FAITH R US

Does your parish remind you more of a gym or a hardware store?

 

I’m not talking about the architecture.  That’s another post.

 

How do you see the way your parish functions in your life?  Is it more like a gym, a place where you go to accomplish something and then leave and return to other activities?  Or is it more like a hardware store where you go to be equipped to do those activities that one who visits such a store might do?

 

If it is the first, then your parish is a service to you.  Like the drycleaners or the mechanic’s, you go to have a service performed.  If it is like the second, it is more like the travel agency or the recruiting office, where you go to be sent on to do something. 

 

If it is the first, you understand the relationship that is required of us as Christians with each other.  We are community.  God draws us into unity.  And so we come together to pray.

 

If it is the second, you also understand that there is involved here a relationship with God; a very intimate and involved one.  It is not like showing up at Grandma’s house in time for Sunday dinner and then leaving after dessert not to think of the lady again until your stomach growls the following Sunday.  Hopefully you think of her during the week, call, stop by, send a text.  You might perform some task for her such as mow her lawn or help figure out her taxes.  And as family there are many intangibles of hers that you carry on without even realizing it: you carry the family name, you have certain turns of phrases and bit of advice that you give from being steeped in the family, you may be inspired to do things that others don’t simply because grandma always said a good person did such things, and you prayed for her good at night.

 

Because that is what a (functional) family does.  And there (as Fr. K pointed out) is where the first question because a false one.  Your parish should remind you of neither business institution.  At its best it should remind you of family.  (How do you get a couple of thousand people to be family – center on Christ because people [I] can’t do it.)  And family is not something you do at a particular time, it is who you are and how you live.

IS THIS TITLE TRUE OR MERELY CLEVER?

I lost the reference for the following paragraph by it was from a magazine called, “The Sun” from an edition from this past year.  The author is going to make a statement.  After you read it, stop and think about it.  Do you agree with it or not and most importantly WHY? 

 

“The self is always moving.  It isn’t going to continue existing after you die.  The minute you buy into the idea that some part of you will hang around, you’ve removed yourself from this world of trees and clouds and birds.  And if you’re not in this flowing world of change, then you’re nowhere.”

 

Now stop, pray, and think.  Is this true?  If it is true or not true, why? 

 

Now that you have done that, here is one possible response:

 

The man who made this statement is a man of deep faith.  He bases his theory upon ideas that are no more “provable” than that of the Christian – I would argue even less so.  That nothing of us lives on is an assumed principle upon which the rest of his theory rests.  But even if we grant him this, does the rest of his hypothesis hold true?

 

If that to which he is referring is the Christian theology that is held by much of the Protestant world and that of some other religions that creation is bad and spirit is good, then he may have something.  Those who call the body evil (or at least opposed to that which is good) have to deny the body and focus on the spirit exclusively.  Mud is bad, angels are good.  Therefor the world is something to be used and discarded.  Its sole purpose is to steer us toward the spiritual.  Then it is true that we not ever really here and a part of creation.

 

But is the opposite true?  If nothing of us lives on does that ipso facto make us more here among the birds and the clouds?  If this is the case then there are no consequences for how we treat the nature other what than might recoil back on ourselves as the line goes, “Don’t pee in your own well.”  But when I die, I cease to exist.  Eventually there will be no one to remember me.  The Earth is a fluke that will one day also simply cease to be.  Humans will not even be a memory.  You might want to keep things nice “for the next guy” but in the end that would just because you want to not because there is any truth to the idea of “the good.”  Preservation is just as much a selfish act as abuse.  So why not suck as much life out of this earth as possible?  Throw another log on the fire, drink out of Styrofoam cup, and rev up the gas generator so that you can listen to some tunes on your radio.  If you are abusing anything, you are not really present to it either.

