waiting with bated breath for my return to the blogosphere. Now, you are doubtlessly wondering why it is ironic that I haven't been blogging for a while. Well, I have been caught up in a flurry of activity that has taken me from desiring the life of a graduate student to possibly that of a Benedictine monk. However, I have begun to doubt the choice for several reasons, most importantly because I feel that I am rushing the choice in order to avoid having to be in any kind of stasis in my life. I am wretchedly afraid of any uncertain future and the monastic life often seems like a very certain choice to me, even though I try to convince myself otherwise. Such an outlook doesn't strike me as the healthiest one for discerning one's vocational calling. Perhaps I should actually listen in silence for the Lord's call instead of automatically ascribing and acting on feelings. I feel like I didn't let myself think at all about things and “let go” entirely. Although I can over-analyze things, it's always good to leave the analytical portion of the brain on a bit so you don't only use it to justify emotions, which are important but not sole in discerning any choice.
There will not be any long-winded discussions tonight since I just wanted to explain my absence and ask for your prayers. The Christian vocation is one, namely to love and be loved, for Love is that power which is the foundation of creation, its source and its final Omega point. May we all walk together toward that same unification in Love, discerning the means by which we may love the most in the symphony of God's creation in which we are called to be Collaborators in the Truth and Apostles of Love.

My fine friends, I would like to apologize from the bottom of my heart for the lamentable lack of blogging these past few weeks. Because of a variety of concerns, I was brought to a fundamental cross-roads in the execution of the ramblings that I let spill forth from my brain onto this digital surface. My first option was to crank out half-assed, meaningless blog entries every day or two, all the while remaining ignorant of the world around me and despising my body for the betterment of a half-assed blog. Luckily for you, I chose the higher road in this situation and also chose to be arrogant enough to tell you. ;-) In all seriousness, though, I decided that it is more important for me to live life, experience the world a bit more, keep up on the news, and keep reading to enhance the quality of my writing and thought. Additionally, I have had to take on extra responsibilities in the world, as I am going to be teaching fourth grade CCD starting this week and also am bracing myself in hope of an upswing in our business’ order backlog as we begin a new advertising campaign. Additionally, I have been trying to make more time to discuss the matters of the present day (and life in general) with all those amiable people that I know, as such dialogue is a fundamental constituent of any kind of personal growth.

Anyway, I now would like to talk about the Pope’s address in Regensburg on Tuesday, September 12, 2006. I’m going to completely circumvent the ridiculous controversy that broiled over the propaganda-driven reading of the text by those who wanted to incite the ire of the Arab world by distorting the words of the Church’s beloved Holy Father Benedict XVI. Please note that I am going to probably treat some philosophical systems with great brevity, not touching on major themes within said systems. Such omissions are not desirable but are only in the nature of such a reflection.

The shadow of empiricist thought remains deeply ingrained on our minds, thanks in no part to the preliminary foundations set down by Rene Descartes, the man who is, in my opinion, the inadvertent progenitor of modern relativistic thought. Cartesian philosophy begins with a total denial of the material world in order to rationalistically prove from purely certain grounds the existence of the world. This dualistic split of the material from the rational is a complete turn-around from the Aristotelian notion of the world and its ultimate relationship to the intangible, starting the long move of thought to the realm of “pure” knowledge of ideas and (in some systems, in various ways) being.

This split ultimately leads us to the empiricism that is found in David Hume, an ideological system which provides only perceptual knowledge as the standard for human knowing. This type of knowledge relies upon empirically analyzing the world, realizing that absolute certainty is impossible, as it would require a complete investigation of all perceptible phenomena in reality. Cause and effect is greatly reduced in such a system of thought, implying that we are only able to perceive the strings of causality in our experiences by means of experimental (empirical!) knowledge. Hume’s system denies that it is provable that such a relationship exists in reality but is instead imposed upon the external world by the mind as it experiences perceptual reality.

