So much for that idea!
At the end of the interview, he states his critics are "usually of the religious right."
It is really nice to know that Christopher West has now adopted the language of Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and a host of other organizations that are enclaves of Catholic thought.
This is what Christopher West has learned in his "sabbatical", which apparently wasn't a sabbatical at all. If one is "taking a break" and fails to learn even the fundamental rules of charity, then one needs to take a longer break.
Does he mean "religious right" as in traditionalists? Not sure if he's noticed, but this isn't 20 years ago anymore. Not only are traditionalists no longer marginalized, but we are on the rise. Good luck trying to tar us this time.
With every moment passing, he further discredits himself. Maybe he forgets that John Paul II was one of the most prominent members of "the religious right" for decades. Is it the assertion of Mr. West that his critics aren't a bunch of ignorant rubes who are really just a bunch of nutjobs? As I said before, good luck. You'll need it.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Moving Back the Goalposts
I must say that I am a bit vexed lately in the debate surrounding Dawn Eden’s masters' thesis. The work itself is over 80 pages and contains a rather thorough critique of the interpretation Christopher West gives to John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. We’ve seen a few months go by, and there has not been much of a response.
While there certainly has been a lot of energy, it has mainly been sound and fury signifying nothing. The most popular charge has been that of jealousy or a personal vendetta against Christopher West. There is no place for this in a serious discussion, so it shall be dismissed without evidence. Sister Marianne Lorraine Trouve has written a seemingly imposing critique of Miss Eden in which she thinks a far too simplistic reading is given towards the work of Mr. West. When you actually dive into the work of Sr. Lorraine, you don’t find much directly challenging Eden’s thesis. She attempts to find fault with the “themes” used, but for the most part leaves out the actual evidence to justify those themes that comes later in the thesis. She was upfront about this, citing time constraints as the reason she did not give a full treatment. The question naturally arises from those like myself: When criticizing those for not giving sufficient time to an issue, shouldn’t you give sufficient time in responding to them?
At least there was an attempt to interact with the evidence. One Christina King has joined this foray, and she does so by completely ignoring the evidence and simply attacking the integrity of those she disagrees with. Before we dive in too deep, a little word about Miss King.
Those who have visited this blog remember a previous post where I challenged her assertion that those faithful sons of the Church attending the Extraordinary Form are essentially Manicheans. The promised “part two” Miss King had made never really materialized. Catholic Exchange yanked the work once people protested that the work was nothing but character assassination, double standards, and red herrings. Miss King placed the article on her blog. After reading it, you can see why the article didn’t make the cut. Indeed, it is full of nothing but red herrings, character assassinations, and double standards, with a healthy side of weak argumentation. To let it stand in a very public forum would’ve done nothing but damage the credibility of those she agrees with. It was an act of mercy.
She has followed this up with a very lengthy “point by point response” where it appears she has not learned her lesson previously. If this is the best that can be done, Miss Eden must feel fairly confident in her thesis.
1.) On the TOB Institute
In her thesis, Dawn Eden stated that the TOB was founded to help promote the views of Christopher West. Since those exact words do not appear in their mission statement, Miss King calls this “false.” This is simply not serious argumentation. We know that Christopher West is a research fellow at the Institute, and his works there are heavily promoted. Since Miss King likes to promote it and has attended the Institute, perhaps she would be gracious to tell us how much of the material at the TOB Institute is based off the writings of Alice VonHildebrand, Dr. David Schindler, Fr. Jose Granados, or Mary Shivanandran, all distinguished prominent critics of Mr. West’s take on Theology of the Body? I’m going to make a guess she is free to correct me on: not much if any. West is the champion of the school of thought that the TOB Institute Explains. At their 1st Annual Congress, they pronounced the Church was ignorant of human sexuality from Trent until John Paul II, an increase in sex education in schools, and advised us to start referring to God as a “pathological stalker.” Perhaps Miss King is right; The TOB Institute is far worse than Mr. West and should not be viewed as promoting his worldview. Their worldview is simply crazy!
2.) One must attend the TOB Institute to really make a critique
This is another curious claim. It is akin to a certain Gnostic mentality. There is this “hidden knowledge” at the Institute that makes understanding West so much easier! Allow me to ask the following query of those who make this claim: show us the coursework. Show the reading material, coursework, and videos which would demonstrate Miss Eden incorrect. These kinds of claims only have merit when you can prove through the evidence something is missing. West has been the golden boy of the TOB Institute. If they didn’t want to get dragged into the discussion, perhaps they shouldn’t have been such ardent promoters of his vision and work.
3.) The “Two Bishops” and Occasions of Sin
It will be necessary to recap the story that Mr. West tells. Exhorting people to a “mature purity”, he asks:
Sounds like it perfectly upholds what Mr. West is teaching right? That rather than “turning his eyes”, his look of love led to the conversion of a saint. The bishop who viewed it an occasion of sin and turned his eyes was merely “continent” while Bishop Nonnus was practicing virtue. There’s only one problem with this narrative: it didn’t happen that way. As recounted by Miss Eden in her thesis:
Miss King ignores all of this. She simply asserts that it is a valid analogy for a proper understanding of TOB, and doesn’t harm West’s case in any way. I certainly believe it is a valid analogy. This does not prove however that “risking it” is virtuous as opposed to “playing it safe.” She states that West is only talking about “love”, not matters of purity. Yet the original hypothetical couple, in West’s own words, agreed not to be alone at that particular time because it could lead to occasions of sin. This was harming their purity. West calls them to “risk it”, boldly trusting that Christ will transform their desires and to develop a “mature purity” which is beyond “turning your eyes” (continence) and being able to look upon a scantily clad woman (the occasion of sin) with love to lead to their strengthening (an occasion of grace.) In the assessment of West, their temptations to lust were interfering with their ability to love, which is true enough. The remedy proposed however was to stop playing it “safe” and be willing to risk it. If someone has an inclination towards sin, you don’t encourage them to overcome that sin by surrounding them in it. West “commends” this couple only in the sense of a back-handed compliment. “Sure, they are doing right I suppose, but they are not fulfilling their call!”
Miss King attempts a rather clever response. When she rightly notes that the Bishop did not “look” at St. Pelegia, it really means “did not look with lust” because:
That’s really all that can be said. Miss King returns to character assasination stating that those like Miss Eden defend the view that “marriage legitimizes a man's desire to use his wife for pleasure.” Of course, there is no citation for this. This is so because Miss Eden does not believe a husband may use his wife as a vehicle for his own gratification. Nowhere is this even implied. As a matter of fact, I have never, I repeat, never heard any critic of West say this or imply this. Such an attitude is deeply misogynistic and exploitative. Just like before, there is no evidence that backs up these assertions. She’s just flinging mud at the wall, hoping something sticks.
While there certainly has been a lot of energy, it has mainly been sound and fury signifying nothing. The most popular charge has been that of jealousy or a personal vendetta against Christopher West. There is no place for this in a serious discussion, so it shall be dismissed without evidence. Sister Marianne Lorraine Trouve has written a seemingly imposing critique of Miss Eden in which she thinks a far too simplistic reading is given towards the work of Mr. West. When you actually dive into the work of Sr. Lorraine, you don’t find much directly challenging Eden’s thesis. She attempts to find fault with the “themes” used, but for the most part leaves out the actual evidence to justify those themes that comes later in the thesis. She was upfront about this, citing time constraints as the reason she did not give a full treatment. The question naturally arises from those like myself: When criticizing those for not giving sufficient time to an issue, shouldn’t you give sufficient time in responding to them?
At least there was an attempt to interact with the evidence. One Christina King has joined this foray, and she does so by completely ignoring the evidence and simply attacking the integrity of those she disagrees with. Before we dive in too deep, a little word about Miss King.
Those who have visited this blog remember a previous post where I challenged her assertion that those faithful sons of the Church attending the Extraordinary Form are essentially Manicheans. The promised “part two” Miss King had made never really materialized. Catholic Exchange yanked the work once people protested that the work was nothing but character assassination, double standards, and red herrings. Miss King placed the article on her blog. After reading it, you can see why the article didn’t make the cut. Indeed, it is full of nothing but red herrings, character assassinations, and double standards, with a healthy side of weak argumentation. To let it stand in a very public forum would’ve done nothing but damage the credibility of those she agrees with. It was an act of mercy.
She has followed this up with a very lengthy “point by point response” where it appears she has not learned her lesson previously. If this is the best that can be done, Miss Eden must feel fairly confident in her thesis.
1.) On the TOB Institute
In her thesis, Dawn Eden stated that the TOB was founded to help promote the views of Christopher West. Since those exact words do not appear in their mission statement, Miss King calls this “false.” This is simply not serious argumentation. We know that Christopher West is a research fellow at the Institute, and his works there are heavily promoted. Since Miss King likes to promote it and has attended the Institute, perhaps she would be gracious to tell us how much of the material at the TOB Institute is based off the writings of Alice VonHildebrand, Dr. David Schindler, Fr. Jose Granados, or Mary Shivanandran, all distinguished prominent critics of Mr. West’s take on Theology of the Body? I’m going to make a guess she is free to correct me on: not much if any. West is the champion of the school of thought that the TOB Institute Explains. At their 1st Annual Congress, they pronounced the Church was ignorant of human sexuality from Trent until John Paul II, an increase in sex education in schools, and advised us to start referring to God as a “pathological stalker.” Perhaps Miss King is right; The TOB Institute is far worse than Mr. West and should not be viewed as promoting his worldview. Their worldview is simply crazy!
2.) One must attend the TOB Institute to really make a critique
This is another curious claim. It is akin to a certain Gnostic mentality. There is this “hidden knowledge” at the Institute that makes understanding West so much easier! Allow me to ask the following query of those who make this claim: show us the coursework. Show the reading material, coursework, and videos which would demonstrate Miss Eden incorrect. These kinds of claims only have merit when you can prove through the evidence something is missing. West has been the golden boy of the TOB Institute. If they didn’t want to get dragged into the discussion, perhaps they shouldn’t have been such ardent promoters of his vision and work.
3.) The “Two Bishops” and Occasions of Sin
It will be necessary to recap the story that Mr. West tells. Exhorting people to a “mature purity”, he asks:
Think about it: if the only thing that keeps a couple from having sex before marriage is the lack of opportunity, what does that say about the desire of their hearts? Are they free to choose the good? Are they free to love? ... As stated previously, if we chain our freedom to sin, with the same stroke we chain the freedom necessary to love.Nobody doubts the accuracy of the quote Miss Eden made (which I am reproducing, which can be found in context and entirety in West’s book “Theology of the Body Explained”, page 274. This was in regards to a couple who agreed not to spend time all alone (at that particular point or until they were married, we do not know, West does not say) because they were finding it to be an occasion of sin. They might be acting “safe”, but they are not trusting Christ. He then gives us a story of what trusting in Christ really is:
The following story illustrates what mature Christian purity looks like. Two bishops walked out of a cathedral just as a scantily clad prostitute passed by. One bishop immediately turned away. The other bishop looked at her intently. The bishop who turned away exclaimed, “Brother bishop, what are you doing? Turn your eyes!” When the bishop turned around, he lamented with tears streaming down his face, “How tragic that such beauty is being sold to the lusts of men.” Which one of those bishops was vivified with the ethos of redemption? Which one had passed over from merely meeting the demands of the law to a superabounding fulfillment of the law….. [I]t is generally reported that upon seeing the half-naked Pelagia parading through the streets of Antioch while his brother bishops turned away, Bishop Nonnus looked upon her with love and great delight. She noticed his look of love and was eventually converted through his counsel and preaching. She is known as St. Pelagia of Antioch.
Sounds like it perfectly upholds what Mr. West is teaching right? That rather than “turning his eyes”, his look of love led to the conversion of a saint. The bishop who viewed it an occasion of sin and turned his eyes was merely “continent” while Bishop Nonnus was practicing virtue. There’s only one problem with this narrative: it didn’t happen that way. As recounted by Miss Eden in her thesis:
In a footnote, West cites Helen Waddell’s account of Nonnus and Pelagia in The Desert Fathers. However, the story she relates, translated from Eustochius’s Latin version of James the Deacon’s Greek account, differs from his own on many key points. Nonnus’s tears are not because “such beauty is being sold to the lusts of men.” Rather, the bishop feels ashamed upon witnessing the effort that the harlot puts into preparing her appearance for men, for he believes he has not put nearly so much effort into his appearance before God. Returning to his chamber, he flings himself upon the floor and repents to Christ: “for a single day’s adorning of a harlot is far beyond the adorning of my soul….. Pelagia, in Waddell’s account, does not notice that Nonnus looks at her on the street; her conversion comes about afterwards, when she hears him preach. Most significantly, when Pelagia then writes to the bishop and asks to see him, he agrees only on the condition that there be other bishops present. “[S]eek not to tempt my weakness,” he writes. (Eden’s thesis, pages 56-57)Being blunt, West got caught playing what I like to call “Google Scholar.” Like the person who thinks they know the truth because they looked something up on Google, West found a source for this, and most likely didn’t bother to check the original source. The fact that the Bishop refuses to meet her alone ruins the point West tried to make. In the opinion of West, this bishop was going to stay “on the boat” rather than risking it for Christ’s sake “on the waters.” The Bishop acted with continence, but not virtue.