 

But what if, as in Catholic theology, everything that is is good.  God created all from nothing and he holds it in being.  Then everything to some extent participates in God.  The computer screen on which you are reading this is good.  The paper, ink, persons depicted, and form of a porn magazine are good.  What man did with those things is bad.  (Hence the true perversion of sin!)  If the world is good, if there will be an accounting of how we handled the world (as there was with Adam and the garden,) then won’t we appreciate more, be better to, be more aware of, and be more present to the trees, the clouds, and the birds?

 

I had a skateboard once that I used on the parking lot across the street from my house.  I would skate down the hill and then kick the board back up.  My Mom stopped me one day to explain how expensive that toy was and how I was expected to take better care of it.  Knowing that my actions would be seen, and being taught about the value of my board, I was much more present to it.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY

Here’s a new 7 week series for Friday Potpourri:  The precepts of the Church.

 

Fr. Kovacina had an excellent series at Faith Lodge concerning the rights of the faithful under canon law.  And as Catholics are (hopefully) painfully aware, all rights come with responsibilities.  The precepts of the Church outline those responsibilities as laid out in the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore.

 

THE FIRST:  Keep Holy the Day of the Lord’s Resurrection

 

Thought by many to be a quaint custom that has perhaps passed in the modern era is, in fact, listed first among the precepts of the Church.  It is, after all, a commandment and cannot (despite people doing so with Biblical strictures all of the time) be ignored.

 

There are, however, two extremes that must be avoided.  The first, most obviously, is to ignore this commandment all together making Sunday just or almost like any other day.  The other is to make TOO much of it so that what was to bring man relief becomes a heavy burden.  This is what caused Christ to teach, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

 

The day is to be, as far as possible, a day of sanctification, rest, and recreation.  First and foremost this means get to Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.  There is nothing more important we do as the Body of Christ than to come together and pray in this way.  This is the family coming together.  If you don’t make it, it is like a husband not bothering to call his wife and family to let them know he won’t be there for dinner.  Even though the dinner is there primarily for you, there are certain obligations. 

 

The second is to do one’s best to avoid any activity that would hinder the renewal of soul AND body.  There are all kinds of things here and ways of understanding this.  Some people would say that no work at all should be done and one should wile away the day mindlessly.  I would argue that it would give greater glory to God to have a family wash the car together on a hot, sticky, summer day than have everyone vedge in front of the television watching some awful reality show.  What is to be avoided is needless paid work and non-life giving chores (enjoy working in the garden?  Then it isn’t really a chore is it unless it keeps you from worshipping God.) Unnecessary shopping is to be avoided.  (Coming home from vacation and are almost out of gas and may not make it home?  Go buy some!)

 

Some people must work on Sunday: Priests for one.   Sometimes it is my busiest day of the week.  Police, Fire fighters, ambulance drivers, phone operators, snow plowers, medical personnel, even those whose jobs are not vital but their business force them to work are not breaking this commandment.  BUT, they should do their best to observe the day as much as possible, and on their day off, observe a day of a kin to a Sabbath as they can.  If work makes it impossible for them to attend Sunday Mass, they may speak with their proper pastor and seek permission to make up for it on a weekday Mass if possible due to hardship.

 

I think a lot of people who are conscious and try their best to follow this first responsibility as difficult as it can be for some.

ATHEISTS MAKE BETTER THEISTS THAN YOU THINK

The opposite of faith is not atheism just as the opposite of love is not hate.

 

Take this example of hate as opposed to love; In this awful scene, the character played by Glen Close is spilling vile hatred on her father.  (It is disturbing.  If you don’t want to watch it simply know this – she went to see him on his death bed to tell him she hates him and will never forgive him.)

 

Even though she obviously hates him she is still in relationship with him.  It is a sick relationship, but she is still connected to this man she despises.  She feels a need to communicate.  What happened in the past matters to her.  What he thinks and feels matters to her.  And when she leaves the room he still has control over (will still have control over her after he dies!)  It may be a sick relationship, but it is a relationship.  And though we would hardly call any aspect of this love, it is not the opposite of it yet.