However, let’s turn to the noble Emanuel Kant, who tries to counter Hume’s skepticism about man’s ability to have certain knowledge. For the sake of brevity, we will proceed directly to the question of how the mind perceives cause-and-effect relationships in the Kantian system of philosophy. In this system, the cause-and-effect that we perceive is reflective of the mind’s perceptual categories which exist a priori to the experience of sensation. This means that the human perception of causality is something which is placed upon reality by the mind, not derived from reality. Ultimately, we still remain with our brain locked in a casket, in the same scenario as that which Descartes placed us in and Hume buried us into. While there is some nobility in Kant’s system as a whole, the great detriment is the fact that it ultimately sows the worst seed (as David Hume ironically holds his hand): Relativism.

At this point, you should be seeing the growth of overall intellectual climate of today, one which only gives primacy to empirical knowledge, derived from experimentation. Modern and post-Modern systems have grown in various ways since the days of Kant but are ultimately related to this major stumbling which is ultimately tied to the “Cartesian revolution.” Such a blatant denial of substantialistic (Platonic/Aristotelian) thought is lamentable for the entire body of human knowledge, as it is nothing more than a shrinking of the overall understanding of knowledge, removing its very foundations from under it. Any epistemological system that is built without a substantial base is one which is doomed to be meaningless and provide no true sense of what is right action, for it will have no basis in the world as it is experienced. Classical thought ascribed rationality to the material world, teaching that the substance (that which stands under all accidental qualities) of material objects is the very principle upon which our knowledge is contingent. Substance dictates the rational action of the material world which is united to the Truth which supports all of reality, making it perceivable by the mind because of the mind’s inherent ability to perceive the nature of reality and hence understand and integrate sensory experience.

It is in light of this that the Pope stands in order to proclaim the necessity of an understanding of God that is rational and therefore in continuity with creation by means of that creative rationality, the Johannine summation of YHWH as Logos. The great strength of substantialistic thought is that it affirms the possibility of true knowledge being gained by reflection upon reality, giving humanity a capacity for the Truth. The Holy Father suggests that we should regain this notion of the Truth as an expansion of thought, not as a regression from modernity to the thoughts of antiquity. Without such Platonic forms of thought, it is impossible for dialogue to truly take place, as dialogue is always a conversation about a Word, a Logos, which is held in common between the two parties. If man cannot perceive the Truth in external realities, he is unable to hold anything in common with the rest of humanity and dialogue is impossible. The regaining of the Platonic/Aristotelian idea of Form/Substance is the only way by which true dialogue can occur.

The Pope’s positive message is that religion, when it is truly religion, a re-ligation – a re-binding- of man to the Truth, is essential for any kind of dialogue precisely because of its orientation to the perceived Truth which stands outside of humanity and is perceivable to humanity. Religion will always triumph over mere relativism when it comes to the dialogue of cultures, for pure relativism proclaims that everyone is right, a proposition that ultimately predicates that nobody is wrong. In relativism, truth is internalized into the people/groups who are attempting to dialogue and is not able to be shared because of the claims of each group. Indeed, there is not a dialogue in these cases so much as there is a story-telling session, isolating man from man instead of uniting all of humanity.

This is the positive message of Benedict XVI as he addresses a world that is desperately in need of true dialogue which unites all to the Truth which is manifest in objective reality as experienced by man. The sphere of human consciousness must be expanded once again to include religion, the re-ligation of mankind to the Truth. Christianity plays a special role in this formation by means of reflection and explication of faith in God who is Logos and is not only Logos but is ultimately Agape, love which unites plurality into a unity of individuation. The rationality of Faith builds bridges between humanity is therefore akin to the greatest movements of Love which manifests itself as the ontological union between beings. Benedict rightly proclaims that religion (and Truth-oriented philosophies of the world) must remain as part of Man’s understanding, for Truth and Love are only attainable when man does not destroy himself by reducing reality to mere perceptions that are removed from the Truth and by casting doubt upon the primacy of the self which underlies all thought and ultimately functions as the unifying and unified member of all dialogue.


My friends, if you have made it thus far, I’m touched, as I’m certain that my reflections are riddled with holes which demand much more thought and therefore prevent this rambling from being a unified whole. Perhaps some day I will return to such thoughts in a more systematic way. For now, I must be going. I will break from this and be writing some poetry that I have been thinking of lately. Look for it in the coming days.