Miss King ignores all of this. She simply asserts that it is a valid analogy for a proper understanding of TOB, and doesn’t harm West’s case in any way. I certainly believe it is a valid analogy. This does not prove however that “risking it” is virtuous as opposed to “playing it safe.” She states that West is only talking about “love”, not matters of purity. Yet the original hypothetical couple, in West’s own words, agreed not to be alone at that particular time because it could lead to occasions of sin. This was harming their purity. West calls them to “risk it”, boldly trusting that Christ will transform their desires and to develop a “mature purity” which is beyond “turning your eyes” (continence) and being able to look upon a scantily clad woman (the occasion of sin) with love to lead to their strengthening (an occasion of grace.) In the assessment of West, their temptations to lust were interfering with their ability to love, which is true enough. The remedy proposed however was to stop playing it “safe” and be willing to risk it. If someone has an inclination towards sin, you don’t encourage them to overcome that sin by surrounding them in it. West “commends” this couple only in the sense of a back-handed compliment. “Sure, they are doing right I suppose, but they are not fulfilling their call!”
Miss King attempts a rather clever response. When she rightly notes that the Bishop did not “look” at St. Pelegia, it really means “did not look with lust” because:
When West shares that Pelagia does not notice that Nonnus “looks” at her, we must understand that is because Nonnus did NOT “look” at her. To “look” means in this parable and in the writings of concupiscence by John Paul II , of an objectification. “Look” in this context, means to transfer a “look” from the eyes to the heart. Nonnus did not “look” lustfully and in not “looking” thus, he did not allow lust to transfer to his heart. This is the whole point of the story.There’s only one problem with this interpretation. This isn’t what West said. Once again, the Bishop who “turned his eyes” acted not with virtue, but mere continence. The Bishop who was willing to “risk it” looked upon her with love, not lust, and hence practiced virtue. Yet that same bishop who “looked” rightly, refused to meet her in private, because it would serve as a temptation to his weakness, and be an occasion of sin. The “looking” here is precisely that, he “looked” with his eyes. The story, being in historical basis, is not an allegory. It actually happened. She simply tries to spin it away by saying “this is what West is teaching.” If this is indeed what West is promoting, why the need to omit (being charitable) or alter (being polemical) certain key facts of the story?
That’s really all that can be said. Miss King returns to character assasination stating that those like Miss Eden defend the view that “marriage legitimizes a man's desire to use his wife for pleasure.” Of course, there is no citation for this. This is so because Miss Eden does not believe a husband may use his wife as a vehicle for his own gratification. Nowhere is this even implied. As a matter of fact, I have never, I repeat, never heard any critic of West say this or imply this. Such an attitude is deeply misogynistic and exploitative. Just like before, there is no evidence that backs up these assertions. She’s just flinging mud at the wall, hoping something sticks.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Why the Incarnation Matters: Elijah's Wager
When we continue through the Old Testament during the years of the Kingdom, there is always certain sadness in my soul reading this narrative. We see once again a confirmation of God’s plan, and man’s rejection of that plan. After establishing David (and for a time Solomon) as King of a growing state meant to teach the nations of God, Israel is instead influenced by the nations. They go from great power to divided kingdoms, divided kingdoms to vassals, vassals to nothingness.
Each time this occurs, they are given ample opportunity to repent. In the case of the Kingdom of Judah, they sometimes do, although it is always very brief. Within one generation, they turn their backs on God again. God sends them the prophets during this time to provide them with another resource towards Him, and they reject (and in some cases) murder the prophets. The sins of the Kingdom of Israel were so grave the people are wiped off the face of the earth. (Becoming “The Lost Tribes of Israel”) Judah’s kingdom becomes so depraved in her sins, she is called “worse than Israel” by the prophets, and the glorious Temple is destroyed, and their fate is exile. I would like to spend the next few segments reflecting upon this period in Israel’s time, and what it ultimately means for our study.
When discussing the two Kingdoms, it is good to remember one thing. Neither are treated very favorably by the authors in the Scriptures. Of the 39 Kings of Israel and Judah after the split of the kingdom, 7 are spoken of with a general positive image. Out of those 7, only two or three are praised highly. In the Kingdom of Israel, every King is spoken of with greater or lesser contempt with the exception of two of them. (The best that can be said was they did evil “not as much as their fathers.”) Indeed, the writer of Kings can barely be bothered to mention them, since he gives the frequent retort “as for the rest of their works, are they not mentioned in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel?” In other words “don’t make me waste my time speaking of them beyond what is absolutely necessary.” For us, it is absolutely necessary to focus on the Kingdom of Israel. While an evil people led by mainly evil kings, some of the greatest events in Scripture happen in this Kingdom.
Let us offer a few passing notes on the Kingdom. First, we recognize that life as a King of Israel was a very dangerous job. Out of the 19 Kings, there are 9 different ruling dynasties. Since the kingdom existed for around 210 years, a “change in management” occurred roughly every 24 years. 9 of the kings were assassinated, 2 of them died early deaths not the result of natural causes. Jeroboam was promised a peaceful dynasty had he followed God’s will. Since he didn’t, the very opposite happened.
Following a series of civil wars and coup d’état’s, Omri ascended to the throne of Israel. He brings not only political stability to the Northern Kingdom, but turns them into a regional power as well. Through his work and that of his son, he even manages to effectively control the Kingdom of Judah. (Via marriage alliance, and the fact that Israel was far stronger at the time, it can reasonably be deduced that Judah was essentially a vassal.) When he dies, it looks as if God’s plan has completely failed. Rather than a single kingdom set to bring about the light to the nations, the land is effectively ruled by a cruel pagan.
The cruelty of the Northern Kingdom intensifies under the leadership of Ahab. In addition to continuing the strengthening of the region begun by his father Omri, he married the Phoenician Jezebel, which led to an explosion of pagan worship within the lands, and the slaughter of many Jewish priests and prophets by Jezebel. In their place, worship of ba’al (meaning in Israeli culture a false god, in this case Hadad), the ancient regional god of rain, thunder, and lightning flourished. During this time, salvation history reaches another major event, the appearance of Elijah.
There is curiously little known about Elijah before this point. His name does not tell us much. (It simply means The Lord is God.) Unlike other major figures of the Scriptures, he is given no family background. We can infer he had to have been a man of at least medium importance (since he is introduced in the Scriptures as having an audience with the King), but little else is told.
I believe this to be by design. Just as the selection of David tended to defy the natural order, Elijah’s appearance is not based on nobility, talent, etc. He simply is there. He appears before the King, and delivers God’s message, and takes up the fight against pagan worship. While he may have lived in relative obscurity before, after this point we learn much about him. He enters the scene condemning the rampant paganism by pronouncing sentence upon the Kingdom of Israel, stating:
The choice of a drought I always found to be a curious one. While the standard message “they would be forced to trust on God so it would rain again” holds true, I think the modern eye misses a deeper understanding. As previously noted, worship of Hadad flourished in the land of Samaria. (Israel) Since he was the god of storms, this was a direct challenge towards their deity. As was noted before with the story of the Golden Calf, man had perverted the natural order. The seasons, just like the beasts of the earth, were ultimately created for man’s purpose, not for man to worship.
While this can be looked at as an act of punishment, I believe it to also be an act of mercy. God wishes Israel to follow Him, yet He does not wish to leave them ignorant as to why. If they wish to follow an elemental spirit they believe controls the seasons, God will demonstrate that the seasons occur and change at His command only.
In addition to this challenge, Elijah further demonstrates God’s power. The pagan Israelites believed the gods of the land provided food and life in addition to the weather. Elijah proves otherwise, promising a woman that not only would she be able to live indefinitely on a paltry amount of food and drink, but restoring life to her son when he dies. One by one the people begin to believe in Elijah’s mission, turning to God. A definitive clash was inevitable. Elijah decides to strike “first blood” if you will.
Elijah at this point is Israel’s most wanted man (King Ahab refers to him as “you troubler of Israel”), hunted relentlessly. He is hiding in the town of Zarepeth because of Ahab. Ahab even threatens war with whoever amongst the surrounding nations is harboring him. Rather than continue in hiding, he ambushes Ahab personally. He decides to confront Ahab on his own terms. Elijah challenges all the pagan priests and prophets of the Ba’al to assemble at Mount Carmel where he would directly challenge paganism in Israel.
Like Joshua before him and many others, Elijah demands Israel stop sitting on the fence. This day, they will either serve the gods of the nations, or they will serve Yahweh. In Elijah’s challenge, he gives them a reason to follow Yahweh. He pronounces himself as but one man, and points out his foes are 450. He then demands two bulls be sacrificed, one by him, and one by the pagans. Whichever sacrifice was consumed by fire, that would be the true God.
The priests of Ba’al go first. They pray their incantations and chants, and nothing happens. They process around the altar as their religious rituals demand, and nothing happens. Several hours later, they are still doing it. Showing his sense of humor, Elijah mocks them to pray louder, for perhaps their god is sleeping. This only increased their efforts, as they began mutilating themselves, pleading with their deity to respond. A full day and a lot of shed blood later, the bull is still laying on the altar. Elijah has proven the impotence of the pagan gods. Now he wishes to show the power of the true God.
Continuing his flare for the dramatics, it was not enough to have fire immediately consume the bull. First, he builds a brand new altar (refusing to offer sacrifice on the altar of a pagan) and then digs a massive trench. Continuing, he douses the offering in so much water the entire trench is filled. In a certain symbolic sense with all the water, Elijah is not just having a bull consumed by fire, but the very thing the pagans proclaimed their god controlled. As there was still a massive drought occurring throughout the land, the apparent wasting of so much water would only be further insult to injury to the pagans. If he fails, not only has he condemned them further (as there is less water), if he succeeds, they are still condemned. After all this, he asks that God accept the sacrifice.
The response was as dramatic as the challenge itself. Not only does fire consume the sacrifice, but it consumes the altar, and evaporates all of the water surrounding the altar and the trench. The people firmly convinced at this very dramatic display of power of Yahweh, rally to Elijah and execute every single pagan priest in the land.
In this story we see once again that God could have chosen to destroy the kingdom. Rather than destroy, He gives the people even more proof that they should be following Him instead. Through the actions of Elijah, he wins the repentance of King Ahab himself. Such repentance was short-lived, for Ahab and Samaria.
Just like that, Elijah’s ministry on earth abruptly ends. Designating Elisha as his successor, he is taken to heaven with a massive escort of horses and chariots of flame. He who entered in obscurity leaves with a big bang.
Each time this occurs, they are given ample opportunity to repent. In the case of the Kingdom of Judah, they sometimes do, although it is always very brief. Within one generation, they turn their backs on God again. God sends them the prophets during this time to provide them with another resource towards Him, and they reject (and in some cases) murder the prophets. The sins of the Kingdom of Israel were so grave the people are wiped off the face of the earth. (Becoming “The Lost Tribes of Israel”) Judah’s kingdom becomes so depraved in her sins, she is called “worse than Israel” by the prophets, and the glorious Temple is destroyed, and their fate is exile. I would like to spend the next few segments reflecting upon this period in Israel’s time, and what it ultimately means for our study.
When discussing the two Kingdoms, it is good to remember one thing. Neither are treated very favorably by the authors in the Scriptures. Of the 39 Kings of Israel and Judah after the split of the kingdom, 7 are spoken of with a general positive image. Out of those 7, only two or three are praised highly. In the Kingdom of Israel, every King is spoken of with greater or lesser contempt with the exception of two of them. (The best that can be said was they did evil “not as much as their fathers.”) Indeed, the writer of Kings can barely be bothered to mention them, since he gives the frequent retort “as for the rest of their works, are they not mentioned in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel?” In other words “don’t make me waste my time speaking of them beyond what is absolutely necessary.” For us, it is absolutely necessary to focus on the Kingdom of Israel. While an evil people led by mainly evil kings, some of the greatest events in Scripture happen in this Kingdom.
Let us offer a few passing notes on the Kingdom. First, we recognize that life as a King of Israel was a very dangerous job. Out of the 19 Kings, there are 9 different ruling dynasties. Since the kingdom existed for around 210 years, a “change in management” occurred roughly every 24 years. 9 of the kings were assassinated, 2 of them died early deaths not the result of natural causes. Jeroboam was promised a peaceful dynasty had he followed God’s will. Since he didn’t, the very opposite happened.
Following a series of civil wars and coup d’état’s, Omri ascended to the throne of Israel. He brings not only political stability to the Northern Kingdom, but turns them into a regional power as well. Through his work and that of his son, he even manages to effectively control the Kingdom of Judah. (Via marriage alliance, and the fact that Israel was far stronger at the time, it can reasonably be deduced that Judah was essentially a vassal.) When he dies, it looks as if God’s plan has completely failed. Rather than a single kingdom set to bring about the light to the nations, the land is effectively ruled by a cruel pagan.