 

The true opposite of love is indifference.  With indifference there is no relationship, there is no caring how the other person feels or thinks.  There is no control over the other person (positive or negative) because there is no type of connection at all.  It is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. 

 

In like manner, atheism is not the opposite of faith.  (There are many types of atheism so this is speaking rather broadly.)  There are atheists that spend their energy fighting notions of God, which puts them in relationship with Him unwittingly.  There are atheists who build their moral construct on viewing the world by observing it and seeing how it seems to operate at its best, which brings us to Natural Law, which ipso facto brings order and intelligence to the universe which brings us to God.  There are atheists who rely solely on science, which often leads him to faith.  Let us suppose that he relies on the theory of the Big Bang as the birth of the universe (put forth by a Catholic priest by the way.)  It still explains nothing.  What caused the big bang?  Why should there be energy as opposed to not?  Why should there be matter as opposed to not?  In the end (or in the beginning) the whole thing is established on faith of things that are completely un-provable.

 

The relationship with (or to) God may not be a healthy one (from a Christian perspective) and the faith in SOMETHING that gives order or was a first cause may be materialistic in nature but it is still faith. 

 

The true opposite of faith is thinking that the world and all that it is in it is a complete fluke of nature.  Life has no meaning.  The existence of the cosmos has no meaning.  This whole conversation would ultimately have no point.  Truth is non-existent.  There is nothing cognitive outside of ourselves (and even that may be an illusion) and when humanity passes away it won’t matter.  The universe will continue to go on and there will be nothing to mourn the passing of man or all of his works and thoughts.  It wouldn’t mean any more if we had just been rocks.  So eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.

 

But let one tiny ray of order, meaning, or the holding of something that cannot be proven, then there is a relationship with something that most people call God no matter how flimsy.  Catholics may not think it a healthy relationship.  But it is one.  And therefore not the opposite of faith.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: DON'T MESS WITH MY LITTLE SISTERS

Today I was poised (poised I tell you) to write a scathing article about reporters and editorialists who never took (or have completely forgotten or ignore) a theology class, a philosophy class, or an ethics class that dealt with the Catholic faith (which is a significant part of the population – more than half of all Christians are Catholic after all so this is no small matter) and then imagine they can think over an issue in the shower and come up with a sensible solution with which the Catholic Church, if it were in its right mind, should agree.  The problem being is that their level of competence is rarely up to the task.  This is not to say that they may not be extremely knowledgeable people in other fields, but sometimes I despair that it is obvious that a reporter has failed to even ask what an orthodox, faithful, and knowledgeable Catholic might have to say on a topic.

 

But then, Kevin O’Brien wrote an editorial in today’s Plain Dealer, E3 (January 8, 2014) concerning the health care mandate and the Little Sisters of the Poor entitled “Even the Little Sisters of the Poor are subject to Big Brother’s bullying.”  (On a side note, I am not sure why capitalization for titles is no longer in use in newspapers, but perhaps the rules have changed.)  I will grant that the article is a tinsy wincy bit acidic, but of course I like it because I agree with him.  But he nailed the issues that so many other news sources have not grasped, cared about, or have ignored for other motivations.  Read the article here.

 

It’s sad to see how much money the government is wasting defending desire to provide every man, woman, and child with contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilizations.  It is interesting to note that many of these very things have been offered for free from clinics for decades and others at very minimal cost.  Considering the vast amount of extremely expensive exemptions that have already been granted (government, you don’t have to participate – unions, you don’t have to participate) why is there such an effort to have the Catholic Church submit to this comparatively inexpensive item?  We are not opting out like the government itself is doing or unions, we just want this one exception.  (Not that I am recommending it, but it would be interesting to see how many decades the government could have supplied these services for free through clinics with the money they would have saved by just granting the exemption instead of having these expensive court battles that seem will continue well into the future.)