Pax Semper,
MKM

I most sadly confess my sin to you, O Blogosphere. I have been extraordinarily busy with a variety of projects and concerns from my business to personal writing, as well as preliminary reading for a theological conference at Villanova University on Laborem Exercens, the transformative essay of sub-creation by Pope John Paul II. Nonetheless, my pen and mind have not been idle, although I am not ready to post anything major in this blog. I will, however, provide you with a glimpse at my poetic side. You will find below a small poem that I wrote. Note the following:
I'm using the pronunciation of nous to be "noose", not "naws".
I actually use meter and rhyme. Perhaps some day I will rant about why I hate poetry that is nothing more than prose with extra white space. Indeed, I think I will rant about that sometime relatively soon because that entire issue is indicative of what I think is a disordering of art that is related to a modernist (and I believe Kantian) view of beauty.

Like any artist, I don't particularly like to do this but hope that someone will like it or at least have a reaction. Note that it is but a brief labor, not a masterpiece.

But for now, without further adieu:
The Light of Creation

Beyond the rim of future hope
A light burst from the land.
The world held in its motion's breath
As in awe it did stand.

All had been rising to the sky
In conscious glory's path.
The whole motion of thoughtful life
Had striven against wrath.

Disorder was not the desire
Of progress in the land.
It was unity of all things
That gave the guiding hand.

Involuting upon itself,
Creation looked anew,
With central head rising above
The dregs of oldest rue.

The growth of thought burst forth anew
From biologic use
A newer sphere took up the quest,
Uniting in the nous.

The head came forth, looking upon
History's perfection.
The movement could thus turn its gaze
To inward reflection.

And yet the head, thus shining forth
Marred its own destiny.
Choosing not to shine for the world
It closed up inwardly.

But Glory could not concede that
The light should be so dark.
For from this mire, the head would find
Its unifying spark.

The Source of brightness from without
Would shine within the head.
Raising above the mire of sin,
The lamp in darkness led.

When time was full, from nous broke forth,
Radiant from above,
The purest Head of splendor bright
To be the path of love.

The banners of this unity
Attest to Holy Light,
One which will show creation full
Within its loving might.

And so that Head which first did see
The glory of the rise
Of creation from simplest form
Did loosen all the ties.

In this new light, the head could lead
United in Love's use,
Bringing the world its fullest hope
From the sphere of the nous.

Good evening, my friends. I have been putting this entry off for quite some time. I do not feel completely qualified to approach this subject yet. I feel that I should investigate the overall state of the question a bit more. However, I would like to begin to put my thoughts into writing, although they are far from being fully developed. This writing is a bit speculative in nature and is therefore not guaranteed the fullest degree of orthodoxy. I hope to some day consider this subject, for, as you will soon see, I feel that it has an important implication for the entirety of the created order.

Without any further adieu, I will attempt to begin this subject. Tonight I want to talk about the relationship between animals and humans and the significance of consciousness in both. I am certain that I’m about to insult two parties. On one hand, I’m going to thoroughly piss off those people who want to make animals and humans coequal in the created order. I’m not going to ever do that. If you want proof of that and haven’t got an open mind, go elsewhere because I don’t particularly want to anger you. The other group will be those people who want to say, “Those damned beasts are worthless. Jesus was a man and not a cnidarian. They are unimportant.”

Alright, having said all of that, let us also consider my method in this set of reflections. Since they are just that, reflections, I will once again appeal to my lack of cited sources. Furthermore, I will admit that I am standing on the shoulders of innumerable giants in this undertaking. I am trying to synthesize a lot that I have thought about without taking full time to research the question. That task, as I have learned multiple times, is too time-consuming for a medium like a blog. Now we embark over the edge….

When we look at the entire motion of creation, it is easy to see a pattern emerging in the process of evolution. This evolution, extended beyond the biological sphere into the sphere of the physical sciences, exhibits a tendency toward complexification and, more importantly (and correlatedly) consciousness. From a single unity, beyond time, the universe is set forth into a variety of cosmological processes which increase the diversity of the entire universe. Since my specific knowledge on astrophysics is limited, I will not outline these in detail but mention them to make my point.

