It has been a while since I posted, and one of the things I want to discuss today is something that to be honest is often hard to articulate, but thanks to some good textbook work during my Master's program at Steubenville recently, I am able to at least know something about how to express this, as I feel it is important to document. The topic also bridges a long-held hobby of mine with my faith at this point, and that is integral as well given at times over the years some bad thinking on the part of some Christian traditions at times almost discourages the reality that nature too can proclaim the glory of God, often in unexpected ways. The hobby I speak of is my collection of vintage big band recordings, something which as of this month I have had a passion for collecting over 36 years. Since discovering a more traditional Catholic faith, I have learned that even a masterfully executed secular piece of music can be appreciated and even celebrated as a divinely-endowed gift, and it has actually been liberating. I want to first talk about that aspect of it, and then move on to the main discussion
Throughout the opening passages of Genesis, we are reminded that after each act of creation, God would step back, look at it, and declare that it was good. By the time we get to the Fall in Genesis 3, something has happened - because of the Fall, all nature has become corrupted. However, in its being as originally created, God still sees it as potentially good. Over the years, the extreme pietism of some Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants has essentially led to an over-spiritualization of how they understand these concepts of nature and being, and in doing so, they often feel they are obligated to reject "the flesh" or "the natural," as many of those identifying as Pentecostals and Charismatics often call it, and that their minds should only be focused on "spiritual things" to the utter rejection of all "flesh." A person who holds such a view has a serious problem, in that what often they call "flesh" in an evil sense is in reality still a creation of God, and they confuse the corruption that happens as a result of the Fall with the very thing itself. This has never been an teaching of the Church, and is by no means orthodox at all - as a matter of fact, the only other group that held a similar view was an early heresy called Gnosticism, which held that the material is evil and only "the spiritual" (whatever that is!) is good. Many Evangelicals fail often to realize how dangerously close they are to an outright heresy, and that is why a short Bible study is warranted here.
In Acts 10, we read about a conversion experience of a certain individual named Cornelius, who interesting enough was a Roman military officer. Cornelius was not the sadistic butcher that we see later in such individuals as Caligula or Nero, but he actually had been in Palestine a long time and had learned something about Jewish culture and appreciated it. In keeping up with the affairs of Jewish society from his residence in Caesarea, Cornelius was also made aware that an enigmatic figure called Jesus of Nazareth was causing quite a buzz in the community. Acts 10:2 even says that Cornelius had essentially come to accept that Yahweh whom the local Jews professed to worship was the true God, and his faith eventually bears fruit in verse 3 of the chapter, where on one afternoon an angel of God appears to Cornelius in a vision. God has honored Cornelius's faithfulness, and as a result God Himself was offering Cornelius a precious gift, and that was to be communicated to him through the Apostle Peter, who was staying in the nearby town of Joppa with some friends. Cornelius is of course ecstatic about this, and immediately sends for Peter. As for Peter, in the meantime he is doing his daily prayers on the rooftop of his friend Simon the tanner's house, and God sends a vision to Peter to prepare him for the meeting with Cornelius. At this point, Peter is still somewhat young, and many of his old holdovers from Jewish tradition - in particular a bad prejudice against Gentile people, in particular the occupying Romans - still color his perceptions. But, here God teaches him a lesson - in the vision, a sheet is sent down from heaven with all sorts of animals on it that Jews would have considered "unclean" based on Levitical law - pigs, probably a lobster or two, etc. God then commands Peter in verse 13 to "Kill and eat!" as Peter was also getting a hankering for lunch. Peter, being the good Jew he was, said essentially "No way am I even going to touch those filthy beasts, as we can't eat those!" But, that invites a strong rebuke from the Lord in verse 15 - "Do not call unclean what I have cleansed!" The lesson in the story, which also is one of the first passages I actually wrote a sermon on some years back, is that God loves all humanity, and that Jesus died for all people, not just a "chosen few." We see an interesting parallel with other areas of Scripture too, as essentially Peter was almost on the verge of making a mistake in reverse of what Eve did in Genesis 3 - he was about to apply interpretations of moral law that God never made in order to "add to" the actual command of God. We also see a parallel with Jonah as well, in that Jonah had a similar prejudice and resistance to preach to the people of Nineveh. While at its core this story is evangelistic, we must remember that Scripture is a multi-dimensional book, and its truths can also apply elsewhere too. And, that is one of the ideas I want to talk about today.
Do any of you remember the late Guy Lombardo (1902-1977)? If so, you will know he was a very famous dance band leader whose career stretched from around 1922 to his death in 1977, which happened ironically while he was on a tour with his great orchestra and had a massive heart attack that took him out of this world. The tag-line that Lombardo's orchestra, the Royal Canadians, used for all those many years was "the Sweetest Music This Side of Heaven." Indeed, Lombardo's music was some of the best too, and I say that with some bias as a record collector with a strong partiality toward what were known as "sweet bands," of which Lombardo was the pioneer. In the late 1920's, Lombardo's orchestra played a lot in Cleveland, which at the time was a major venue for some of the biggest dance bands in the country then, and at that time a young orphan kid who was selling saxophones to pay his rent happened to cross paths with Lombardo. This young kid was not only an instrument salesman, but he also could play as well. Lombardo became sort of a protege to the young man, and in a few years this young man had an orchestra of his own with a very distinct sound based on his own tenor sax technique. The young man Lombardo mentored was none other than the late Freddy Martin (1906-1983), known perennially as "Mr. Silvertone" for his technique, and of all the great orchestras I have on record in my collection, Freddy Martin has always been the one I have admired the most - when I was beginning to learn on sax back when I was in high school, I wanted to play like Freddy Martin, as I loved his music. My personal take on this is that as good as Lombardo's Royal Canadians were, I believe that the "Sweetest Music This Side of Heaven" tag fits Freddy Martin even better, as his orchestra sounded absolutely heavenly. I tell that story for a reason, in that it relates to this lesson in a very special way.