 

Of course, maybe it isn’t really about contraception or (an already very un-) level playing field.  Could it be that Catholics are not as worthy citizens as those who work for unions or in the government?  Is there another agenda at work here?  (Okay, maybe I am becoming jaded.)  But this seemingly little crack in religious freedom could be a hole in the damn.  Unless the Little Sisters stick their thumb in the hole, what will happen when another issue comes up effecting another matter or another faith and we look at precedent and decide, “Well, it was constitutional, for government interests, to force the Catholic Church to act against its core beliefs, therefore we may turn on you next.”

 

In this light, this is no small matter.

THE MONTH OF RESTING IN PEACE

What is the most basic difference between a Catholic funeral and most of the Protestant world’s funerals?  You might point to having the body taken to church (which to some people just seems odd at best) or any other number of things.  But these are mostly symptoms of what is different, not what, at heart, is dissimilar.

 

It is most evident during this month when Catholics celebrate All Souls Day and place a special emphasis on praying for the poor souls; those in Purgatory awaiting their entrance into heaven, all month long.

 

For most of the Protestant world (and it is the same for atheists,) we have no real connection (prayer wise) with those who have died.  For Protestants this is true because at death you have gone to your reward (one way or the other) and are no longer in need of prayer even if it were possible.  For the Atheist this is true because after death there is simply nothing.

 

For Catholics, there is a more unified understanding of what it is to be the Body of Christ.  There is only one Body of Christ.  Christ is its head.  That singular body cannot be divided up even by death.  Somehow we are still mysteriously united and our prayers may still benefit each other.  There is also the idea of being purified prior to entering before the face of God, which requires being purged of one’s sins.  Whatever this is, we call Purgatory.  The Protestant world does not have a teaching about this.  So for them, even if prayer could flow back and forth, it is unnecessary because once you are in heaven for what do you need prayer?  You’ve made it to the top.

 

So basically, (painting with a very broad paintbrush) at a non-Catholic funeral the idea is to encourage each other (either with the Word of God and/or the support of the community etc.,) and to remember the one who passed away.  There is an additional element understood among Catholics for over two thousand years: that we can also pray from the deceased.  We ask God that they be sped to heaven (which is the tragedy when someone says, “I’m sure they are already in heaven.  You may be denying them some prayers they could use!)  And if we can pray for them, we may also ask them to pray for us, that we remain close to Christ, follow in His ways, and be better prepared for entrance into heaven when we leave this life. 

 

So get on it Catholic!  Remember to pray for you deceased loved ones and for the poor souls this month inparticular.  And hopefully in doing so, we will lead by example and others will pray for us when we need it!

EVERYONE "BELEIVES" IN SOMETHING

I was set to write something completely different and then someone sent me a link to a website that had this statement on it:

 

“Proud, vocal, unapologetic atheist, freethinker and secular humanist. Science teacher. President of northeast Ohio branch of Center for Inquiry. Member of Freedom From Religion Foundation, Cleveland Freethinkers and Cleveland Skeptics.”

 

He is calling for like minded people to get together and talk.  The sessions would be pretty open to, “Anything that is intellectually stimulating and interesting.”  Would that Christians would be so bold. 

 

As a side note, I do find it interesting how similar what they want to do is to Church.  They want community and a gathering.  They will have a set of beliefs with its own set of presuppositions that are as utterly improvable as the faiths they disdain.  There will also be dogma.  Consider the acceptable areas of inquiry being, “intellectually stimulating and interesting.”  Who gets to decide this?  The president?  (a pope – every Church has its version of a pope) or a committee (a curia)?  I am pretty sure that things that I find stimulating and interesting would probably off limits.  But I could be wrong on that.

 

But what are the main differences between this gathering and Church?  Well, yes, of course whether there is a God (or gods) or not.  Though both are seeking community, both are seeking truth, but one is seeking the “how” of the universe, and the other is seeking the “Who.”  One hopes to understand causality (this happened because this happened because this happened), the other on relationship between persons of this world and the Persons of another place.