Looking at one of these discretely developing masses, our gaze turns upon our own beloved planet. In even among the simplest elements, there is unity. Inorganic synthesis, crystallization, and, most importantly, organic synthesis all show a movement toward a unity of these parts. It is perhaps ironic that from a unity, diversity sprung only to return to unity. The beauty is, though, that it is now a universalization of diversity, and not a strict monad of matter. It is a unity of individuals, not a sea of interchangeable drops. As the basest organic molecules develop, we see unity growing with complexity.

Now, what is the aim of this complexity? For this, we look at the human person. If you want to deny that humanity is the most complex of being on earth, go ahead. I’m sure that I can find you a mental ward if you so choose to go there afterwards. I don’t doubt that there are many complexities in the world. However, when we look upon the actions, ideas, and the radical potential for love which all exist in humanity, our words must cease as we stand in awe before the behemoth of our own grandeur, a grandeur which we did not create but instead inherited through the very plan of creation.

I ask for an aside, your honor. Please bear with me for but a moment. Must we not acknowledge that in an evolving world everything must exist in a latent form prior to its final conception? Must we not say that the earliest form exists, although most rudimentarily in the past? If such can be acknowledged, then consciousness itself must be a constituent of all of creation, although in some rudimentary form. In this view what is that realm of reflection which is definitive of humanity? It is nothing less than the state at which consciousness gazes upon itself, knowing itself as an object. It is the very point at which consciousness knows that it is conscious. This is the great gap which separates man from those apes which existed before the peduncle from which modern man has developed. Until that point, consciousness was flaring toward its apex, but still didn’t know of itself. The entire development of creation was a march toward the point at which it could gaze upon itself. This is the sphere of man, a sphere which promises so much for the entire universe. (There will be another reflection related to this in a later entry.)

This aside now allows for a further development. If we acknowledge the existence of freedom in persons, we must also acknowledge that it has a role in all of creation. (We won’t go into major proofs of freedom right now. To try to treat this argument in a few sentences or even pages would not do it justice.) Freedom must have rudimentarily existed in the world before mankind. The threshold of reflection radically affects this freedom, opening it up to new possibilities. Nonetheless, it must have existed from the beginning of time, for even time’s beginning must be a freely chosen moment. When the walls of science open up, as matter becomes comprehensible from the mass which preceded the Big Bang, freedom exists already, for freedom sets these events into motion from outside of time. In the lower orders, we see freedom in a much more deterministic light. However, freedom, intrinsically existing, develops as part of the overall movement of creation. From the almost deterministic bonding of atoms, we move to the not-so deterministic actions of cells. This continues throughout the tree of life, growing with the overall complexity of the constituent branches of this arboreal mansion.

Given all of this, we now come to the original question about those animals which lack the characteristic of reflection but still remain within the overall process of complexification and the development toward conscious reflection. It is also at this moment that I have most tenuously grasped outward toward the boundaries of orthodoxy and perhaps may be incorrect in my assumptions on the subject at hand. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to make a synthesis based on all of the aforementioned reflections and a variety of uncited sources.

Since I am striving to work within a Catholic framework of theology, I feel that it is necessary to relate this question to the claims of orthodox eschatology. One of the most peculiar things about Christianity is that its principle teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, functions not as the purveyor of a radically new morality. Much of the teaching of this humble Jewish man can be found in the overall striving of the human mind throughout history in the various branches of theology and philosophy. (I am about to paint with even broader strokes of the proverbial brush here, so please deal most patiently with your humble blogging servant.) The particularly unique elements of Christ’s message are those which direct the reader/listener to consider the dialogue of being between Jesus and God. Christianity serves not as a story of moral precepts but instead as an encounter with a person who is unique insomuch as his very work is united with his being, which is itself united to God the Father. It is by means of unity in the Spirit of Christ that mankind has an opportunity to be united with the Father. In the personhood of Christ, orthodoxy declares that God has penetrated the human race and has indeed moved the evolution of complexification, unity, and hyper-consciousness to its Omega point, its point of capitulation. In my opinion (developed, of course, from research and not my own devices alone), this is what the Christian message is about: The very personhood of Christ functions as the necessary ontological bridge between humanity and Godhead, moving the plane of evolution into the only possible condition for the completion of complexification. Without the “evolutionary” thrust of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, mankind is unable to find unity with God. It is solely by God’s action that man and God find unity, in the mission of Christ. By being held in the very being of God, through the mediation of the personhood of Christ, mankind is able to exist united (and yet individuated) through all of eternity by means of a dialogue of the soul, a dialogue of reflective beings and Reflective Being itself.