The cruelty of the Northern Kingdom intensifies under the leadership of Ahab. In addition to continuing the strengthening of the region begun by his father Omri, he married the Phoenician Jezebel, which led to an explosion of pagan worship within the lands, and the slaughter of many Jewish priests and prophets by Jezebel. In their place, worship of ba’al (meaning in Israeli culture a false god, in this case Hadad), the ancient regional god of rain, thunder, and lightning flourished. During this time, salvation history reaches another major event, the appearance of Elijah.
There is curiously little known about Elijah before this point. His name does not tell us much. (It simply means The Lord is God.) Unlike other major figures of the Scriptures, he is given no family background. We can infer he had to have been a man of at least medium importance (since he is introduced in the Scriptures as having an audience with the King), but little else is told.
I believe this to be by design. Just as the selection of David tended to defy the natural order, Elijah’s appearance is not based on nobility, talent, etc. He simply is there. He appears before the King, and delivers God’s message, and takes up the fight against pagan worship. While he may have lived in relative obscurity before, after this point we learn much about him. He enters the scene condemning the rampant paganism by pronouncing sentence upon the Kingdom of Israel, stating:
As the Lord the god of Israel lives, before whom I stand, there shall be neither dew nor rain these years, except by my word. (1 Kings 17:1)
The choice of a drought I always found to be a curious one. While the standard message “they would be forced to trust on God so it would rain again” holds true, I think the modern eye misses a deeper understanding. As previously noted, worship of Hadad flourished in the land of Samaria. (Israel) Since he was the god of storms, this was a direct challenge towards their deity. As was noted before with the story of the Golden Calf, man had perverted the natural order. The seasons, just like the beasts of the earth, were ultimately created for man’s purpose, not for man to worship.
While this can be looked at as an act of punishment, I believe it to also be an act of mercy. God wishes Israel to follow Him, yet He does not wish to leave them ignorant as to why. If they wish to follow an elemental spirit they believe controls the seasons, God will demonstrate that the seasons occur and change at His command only.
In addition to this challenge, Elijah further demonstrates God’s power. The pagan Israelites believed the gods of the land provided food and life in addition to the weather. Elijah proves otherwise, promising a woman that not only would she be able to live indefinitely on a paltry amount of food and drink, but restoring life to her son when he dies. One by one the people begin to believe in Elijah’s mission, turning to God. A definitive clash was inevitable. Elijah decides to strike “first blood” if you will.
Elijah at this point is Israel’s most wanted man (King Ahab refers to him as “you troubler of Israel”), hunted relentlessly. He is hiding in the town of Zarepeth because of Ahab. Ahab even threatens war with whoever amongst the surrounding nations is harboring him. Rather than continue in hiding, he ambushes Ahab personally. He decides to confront Ahab on his own terms. Elijah challenges all the pagan priests and prophets of the Ba’al to assemble at Mount Carmel where he would directly challenge paganism in Israel.
Like Joshua before him and many others, Elijah demands Israel stop sitting on the fence. This day, they will either serve the gods of the nations, or they will serve Yahweh. In Elijah’s challenge, he gives them a reason to follow Yahweh. He pronounces himself as but one man, and points out his foes are 450. He then demands two bulls be sacrificed, one by him, and one by the pagans. Whichever sacrifice was consumed by fire, that would be the true God.
The priests of Ba’al go first. They pray their incantations and chants, and nothing happens. They process around the altar as their religious rituals demand, and nothing happens. Several hours later, they are still doing it. Showing his sense of humor, Elijah mocks them to pray louder, for perhaps their god is sleeping. This only increased their efforts, as they began mutilating themselves, pleading with their deity to respond. A full day and a lot of shed blood later, the bull is still laying on the altar. Elijah has proven the impotence of the pagan gods. Now he wishes to show the power of the true God.
Continuing his flare for the dramatics, it was not enough to have fire immediately consume the bull. First, he builds a brand new altar (refusing to offer sacrifice on the altar of a pagan) and then digs a massive trench. Continuing, he douses the offering in so much water the entire trench is filled. In a certain symbolic sense with all the water, Elijah is not just having a bull consumed by fire, but the very thing the pagans proclaimed their god controlled. As there was still a massive drought occurring throughout the land, the apparent wasting of so much water would only be further insult to injury to the pagans. If he fails, not only has he condemned them further (as there is less water), if he succeeds, they are still condemned. After all this, he asks that God accept the sacrifice.
The response was as dramatic as the challenge itself. Not only does fire consume the sacrifice, but it consumes the altar, and evaporates all of the water surrounding the altar and the trench. The people firmly convinced at this very dramatic display of power of Yahweh, rally to Elijah and execute every single pagan priest in the land.
In this story we see once again that God could have chosen to destroy the kingdom. Rather than destroy, He gives the people even more proof that they should be following Him instead. Through the actions of Elijah, he wins the repentance of King Ahab himself. Such repentance was short-lived, for Ahab and Samaria.
Just like that, Elijah’s ministry on earth abruptly ends. Designating Elisha as his successor, he is taken to heaven with a massive escort of horses and chariots of flame. He who entered in obscurity leaves with a big bang.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Fr: Thomas Loya: The take on TOB Christopher and myself have requires no evidence for belief
Okay, so I'm slightly spinning, but I'm really not that far off the mark. Before I go too far into this, a little story.
I'm a big fan of the movie Gladiator. The movie obviously is not historical (though ironically enough, an ex girlfriend of mine was furious at me for daring to suggest that the movie was a classic example of "never let the truth get in the way of a darn good story.") There's one line where a leading commander of Rome's army says about the barbarians: "People should know when they're conquered." If this is really the best Fr. Loya can do, I would like to offer the good priest some advice: people should realize when they've lost an argument.
After stating that it is clear that the Eastern Church looks at the paschal candle in a phallic sexual way (that the descent of the Paschal Candle into holy water 3 times is analogous to a husband penetrating his wife in coitus), we hear this gem, and trust me, boy is it ever a gem (bold is my emphasis):
"Acknowledging the Paschal candle’s phallic imagery does not require a quote from a particular Father of the Church. It is only one example of the spousal character of the church’s entire liturgical life, from Bernini’s canopy over the altar in St. Peter’s Basilica, designed to resemble a nuptial bed, to St. John Chrysostom reminding married couples that on the cross Christ united Himself with his Church in “spiritual intercourse,” to the liturgical texts of the Eastern churches that proclaim on Easter: “Christ emerges from the tomb like a bridegroom from the bridal chamber and fills the women with joy!” What Roman Catholics call “Holy Week,” Eastern churches call “The Week of the Bridegroom.”
I'll be honest, I saw that remark, and laughed for about 5 minutes straight. That Catholic Exchange would actually allow this to be ran on their website is even more astounding. When someone asserts that it is plainly obvious and that is challenged, you cannot respond by saying "it is plainly obvious!" Fr. Loya states that the Easter candle is a phallic symbol because...... Fr. Loya says so. Pay, pray, obey indeed.
He isn't done. He talks about the Resurrection itself as apparently a sexual act. For Christ leaves the empty tomb and "fills the women with joy." I'm going to come up with a really wild idea. Please, bear with me. The "filling with joy" is not sexual, but rather they are ecstatic that they learn Him who was dead has risen. That they are women and Christ is a man, in this narrow instance, is a pure coincidence. This isn't referencing a sexual act. While I hate to speak ill of a man of the cloth (and those who have followed my readings for years know that I have always been very measured in public statements about a priest), the good father is rapidly approaching blasphemy territory here.
Later he says that perhaps we should replace "phallic" with "spousal" if we feel uncomfortable. that would be akin to stating I should replace "burger" with "pizza." Phallic implies sexuality. There's a lot more to spousal than sex. Yet since words have meaning, if Fr. Loya is going to insist that this is still sexual, even if "spousal", yes, I will still feel uncomfortable when the Easter Vigil is compared to sex. Why do I feel uncomfortable? Because it's just plain wrong.
At the end, Fr. Loya states Christopher West, the fathers and mystics of the Church, and John Paul II are right, and their critics are wrong. He has yet to show:
1.) One Church Father who says the immersion of the candle in the waters is akin to sexual intercourse
2.) He has yet to name one mystic who believes this.
3.) He hasn't even tried to show where Pope John Paul II said this.
Simply stating it to be so, in praying that it will all go away, that won't work. Note to Catholic Exchange, and to Christopher West: find a better spokesman. This is just getting to the point of parody.
And Catholic Exchange, shame on you for running such shoddy work as evidence of something profound.
I'm a big fan of the movie Gladiator. The movie obviously is not historical (though ironically enough, an ex girlfriend of mine was furious at me for daring to suggest that the movie was a classic example of "never let the truth get in the way of a darn good story.") There's one line where a leading commander of Rome's army says about the barbarians: "People should know when they're conquered." If this is really the best Fr. Loya can do, I would like to offer the good priest some advice: people should realize when they've lost an argument.
After stating that it is clear that the Eastern Church looks at the paschal candle in a phallic sexual way (that the descent of the Paschal Candle into holy water 3 times is analogous to a husband penetrating his wife in coitus), we hear this gem, and trust me, boy is it ever a gem (bold is my emphasis):
"Acknowledging the Paschal candle’s phallic imagery does not require a quote from a particular Father of the Church. It is only one example of the spousal character of the church’s entire liturgical life, from Bernini’s canopy over the altar in St. Peter’s Basilica, designed to resemble a nuptial bed, to St. John Chrysostom reminding married couples that on the cross Christ united Himself with his Church in “spiritual intercourse,” to the liturgical texts of the Eastern churches that proclaim on Easter: “Christ emerges from the tomb like a bridegroom from the bridal chamber and fills the women with joy!” What Roman Catholics call “Holy Week,” Eastern churches call “The Week of the Bridegroom.”
I'll be honest, I saw that remark, and laughed for about 5 minutes straight. That Catholic Exchange would actually allow this to be ran on their website is even more astounding. When someone asserts that it is plainly obvious and that is challenged, you cannot respond by saying "it is plainly obvious!" Fr. Loya states that the Easter candle is a phallic symbol because...... Fr. Loya says so. Pay, pray, obey indeed.
He isn't done. He talks about the Resurrection itself as apparently a sexual act. For Christ leaves the empty tomb and "fills the women with joy." I'm going to come up with a really wild idea. Please, bear with me. The "filling with joy" is not sexual, but rather they are ecstatic that they learn Him who was dead has risen. That they are women and Christ is a man, in this narrow instance, is a pure coincidence. This isn't referencing a sexual act. While I hate to speak ill of a man of the cloth (and those who have followed my readings for years know that I have always been very measured in public statements about a priest), the good father is rapidly approaching blasphemy territory here.
Later he says that perhaps we should replace "phallic" with "spousal" if we feel uncomfortable. that would be akin to stating I should replace "burger" with "pizza." Phallic implies sexuality. There's a lot more to spousal than sex. Yet since words have meaning, if Fr. Loya is going to insist that this is still sexual, even if "spousal", yes, I will still feel uncomfortable when the Easter Vigil is compared to sex. Why do I feel uncomfortable? Because it's just plain wrong.
At the end, Fr. Loya states Christopher West, the fathers and mystics of the Church, and John Paul II are right, and their critics are wrong. He has yet to show:
1.) One Church Father who says the immersion of the candle in the waters is akin to sexual intercourse
2.) He has yet to name one mystic who believes this.
3.) He hasn't even tried to show where Pope John Paul II said this.
Simply stating it to be so, in praying that it will all go away, that won't work. Note to Catholic Exchange, and to Christopher West: find a better spokesman. This is just getting to the point of parody.
And Catholic Exchange, shame on you for running such shoddy work as evidence of something profound.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The Death of the Catholic Male: The Roots of Human Nature
When we discuss what I term "the death of the Catholic male", we must discuss two things first. We must look at the roots of human nature, and how that nature has been corrupted by the adversaries of truth.
The question concerning man's purpose has been one that has been disputed at great length throughout history by philosophers, theologians, commentators, etc. While it is true enough to say that our ultimate purpose is to know, love, and serve God, I'd like to go off into a different area. What kind of creature is man?
The world says sometimes that man is a "sexual" creature with reason. Everything is to be defined by our sexuality, whether it be the act itself, who we are as men and women (in a purely rationalist way), etc. Other times, man is a creature of utility. The worth of man is defined based upon what he contributes to society. Other times, we are viewed as economic creatures, and more importantly creatures of class. Our dignity is based upon our social status, and what class we belong to. (Whether it be the caste of nobility or the socialist theory.)
There is a hint of truth to all of these theories, but they are ultimately lacking. The church responds by pointing out the fact that man was not only made in relation to God, but in relation to fellow man. When the Earth was created, Adam was given dominion over all creation. Yet this did not define man. What defined him was his special creation in God's status. There was a certain uniqueness that separated him from the animals, namely the endowment of human reason.
This in and of itself however still does not define man, or make him complete. While God saw His creation as "very good", we also hear "it is not good for man to be alone." Now many will see in this statement and what follows to be God's plan of the call to communion between man and female. While certainly true, I think this ignores something just as important. When God creates Eve, He creates another human from the rib of Adam, from his nature. Eve would possess the exact same dignity and special status as Adam. More importantly, every human being on the earth from this point onward would share a similar inherent dignity, with rights according to that dignity. From this very small moment civilization and society are born.