Aquinas taught that as part of God's special creation, he endowed within it a number of attributes that he and other great Doctors of the Church called "transcendental properties of being," and of those three are very important - truth, goodness, and beauty. As Fr. Norris Clarke defines a "transcendental property of being," he does so on page 290 of his book, The One and the Many (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001) as describing a transcendental property as a positive attribute that can be predicated of every real being, so that it is convertible with being itself. Ultimately, as humanity is concerned, God is the full embodiment of those properties, as God Himself is the ultimate Good, and the ultimate Truth (John 14:6), and He is infinite Beauty beyond description. As man is created in the image of God, this also includes a creative impulse that seeks to express these properties in tangible ways. It might shock some of our Evangelical friends to hear that this is not limited to just faithful Christians, as it means that all humanity possesses this quality, and indeed talent, skill, and other creative impulses are given by God to all. Of course, the idea of supernatural grace plays into this for the Christian, in that supernatural grace can take those things and elevate them to what God intended. But, it also reminds us that God's creation proclaims him even without realizing it. So, how does that relate to Acts 10 and Freddy Martin's records? This is where I am about to personalize it a little.
Have you ever heard a piece of music where something about it just grabs you as you listen to it? It may not be the whole piece of music either, but maybe that one stanza or even one note. Yesterday, while I was at work listening to some MP3 recordings of some of Freddy Martin's LP recordings from the 1960's, I heard this one excerpt from a medley of songs he was doing. For those of you who may not have heard Freddy Martin's orchestra before, it is a very satiny-sweet orchestra characterized by rich ensemble work - a lush string section, a tenor sax-led reed section, and a trumpet section that has an almost carillon quality to it. On some of his records, such as his 1946 recording of the standard "Laura," he does this tenor sax interlude toward the end of the song, which is accentuated with a lush string background and cascading crescendos on twin pianos. When he plays like that, something just resonates with me to that, as it is just indescribable as to how really beautiful it is. That is one of the reasons I have both collected these recordings for years as well as aspiring when I was younger to play the sax like Freddy Martin. As John Saward notes on page 76 of his book The Beauty of Holiness and the Holiness of Beauty (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1997), although not every artist, musician, or other creative genius has been religious or particularly Christian, all great art is in a sense religious in that it manifests the wonder of being, the beauty of things reflecting the Creator that made them possible. That means that even if someone refuses to acknowledge God and follow him, their talents can be inspirational to others even when they don't intend them to do so. The other side to this though is that many people fall short of that mark too, and when truth, beauty, and goodness are either distorted or dispensed with because of man's own self-centeredness, it results in a deficiency of those properties - this is one reason why such things as pornography, rock music, and bad movies and television have come to exist. So, yes, we can be an improper steward of natural talent that the Creator gave himself, and when that happens, just like morality the concept of aesthetics is warped. This is where I now want to make a very important point before wrapping up.
It is ironic at times that the most profound expressions of truth, beauty, and goodness often come from those who are not Christian, yet that creates a huge problem. Christians, who have embraced the heretical quasi-Gnostic idea mentioned earlier that anything "in the natural" is bad, have often rejected what is truly good and have instead come up with poor and substandard substitutes. I have very little use for instance with much of what is called "contemporary Christian music" due to the fact it is often devoid of the divine attributes of the Lord it claims to proclaim, and to be honest I am more stirred and inspired by a good secular recording which is artistically done than I am by a bad "religious" song that just employs gimmicks and poor mimicry of "Top 40" rock industry standards, and rock music itself is a rebellion against the natural inclination to truth, beauty, and goodness. One reason I have loved vintage big bands and the huge legacy of recordings that era has left us is that these were men and women who took their music seriously enough to learn it correctly, and in doing so they created an important piece of Americana. Now, big band musicians were by no means perfect - they had more than their fair share of alcoholics, drug addicts, and other vices among them for sure. But, even the most tormented, alcohol-drenched musicians of that era (Bunny Berigan comes to mind here) out-shined the supposedly "virtuous" so-called "Contemporary Christian artist" of today in that despite vices, there was a standard. It is pretty bad when an alcoholic like Bunny Berigan or a reefer addict like Woody Herman was can express more of what God intended for our abilities than can many self-professed "Christian" music artists, yet I will often hear Evangelicals in particular come down hard on any secular music while at the same time calling some of the worst caterwalling ever bellowed in some obscure megachurch somewhere as being "anointed." I beg to differ, based on the Acts 10 example - God gives the talent, and regardless the human condition of those that possess it, God gave it to them and it still is good. And, what it can produce can also be good and beautiful. It is also important to understand as well that many of the great classics - meaning Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc. - are not even as "secular" as they are portrayed by some tone-deaf Fundamentalist; indeed, much of that music has its own roots in the Church too, and great composers - some Catholic, some Orthodox, and even some Protestant or Jewish - produce phenomenal works that they themselves acknowledge they couldn't do without God giving them the gifting to do so. Therefore, it is vital that we recognize true transcendental properties in great music, instead of in our own arrogant self-righteousness offering in its stead some bad knockoff which is often gracefully endured as a "joyful noise" by polite churchgoers with better taste. Therefore, give me Freddy Martin's masterful tenor sax anyday over Michael W. Smith's whiney pre-pubescent singing (sorry to the Smith fans, but his voice does grate on the nerves a little!), as for me the former reflects more of what God intended talent to be than the latter, although it is in an Acts 10 sense a plate of "kosher ham." Blessings until next time.
Friday, October 12, 2018
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Recent Scandal and Controversy in the Church - Weighing In
As I write this today, we have just commemorated the Feast of the Assumption, which commemorates Mary's reception into heaven upon her passing as a sort of preview of what all of us as Christians will be looking forward to. I know many of my fellow Catholics are a bit intimidated by the word "Rapture," due to its associations with the premillenial dispensationalist tradition among Evangelical Protestants, but in the correct context the Assumption was indeed a type of "rapture" in that Mary was "caught up" (and that is what the word means, right?) to heaven, and it has only happened a couple of other times that are actually recorded in Scripture - Enoch in Genesis, Moses in Deuteronomy, Elijah, and of course the Ascension of Jesus Himself. We also profess it in the creeds of the Church, when we talk about a "resurrection of the quick and the dead," which is to happen at Christ's return. So, contrary to what some priests even say at times in their homilies, the Church does believe in a Rapture, but not quite in the same way as our Evangelical brethren do. However, that is not the focus of this writing today, but just a quick mention about the Feast of the Assumption and why we celebrate and commemorate it.