There is a reason why I have delved into this heavily Ratzingerian/Chardinian moment of theology and anthropology/cosmogenesis. It brings to us the realization that the only way that being can be sustained eternally is by means of a dialogue of openness. This dialogue is not a mere reduction into pantheism, for this would be incompatible with the overall notion of dialogue. This dialogical character of being demands that we acknowledge the place of the individual person and also sheds light on the nature of reflection. Reflection, that beautiful moment of self-realization, is the only means by which dialogue of being is possible. This is precisely why Christ came as a man and not as a camel or, more ironically, a literal lamb. If all of this is the case, Christ being the radical chance for unity and everlasting life by uniting the world to God, then mankind itself offers the radical possibility of unity to the world by means of its own rationality. By means of mankind, all of creation is able to be united with the Spirit of Christ and hence to the very being of God the creator.

Now, the relationship between man and the rest of creation is quite a bit different, for it moves in a singular direction. The reflective capability of mankind allows the human being to receive the other beings in creation specifically as objects to be held in the mind and united in being to the human person. All aspects of creation are important for that reason, for they reach out to our stewardship, desiring to have us act as that uniting principle, lifting them from materiality to the realm of what Teilhard de Chardin called the “noosphere”, the realm of reflective thought. We are the body of Christ with the person of Christ as its head. It is our mission, as good stewards of creation, to enfold the world within the embrace of our minds, hearts, and souls, so that all that has been given to us by God may be forever united to him by means of humanity’s free capacity to love.

In the end, this is where I stand on the animal kingdom, then, as well as the entirety of the unreflective remnant of creation. The gift of stewardship given to mankind is one that allows for a radical opportunity for ontological unity among all the constituents of the created order. By means of mankind, the animal kingdom is able to be held in man’s reflective capacity and is able to step into the realm of eternity, lifted up beyond the individual to the super-individual. The ultimate recreation of the universe allows the material component of this ontological dialogue to flourish in a new way, united and yet individual, just as risen humanity will be united to God (and, hence and yet individuated most extremely. We shall thus find ourselves part of that great symphony of creation, not as mere spectators, but as the principle players in each instrumental section, directed by the plan of God, singing and sub-creating a reality by means of our unity, a unity which is founded upon the Throne of the Almighty.

Pax,
MKM

Alright, my friends. Because of the goading of Angela, I have returned for real. I am quite aware that my last entry was not really a post so much as it was a pitiful excuse for my lack of presence these past weeks. Mea culpa. Nonetheless, here I am and we're about to go on a thrilling ride that will probably end up boring you to tears. However, perhaps somebody will actually read this and enjoy it..... or at least read it. On we go!

Oh, I love to bring up specters of things which don't really trouble us except in academic circles and a few countries that are heavy-handedly ruling their people. Today's topic is: “The Utopian Wishes of Marxism/Communism in Comparison to the Promises of a Free Market.” I am quite aware that I am not fully qualified to talk about this subject. Nevertheless, I have taken time to think some of this out after much consultation with people who know a bit more than me. Here we go.......

Although there are many insidious factors dormant in Marxism, one of the greatest dangers is the fact that it promises an economically-built utopia of equals. The quip that everyone says about communism is something like, "It's a great idea on paper but just does not work out in reality." For however much you may argue over the triteness of this comment, it is correct to a degree. (Pure Marxism on paper is not great thing. However, we will not get into that here!) Continuing on before I get my attention diverted....

We all know by looking at Communist regimes that they don't particularly work out very well. The problems which they experience range from economic stagnation to complete poverty. Additionally, there is always the concomitant governmental regulation of life that drives a stake through the heart of human liberty. We all know why a system of people striving together as equals doesn't work. This is because, in the words of George Orwell, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." The sins of fallen mankind will forever prevent a united front of pure progress. The Utopia can not be realized by the actions of mankind alone. More on the relationship of this to freedom later.