Here we see the greatest separation from the animal kingdom. Combined with reason, our relationships with other beings constitute something essential to human nature. This is the first and fundamental truth of masculinity. There are those who believe that the most desired trait is that of "independence." We see this in concepts of the ubermensch to the concept of the "independent woman" so rampant in today's feminist culture. Each in it's own special way preaches an individual over and above the other, having no need of relationship. For as Nietzsche says "What is the ape to man?" So we are called to be in relation to others. The "independent woman" is feminism's answer to Nietzsche. She too may rise above the primitive concept of communion with others. She can do everything herself, and has no need of anyone to support or help her, certainly not a man!
The Christian understanding rejects both for a variety of reasons. One is ultimately our status as created creatures. We cannot be the source of everything. This fundamental limit even in our first parents (before the entrance of original sin) had dramatic ramifications for civilization. Strong as Adam could become, there would always be certain things he was incapable of doing. Even those things he could do, there would be some Eve was better at. Likewise, in society there are always certain things that one person excels at, and another person excels at something else. Only through relationships with others can man really achieve anything.
Flowing from these differences, structures naturally develop. Yet the ultimate end of any structure was God. This meant that our actions had to be done in accordance with His will ultimately, not ours. The pursuit of power in a man can never bring about true fulfillment. Therefore in the masculine nature, there is an inherent sense of obedience to something greater. While both men and women possess this, it is something far more profound in the man. When the Roman Centurion gives his humble prayer to Jesus, he then describes how his life is defined by nature of command, whether commanding others or himself being commanded.
The modern world rejects this idea. Obedience is to be constantly challenged. If one is to suffer obedience, it is only to be until they can rise past it. It is one tool like many that are in place until they can be overcome. If the part of submission is to be resisted (in men and women alike), that of being a Dominus is to be encouraged. In Latin, Dominus means Lord or Master. The secular concept teaches us to use (and abuse) everything for the fulfillment of the self. Whether it be using another person to satisfy urges in lust, exploiting a worker to increase your bottom line, lying to accomplish a goal, society really doesn't condemn them with any strong moral voice, if they are condemned at all. The weaklings deserve it! That person exists to fulfill my urges, my "needs". The worker should be lucky he has a job at all, the ends justify the means! The byproducts of this mindset are crystal clear in the 20th century. We saw the eugenics movement (those who are a burden to "society", meaning the self, should be "put down"), the horrors of communism (where millions were massacred under the guise of "advancing" society, which typically meant the ambitions of the ruler), and the modern-day child sacrifice of abortion (a child I did not plan holds me back, I cannot be held back by anything or anyone.) All of the attempts to resolve the problems this mindset creates, from a secular standpoint, have been found wanting, since they are ultimately arbitrary. Those standards which have been imposed by one individual can simply be changed at will by another individual once they assume power.
Only with the Christian Gospel (almost all of these tenants are also included within Judaism, being that we both rely on the Old Testament/Torah) contains a way out of these traps for society, and for masculinity. By emphasizing our status as created beings, we recognize our ultimate limits, and that there is a standard to which in the end we are accountable to. Alongside this we must emphasize the importance of the individual dignity inherent within each individual upon creation. The first principle guides our relationship to the second. We cannot do something to another simply because it is within our power to do so. Since all humanity was created for each other mutually, we cannot obtain complete "independence" from another, nor is it desirable.
In future columns we will examine this understanding more in-depth, by analyzing from the perspective of truth the concepts I mentioned above.
The question concerning man's purpose has been one that has been disputed at great length throughout history by philosophers, theologians, commentators, etc. While it is true enough to say that our ultimate purpose is to know, love, and serve God, I'd like to go off into a different area. What kind of creature is man?
The world says sometimes that man is a "sexual" creature with reason. Everything is to be defined by our sexuality, whether it be the act itself, who we are as men and women (in a purely rationalist way), etc. Other times, man is a creature of utility. The worth of man is defined based upon what he contributes to society. Other times, we are viewed as economic creatures, and more importantly creatures of class. Our dignity is based upon our social status, and what class we belong to. (Whether it be the caste of nobility or the socialist theory.)
There is a hint of truth to all of these theories, but they are ultimately lacking. The church responds by pointing out the fact that man was not only made in relation to God, but in relation to fellow man. When the Earth was created, Adam was given dominion over all creation. Yet this did not define man. What defined him was his special creation in God's status. There was a certain uniqueness that separated him from the animals, namely the endowment of human reason.
This in and of itself however still does not define man, or make him complete. While God saw His creation as "very good", we also hear "it is not good for man to be alone." Now many will see in this statement and what follows to be God's plan of the call to communion between man and female. While certainly true, I think this ignores something just as important. When God creates Eve, He creates another human from the rib of Adam, from his nature. Eve would possess the exact same dignity and special status as Adam. More importantly, every human being on the earth from this point onward would share a similar inherent dignity, with rights according to that dignity. From this very small moment civilization and society are born.
Here we see the greatest separation from the animal kingdom. Combined with reason, our relationships with other beings constitute something essential to human nature. This is the first and fundamental truth of masculinity. There are those who believe that the most desired trait is that of "independence." We see this in concepts of the ubermensch to the concept of the "independent woman" so rampant in today's feminist culture. Each in it's own special way preaches an individual over and above the other, having no need of relationship. For as Nietzsche says "What is the ape to man?" So we are called to be in relation to others. The "independent woman" is feminism's answer to Nietzsche. She too may rise above the primitive concept of communion with others. She can do everything herself, and has no need of anyone to support or help her, certainly not a man!
The Christian understanding rejects both for a variety of reasons. One is ultimately our status as created creatures. We cannot be the source of everything. This fundamental limit even in our first parents (before the entrance of original sin) had dramatic ramifications for civilization. Strong as Adam could become, there would always be certain things he was incapable of doing. Even those things he could do, there would be some Eve was better at. Likewise, in society there are always certain things that one person excels at, and another person excels at something else. Only through relationships with others can man really achieve anything.
Flowing from these differences, structures naturally develop. Yet the ultimate end of any structure was God. This meant that our actions had to be done in accordance with His will ultimately, not ours. The pursuit of power in a man can never bring about true fulfillment. Therefore in the masculine nature, there is an inherent sense of obedience to something greater. While both men and women possess this, it is something far more profound in the man. When the Roman Centurion gives his humble prayer to Jesus, he then describes how his life is defined by nature of command, whether commanding others or himself being commanded.
The modern world rejects this idea. Obedience is to be constantly challenged. If one is to suffer obedience, it is only to be until they can rise past it. It is one tool like many that are in place until they can be overcome. If the part of submission is to be resisted (in men and women alike), that of being a Dominus is to be encouraged. In Latin, Dominus means Lord or Master. The secular concept teaches us to use (and abuse) everything for the fulfillment of the self. Whether it be using another person to satisfy urges in lust, exploiting a worker to increase your bottom line, lying to accomplish a goal, society really doesn't condemn them with any strong moral voice, if they are condemned at all. The weaklings deserve it! That person exists to fulfill my urges, my "needs". The worker should be lucky he has a job at all, the ends justify the means! The byproducts of this mindset are crystal clear in the 20th century. We saw the eugenics movement (those who are a burden to "society", meaning the self, should be "put down"), the horrors of communism (where millions were massacred under the guise of "advancing" society, which typically meant the ambitions of the ruler), and the modern-day child sacrifice of abortion (a child I did not plan holds me back, I cannot be held back by anything or anyone.) All of the attempts to resolve the problems this mindset creates, from a secular standpoint, have been found wanting, since they are ultimately arbitrary. Those standards which have been imposed by one individual can simply be changed at will by another individual once they assume power.
Only with the Christian Gospel (almost all of these tenants are also included within Judaism, being that we both rely on the Old Testament/Torah) contains a way out of these traps for society, and for masculinity. By emphasizing our status as created beings, we recognize our ultimate limits, and that there is a standard to which in the end we are accountable to. Alongside this we must emphasize the importance of the individual dignity inherent within each individual upon creation. The first principle guides our relationship to the second. We cannot do something to another simply because it is within our power to do so. Since all humanity was created for each other mutually, we cannot obtain complete "independence" from another, nor is it desirable.
In future columns we will examine this understanding more in-depth, by analyzing from the perspective of truth the concepts I mentioned above.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
A Response to Wade St. Onge RE: TOB, West, and Related Issues
A blogger by the name of Wade St. Onge has written a rather comprehensive commentary on his thoughts regarding the entire fracas involving Christopher West, Dawn Eden, Alice Von Hildebrand, and Theology of the Body as a whole. In an ongoing discussion with Wade, he has asked me to reproduce some of those insights that I did in an email discussion with him over this weekend.
While I will reproduce a lot of the correspondence, I also hope to develop these even further. Though bound by current constraints in which I would like to write about, I hope to in future posts return to these manners. Overall, I think that his commentary is very long, but well worth the read. There are things he covers in this work which give a very fresh insight to this controversy.
While a lot of his commentary offers I believe brutal analysis into a lot of the misunderstandings Mr. West demonstrates, he begins with offering some praise. While I think there can be much to praise, I do have a few issues.
1.) On the “Prudish” Church
Wade begins by sympathizing with Mr. West’s claims of rampant “prudery” in the Church before Theology of the Body. He believes this is so in that he feels many priests spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with what we call traditionally “sins of the flesh.”
Let me begin by stating that arriving at a sufficient answer here is near impossible. There is no data to analyze. (Indeed, if there was, some priests would most likely be receiving a call and excommunication papers from Rome.) We are dealing primarily here with subjective experiences. What follows from me is purely speculative.
Let us ask ourselves however: what is “prudery?” This is constantly left undefined by Mr. West and his defenders. From now on, we should always ask them to define their terms. For Wade, it is the priests focusing too much on sexual sins in the confessional. It is a curious definition of “prudery” and I guess I would like him to elaborate on it further.
We do know that sins of the flesh claim an inordinate amount of souls. In the Old Testament, we know that one of the most serious sins facing the two kingdoms was that of the qdeshim (male cult prostitutes) by which Jews were drawn from the worship to Yahweh towards the worship of the pagan gods. Sins of this nature are not only particularly appealing (because of the pleasure they give) but also extremely hard to root out (given the fact that they represent objectification par excellence.) Sins of lust killed the 6 husbands of Sara, and it can be inferred the temptation of the “daughters of men” in Genesis led to the Nephilim, leading to the Great flood.
We also know that in today’s hyper-sexualized culture, these kinds of sins are of particular problem and risk. The Church in her wisdom in the confessional tries to deal with those sins. Granted, some priests might not do the best job, but we are dealing with something that is a very serious nature here, as I’m sure Wade would agree.
He anticipates this objection, thinking that this kind of mentality could lead to prudishness. Perhaps. That being said, orthodox spiritual instruction can also lead to scrupulosity in the untrained. The problem of prudery I submit comes from a zeal not tempered by prudence or humility. Far from a healthy sexuality, prudishness is an inordinate fear, an inability to have a healthy understanding of their spiritual growth/nature. Their sentiment in attempting to avoid occasions of sin is laudable, yet their zealousness leads to problems of their own. I think West doesn’t treat this seriously. Prudery is indeed a serious problem. Yet a simple change of intellect is normally not enough to combat this. This requires very careful spiritual guidance from a competent director.
West many times seems to downplay the noble intention of the people who suffer from this problem. He seems to treat Hugh Heffner and John Paul II on the same side of attempting to overthrow “Victorian prudery”, even if Heffner went about it the wrong way. Prudery, like scrupulosity, ultimately comes from something noble. In West’s attacks on prudery, he essentially treats prudery as the source of all problems in society. One can hardly be faulted for thinking Mr. West actually believes that if not for prudery, a healthy sexual ethic would exist in the minds of Christians. This is the height of naiveté.
2.) On Analogies
One of the most heated areas of dispute in this entire fracas regards how many promoters of Christopher West’s employ certain analogies. Wade mentions one of them when Mr. West describes heaven as the “ultimate climax.” Dr. Janet Smith describes God as a stalker.
He believes that there is a sort of prudishness in why Catholics will call heaven “the heavenly Jerusalem” but not “the heavenly climax.” I believe Mr. West and those that make this statement ultimately confuse the purpose of symbolism. The marital embrace is meant to be a sign of something. It is to be a sign, with all the human limitations, of the deep intimate union we are called to in Christ Jesus. Once we are in heaven, such signs are no longer necessary. We will have that perfect mystical union.
So isn’t this the “ultimate climax?” Not exactly. A “climax” implies the end of an act and an exchange in a sexual act. In heaven, let us make this clear, there is not sex. Let me repeat: Heaven is not sexual. Silly as that sounds, we’ve got to establish that. Furthermore, once we reach that intimate union, there is no “climax.” Rather, once we are in heaven, that union is just beginning, and never ends. It is something so beyond the senses, there really is nothing to describe it.