The real purpose of this article is something even more grave and serious, as it is a crisis that threatens the Church and its witness. Back around 2001 or so, there were a number of scandals of priests who had committed sexually deviant acts against others, and this made the news at that time. It was a shameful and embarrassing thing, and the unfortunate truth of the accusations even cost the Church some of her people, who became so disillusioned with her that they left. It also provided fodder to both the secularists and Protestant Fundamentalists, who in lieu of the controversy were like "Aha!" and preyed upon the opportunity to see some of their own claims all of a sudden appear true. At that time, a traditionalist Catholic journalist published a book entitled Goodbye Good Men which dealt with the scandals and the reasoning behind them, one of which he points out was the rise of a new militant gay subculture in certain seminaries. Another factor Rose cites less often but others have noted is the Vatican II Council. Vatican II has been blamed for a lot of things, and it is important from the outset to clear something up about that. First, Vatican II was meant to be a pastoral Council rather than a doctrinal Council, and what that essentially means is that the Magisterium was still affirmed by the Council Fathers and doctrinal orthodoxy was still maintained. Second, the first point leads to this one: the problem with innovations since Vatican II, I strongly believe, is not due to Vatican II itself but rather to faulty implementation of some things the Council proposed. In reading the Vatican II documents myself, as I did for many courses I had in my Master's program at Steubenville over the past four years, there is actually a lot of good stuff in them, and some of the documents such as Lumen Gentium are actually very orthodox in content. As my good friend, Catholic traditionalist and fellow Monarchist Charles Coulombe stated on a broadcast of his weekly program some months back, at least 80-85% of the documents of Vatican II are very sound and affirm prior Councils and the Magisterium, and the 15% that doesn't is not worth really quibbling over - the answer, as Coulombe notes, is simple on that, mainly just reject what doesn't line up with the Deposit of Faith. As I have examined the evidence, the current sex crisis in the Church has little, if anything at all, to do with anything related to Vatican II, and therefore that would need to be ruled out. As we examine this further, I want to first rehash some of the news about what is going on at present to shed some light on what we are talking about here, and then I have some insights I want to share from a book I use extensively for reference, that book being Desmond Birch's Trial, Tribulation, and Triumph (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1996). Birch's volume is an encyclopedia of various prophetic insights that many saints and visionaries of the Church have received over the years, and many of them have a lot to say about this current crisis. After that, I want to then offer some reflections and encouragement to disillusioned Catholics who may be contemplating leaving the Church, as at this point in time those are needed.
Social media (particularly Facebook) is right now buzzing about this issue - I have been monitoring the Archdiocese of Baltimore's Facebook page for the past couple of days, and there is a lot of feedback on this issue there. To kind of give a little background on what happened, a Grand Jury in Pennsylvania recently released a report documenting that approximately 300 priests in several dioceses primarily in Pennsylvania had been involved in sexual abuse scandals in which over 1,000 victims were identified. These incidents took place over an extended period of time going back several decades, and some of the offending priests have actually passed on, and there were cardinals and bishops even involved in the mess. It seems that this is also connected to the events of the early 2000's too, when a similar scandal that necessitated Michael Rose's book created a media feeding frenzy. Add to that this whole recent #MeToo movement, and what we see is disturbing - it indicates a culture which as a whole has lost its way, and sex has become a tool of abuse, intimidation, and manipulation. Of course, when you have a society that has been in moral terpitude for at least 50 years if not longer (note some of that in my article tackling the transgender issue yesterday), it is inevitable that the Church would be affected as well. When you have sin, and you also have a Christian witness which has been weakened (this involves the faulty implementation of Vatican II reforms in this case), the unfortunate consequence is that you will have churches who are adversely affected. And, it is not only Roman Catholics - Protestants have had their share of these scandals too (the most recent and high-profile one has been former NAE head Ted Haggard) and there are even statistics that note that pornography usage has been unnaturally high among married Protestant pastors of all denominations. This indicates that these bad fruits have a bad root somewhere, and until the root is dealt with, the fruit will continue to manifest. Fortunately for us, many great visionaries of previous generations were given a special charism by the Holy Spirit to warn about these things coming, and I want to document some of that now here to give an idea that what we have seen is not something we were not warned would happen.