 

Abraham Joshua Heschel writes about this in his book, “A Philosophy of Judaism” (h/t Adam).  He is describing what each of these groups are looking for when they look at something such as the book of Genesis:

 

“There is, for example, a basic difference in meaning, intention, and them between a scientific theory of the origin of the universe and what the first chapters of the Book of Genesis are trying to convey.  The Book of Genesis does not intend to explain anything; the mystery of the world’s coming into being is in no way made more intelligible by a statement such as, ‘At the beginning God created heaven and earth.’  The Bible and science do not deal with the same problem.  Scientific theory inquires: What is the cause of the universe?  It thinks in the category of causality, and causality conceives of the relationship between a cause and effect. . .  The Bible, on the other hand, conceives of the relationship of the Creator and the universe as a relationship between two essentially different and incomparable entities, and regards creation itself as an event rather than as a process.  Creation, then, is an idea that transcends causality; it tell us how it comes that there is causality at all.  Rather than explaining the world in categories borrowed from nature, it alludes to what made nature possible, namely, an act of the freedom of God.”

 

(There’s a lot there.  Spend some time with that if you have the time.)

 

It takes just as much faith to say that creation just always was than to say that it was created.  But to say that there is an infinite Creator (or at least a Creator Who is outside of time) begins to give an answer.  It also allows for a bigger universe both in terms of the size of existence and the realm of knowing for belief (at least Catholicism) allows for (and developed much of) scientific “belief,” but the discussion group proposed at the beginning of this post does not allow for the opposite.  (I can talk to him, but he cannot countenance me.)  And that creates an incredibly limited universe. 

 

It is also sad.  For taken to its logical conclusion, the type of belief system proposed by the gentleman above leads to the belief that human beings are utterly pointless.  The group, in turn, becomes pointless.  Even the pursuit of knowledge is a chase after the wind.  We are an accident of the universe.  We only exist for ourselves, and when we are dead we cease to exist, when we are extinct there will be no one even to know it, or care, or remember . . . we are entirely without purpose or meaning.  And this leads to a horrible form of morality.  A culture of death.  It becomes about what is best for me because that is all that really matters.

 

And that, to me, sounds neither honest, hopeful, complete, intellectually stimulating, or interesting.

CHANGING FOUNDATIONS - CULTURES CULTIVATE

Continuing yesterday’s thoughts . . .

 

Let us just take one example from a current lively topic:  Marriage.  On the one hand we have a people with a certain set of foundational beliefs that go along with what has been the definition of marriage for the centuries and another with foundational beliefs that say marriage should be changed.  The first group claims that if changed, it will harm society.  The second group asks (rightly) the question, “So, same sex marriage was legalized in any number of places – did we see riots?  Did people start ransacking businesses?  Did schools go down the drain?  Did families disintegrate?  Did a nuclear bomb go off?

 

Well, of course not.  If same sex marriage were legalized in Ohio today, tomorrow Ohio would look much the same.  My cable would still work, Swenson’s would still sell hamburgers, and there would still be water in the tap when I turned it on.  But, like though the surface may look the same, underneath the foundations would be different and eventually those differences will start manifesting themselves.

 

Here is the subtle difference:  There is a reason (at least in the Catholic Church) there is no such thing as a “private” wedding.  There is a reason we publish bands, ring bells before and after the ceremony, and have it in the Church: because a marriage does not belong to the man and woman who are being married, it belongs to the whole community.  We all have a stake.  (Hence the worry that many priests have when a bride is too focused on having her perfect day.)  The ministry of love is to all these two who have become one flesh come in contact.  The purpose of marriage is to bring children into the world and raise them well within the community.  Beyond that, it is for the joy of the couple so that they may reach out. 