Now some will certainly counter that the Bible and tradition is full of a “nuptial” or spousal language employed to demonstrate the relationship between Christ and His Church, and with every individual Christian. This is certainly true. Yet this is not sexual. There is a difference between an imagery of a marriage, and the imagery of sex. Sex exists as a symbol here on Earth. Sex will be gone in heaven, as it will no longer have a purpose. There will be no more procreation, nor there need for a sign of deeper union. I submit that is why the Bible lacks “sexual” language in describing heavenly union.
Yet if sex will not be there, marriage will. Not in the individual sense of two individuals marrying however, for “they are not married or given in marriage”. Instead, there will be one giant marriage of Christ and the Church, celebrated at the wedding feast of the Lamb. As any married couple will tell you (and I’m sure I’ll learn soon enough one of these days!) marriage is about far more than sex. When one begins the journey down the mystical road the spiritual writers speak of, they begin to experience a foretaste of this heavenly bliss. This is the reason people like St. John of the Cross employed spousal imagery.
Yet at the same time, we arrive at certain problems. We will not always experience that foretaste of union. This could lead someone to think they have done something wrong. Indeed, rather than bliss, there is a real dryness in their spirituality at that point. St. John of the Cross wrote the poem Dark Night of the Soul (along with the commentaries on it of The Ascent of Mt. Carmel and the far more famous book Dark Night of the Soul) to explain this phenomena. To him, this was not a sign of spiritual weakness. Rather, the soul was beginning to mature and prepare itself for that divine union. When a couple enters into an earthly marriage, they experience the same. Many times, there is not a fire of love and passion, but rather a very dry feeling in their relationship. This could be the way of beginning to look past their needs and desires, and instead being a gift to the other person. Archbishop Fulton Sheen captured this perfectly, even speaking of a “Dark Night of the Body” in marriage:
3.) Briefly on Eros
Now some could say I am downplaying “eros”, treating it as a dirty thing. To do so is to have a misunderstanding of eros that is pretty common. In short, eros need not be “sexual” love, or even a love of physical attraction. eros is just as much about a love that is “creative” as it is sexual. Let’s take a small trip back through Greek mythology here.
In Greek lore, Eros was the god of fertility. The earliest conceptions of Eros, he embodied not only love but the creative aspect of nature which flows into society. Naturally, this was closely inclined with fertility. This kind of love no doubt comes from the One True God. Yet just like all things tainted by sin, man’s conception of Eros soon turned into mere passionate sexual love. Soon, in many cases love was dropped from the understanding altogether. Most Greeks certainly engaged in the erotic, but did so without love.
As God began preparing the intellectual landscape for His Son, you begin to see a heightening of eros. Plato comes along and reminds the Greeks that eros need not be sexual. In fact, the best eros is not sexual. Rather, it is a love of the created. In this case, one sees the beauty of another created figure, and simply loves them for that created beauty. The best eros however moves beyond that. The initial draw to the beauty of a person becomes something deeper. One becomes in love with what they truly represent, their highest values. Highest of all to Plato was wisdom. So in his eros, it ceases being about sex and sensual love, and turns into an appreciation of what makes that person special. It becomes a love of the uniqueness of the human person. From there, it becomes a longing for the completion that person provides. While this can be sexual and something physical, to limit this in Platonic thought would be foolish. That which is greatest for Plato to love was that which was eternal, beyond this physical world. There were some shortcomings of Plato, lacking the light of Christ of course. Yet I think one can see him laying out the intellectual landscape for something greater.
When Christ comes, He indeed shows us something even better. As great as eros was meant to be, Christ elevates agape above all else. Agape is that love which is the highest of all loves. The love that asks nothing in return and instead gives. Christ ultimately could have accomplished union with the people of God without His own sacrifice. He is God, He could have chosen differently. Instead, He takes on flesh in the Incarnation and God gives up His own life on the cross for those created to know, love, and serve Him. Eros no doubt led to this self-sacrificing love. Christ loved each one of us individually and longed for the deepest union possible with every human being. Yet Christ baptizes eros into true agape. That, my friends, is the “nuptial” and spousal imagery of the Scriptures. Now I want the reader to ask themselves a question: How much of this understanding of eros is really present in the thought of Christopher West? Is it entirely absent? Of course not. Yet is it more focusing on it as a mere sexual love? I would wager it is.
In the end, a misunderstanding of several basic concepts leads Mr. West to make analogies that really are ill-advised. (See my writings in the TOB section of this blog for some examples.)
There is more I could say to Wade, and I hope to do so in the future. For now, this will have to suffice.
While I will reproduce a lot of the correspondence, I also hope to develop these even further. Though bound by current constraints in which I would like to write about, I hope to in future posts return to these manners. Overall, I think that his commentary is very long, but well worth the read. There are things he covers in this work which give a very fresh insight to this controversy.
While a lot of his commentary offers I believe brutal analysis into a lot of the misunderstandings Mr. West demonstrates, he begins with offering some praise. While I think there can be much to praise, I do have a few issues.
1.) On the “Prudish” Church
Wade begins by sympathizing with Mr. West’s claims of rampant “prudery” in the Church before Theology of the Body. He believes this is so in that he feels many priests spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with what we call traditionally “sins of the flesh.”
Let me begin by stating that arriving at a sufficient answer here is near impossible. There is no data to analyze. (Indeed, if there was, some priests would most likely be receiving a call and excommunication papers from Rome.) We are dealing primarily here with subjective experiences. What follows from me is purely speculative.
Let us ask ourselves however: what is “prudery?” This is constantly left undefined by Mr. West and his defenders. From now on, we should always ask them to define their terms. For Wade, it is the priests focusing too much on sexual sins in the confessional. It is a curious definition of “prudery” and I guess I would like him to elaborate on it further.
We do know that sins of the flesh claim an inordinate amount of souls. In the Old Testament, we know that one of the most serious sins facing the two kingdoms was that of the qdeshim (male cult prostitutes) by which Jews were drawn from the worship to Yahweh towards the worship of the pagan gods. Sins of this nature are not only particularly appealing (because of the pleasure they give) but also extremely hard to root out (given the fact that they represent objectification par excellence.) Sins of lust killed the 6 husbands of Sara, and it can be inferred the temptation of the “daughters of men” in Genesis led to the Nephilim, leading to the Great flood.
We also know that in today’s hyper-sexualized culture, these kinds of sins are of particular problem and risk. The Church in her wisdom in the confessional tries to deal with those sins. Granted, some priests might not do the best job, but we are dealing with something that is a very serious nature here, as I’m sure Wade would agree.
He anticipates this objection, thinking that this kind of mentality could lead to prudishness. Perhaps. That being said, orthodox spiritual instruction can also lead to scrupulosity in the untrained. The problem of prudery I submit comes from a zeal not tempered by prudence or humility. Far from a healthy sexuality, prudishness is an inordinate fear, an inability to have a healthy understanding of their spiritual growth/nature. Their sentiment in attempting to avoid occasions of sin is laudable, yet their zealousness leads to problems of their own. I think West doesn’t treat this seriously. Prudery is indeed a serious problem. Yet a simple change of intellect is normally not enough to combat this. This requires very careful spiritual guidance from a competent director.
West many times seems to downplay the noble intention of the people who suffer from this problem. He seems to treat Hugh Heffner and John Paul II on the same side of attempting to overthrow “Victorian prudery”, even if Heffner went about it the wrong way. Prudery, like scrupulosity, ultimately comes from something noble. In West’s attacks on prudery, he essentially treats prudery as the source of all problems in society. One can hardly be faulted for thinking Mr. West actually believes that if not for prudery, a healthy sexual ethic would exist in the minds of Christians. This is the height of naiveté.
2.) On Analogies
One of the most heated areas of dispute in this entire fracas regards how many promoters of Christopher West’s employ certain analogies. Wade mentions one of them when Mr. West describes heaven as the “ultimate climax.” Dr. Janet Smith describes God as a stalker.
He believes that there is a sort of prudishness in why Catholics will call heaven “the heavenly Jerusalem” but not “the heavenly climax.” I believe Mr. West and those that make this statement ultimately confuse the purpose of symbolism. The marital embrace is meant to be a sign of something. It is to be a sign, with all the human limitations, of the deep intimate union we are called to in Christ Jesus. Once we are in heaven, such signs are no longer necessary. We will have that perfect mystical union.
So isn’t this the “ultimate climax?” Not exactly. A “climax” implies the end of an act and an exchange in a sexual act. In heaven, let us make this clear, there is not sex. Let me repeat: Heaven is not sexual. Silly as that sounds, we’ve got to establish that. Furthermore, once we reach that intimate union, there is no “climax.” Rather, once we are in heaven, that union is just beginning, and never ends. It is something so beyond the senses, there really is nothing to describe it.
Now some will certainly counter that the Bible and tradition is full of a “nuptial” or spousal language employed to demonstrate the relationship between Christ and His Church, and with every individual Christian. This is certainly true. Yet this is not sexual. There is a difference between an imagery of a marriage, and the imagery of sex. Sex exists as a symbol here on Earth. Sex will be gone in heaven, as it will no longer have a purpose. There will be no more procreation, nor there need for a sign of deeper union. I submit that is why the Bible lacks “sexual” language in describing heavenly union.
Yet if sex will not be there, marriage will. Not in the individual sense of two individuals marrying however, for “they are not married or given in marriage”. Instead, there will be one giant marriage of Christ and the Church, celebrated at the wedding feast of the Lamb. As any married couple will tell you (and I’m sure I’ll learn soon enough one of these days!) marriage is about far more than sex. When one begins the journey down the mystical road the spiritual writers speak of, they begin to experience a foretaste of this heavenly bliss. This is the reason people like St. John of the Cross employed spousal imagery.
Yet at the same time, we arrive at certain problems. We will not always experience that foretaste of union. This could lead someone to think they have done something wrong. Indeed, rather than bliss, there is a real dryness in their spirituality at that point. St. John of the Cross wrote the poem Dark Night of the Soul (along with the commentaries on it of The Ascent of Mt. Carmel and the far more famous book Dark Night of the Soul) to explain this phenomena. To him, this was not a sign of spiritual weakness. Rather, the soul was beginning to mature and prepare itself for that divine union. When a couple enters into an earthly marriage, they experience the same. Many times, there is not a fire of love and passion, but rather a very dry feeling in their relationship. This could be the way of beginning to look past their needs and desires, and instead being a gift to the other person. Archbishop Fulton Sheen captured this perfectly, even speaking of a “Dark Night of the Body” in marriage:
What the Dark Night of the Soul is to the spiritual life, the Dark Night of the Body is to marriage. Neither are permanent; both are occasions of purification for fresher insights into Love. If the fig tree of love is to bear fruit, it must be purged and dunged. Dryness in the spiritual life and in marriage are really actual graces. God’s finger is stirring the waters of the soul, creating discontent, that new efforts may be put forth. … There are two kinds of dryness: there is one which rots, which is the dryness of love without God; and there is also a dryness which ripens, and that is won when one grows through the fires and heat of sacrifice.This line of thought is practically absent from the thought of Christopher West. I would even go as far to say that as long as this is not emphasized, his theology is not “nuptial” at all. One could even go towards saying it is but a shadow of the truth.
3.) Briefly on Eros
Now some could say I am downplaying “eros”, treating it as a dirty thing. To do so is to have a misunderstanding of eros that is pretty common. In short, eros need not be “sexual” love, or even a love of physical attraction. eros is just as much about a love that is “creative” as it is sexual. Let’s take a small trip back through Greek mythology here.
In Greek lore, Eros was the god of fertility. The earliest conceptions of Eros, he embodied not only love but the creative aspect of nature which flows into society. Naturally, this was closely inclined with fertility. This kind of love no doubt comes from the One True God. Yet just like all things tainted by sin, man’s conception of Eros soon turned into mere passionate sexual love. Soon, in many cases love was dropped from the understanding altogether. Most Greeks certainly engaged in the erotic, but did so without love.
As God began preparing the intellectual landscape for His Son, you begin to see a heightening of eros. Plato comes along and reminds the Greeks that eros need not be sexual. In fact, the best eros is not sexual. Rather, it is a love of the created. In this case, one sees the beauty of another created figure, and simply loves them for that created beauty. The best eros however moves beyond that. The initial draw to the beauty of a person becomes something deeper. One becomes in love with what they truly represent, their highest values. Highest of all to Plato was wisdom. So in his eros, it ceases being about sex and sensual love, and turns into an appreciation of what makes that person special. It becomes a love of the uniqueness of the human person. From there, it becomes a longing for the completion that person provides. While this can be sexual and something physical, to limit this in Platonic thought would be foolish. That which is greatest for Plato to love was that which was eternal, beyond this physical world. There were some shortcomings of Plato, lacking the light of Christ of course. Yet I think one can see him laying out the intellectual landscape for something greater.