From the outset, I want to mention Pope St. Leo XIII, who at the turn of the previous century was grieved with great concern about this. Reminiscent of the Book of Job in Scripture, it is reported that Leo had a vision in which Satan asked God for a time to tempt the Church, and God told him specifically the end of the 20th century. For the faithful Remnant, St. Michael the Archangel would be a protector, and the Holy Spirit gave to St. Leo a prayer to entreat St. Michael's help during those trying moments. The prayer went something like this:
The real purpose of this article is something even more grave and serious, as it is a crisis that threatens the Church and its witness. Back around 2001 or so, there were a number of scandals of priests who had committed sexually deviant acts against others, and this made the news at that time. It was a shameful and embarrassing thing, and the unfortunate truth of the accusations even cost the Church some of her people, who became so disillusioned with her that they left. It also provided fodder to both the secularists and Protestant Fundamentalists, who in lieu of the controversy were like "Aha!" and preyed upon the opportunity to see some of their own claims all of a sudden appear true. At that time, a traditionalist Catholic journalist published a book entitled Goodbye Good Men which dealt with the scandals and the reasoning behind them, one of which he points out was the rise of a new militant gay subculture in certain seminaries. Another factor Rose cites less often but others have noted is the Vatican II Council. Vatican II has been blamed for a lot of things, and it is important from the outset to clear something up about that. First, Vatican II was meant to be a pastoral Council rather than a doctrinal Council, and what that essentially means is that the Magisterium was still affirmed by the Council Fathers and doctrinal orthodoxy was still maintained. Second, the first point leads to this one: the problem with innovations since Vatican II, I strongly believe, is not due to Vatican II itself but rather to faulty implementation of some things the Council proposed. In reading the Vatican II documents myself, as I did for many courses I had in my Master's program at Steubenville over the past four years, there is actually a lot of good stuff in them, and some of the documents such as Lumen Gentium are actually very orthodox in content. As my good friend, Catholic traditionalist and fellow Monarchist Charles Coulombe stated on a broadcast of his weekly program some months back, at least 80-85% of the documents of Vatican II are very sound and affirm prior Councils and the Magisterium, and the 15% that doesn't is not worth really quibbling over - the answer, as Coulombe notes, is simple on that, mainly just reject what doesn't line up with the Deposit of Faith. As I have examined the evidence, the current sex crisis in the Church has little, if anything at all, to do with anything related to Vatican II, and therefore that would need to be ruled out. As we examine this further, I want to first rehash some of the news about what is going on at present to shed some light on what we are talking about here, and then I have some insights I want to share from a book I use extensively for reference, that book being Desmond Birch's Trial, Tribulation, and Triumph (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1996). Birch's volume is an encyclopedia of various prophetic insights that many saints and visionaries of the Church have received over the years, and many of them have a lot to say about this current crisis. After that, I want to then offer some reflections and encouragement to disillusioned Catholics who may be contemplating leaving the Church, as at this point in time those are needed.
Social media (particularly Facebook) is right now buzzing about this issue - I have been monitoring the Archdiocese of Baltimore's Facebook page for the past couple of days, and there is a lot of feedback on this issue there. To kind of give a little background on what happened, a Grand Jury in Pennsylvania recently released a report documenting that approximately 300 priests in several dioceses primarily in Pennsylvania had been involved in sexual abuse scandals in which over 1,000 victims were identified. These incidents took place over an extended period of time going back several decades, and some of the offending priests have actually passed on, and there were cardinals and bishops even involved in the mess. It seems that this is also connected to the events of the early 2000's too, when a similar scandal that necessitated Michael Rose's book created a media feeding frenzy. Add to that this whole recent #MeToo movement, and what we see is disturbing - it indicates a culture which as a whole has lost its way, and sex has become a tool of abuse, intimidation, and manipulation. Of course, when you have a society that has been in moral terpitude for at least 50 years if not longer (note some of that in my article tackling the transgender issue yesterday), it is inevitable that the Church would be affected as well. When you have sin, and you also have a Christian witness which has been weakened (this involves the faulty implementation of Vatican II reforms in this case), the unfortunate consequence is that you will have churches who are adversely affected. And, it is not only Roman Catholics - Protestants have had their share of these scandals too (the most recent and high-profile one has been former NAE head Ted Haggard) and there are even statistics that note that pornography usage has been unnaturally high among married Protestant pastors of all denominations. This indicates that these bad fruits have a bad root somewhere, and until the root is dealt with, the fruit will continue to manifest. Fortunately for us, many great visionaries of previous generations were given a special charism by the Holy Spirit to warn about these things coming, and I want to document some of that now here to give an idea that what we have seen is not something we were not warned would happen.
From the outset, I want to mention Pope St. Leo XIII, who at the turn of the previous century was grieved with great concern about this. Reminiscent of the Book of Job in Scripture, it is reported that Leo had a vision in which Satan asked God for a time to tempt the Church, and God told him specifically the end of the 20th century. For the faithful Remnant, St. Michael the Archangel would be a protector, and the Holy Spirit gave to St. Leo a prayer to entreat St. Michael's help during those trying moments. The prayer went something like this:
Pope St. Leo XIII (1810-1903)
It certainly seems that Pope Leo was on-point regarding what he saw, as the recent crises illustrate. Another important visionary, Jacinta of Fatima, also had some insights given to her by the apparitions at Fatima in the early 1900's when it is recorded as this: "'The devil knows that when religious and priests fail in their beautiful vocations they carry along with them many souls into hell.'" (Birch, p. 393). Think about that for a moment - when a trusted individual, a shepherd of the Church no less, violates that trust by taking immoral liberties with a vulnerable child, it has devastating consequences. For one, it causes the child to turn their backs on Christ and His Church, and many a militant atheist has been created from those situations. But then, think of when the scandal becomes public - it disillusions other faithful, and they leave the Church. That is what this revelation Jacinta had at Fatima is telling us. The untold havoc wreaked by wayward clergy also becomes the fodder of secular comedians and media, who now ridicule and make sport of the Church due to scandals like this - one, an otherwise humorous comedian and ventriloquist by the name of Jeff Dunham, has now even incorporated such ridicule into his comedy acts. That is something to think about. Another visionary, Sister Elena Aiello, was visited by a vision of the Lord on April 16, 1954, and the Lord spoke to her saying this: "'So ungrateful have they become towards My Sacred Heart and abusing My graces they have converted the world into a scene of crimes. Innumerable scandals carry souls to their ruin, especially the