 

The new laws of marriage do not focus on community or for the interest of the next generation necesarily but the rights and joy of the couple.  It is not a marriage that the community necessarily has a stake in.  It can benefit in the way it benefits from any friendship or (chaste) love between any two (or more) people, but it is not the same as the fruitful, marital union of man and woman. Over time this foundational assumption will start to have an effect on every aspect of our lives.  Marriage and family, after all, are the building blocks of society and to change them is to change all of society.

 

True, there are horrible examples of marriage that at least have the façade of a true, traditional marriage, and there are shining examples of a more modern definition of marriage that seem to be life giving.  But the first is not a good marriage and the second would have the same effect on the community if the marriage were not recognized in this particular way.

 

There will be side issues thrown into the discussion also – infertile couples, legal protection for people, Christians proper relationships to their brothers and sisters with SSA, . . .  and these should be addressed.  But neither these nor the host of other issues that crop up have anything to do with the foundational belief system that undergirds them all.  What is marriage for?  It is an important issue too glibly decided and set aside without understanding the foundations that one is laying for society which will have an effect on every aspect of our lives.

RANT - COUNTER RANT: BE IT EVER SO DIVIDED, THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME

It’s been a long time since we had a rant/counter rant.

 

It’s about time.

 

Last week in the Plain Dealer there was a front page story, above the fold, about the Community of Saint Peter, the priest with about 300 parishioners who decided to break away from the authority of the bishop and establish what has become, in essence, a new Church and thusly avoiding the closure of their parish as so many others experienced during the recent downsizing in this diocese.  The current article was about their music minister, a nun, who was “pressed to quit breakaway church.”  Apparently a nun, in good standing with her order, the Sisters of Notre Dame, has been worshipping and ministering in this community since before they established their own Church and continued to do so until very recently.  The superior of the order is quoted as saying, “It’s a very sad situation and very complicated.”

 

Sad?  Yes.  Complicated?  Not so much when one doesn’t weigh all factors equally but places first things first. 

 

The man in charge of the congregation made the statement that it is a horrible loss for them, which no doubt it is, and that the persons responsible for inflicting such pain should be ashamed.

 

I agree.

 

But the Church did not leave Sister Susan nor the congregation, they left the Church (granted, under very difficult circumstances.  But no other congregations left en mass.)  Sister Susan did not have to stop worshipping with them.  She could have freely chosen to stay.  But you can’t live in two houses at once.  The bishop did not “cause” the split, their pastor did. 

True, there are nuns and clergy who work with non-Catholic institutions even for worship services.  What is so different about this situation?  This community does not exist alongside but in opposition.  Must they cease to exists?  Who can stop them?  But a choice was made and one must either be a part of it or not. 

 

Many will see the situation differently.  But the point is to see it from the point of view of the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church is very much a family.  Christ is the bridegroom, we are the bride.  In this particular instance the bride (or part of the family) has decided to keep enjoying all the perks of living in the bridegroom’s house, but wants to spend weekends with someone else.  We don’t – we can’t work that way. 

 

Now here’s the great question to which we are not privy (and it is only remotely our business at all and only since those involved decided to go public:)  Does Sister go to Mass in addition to worshipping with this community?  Okay, maybe there is some complication there. . .

 

In Carsten Jensen’s book, “We the Drowned,” one of the characters (who is agnostic at best) said, “But a church is like a ship.  Certain rules apply and once you come aboard, you have to adhere to them.  And if you can’t, you should stay away.”

PROGRESSIVE PROGRESSIVISM

There is a local church that has one of the few marquees to which I pay attention.  There is always something there that makes me stop and think, usually because it is a challenge to my belief though we share the same moniker of Christian.  The church considers itself progressive and innovative and advertises such quips as, “Planned Parenthood helps men too!”  This is, of course absolutely true.  As long as the man has not had the life snuffed out of him in his mother’s womb by Planned Parenthood, it will then help him later in his life, if appropriate funding can be found, even to helping him snuff out the life of his own son.