Now, in contrast to heavily socialized systems, we have people who are in favor of a completely free market. Now, I think that the free market has done wonders for economic prosperity. Indeed, this prosperity allows the United States of America to provide billions of dollars to the world community in order to help the less fortunate around us. The general fear of pure free-market economists is that governmental intervention will stagnate the system which allows for such good to be done. The banner is often waved to say that the free a market is, the more prosperity will follow.

Now, it is at this point that I feel that it is necessary to compare this to the Utopian hopes of communism. It is intriguing how both parties can so easily proclaim that all is possible by mankind's systems in their pure forms. Free markets open us up to the risk of extreme personal greed and subjugation without any checks from powers outside of the market itself. This in itself is utterly lamentable and is wrong. It is an example of how free-markets do not in all ways, at all times insure that the world is perfected. If somebody thinks that a Utopia is possible by means of free-market economics, they are sadly mistaken.

Now, I will retain a defense for the free market that I can not give to communism. The beauty of a free market is that it acknowledges the primacy of the individual owner and worker. All Americans should agree that the person should never be subordinated to the whole in such a way that he is robbed of his individuality. Many communist reformers have reacted to the aggrandizing of capital over labor, that is to the subordination of humans to the capital gained from production. The reformers often argue that this subordination is an intrinsic property of free markets. Perhaps I am going out on a limb here but I think I can argue that the protesters are wrong to say that this. I feel that it is the keynote of the greatest fall possible in a free market. A free market proclaims that the individual should be able to make choices about how he should use his sub-creational abilities, given by God and not the government.

The irony in all of this is that the very hole in the armor of free markets leads directly to the heart. The great risk of freedom is that it can be exploited against the freedom of others. The very risk of a free market is that it can act against its own ideals by this greatest risk. Freedom is sullied by the Fall. The greatest things can also be misused in the worst ways. This doesn't make them bad but perilously beautiful.

Now, along these lines, I must say, therefore, that completely unbridled free markets can not and should not be pursued. I think that freedom should be allowed as much as possible. Indeed, governmental action should try to promote the good use of the freedom instead of trying to eliminate it. Nevertheless, if individuals become as decadent as to deprive others of freedom, the government has the right to sanction the violators in order to restore a balance of freedom.

The utopian desires of economists are impossible but good. I think it is somewhat ironic that a free market should be so fully contrasted to communism, even by me in this rant. A free market should ultimately lead at least to equality: equal enjoyment of life. Why they are contrasted is because a fully government-controlled system can not allow for that, for the human person desires to use his will to make choices with respect to his sub-creational abilities. If freedom can not be permitted, enjoyment will not follow but thralldom will instead. Communism aims for equality but takes the wrong road on its way to get there.

I know, I know, I have rambled a lot. If this were a true scholarly essay, I would have sources and would have been so very organized. Well, I want to put these blog entries out here with some degree of frequency. Therefore, they're more rambled thoughts without citations. Nonetheless, what you should take away from this is the following:

By permitting human freedom, the free market allows for the most excellent opportunity for proper stewardship. The lack of this freedom as found in Marxism/Communism is a thralldom that deprives the individual of the ability to make the important choices of sub-creational beings. However, free markets must realize that they are not fully eschatologically oriented and must therefore not believe that humans alone can make a Utopia by means of economic systems. This ironically relates free markets to Communist markets, for Marxism purports that humanity can reach perfection by means of economic systems. The sinfulness of man will always remain to destroy any such Utopian hopes.

It is by union with God that mankind can find fulfillment. True eschatology must always look for a completely true human unity in the face of Goodness. This is the strength of Christian eschatology. We look for union with God, made possible by the union of God and man in Christ. Humanity can not be united in and of itself but only by being united with Another, with the One.

Pax,
MKM

Alright...... You can (sometimes) not try to highlight all of the text in Blogger's wonderful UI for editing messages. Any attempts that I have made to do such today have disastrously ended in me losing my entire entry. I will have to figure out the exact problem but don't care right now.

I had a nice long entry about me being away, etc. Well I'm not going to do that now. I was/am busy and was away for a week of vacation with my family. I am catching up on some Amazon.com book reviews for a bunch of books that I have read as of late. Once I am done with those, I will return to here. I have bunches of subjects about which to talk. I will return this week in a blaze of something.... ;)

Pax,
MKM