souls of the youth. They have given themselves, without restraint, to the pleasures of the world which have degenerated into perversions.'" (Birch, p. 389). Another visionary, Sister Marianne de Jesus Torres (who is associated with the prophecies entailed in Our Lady of Good Success) had this to say based on what Our Lady revealed to her: "'The Demon will try to persecute the Ministers of the Lord in every possible way, and he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation, corrupting many of them. These {corrupted priests} who will thus scandalize the Christian people, will incite the hatred of the bad Christians and the enemies of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church to fall upon all the priests. This apparent triumph of Satan will bring enormous sufferings to the good pastors of the Church, to the great majority of good priests, and to the Supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ on earth {meaning the current Pope}, who...will shed secret and bitter tears in the presence of his God and Lord, beseeching light, sanctity, and perfection for all the Clergy of the world, of which he is the King and Father.'" (Birch, p. 327). There is much truth in this statement, but it also begs a question - as Pope Francis, the current Pontiff, is also somewhat controversial in some of his positions (thankfully not in matters of Magisterial authority!), does this mean that perhaps Francis may have a sort of revelation of his own and maybe will be the Pope to address and correct some of this mess? One can only hope. Sister Marianne then elaborates further these revelations, and this is quite eerie in its accuracy: "'Know, moreover, that Divine Justice releases terrible chastisements on entire nations, not only for sins of the people but for those of Priests and religious persons. For the latter are called, by the perfection of their state, to be the salt and light of the earth, the masters of truth, and the deflectors of the Divine Ire. Straying from their divine mission, they degrade themselves in such a way that, before the eyes of God, they are the ones who quicken the rigor of the punishments. Because, detaching themselves from me, they end up living only a superficial life of the soul, maintaining a distance from Me that is unworthy of my Ministers. With their frigidity and lack of confidence, they act as if I were a stranger to them.'" (Birch, pp. 398-399). Apparently, due to this crisis in the priesthood foreseen by Sister Marianne, the Holy Spirit will then raise up faithful laypeople to be the intercessors for both the wayward priests to pray for their conversion and salvation, as Sr. Marianne continues: "'I am greatly pleased by religious souls that take upon themselves the sublime task of sanctifying the Clergy by means of their prayers, sacrifices, and penances. Throughout time I will choose for Myself such souls so that, uniting themselves to Me, they will labor, pray, and suffer for the attaining of this noblest end, with a special glory awaiting them in heaven.'" (Birch, p. 399). Interesting - the laity being called to intercede on behalf of the clergy! I see this as being twofold - first, the prayer for the salvation and conversion of the wayward clergy, but also for encouragement and protection of dedicated faithful clergy who may face a lot of opposition from corrupt Church leadership, some of whom warrant a conversion and repentance as well. That kind of relates to this current crisis in that some Cardinals and bishops have been covering up the misdeeds of their priests for decades, and some of them are so apostate themselves that they actually punish committed orthodox clergy who take their vocations seriously. Michael Rose notes several instances of this happening in Goodbye Good Men, where often orthodox candidates for Holy Orders are blackballed from certain seminaries. Conspiracy theorists and circulated rumor aside, it does seem as if some of this activity does go on, and if it is as prevalent as some say it is, then there needs to maybe be a pruning of the vine to trim off the "dead wood" of apostate clergy who are unrepentant of their sins. It also seems that there may be some merit to these allegations anyway, as a former communist, Bella Dodd, who later converted to the Catholic faith revealed something very disturbing, as is seen from her quote in the illustration below:
In other words, what St. Leo XIII saw was true, and Bella Dodd's confession of it is a confirmation. Thankfully, Dodd repented (via the ministry of Bishop Fulton Sheen) and was received back into the Church, and her story should be an encouragement, which we will get into shortly. However, first we need to see also where Scripture stands on this whole issue.
It is the Apostle St. Paul who instructed extensively, especially in the Thessalonian epistles, about the coming apostasy in the Church. One thing he notes is about a "great falling away" that would happen in the latter times, in which many would apostatize and the "son of perdition" would be revealed (II Thessalonians 2:3). That passage has been traditionally understood as referring to the Church specifically, and it also notes that this apostasy would precede the coming of an Antichrist. It also lines up with several of Jesus's own parables in the Gospels, in particular those which talk about sheep/goats, wheat/tares, good fish/bad fish, etc. The implication here, and as traditionally understood by the Church, is that the good and bad would exist together within the Church until a time when God would separate His faithful Remnant from the apostates. I have said in past things I have written about this that "Laodicea is on the broad road to Babylon," and what I meant by that is that complacency in spirituality inevitably leads to apostasy of faith. It combines and synthesizes several key areas of Scripture - Jesus's teaching about the "narrow way" of righteousness, as well as His rebuke through the Apostle St. John of the lukewarmness of the Laodicean church in the opening chapters of Revelation, followed by a discourse later in Revelation 17 I believe on the "whore that rides the Beast," as representing an apostate religious system called "Mystery Babylon." I may have understandably taken some eisogetic liberty with that, but it does concur with the context of the whole discussion in that it only takes compromise on a small area to lead to abandonment of faith on a large scale. Many Protestant Fundamentalists have capitalized on the "whore of Babylon" imagery to villify the entire Roman Catholic Church, and although of course they are wrong for the most part, there are actually some warnings to maybe take seriously. The Catholic Church, at least the Church embodied in the Magisterial teaching, is the Body of Christ, and therefore it is not the "whore of Babylon" described in Revelation. Rather, that allegorical imagery refers to an apostate religious system that may have the facade of the true Church externally, but it is at its core corrupt. No doubt many of its adherents will be apostate former Roman Catholics, but I also guarantee a number of equally apostate Protestants will also be part of it too - although the current crisis focuses on the Catholic Church, Protestants are by no means immune from this scandal either, as there have been many indiscretions committed by Protestant ministers over the years who have lost their way - I have seen it myself actually, being a former Protestant myself, and I grieve at some people I went to undergraduate studies with who at one time were passionate about their Christian faith but now have completely turned their back on it. Some of these former classmates of mine have turned to substance abuse, some have divorced their wives, and even a couple of them have embraced the homosexual lifestyle, which in itself is tragic - one in particular, a former classmate named Lance, even broke up his marriage to a beautiful lady who really loved him in order to pursue his own selfish lusts as a "gay" man, and he still masquerades as a minister today. People like these need prayers on a major scale. And, that leads to my concluding thoughts of encouragement and a challenge for us who are faithful Catholics to do the right thing in these trying times.