 

And so we have the march of progress.  In fact, that is one of their latest tag lines on their marquee: “Progressive churches make things happen.”  This little dandy caught my attention and occupied quite a bit of my contemplation time.  “What exactly is that supposed to mean?”  Like so many things we are presented with, it seems like it means something but if you take the time to think about it, it really doesn’t.

Consider firstly the word “progressive.”  What does it mean to be a church “of progress?”  After all, progress in science may allows us to have vacations on the moon, but we may not live to see it if our cancer progresses.  For progress to mean anything positive, there must be a goal to progress to.  For far too many people, progress simply means stumbling forward; doing something because we can, not because we are supposed to.  Not all moving forward is progress.  Cities, societies, even people move forward toward decay.  If you do not know who you want to be when you grow up, you might get older, but you won’t progress to anything positive.

 

In order for a Christian church to be progressive, there must be an ultimate goal and that goal must outline what is best both for the human person and for humanity in general physically, mentally, and spiritually.  It must be based on truth and being so, all true progress will move toward that truth.  Progress, then, is not a process of allowing humanity to go to seed as it wishes but to lift it up to an ideal; rather than broadening the path, it teaches men to walk the narrow road.

 

In this, then, I would argue there is not a Church as progressive as the Catholic Church in (when it is properly understood.)  It has an ideal to achieve and to which man is called; it calls each individual and collective communities to the highest standards of health, knowledge, and holiness.  When it moves men in this direction, it is truly progressive.

 

“Makes things happen,” the second part of the tag line, is a particularly value free statement.  A squirrel running past a dog in a china shop makes things happen.  That being said, if I had to guess at what the sign intended to convey I would supposed it implies that if you do not like the current state of affairs or the current idea of what progress is, then one should join them to make change happen.  (A whole other topic.)  As a whole, I like “things to happen.”  It is far superior to things not happening at all.  But there are things I would rather happen and other things I would rather not.  But in any event, if I am going to be part of a church that “makes things happen,” I hope it is truly a Church of progress and not simply a Church blindly moving forward.

THE JOY OF THE ETERNAL REMEMBERER

This too shall pass.

Though used by medieval Persian poets before her, in Jewish folklore, and Abraham Lincoln before her, this is one of the pearls of wisdom my mother instilled in me.  Although the same holds true for good times, she usually drug out this handy phase when things were not going so well.  Feeling down in the dumps about a girl?  This too shall pass.  Experiencing troubles?  This too shall pass.  Acne?  This too shall pass.

 

The fact is, we exist in this world for a flash of time as absurdly as a May Fly that lives for a day and dies.  Our trials will pass; our joys will pass; and ultimately we will pass.  Are you depressed about this?  That, too, shall pass one way or the other.

 

But right there is the joy of being a Christian.  It doesn’t matter.  We weren’t made for this world.  And when things are going well we have someone to thank and be joyful with.  When things are bad, we have someone to cry out to for help (or be angry at.)  When we need hope we have someone to Whom to look, when we are a lone we have someone to call upon, when things seem to be meaningless, we have Him to look to give even the most mundane aspects of our lives incredible and significant meaning.

 

If there is no God, I can only thank fate or luck, which is to say, there is consciousness to thank.  (Even if there is a person to thank, what luck they were there.)  When things are bad, there is nobody to blame but myself and no help to cry out to.  There is a gamble that things might get better, but there is no hope beyond luck, gumption, and surviving.  When life seems meaningless, it is because it is; we live, we die, and so will, ultimately, the world with nobody to remember it.  The only good in life is the pursuit of happiness which when pursued directly is not ultimately satisfactory.  (This is why you cannot joke with an atheist about death on his death bed.  There is nothing hopeful about it.)