When Christ comes, He indeed shows us something even better. As great as eros was meant to be, Christ elevates agape above all else. Agape is that love which is the highest of all loves. The love that asks nothing in return and instead gives. Christ ultimately could have accomplished union with the people of God without His own sacrifice. He is God, He could have chosen differently. Instead, He takes on flesh in the Incarnation and God gives up His own life on the cross for those created to know, love, and serve Him. Eros no doubt led to this self-sacrificing love. Christ loved each one of us individually and longed for the deepest union possible with every human being. Yet Christ baptizes eros into true agape. That, my friends, is the “nuptial” and spousal imagery of the Scriptures. Now I want the reader to ask themselves a question: How much of this understanding of eros is really present in the thought of Christopher West? Is it entirely absent? Of course not. Yet is it more focusing on it as a mere sexual love? I would wager it is.
In the end, a misunderstanding of several basic concepts leads Mr. West to make analogies that really are ill-advised. (See my writings in the TOB section of this blog for some examples.)
There is more I could say to Wade, and I hope to do so in the future. For now, this will have to suffice.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Leo XIII: A True "Great" Pope
Much to my delight, Pope Leo XIII has been in the news lately in Catholic circles. Pope Benedict recently went to the birthplace of Vincenzo Gioacchino Raffaele Luigi Pecci, to celebrate the 200th anniversary of his birth. In the world today, the moniker "the great" is thrown around with every important leader. I think in the case of Leo XIII, one could say he was a truly "great" Pope. (if not necessarily carrying the moniker The Great, for a pope before him already has that in Pope St. Leo the Great.)
In the 25 years of his pontificate, there was seldom an area he touched that he didn't leave better off. First, we must note the length of his pontificate. I truly believe this was proof of God's sense of humor. After the 35 year reign of his predecessor Blessed Pius IX, the Church was hoping for a "transition" Pope. There were many who didn't like Pius' very confrontational approach, and were looking to institute a more "progressive" Pope. Rather than dying quickly, Leo XIII lived to the age of 93, and essentially confirmed in place the magesterium of Pius IX. What I hope follows is a very general tracing of the aspects of Church life he touched and left forever changed.
Being a convert who loves the Scriptures, the Church as a whole is indebted to Leo. The serious discipline of Biblical studies in the Catholic Church today traces a lot of their roots back to Leo XIII and his encyclical Providentimus Deus. He boldly stated things that even many Catholics (to say nothing of Protestants!) are surprised by:
As well as being a pope of great learning, he was also a pope of exemplary piety. Being the first pope of the 20th century, he prayed a very public novena for an outpouring of the Spirit (sometimes even referred to as a "New Pentecost") as the new century approached. I believe the Holy Spirit heard his prayer. The following 60 years could legitimately be viewed a "golden age" of Catholicism, from the 4 outstanding popes after him (including St. Pius X), the explosion of Catholic scholarship, and prolific writers like G.K Chesteron, J.R.R Tolkien and Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who took the Gospel to large audiences.
He wrote at length promoting devotion to Saint Joseph. The increase in devotion to the sainted custodian of Our Lord led 60 years later for his name to be inserted into the canon, and generally being viewed as the patron of all workers everywhere. St. Michael the Archangel also received special devotion in his pontificate, creating the very prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, which, somewhat shortened, many Catholics pray every day.
All of these popular devotions however pale in comparison to the amount of time he spent promoting the devotion rightly due to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Many times he has truly been called the "rosary Pope." He wrote eleven (count it, eleven!) encyclicals on the Rosary. He clearly spelled out our understanding of Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix, never taking away or adding anything to Christ's sacrifice in terms of merit, but within the context of her being a model as the example of perfect submission to the Divine Redeemer. The very Marian nature of later popes was heavily influenced by this Pope.
In terms of ecumenism and relationship with the world outside the Church, again great strides were made, but never at the expense of Catholic fidelity. Diplomatic relations were restored and strengthened almost universally during his pontificate. He defended the rights of Eastern Catholics from "Latinization", vieweing their traditions as absolutely essential to the universal Church. Whenever relationships with the Eastern Orthodox are discussed, the impact of Leo XIII is always mentioned.
In matters of Europe, he demonstrated a strong interest in England's Catholic population. He raised John Henry Newman to the rank of Cardinal and canonized the 50 "English Martyrs." One could say he also in a sense delivered what would come to be the "killing blow" against Anglicanism, ruling their priestly ordinations invalid in Apostolicae Curae (a once proud Christian tradition since that time has turned itself into a shade of its former self, now known more for compromising Christianity than anything else.) He was also one of the first Popes to take a keen interest in matters across the Atlantic in the United States of America. While giving great praise towards the (at the time) young republic, he also warned American Catholics to remain on firm ground in their thinking (condemning the heresy of "Americanism", one of the earlier manifestations of Christian pluralism).
All of these things would already make a very successful pontificate. For probably one of the most intelligent popes (worldwide he was known as a true master of Latin and an outstanding writer), he was just getting started. Leo XIII is mostly known for his "social magesterium." Almost everything about Catholic social teaching underwent a massive development under Leo XIII. It had been centuries since a Pope engaged the modern world with the tenacity he displayed. He began a serious defense and study of the sacrament of marriage, a study which needs renewed appreciation today. He defended and developed the understanding of marriage as the foundation for all society and its understanding even of liberty and equality came from this institution. He ardently defended the primacy of the parent in the role of educating their children. He defended the true understanding of liberty, and pointed out the essential Christian character of Western Civilization.
He is best remembered however for his work on socialism. One could say Leo was the first true modern prophet within the Church condemning socialism. In all of his political encyclicals, he attacked socialism. All of these culminated in the most influential of all modern encyclicals, Rerum Novarum. In this great work (which 4 popes have commemorated with special anniversary encyclicals), he gives the Catholic Churches definitive response to Marxism and the Communist Manifesto. He rejects socialism as utterly incompatible with Christian thought, and predicts (with almost frightening accuracy) what will happen to countries that embrace socialism.
He then stunned the world by also going after capitalism. While praising the market, he also warns that it is not the answer for everything, and that a rugged individualism is every bit as dangerous as socialism. He defends the rights of workers and labor unions, provided they are done with respect to Catholic conscience. Catholic economic thought entered another golden age as a result of this encyclical. Even today, Catholic scholars invoke the memory of this great Pope in trying to understand economics from a Catholic perspective.
The truth is, I could go on and on for ages extolling the benefits of studying Leo XIII. I believe I've given a strong outline for why I think he is such a solid pope. Yet, even with all of these accomplishments, even with so many turning to him for guidance throughout the years, I would say he is a "forgotten" pope in the minds of the average Catholic. They know Pius XII, they know Paul VI, they might be familiar with Pius IX and St. Pius X, they are certainly familiar with John Paul II. Many of these individuals owe a significant amount to the work of Leo XIII. As we celebrate the 200th year of his birth, let our devotion and understanding of his work only increase. While not a canonized saint, I believe there is little doubt where he resides, and that he to this day intercedes with us before the source of wisdom he so eloquently put forth.
In the 25 years of his pontificate, there was seldom an area he touched that he didn't leave better off. First, we must note the length of his pontificate. I truly believe this was proof of God's sense of humor. After the 35 year reign of his predecessor Blessed Pius IX, the Church was hoping for a "transition" Pope. There were many who didn't like Pius' very confrontational approach, and were looking to institute a more "progressive" Pope. Rather than dying quickly, Leo XIII lived to the age of 93, and essentially confirmed in place the magesterium of Pius IX. What I hope follows is a very general tracing of the aspects of Church life he touched and left forever changed.
Being a convert who loves the Scriptures, the Church as a whole is indebted to Leo. The serious discipline of Biblical studies in the Catholic Church today traces a lot of their roots back to Leo XIII and his encyclical Providentimus Deus. He boldly stated things that even many Catholics (to say nothing of Protestants!) are surprised by:
For those whose duty it is to handle Catholic doctrine before the learned or the unlearned will nowhere find more ample matter or more abundant exhortation, whether on the subject of God, the supreme Good and the all-perfect Being, or of the works which display His Glory and His love. Nowhere is there anything more full or more express on the subject of the Savior of the world than is to be found in the whole range of the Bible. As St. Jerome says, "To be ignorant of the Scripture is not to know Christ." In its pages His Image stands out, living and breathing; diffusing everywhere around consolation in trouble, encouragement to virtue and attraction to the love of God. And as to the Church, her institutions, her nature, her office, and her gifts, we find in Holy Scripture so many references and so many ready and convincing arguments, that as St. Jerome again most truly says: "A man who is well grounded in the testimonies of the Scripture is the bulwark of the Church.'' And if we come to morality and discipline, an apostolic man finds in the sacred writings abundant and excellent assistance; most holy precepts, gentle and strong exhortation, splendid examples of every virtue, and finally the promise of eternal reward and the threat of eternal punishment, uttered in terms of solemn import, in God's name and in God's own words.It was often joked that seminarian had the Bible, and he had the Summa Theologica, the great work of the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas. In Leo XIII the Angelic Doctor found his most forceful patron. In Aeterni Patris, a rigorous study of Aquinas became mandatory in not only seminaries, but Catholic lay universities as well. In the years since, we have seen rapid development of Thomism, including some Thomists who gave us new ways of understanding philosophy such as Dietrich Von Hildreband, and a very young Karol Wojtyła, who would eventually become John Paul II. These two were giants of the "personalist" school of philosophy, and were deeply influenced by Aquinas.
As well as being a pope of great learning, he was also a pope of exemplary piety. Being the first pope of the 20th century, he prayed a very public novena for an outpouring of the Spirit (sometimes even referred to as a "New Pentecost") as the new century approached. I believe the Holy Spirit heard his prayer. The following 60 years could legitimately be viewed a "golden age" of Catholicism, from the 4 outstanding popes after him (including St. Pius X), the explosion of Catholic scholarship, and prolific writers like G.K Chesteron, J.R.R Tolkien and Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who took the Gospel to large audiences.
He wrote at length promoting devotion to Saint Joseph. The increase in devotion to the sainted custodian of Our Lord led 60 years later for his name to be inserted into the canon, and generally being viewed as the patron of all workers everywhere. St. Michael the Archangel also received special devotion in his pontificate, creating the very prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, which, somewhat shortened, many Catholics pray every day.
All of these popular devotions however pale in comparison to the amount of time he spent promoting the devotion rightly due to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Many times he has truly been called the "rosary Pope." He wrote eleven (count it, eleven!) encyclicals on the Rosary. He clearly spelled out our understanding of Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix, never taking away or adding anything to Christ's sacrifice in terms of merit, but within the context of her being a model as the example of perfect submission to the Divine Redeemer. The very Marian nature of later popes was heavily influenced by this Pope.
In terms of ecumenism and relationship with the world outside the Church, again great strides were made, but never at the expense of Catholic fidelity. Diplomatic relations were restored and strengthened almost universally during his pontificate. He defended the rights of Eastern Catholics from "Latinization", vieweing their traditions as absolutely essential to the universal Church. Whenever relationships with the Eastern Orthodox are discussed, the impact of Leo XIII is always mentioned.
In matters of Europe, he demonstrated a strong interest in England's Catholic population. He raised John Henry Newman to the rank of Cardinal and canonized the 50 "English Martyrs." One could say he also in a sense delivered what would come to be the "killing blow" against Anglicanism, ruling their priestly ordinations invalid in Apostolicae Curae (a once proud Christian tradition since that time has turned itself into a shade of its former self, now known more for compromising Christianity than anything else.) He was also one of the first Popes to take a keen interest in matters across the Atlantic in the United States of America. While giving great praise towards the (at the time) young republic, he also warned American Catholics to remain on firm ground in their thinking (condemning the heresy of "Americanism", one of the earlier manifestations of Christian pluralism).
All of these things would already make a very successful pontificate. For probably one of the most intelligent popes (worldwide he was known as a true master of Latin and an outstanding writer), he was just getting started. Leo XIII is mostly known for his "social magesterium." Almost everything about Catholic social teaching underwent a massive development under Leo XIII. It had been centuries since a Pope engaged the modern world with the tenacity he displayed. He began a serious defense and study of the sacrament of marriage, a study which needs renewed appreciation today. He defended and developed the understanding of marriage as the foundation for all society and its understanding even of liberty and equality came from this institution. He ardently defended the primacy of the parent in the role of educating their children. He defended the true understanding of liberty, and pointed out the essential Christian character of Western Civilization.
He is best remembered however for his work on socialism. One could say Leo was the first true modern prophet within the Church condemning socialism. In all of his political encyclicals, he attacked socialism. All of these culminated in the most influential of all modern encyclicals, Rerum Novarum. In this great work (which 4 popes have commemorated with special anniversary encyclicals), he gives the Catholic Churches definitive response to Marxism and the Communist Manifesto. He rejects socialism as utterly incompatible with Christian thought, and predicts (with almost frightening accuracy) what will happen to countries that embrace socialism.
He then stunned the world by also going after capitalism. While praising the market, he also warns that it is not the answer for everything, and that a rugged individualism is every bit as dangerous as socialism. He defends the rights of workers and labor unions, provided they are done with respect to Catholic conscience. Catholic economic thought entered another golden age as a result of this encyclical. Even today, Catholic scholars invoke the memory of this great Pope in trying to understand economics from a Catholic perspective.