In reading the famed Parable of the Prodigal Son as found in Luke 15:11-32, one thing that sticks out is that unconditional love fosters a grace that can forgive anyone of anything. Despite how heinous one's sins are, what Jesus looks for is a contrite heart that seeks Him, and when someone displays that, Jesus can then extend His supernatural grace to elevate, heal, and perfect them. In noting the conversations I have seen on social media, a couple of things concern me. First, although many are understandably disillusioned with what has happened, I am distressed to hear professed Catholics saying that offending priests are not entitled to forgiveness. I am sorry, but that is NOT what the Church teaches nor is it what Scripture tells us - the Scriptural record actually says "seek, and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you..." (Matthew 7:7). We are also taught about forgiveness, and although that can be hard at times, there is a way that we can extend forgiveness. For one thing, it starts inwardly with prayers for those who come against us - we say that in one of the petitions of the Lord's Prayer, remember? As we pray that, we also pray for the grace to heal our own hurt, and as we do, we begin to have an attitude of forgiveness which must precede the action. No one logically expects someone to run out and shout to the top of their lungs "I forgive you!" as forgiveness must be received as well as forgiven. The person who is to receive forgiveness must want it and must accept it in other words, and it's up to the Holy Spirit to transform that person. Our duty is to work on ourselves, and we need to engender a culture of forgiveness that is first manifested in attitude, and then in action. A second thing that concerns me is the level of rumor and speculation you hear from professed Catholics - now, conspiracies are being bandied about that every bishop is somehow corrupt, and that every priest is a child molester, etc. That does a serious disservice to the thousands of faithful clergy who are sincerely carrying out their vocations, and we need to be careful not to break the Commandment that says "don't bear false witness." Our longsuffering faithful clergy are catching enough persecution from the secular press and a skeptical and increasingly anti-religious public, and they don't need people in the Church adding to that nonsense. Therefore, if you are one of those reading this who are giving into speculation and gossip, stop it, in Jesus' name!! By engaging in that, you are as guilty as the pedophile priests who are abusing others, and if you don't have a change, you too will face eternal damnation, especially if you partake of the Eucharist with that mentality. Instead of wasting time gossiping and speculating about priests and victims, you should be praying for both. That was a sharp kick in the groin I know, but it's necessary at this point. It is OK to be angry, and indeed justice must be done both to vindicate the innocent victims of these atrocities, but also there needs to be a level of grace and mercy we communicate to both perpetrators and victims in that they need to know Jesus loves them, and what has happened grieves Him as well. Mostly though, let's stick to facts and dismiss speculations and gossip, as it will do the most good to view these issues as objectively as possible. That being said, if one of the offending priests or bishops does have a conversion experience and expresses sincere contrition for what they have done, the Blood Christ shed is sufficient to cover all sins, and forgiveness is always given by Him to all who seek it. Although it also means that said offender must undergo a rehabilitation process - for instance, they should not be performing the duties of a priest or any other activities that may pose a potential problem - at the same time this will be a time of healing for them as well, and they must have our prayers too. As for the victims, they need to be reached out to in compassion and understanding, as there are many wounds that need healing. Some may be bitter against the Church, and in their condition, it is perfectly understandable. However, this is where our vocation as laity, in particular, comes into play, in that it is up to us to represent the true witness of the Church to such people in order to assure them that the Church itself is not the enemy and that she is there to embrace and heal the hurting as well.
I hope that my insights will help people have more clarity in these trying times for our Church, and also will both aid in straightening out speculation while at the same time encouraging a Christlike attitude toward both perpetrators and victims in this whole mess. I have my indignation as well at what has happened, and we are all working through this together as a Church, and it is our responsibility as faithful Catholics to support each other in these times, even when there are frank and uncomfortable discussions concerning events that have taken place. God bless until next time.
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Identity Politics - Why It Is Wrong
Since the passing of the law that legalized "same-sex marriage" in 2015, things have gotten extremely interesting, given the culture's over-emphasis on "political correctness" and other such nonsense. The issue I am about to talk about here is not one I am exactly comfortable discussing, as it is one of those "hot-button" issues these days that could even cause some controversy by just mentioning it, but a perspective needs to be given on the issue. The issue I am referring to is this whole "transgender" thing which seems to have taken center-stage. Many conservative observers have correctly noted that it would be a slippery slope once "same-sex marriage" was legalized, and indeed it has happened as predicted. Oddly, there are gays and lesbians who are as concerned about the whole transgender issue as many of the rest of us are, but unfortunately I have this to say to them - your demands for "special rights" are what created this monster, so now you have to take responsibility for it. Sounds a little crass, I know, but fact is fact. I want to begin this talk by first doing a little Bible study on what "identity" is supposed to be.
As human beings, we are created in the image of God, but at times we don't fully grasp what that means. It doesn't mean we are cloned copies of God, but rather as a Methodist minister I heard once explained it, we are created in the image He envisioned for us; that means, He made us exactly as we are, and therefore we are His special creation. That being established, it is important that we understand that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14) even down to the very details of our existence - He even has a record of the number of hairs on our heads (Luke 12:7). And, as with all His creation, God affirms throughout the Creation narrative in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis that what He made was "good," and in the case of humanity, it was very good (Genesis 1:31). It also says that God made the distinctions between sexes and both were made in His image (Genesis 1:27) with all the distinctions in place from the start. One of the attributes of God is also perfection - in Himself, God is perfect, and therefore He doesn't make mistakes. However, from the start Satan sought to corrupt creation, and while that started in Genesis 3, we see it accelerated in Genesis 6 when fallen angels started messing around with nature (hence, the origin of demonic beings, as many Church Fathers taught), and in doing so Satan sought to defile God's creation to the point that it would destroy itself and thus be stripped of all hope of redemption - however, God had a plan, and that plan culminated in the coming of Jesus Christ. The "Genesis Six Experiment," as some writers call it, was an attempt to go against nature to corrupt what God had created in perfection, and it in recent years has led to the advent of pseudo-scientific movements such as eugenics and transhumanism, which are the subject of a whole other discussion. Related to it however is sexual deviancy, which God has always considered sin and unnatural. The position I take on this in regard to this whole transgender mess is this - if you think you are something else rather than who and what God created you to be, you insult God; it is heretical in that it attempts to contradict the attribute of perfection God has (in short, one who embraces that position says God makes mistakes, even if they don't believe in God personally), as well as also diminishing what it means to be a person created in His image. It also goes against basic genetics, biology, and physics - if you are created as one gender, then changing it may have disastrous consequences. That all being said, it must also be understood that people who struggle with transgender confusion may have a deeper issue that requires healing too, and it is not necessary to beat them over the head about their unnatural desires, but rather to reach out in compassion to such people and hopefully bring them to a place where they can seek healing and restoration.