 

I look at this gravestone from a local grave yard.  It is very interesting from a historical point of view.  The deceased did a lot of good and accomplished some amazing things.  If there is no God, I find this gravestone exceedingly sad.  Considering how old the universe is, in a flash this stone will disintegrate and not even the casual passerby with a camera walking his dog in the cemetery will ever even know he existed.  The only joy the man it describes experienced was the feeling of doing good with the thought that in the future someone might be happy because of his works.  He’s not even sure anybody will remember him.

 

But if there is a God, what incredible significance the information on the stone is!  Our efforts are not gas in the wind, but everlasting monuments even if this stone is not.  That our joy will echo in eternity.  That there is a consciousness, a Person, with Whom and in Whom we will know and celebrate after our time here is over and that these actions may lead others to share in this joy for which we were made.  Therefore picking up a used gum wrapper in the park is not a good deed that may or may not be noticed by anybody, but may stretch through eternity if it is done in love.

 

There are those that point to God as a crutch and a fantasy to get through the rough points of life.  I believe evidence points otherwise.  But even if it turns out to be false, having dealt with the dying who believe and of those who don’t, I would rather believe and be wrong than not believe and be right – to die in some amount of hope and joy rather than the heavy burden of passing into non-existence and meaninglessness. 

RANT - COUNTER RANT: CATHOLICS BE QUIET

Last week a letter to the editor in the Akron Beacon Journal appeared that said (and I quote loosely) that the Catholic Church should stop telling people how to vote for it is not good for public discourse.  There are so many things wrong with the sentence I don’t even know where to begin. 

 

Here are just some of the things wrong with that sentence.  First, who is the Catholic Church?  Well, everyone who is Catholic.  Although it may feel otherwise at times, the “Church” is not clergy or the Vatican or nuns in a convent.  It includes them, but it is not them only.  The reason it may feel otherwise at times is because the “Church” is also a belief, Tradition, a set of philosophies, and a way of living.  When we forget that, leaders of this community (or servants of this community depending on how one sees it) call its adherers to remember basic tenants of their way of life.  If we stand for “A” and a candidate running for office stands for “B” at the destruction of “A”, it is incumbent on those who hold “A” to say, “Hey!  When you go to the polls, don’t forget ‘A’!”  To not do so would not only be irresponsible and negligent, it may lead to great harm for the people who live “A”.

 

And why is the Catholic Church so often singled out?  What if Union Workers thought a candidate was going to be good to the union?  There would be signs everywhere saying, “This candidate is endorsed by the Union!”  Why is it good for them to have said that and not a religious body?

 

Further, the Catholic Church does NOT tell people for whom to vote.  That would be a violation of our tax standing.  But it does weigh in heavily on issues, which one candidate or the other may hold or not hold.  How on earth can one avoid that?  But even so, there is the odd perception out there that there is some neutral way of living  - some mysterious base that is best for all people.  This is false.  There is no neutral way of being.  Every way of living, even those that try to purge religion from them entirely, comes with basic assumptions, philosophies, rules, and boundaries.  Catholic!  Do not be bullied into thinking you are forcing your way of living on others otherwise you are being acted upon in exactly the same way that your accusers are laying in you.  Your position, your way of seeing life, your vision for America is just as valid as any.

 

And as for not being good for public discourse: Since when is it better in the United States to silence a voice in order for there to be better discourse?  If someone were serious about public discourse they would eagerly invite a Catholic point of view into the conversation (and not a disgruntled Catholic who all too eagerly dumps Catholic teaching as being too Catholic.) 

 

To what other group is it possible to say they should stay out of public discourse on life in the United States?  What if the letter had said that a Jewish League should remain quiet at all times or that GLBT Community should not have an agenda nor tell people how to vote on issues?  What would be the point of them even existing?  There would be riots.

 

It is true that we may be the big kid on the block and we can’t wield our beliefs like a bludgeon, but neither are we to apologize for being the big kid or be pushed off the block on which we live we live too.