The truth is, I could go on and on for ages extolling the benefits of studying Leo XIII. I believe I've given a strong outline for why I think he is such a solid pope. Yet, even with all of these accomplishments, even with so many turning to him for guidance throughout the years, I would say he is a "forgotten" pope in the minds of the average Catholic. They know Pius XII, they know Paul VI, they might be familiar with Pius IX and St. Pius X, they are certainly familiar with John Paul II. Many of these individuals owe a significant amount to the work of Leo XIII. As we celebrate the 200th year of his birth, let our devotion and understanding of his work only increase. While not a canonized saint, I believe there is little doubt where he resides, and that he to this day intercedes with us before the source of wisdom he so eloquently put forth.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
The Death of the Catholic Male
When reflecting on society today, Catholics often have a question. What went wrong with our society? Why do we celebrate a culture of hedonism and ultimately a culture of death? John Paul II attempted to answer this question in his general audiences which became The Theology of the Body. In the eyes of the pontiff, humanity began losing its purpose as individuals and as a society because they failed to understanding the meaning of their bodies. That meaning was man (in the sense of the human race) is called to be a “gift” to others. Whether it be our everyday actions or the marital embrace between a husband and wife, we are called to live a life of service to the other, and this meaning is revealed and carried out in the human body.
Since the visible victims of this lack of understanding are typically women, the Holy Father spent a large amount of time writing about “the feminine genius” and what an authentically feminine woman brings to the Church and the world. For one reason or another, John Paul II frequently left off at this point. Whatever the reason, I think the Church, both individuals and the institution, need to carry this step further. Ponder a question. Will a pope in our lifetime ever write about “the masculine genius?” To ask this question is to answer it. Where are the programs to bring more and more men into the Church, not just as priests, but individual Catholics? One could multiply ad infinitium the lists of women’s programs, but seldom men. The really interesting question to ask is why this is so. I believe there is answer.
We have witnessed in society and even many circles of our Church the death of the male and masculinity. This is not to say that masculinity no longer exists. I am saying that in increasing numbers, masculinity is no longer relevant to many. The goal of feminism was never to eradicate masculinity. Such a goal is truly impossible. While you cannot eliminate it, you can marginalize it. On this, give the feminists and the evil one credit: They have succeeded resoundingly.
The virtues that made masculinity what it is have declined. When they are taught, seldom are they taught in ways a man may find applicable to his life I would argue. This needs to change.
The feminist revolution did not just claim women as their victims. They were the visible victims. We can see directly the objectification of women. I submit that their true target and the one they have (so far) had much success against is destroying the masculine. To the modern feminist, it was never about the equality of women, just as the true communist cared little about the “working man.” Women were props in a larger war, a means to an end. The irony of this theory is rich indeed. Under the guise of ending the exploitation of women, they exploited women to even worse ends. What was that end?
That end was a full frontal assault on the very essence of our civilization, on the very meaning of our humanity. The target of that rebellion is the same as it has always been. That target is God. The principal mover was the Evil one, working behind the scenes employing subtleties within subtleties to accomplish his goals. The fact that some good was produced (women can vote, laws exist where a wife is no longer in legal custom the property of her husband, etc) one could say masked a greater purpose, just as the providing of sustenance in the garden of Eden (in itself not wrong) masked a great evil (Satan manipulating man into willfully setting themselves in opposition to God.)
I would argue the results of this manipulation have been even more devastating towards men in society. They are the unseen victims, and typically the unseen suffer greatest. When leaders refuse to stand, chaos ensues. Men, by their very nature, are meant to lead. Their general absence on this field has led to chaos in society. Their very absence is what made the sexual devolution possible. This battle must be joined.
So why aren’t men joining it? This is where I think a lot of popular commentators on TOB get it wrong. They seek to redeem sex, without redeeming the virtues that make that possible. They seek to baptize eros, without baptizing sacrifice. They speak of freedom, but seldom responsibility. Test this theory out. Go to the next TOB talk. While the speaker might be a man, the audience, especially those most enthusiastic, will be women. I have never had a man want to talk about Theology of the Body. I have had scores of female friends wanting to. While part of this comes from a misunderstanding (popularized by those like Christopher West) that everything is all about our relationship to the opposite sex (emphasis on the word sex in their eyes), I think there is something far deeper at work here. That absence is a frank discussion about true masculinity.
This outlook so far could be one of despair. Yet this need not be! Throughout the existence of the people of God, there have been great examples of men doing what men do, and calling us to do the same. We need to look at them and see what they can teach us. I’d like to do that here at Common Sense Catholicism. In addition to the other works, you will see here from time to time commentaries from the Scriptures and everyday life about how to reclaim that which has been lost.
Since the visible victims of this lack of understanding are typically women, the Holy Father spent a large amount of time writing about “the feminine genius” and what an authentically feminine woman brings to the Church and the world. For one reason or another, John Paul II frequently left off at this point. Whatever the reason, I think the Church, both individuals and the institution, need to carry this step further. Ponder a question. Will a pope in our lifetime ever write about “the masculine genius?” To ask this question is to answer it. Where are the programs to bring more and more men into the Church, not just as priests, but individual Catholics? One could multiply ad infinitium the lists of women’s programs, but seldom men. The really interesting question to ask is why this is so. I believe there is answer.
We have witnessed in society and even many circles of our Church the death of the male and masculinity. This is not to say that masculinity no longer exists. I am saying that in increasing numbers, masculinity is no longer relevant to many. The goal of feminism was never to eradicate masculinity. Such a goal is truly impossible. While you cannot eliminate it, you can marginalize it. On this, give the feminists and the evil one credit: They have succeeded resoundingly.
The virtues that made masculinity what it is have declined. When they are taught, seldom are they taught in ways a man may find applicable to his life I would argue. This needs to change.
The feminist revolution did not just claim women as their victims. They were the visible victims. We can see directly the objectification of women. I submit that their true target and the one they have (so far) had much success against is destroying the masculine. To the modern feminist, it was never about the equality of women, just as the true communist cared little about the “working man.” Women were props in a larger war, a means to an end. The irony of this theory is rich indeed. Under the guise of ending the exploitation of women, they exploited women to even worse ends. What was that end?
That end was a full frontal assault on the very essence of our civilization, on the very meaning of our humanity. The target of that rebellion is the same as it has always been. That target is God. The principal mover was the Evil one, working behind the scenes employing subtleties within subtleties to accomplish his goals. The fact that some good was produced (women can vote, laws exist where a wife is no longer in legal custom the property of her husband, etc) one could say masked a greater purpose, just as the providing of sustenance in the garden of Eden (in itself not wrong) masked a great evil (Satan manipulating man into willfully setting themselves in opposition to God.)
I would argue the results of this manipulation have been even more devastating towards men in society. They are the unseen victims, and typically the unseen suffer greatest. When leaders refuse to stand, chaos ensues. Men, by their very nature, are meant to lead. Their general absence on this field has led to chaos in society. Their very absence is what made the sexual devolution possible. This battle must be joined.
So why aren’t men joining it? This is where I think a lot of popular commentators on TOB get it wrong. They seek to redeem sex, without redeeming the virtues that make that possible. They seek to baptize eros, without baptizing sacrifice. They speak of freedom, but seldom responsibility. Test this theory out. Go to the next TOB talk. While the speaker might be a man, the audience, especially those most enthusiastic, will be women. I have never had a man want to talk about Theology of the Body. I have had scores of female friends wanting to. While part of this comes from a misunderstanding (popularized by those like Christopher West) that everything is all about our relationship to the opposite sex (emphasis on the word sex in their eyes), I think there is something far deeper at work here. That absence is a frank discussion about true masculinity.
This outlook so far could be one of despair. Yet this need not be! Throughout the existence of the people of God, there have been great examples of men doing what men do, and calling us to do the same. We need to look at them and see what they can teach us. I’d like to do that here at Common Sense Catholicism. In addition to the other works, you will see here from time to time commentaries from the Scriptures and everyday life about how to reclaim that which has been lost.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Why The Incarnation Matters: The Sundering of the Kingdom
Following the death of Solomon, his son Rehoboam became the King. If Solomon was the epitome of wisdom, his son could be viewed as an utter fool. Like his father, he was used to having prestige showered upon him. He liked to think that he truly deserved everything he had been given. When he ascends to the throne, this attitude is on full display with his advisors.
During the reign of Solomon, there was a man named Jeroboam, who grew to prominence in Solomon’s court. God instructed Jeroboam that he would use him as a form of judgment against Solomon for his idolatry. Understandably, Solomon viewed him a threat, and Jeroboam was exiled, winding up in Egypt. When Solomon died, he attempted to return to Israel. Taking with him a delegation, he met with the new king to attempt to secure a peace between them. In addition to being allowed to return home, several grievances were lobbied, including the heavy taxation Solomon inflicted upon the people to be lessened. When Rehoboam spoke with his fathers trusted advisors, they counseled restraint, or at least to deal with them in a civil manner. One can see here that God gave these men wisdom, in attempting to give wise counsel to the King.
Rehoboam decided to seek a second opinion. He went to those who he had grown up around (by their very nature, these tend to be sycophants), and asked for their advice. Rather than counsel wisdom, they counseled pride. They saw here a chance for Rehoboam to make a name for himself. If his father ruled with an iron fist, he should rule with a fist of titanium. Of course, greater taxation also meant greater wealth for these advisors. They were counseling not service to the people, but their exploitation for their own personal benefits. Like Nimrod and the tower, they wished to exalt themselves above everyone else. Their advice wins the day. When the King returns to Jeroboam, he states the following:
Why would God promise David a successor forever, but then allow this civil war? God once again was doing this as a warning to Judah. The hope was that Rehoboam would realize his sinful actions, and direct his heart towards God. Jeroboam was to be God’s instrument in bringing the people back to their calling which Solomon had abandoned.
During all this, Jeroboam has a problem. When looked at from a political perspective, this is indeed a problem. All of the faithful went to worship at Jerusalem. Jerusalem was in Judah. The people could be unduly influenced by Rehoboam during their stay, and they could defect from the newly established Kingdom. Rehoboam could also restrict their ability to go to Jerusalem, or even worse harm the followers. A king has to be ready for all possibilities.
Rather than trusting in God (who assured him a stable kingdom if he served God), Jeroboam decides to compromise. He sets up his own rival places of worship. He makes a bronze bull, but claims it represents Yahweh. In his heart of hearts, he did not think he was committing idolatry. Yet he certainly was not trusting in God.
He then sinned even further by making his own priesthood. The law he followed was crystal clear: the priests come from the tribe of Levi. Yet most of the priests were in Jerusalem. At this point, he exalts himself above the law, a very grave sin, just as his ancestors had committed time and time again. Since he did the exact opposite of what God had commanded him, Jeroboam was informed that just as he was going to be used in judgment against Rehoboam, so another would be used in judgment against him and his entire household. When he died and his son became King, his son was assassinated by one of his guards, who then proceeded to wipe out every descendant of Jeroboam.
Rehoboam was little better. He seemed to compete with Israel in their depravity. At this time, Judah was invaded by the Egyptians, who were able to secure all the wealth of the temple and Rehoboam’s servitude. At this point, Judah, once set to bring the entire world to God, was now a vassal of the wicked. All of this was due to their sins.
During the reign of Solomon, there was a man named Jeroboam, who grew to prominence in Solomon’s court. God instructed Jeroboam that he would use him as a form of judgment against Solomon for his idolatry. Understandably, Solomon viewed him a threat, and Jeroboam was exiled, winding up in Egypt. When Solomon died, he attempted to return to Israel. Taking with him a delegation, he met with the new king to attempt to secure a peace between them. In addition to being allowed to return home, several grievances were lobbied, including the heavy taxation Solomon inflicted upon the people to be lessened. When Rehoboam spoke with his fathers trusted advisors, they counseled restraint, or at least to deal with them in a civil manner. One can see here that God gave these men wisdom, in attempting to give wise counsel to the King.
Rehoboam decided to seek a second opinion. He went to those who he had grown up around (by their very nature, these tend to be sycophants), and asked for their advice. Rather than counsel wisdom, they counseled pride. They saw here a chance for Rehoboam to make a name for himself. If his father ruled with an iron fist, he should rule with a fist of titanium. Of course, greater taxation also meant greater wealth for these advisors. They were counseling not service to the people, but their exploitation for their own personal benefits. Like Nimrod and the tower, they wished to exalt themselves above everyone else. Their advice wins the day. When the King returns to Jeroboam, he states the following:
And the king answered the people roughly, leaving the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and he spoke to them according to the counsel of the young men, saying: My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke: My father beat you with whips, but I will beat you with scorpions.Hearing this, Jeroboam launched a rebellion against Rehoboam. When Rehoboam sent an emissary to stop the rebellion, that emissary was stoned. Jeroboam was then made King of the new Kingdom of Israel, whereas Rehoboam became known as the King of Judah (for only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained loyal to the house of David.)
Why would God promise David a successor forever, but then allow this civil war? God once again was doing this as a warning to Judah. The hope was that Rehoboam would realize his sinful actions, and direct his heart towards God. Jeroboam was to be God’s instrument in bringing the people back to their calling which Solomon had abandoned.