Here is the thing in dealing with transgender-prone people - we must always do so in love and not in hate or derision. God still loves these people, and Jesus died for them too, and we as members of Christ's Church need to approach them with compassion. It is important to know their whole stories as well, and not jump to conclusions. Transgenderism is a disorder - it is unnatural, and isn't something that is inherent to normal human biology. However, due to the fallen state of the world we live in, the realities of human limitations - sin, sickness, and death - should lead us to reason that the manifestation of a man dressing and acting like a woman must have an underlying cause to it, and it is that cause that must be identified and addressed in a compassionate way which will lead to that person being restored to what God intended them to be. A person struggling with addictions, homosexual tendencies, or transgender confusion may have one or many reasons for this happening to them - it could be psychological, emotional, a chemical imbalance in their physiology, or even in some cases demonic oppression. It is important to understand two things though about this. First, a person struggling with an issue like this must want to address it and do something about it on their own free will. No one can be "beaten into submission" to change, and if we resort to that, it violates the personhood of the targeted individual, and that is not in line with God's plan. Second, it is also important that we get an accurate perception of what is going on - the person struggling with such an issue needs to maybe talk about it with professionals who can help them sort things out, and based on that information, it will be easier to get the "bigger picture" of what such a person is struggling with. Due to the bizarre nature of things such as homosexuality and transgenderism, many of us as Christians are often scared of what is weird to us (and, those behaviors are weird, let's face it!) and it tends to make us draw quick and uninformed judgments about such people and forget that underneath the bizarre behavior and appearances of such individuals is still a person who may be displaying a cry for help. In counseling settings, that would be called "acting out," and often self-destructive behavior of any kind has at its root something else, and that is what needs to be addressed, the root issue. Before we move on, it is also important to clear up a couple of misconceptions about the Judeo-Christian perspective on these issues.
One of the trigger terms of today's society is calling something that disagrees with someone's words or actions "hate speech." Christians, because of our stand for traditional morality, are often unjustly accused of "hate speech" when we differ with the groupthink that "gay is OK" or that someone who has male "tackle" is actually a woman in a man's body. In reality we don't hate anyone, and to be honest we don't even try to dictate our convictions upon others (or at least we shouldn't), but we are stating that based on our convictions, such behavior is not morally right. Homosexual behavior has been around probably since the events in Genesis 3, and there have always been a rare number of people who have engaged in behaviors associated with it. No one is saying they can't, honestly - what the Christian would say however is that choices have consequences, and while anyone is free to do what they want how they want it, in time if that action or choice is wrong, they will have to face the consequences of their actions. That being said, no one is saying that a gay person cannot live their lives, and no true Christian would deny a gay person the right to basic human needs - a gay person can own a house, have a good-paying job, and go about their daily business, and no one disputes that. What Christians do dispute though is when certain militants among the homosexual community and their allies among other progressive/liberal sectors don't return the courtesy to us - the most recent example was the Christian baker who refused to bake a "gay wedding" cake based on his convictions. Did the baker refuse them business? No! And, if the gay couple in question just wanted a plain cake they could decorate themselves, would he have refused to sell it to them? I doubt he would have. And, if the same gay couple came in for a dozen doughnuts or chocolate chip cookies, I doubt seriously that they would have been denied service. Yet, for some reason the poor baker was deemed "hateful" and censured because he refused to make a specific item for the lesbian couple, that's all. It would be the same situation if a neo-Nazi wanted a Jewish tailor to embroider a swastika on a t-shirt, or a Black dry-cleaner was asked by the local Grand Wizard of the KKK to clean his Klucker robes - both the tailor and the dry cleaner would be in the right for refusing service in those instances. Also, if a gay baker were to be asked by a Christian couple to decorate a traditional wedding cake with the phrase "Marriage = One Man + One Woman," I am sure he would have the right to refuse that too (no traditional Christian would do this anyway though). So, if all these people have that right, then why is it only the Christian baker who is punished. A "gay marriage" being catered by a Christian baker is equivalent to a Muslim being asked to cater a pig roast for a party, in other words. And, the gay couple could have just went somewhere else instead of trying to force a private businessman to violate his convictions. It is situations like this which make the subject more a topic of discussions these days.
It is also important to keep in mind that from the Christian perspective, homosexual practice is sin, just like any other sin - Jesus died to save humanity from all sin. And, as Romans 3:23 reminds us, we have all sinned at some point and fallen short, so in that regard homosexuality is no different from other sins such as murder, adultery, or theft. What makes it - as well as transgenderism, which is closely connected to homosexuality although not the same thing - a more prominent sin is probably the fact that it is unnatural in practice - for instance, if a man runs around on his wife with the pretty young secretary at his office, it is still bad, still sinful, but at least it is normal sexual drives he is giving into, albeit perverted ones. However, homosexuality is viewed differently in that it goes against nature - two males or two females were not meant to copulate with each other, as for one thing the parts don't line up. So, as far as merit is concerned, homosexual behavior is just as sinful as anything else, but what does set it apart on another level is that it is a disordered behavior. And, so is transgenderism. That being said, let's examine these things in a little more depth.