During all this, Jeroboam has a problem. When looked at from a political perspective, this is indeed a problem. All of the faithful went to worship at Jerusalem. Jerusalem was in Judah. The people could be unduly influenced by Rehoboam during their stay, and they could defect from the newly established Kingdom. Rehoboam could also restrict their ability to go to Jerusalem, or even worse harm the followers. A king has to be ready for all possibilities.
Rather than trusting in God (who assured him a stable kingdom if he served God), Jeroboam decides to compromise. He sets up his own rival places of worship. He makes a bronze bull, but claims it represents Yahweh. In his heart of hearts, he did not think he was committing idolatry. Yet he certainly was not trusting in God.
He then sinned even further by making his own priesthood. The law he followed was crystal clear: the priests come from the tribe of Levi. Yet most of the priests were in Jerusalem. At this point, he exalts himself above the law, a very grave sin, just as his ancestors had committed time and time again. Since he did the exact opposite of what God had commanded him, Jeroboam was informed that just as he was going to be used in judgment against Rehoboam, so another would be used in judgment against him and his entire household. When he died and his son became King, his son was assassinated by one of his guards, who then proceeded to wipe out every descendant of Jeroboam.
Rehoboam was little better. He seemed to compete with Israel in their depravity. At this time, Judah was invaded by the Egyptians, who were able to secure all the wealth of the temple and Rehoboam’s servitude. At this point, Judah, once set to bring the entire world to God, was now a vassal of the wicked. All of this was due to their sins.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Christopher West, TOB, and the Limits of Analogies
When discussion comes up about Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, the name of Christopher West draws equal praise and criticism. For those of his critics, there tends to be one unifying thing. In their view, Mr. West does a very bad job (one could almost say sloppy) of choosing his words. He ends up saying things that, when taken to their logical conclusion, would make even Mr. West recoil in horror.
His supporters may acknowledge it, but feel critics are being uncharitable. “Certainly nobody speaks perfectly at all times!” “We must allow a certain license since he is speaking primarily to the so called un-churched, who have no understanding on the teachings of sexuality provided by the Catholic Church.” While both these statements are true, I personally believe they can only go so far. Far from precision being less important, it is all the more important when speaking to an audience that has little understanding of the truth. I would like to point out one I believe prominent example of this. First however, I would like to use an analogy myself.
During a recent bout of unemployment, I was given a temporary job at a warehouse. In addition to doing your normal stock work, the president of the company wanted me to provide technical instruction to the workers on how to use certain warehouse processes and computer applications. Two of these workers never used a computer in their lives, being over fifty years old. (The old saying, you cannot teach an old dog a new trick.) In providing the documentation, I had to explain how to use these systems. At this point, precision was required. If I didn’t state things exactly like they were, they wouldn’t know what to do. They did not have the technical know how to navigate menus, enter commands, shortcuts, and eventually arrive at the solution.
I would argue that this situation is analogous. Many people who hear Mr. West speak don’t have an advanced understanding of purity, modesty, chastity, etc. They don’t know of the powerful benefits the sacraments provide in combating these difficulties. One with that understanding will see some things and say “He may not have worded it right, but I get what he is saying.” One not so versed won’t look for that nuance. They will take it at face value, even more because a charismatic speaker delivered the statement with eloquence.
Some will look at the example I am about to cite as nitpicking. For reasons I hope to make clear, it is anything but. In an online column at his website, Mr. West states the following:
Now there are those who will reply “yet this was only in a mystical manner!” I would reply that by its very nature as a mystical manner, impregnate would be disqualified. The church does not say in the Credo that the coming of Christ came about by Mary being “impregnated by the Holy Spirit” but rather that Christ was “incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit.” The Incarnation above all is something that cannot be described by human understandings or concepts. Christ was incarnated in the womb of the Blessed Virgin “not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but God.” While this in a sense describes how we become sons of God (through God’s saving power alone), this also describes ultimately how the Incarnation occurs. It did not occur through a sexual action, or even the desire of men. While the Blessed amongst women consented to the Incarnation, she could not will it to occur. In short, we are dealing with a mystery so high above human understanding, in the words of Dr. Alive VonHildebrand “Silent Adoration is the only acceptable response.”
I believe this is established when one looks at the Scriptures themselves. During the Annunciation, the Archangel Gabriel announces that Mary will have a son named Jesus, and that this will occur in the Incarnation. When Mary wonders how this could be (since she was a virgin), Gabriel replies:
For some, it is the phrase “The Holy Spirit shall come upon” that denotes sexuality and “impregnating”. The Greek verb used here is eperchomai. This occurs 9 times in the New Testament. In direct conjunction with the power of the Holy Spirit, it is used only one other time, in the book of Acts, when Christ promises the power of the Holy Spirit will come upon the Apostles, which will begin their mission of preaching the Gospel to the entire world. Once again, there is absolutely nothing sexual about this, nor is “impregnation” implied. Unless Mr. West wants to state that the Holy Spirit also “impregnated” the Apostles!
Even with this evidence considered, there will be those who protest “Yet how else can we explain how Christ was found within the womb of the Blessed amongst women?” The simple truth is we cannot. This is an event so beyond human comprehension it can only be accepted by faith. We can understand the Incarnation. We can understand that through Divine Intervention, Mary had a son whose name was Jesus. What we cannot do is comprehend it. There are always these sort of things within Divine Revelation. Many times, attempts to “comprehend” the deepest mysteries of God lead to heresy. The Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Sabellians, all these heretics did their best to “comprehend” in a natural way, with reason and human example, the mystery that is the Holy Trinity. Many of them were no doubt well intentioned in doing so. With good reason did the Apostle Luke (himself a physician who certainly would’ve been able to speak of “impregnate” in a different manner if that is what indeed occurred) simply quote the words of the Archangel Gabriel and leave it at that. For the most consequential event in salvation history, St. Luke spends very little time explaining or discussing it. I think there’s a reason for that, one which people would be wise to heed.
Mr. West and his defenders believe that we object to this kind of imagery or language because of "doubts about our own bodies." To this I can simply reply we object because the usage of such language and imagery is simply wrong.
His supporters may acknowledge it, but feel critics are being uncharitable. “Certainly nobody speaks perfectly at all times!” “We must allow a certain license since he is speaking primarily to the so called un-churched, who have no understanding on the teachings of sexuality provided by the Catholic Church.” While both these statements are true, I personally believe they can only go so far. Far from precision being less important, it is all the more important when speaking to an audience that has little understanding of the truth. I would like to point out one I believe prominent example of this. First however, I would like to use an analogy myself.
During a recent bout of unemployment, I was given a temporary job at a warehouse. In addition to doing your normal stock work, the president of the company wanted me to provide technical instruction to the workers on how to use certain warehouse processes and computer applications. Two of these workers never used a computer in their lives, being over fifty years old. (The old saying, you cannot teach an old dog a new trick.) In providing the documentation, I had to explain how to use these systems. At this point, precision was required. If I didn’t state things exactly like they were, they wouldn’t know what to do. They did not have the technical know how to navigate menus, enter commands, shortcuts, and eventually arrive at the solution.
I would argue that this situation is analogous. Many people who hear Mr. West speak don’t have an advanced understanding of purity, modesty, chastity, etc. They don’t know of the powerful benefits the sacraments provide in combating these difficulties. One with that understanding will see some things and say “He may not have worded it right, but I get what he is saying.” One not so versed won’t look for that nuance. They will take it at face value, even more because a charismatic speaker delivered the statement with eloquence.
Some will look at the example I am about to cite as nitpicking. For reasons I hope to make clear, it is anything but. In an online column at his website, Mr. West states the following:
The Song of Songs teaches us – as does the spousal imagery throughout all of Scripture – that God wants to "marry" us. Furthermore, through this mystical marriage, the divine Bridegroom wants to fill us, "impregnate" us with divine life. In the Virgin Mary, this becomes a living reality. And this, as the Catechism says, is why "Mary goes before us all in the holiness that is the Church’s mystery as ‘the bride without spot or wrinkle’"I take objection to the phrase “impregnate.” To the uneducated, this could sound very close to the idea that the Third Person of the Trinity had a sexual relationship with the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is blasphemy. To a pious Jew, this statement would be revolting. Why is that so? Jewish commentator Dennis Prager gives the reason in his seminal work on why Judaism (and Christianity) introduced a truly “revolutionary” understanding about sexuality compared to that of the world:
With great reverence and a kind of "holy daring," St. Louis de Montfort unabashedly presents the spiritual mystery revealed to us through the Virgin Mary’s feminine body. If we don’t share his comfort – indeed, many find themselves decidedly uncomfortable in the face of such a treatment of the Virgin Mary – we would do well to examine the source of such discomfort. It is much easier to eschew the body (our own body, Jesus’s body, Mary’s body) than it is to face the disorders in our hearts that cause us to eschew the body.
Thus, the first thing Judaism did was to de-sexualize God: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" by his will, not through any sexual behavior. This was an utterly radical break with all other religions, and it alone changed human history. The gods of virtually all civilizations engaged in sexual relations. In the Near East, the Babylonian god Ishtar seduced a man, Gilgamesh, the Babylonian hero. In Egyptian religion, the god Osiris had sexual relations with his sister, the goddess Isis, and she conceived the god Horus. In Canaan, El, the chief god, had sex with Asherah. In Hindu belief, the god Krishna was sexually active, having had many wives and pursuing Radha; the god Samba, son of Krishna, seduced mortal women and men. In Greek beliefs, Zeus married Hera, chased women, abducted the beautiful young male, Ganymede, and masturbated at other times; Poseidon married Amphitrite, pursued Demeter, and raped Tantalus. In Rome, the gods sexually pursued both men and women.To imply such a union is to say that Christianity is no different from the other world religions, especially in manners of sexuality. It ultimately ascribes to the Creator a created status. Created beings have sex drives. The Deity (in Judeo-Christian understanding) does not. In a culture which views everything through the prism of sex, should we really be using such terminology?
Now there are those who will reply “yet this was only in a mystical manner!” I would reply that by its very nature as a mystical manner, impregnate would be disqualified. The church does not say in the Credo that the coming of Christ came about by Mary being “impregnated by the Holy Spirit” but rather that Christ was “incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit.” The Incarnation above all is something that cannot be described by human understandings or concepts. Christ was incarnated in the womb of the Blessed Virgin “not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but God.” While this in a sense describes how we become sons of God (through God’s saving power alone), this also describes ultimately how the Incarnation occurs. It did not occur through a sexual action, or even the desire of men. While the Blessed amongst women consented to the Incarnation, she could not will it to occur. In short, we are dealing with a mystery so high above human understanding, in the words of Dr. Alive VonHildebrand “Silent Adoration is the only acceptable response.”
I believe this is established when one looks at the Scriptures themselves. During the Annunciation, the Archangel Gabriel announces that Mary will have a son named Jesus, and that this will occur in the Incarnation. When Mary wonders how this could be (since she was a virgin), Gabriel replies:
The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.To an observant Jew, the phrase “overshadow” would have been unmistakable. The last time they knew of the Power of God “overshadowing” anything was when the shekinah cloud of the Lord appeared over the Israelites during their Exodus from Egypt. That cloud also overshadowed the temple, and was God’s sign to man of His presence. The word used in the Greek for overshadow is episkiazō. The term appears 5 times in the New Testament. In the first 3, it describes the cloud that overshadows Peter, James and John during the Transfiguration. In the other instance, it describes Peter’s shadow “falling upon” the sick, that they may be cured. Nothing sexual here, move along.
For some, it is the phrase “The Holy Spirit shall come upon” that denotes sexuality and “impregnating”. The Greek verb used here is eperchomai. This occurs 9 times in the New Testament. In direct conjunction with the power of the Holy Spirit, it is used only one other time, in the book of Acts, when Christ promises the power of the Holy Spirit will come upon the Apostles, which will begin their mission of preaching the Gospel to the entire world. Once again, there is absolutely nothing sexual about this, nor is “impregnation” implied. Unless Mr. West wants to state that the Holy Spirit also “impregnated” the Apostles!
Even with this evidence considered, there will be those who protest “Yet how else can we explain how Christ was found within the womb of the Blessed amongst women?” The simple truth is we cannot. This is an event so beyond human comprehension it can only be accepted by faith. We can understand the Incarnation. We can understand that through Divine Intervention, Mary had a son whose name was Jesus. What we cannot do is comprehend it. There are always these sort of things within Divine Revelation. Many times, attempts to “comprehend” the deepest mysteries of God lead to heresy. The Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Sabellians, all these heretics did their best to “comprehend” in a natural way, with reason and human example, the mystery that is the Holy Trinity. Many of them were no doubt well intentioned in doing so. With good reason did the Apostle Luke (himself a physician who certainly would’ve been able to speak of “impregnate” in a different manner if that is what indeed occurred) simply quote the words of the Archangel Gabriel and leave it at that. For the most consequential event in salvation history, St. Luke spends very little time explaining or discussing it. I think there’s a reason for that, one which people would be wise to heed.
Mr. West and his defenders believe that we object to this kind of imagery or language because of "doubts about our own bodies." To this I can simply reply we object because the usage of such language and imagery is simply wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)