Dealing specifically with transgenderism, as mentioned above it is an outward fruit that has a deeper root, and in order to remedy the fruit, the root must be treated. As Ryan Anderson notes in his book When Harry Became Sally (New York: Encounter Books, 2018) on page 196, in a conceptual sense gender identity is unlike race or true gender in that it is not an objective and verifiable trait, but is rather expressly subjective. Transgender activity is expressed in action rather than biology, and those actions are subject to moral evaluation. Also, unlike discrimination based on race, ethnicity, etc., there is nothing akin in the transgender movement to the type of discriminations faced by, say, Blacks with the oppressive "Jim Crow" laws in our nation, or the way that Jews were treated by Hitler in Nazi Germany or the genocide of Armenians in 1915 by the Ottoman Turks. People who identify as transgender can vote, hold jobs, etc., but in some situations, their inappropriate behavior has been addressed. The same holds true in regard to homosexuals too - homosexuals are not discriminated against in regard to their basic human rights, nor should they be, but at the same time flaunting homosexual behavior in a public place is inappropriate just as the same heterosexual behavior is - a couple fawning all over each other in public is not proper decorum no matter who you are. And, that is the root issue here. It goes back to a disorder that John Horvat notes on page 17 of his book Return to Order (York, PA: York Press, 2013) which he calls "frenetic intemperance," which he further defines as constituting two things:
1. The intention of throwing off legitimate restraints
2. The gratification of disordered passions
These two traits are endemic to our contemporary society, and when it comes to those who seek to subjectively redefine their identity, there are a few examples I want to share of how ludicrous this can be.
As human beings, we are created in the image of God, but at times we don't fully grasp what that means. It doesn't mean we are cloned copies of God, but rather as a Methodist minister I heard once explained it, we are created in the image He envisioned for us; that means, He made us exactly as we are, and therefore we are His special creation. That being established, it is important that we understand that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14) even down to the very details of our existence - He even has a record of the number of hairs on our heads (Luke 12:7). And, as with all His creation, God affirms throughout the Creation narrative in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis that what He made was "good," and in the case of humanity, it was very good (Genesis 1:31). It also says that God made the distinctions between sexes and both were made in His image (Genesis 1:27) with all the distinctions in place from the start. One of the attributes of God is also perfection - in Himself, God is perfect, and therefore He doesn't make mistakes. However, from the start Satan sought to corrupt creation, and while that started in Genesis 3, we see it accelerated in Genesis 6 when fallen angels started messing around with nature (hence, the origin of demonic beings, as many Church Fathers taught), and in doing so Satan sought to defile God's creation to the point that it would destroy itself and thus be stripped of all hope of redemption - however, God had a plan, and that plan culminated in the coming of Jesus Christ. The "Genesis Six Experiment," as some writers call it, was an attempt to go against nature to corrupt what God had created in perfection, and it in recent years has led to the advent of pseudo-scientific movements such as eugenics and transhumanism, which are the subject of a whole other discussion. Related to it however is sexual deviancy, which God has always considered sin and unnatural. The position I take on this in regard to this whole transgender mess is this - if you think you are something else rather than who and what God created you to be, you insult God; it is heretical in that it attempts to contradict the attribute of perfection God has (in short, one who embraces that position says God makes mistakes, even if they don't believe in God personally), as well as also diminishing what it means to be a person created in His image. It also goes against basic genetics, biology, and physics - if you are created as one gender, then changing it may have disastrous consequences. That all being said, it must also be understood that people who struggle with transgender confusion may have a deeper issue that requires healing too, and it is not necessary to beat them over the head about their unnatural desires, but rather to reach out in compassion to such people and hopefully bring them to a place where they can seek healing and restoration.
Here is the thing in dealing with transgender-prone people - we must always do so in love and not in hate or derision. God still loves these people, and Jesus died for them too, and we as members of Christ's Church need to approach them with compassion. It is important to know their whole stories as well, and not jump to conclusions. Transgenderism is a disorder - it is unnatural, and isn't something that is inherent to normal human biology. However, due to the fallen state of the world we live in, the realities of human limitations - sin, sickness, and death - should lead us to reason that the manifestation of a man dressing and acting like a woman must have an underlying cause to it, and it is that cause that must be identified and addressed in a compassionate way which will lead to that person being restored to what God intended them to be. A person struggling with addictions, homosexual tendencies, or transgender confusion may have one or many reasons for this happening to them - it could be psychological, emotional, a chemical imbalance in their physiology, or even in some cases demonic oppression. It is important to understand two things though about this. First, a person struggling with an issue like this must want to address it and do something about it on their own free will. No one can be "beaten into submission" to change, and if we resort to that, it violates the personhood of the targeted individual, and that is not in line with God's plan. Second, it is also important that we get an accurate perception of what is going on - the person struggling with such an issue needs to maybe talk about it with professionals who can help them sort things out, and based on that information, it will be easier to get the "bigger picture" of what such a person is struggling with. Due to the bizarre nature of things such as homosexuality and transgenderism, many of us as Christians are often scared of what is weird to us (and, those behaviors are weird, let's face it!) and it tends to make us draw quick and uninformed judgments about such people and forget that underneath the bizarre behavior and appearances of such individuals is still a person who may be displaying a cry for help. In counseling settings, that would be called "acting out," and often self-destructive behavior of any kind has at its root something else, and that is what needs to be addressed, the root issue. Before we move on, it is also important to clear up a couple of misconceptions about the Judeo-Christian perspective on these issues.
One of the trigger terms of today's society is calling something that disagrees with someone's words or actions "hate speech." Christians, because of our stand for traditional morality, are often unjustly accused of "hate speech" when we differ with the groupthink that "gay is OK" or that someone who has male "tackle" is actually a woman in a man's body. In reality we don't hate anyone, and to be honest we don't even try to dictate our convictions upon others (or at least we shouldn't), but we are stating that based on our convictions, such behavior is not morally right. Homosexual behavior has been around probably since the events in Genesis 3, and there have always been a rare number of people who have engaged in behaviors associated with it. No one is saying they can't, honestly - what the Christian would say however is that choices have consequences, and while anyone is free to do what they want how they want it, in time if that action or choice is wrong, they will have to face the consequences of their actions. That being said, no one is saying that a gay person cannot live their lives, and no true Christian would deny a gay person the right to basic human needs - a gay person can own a house, have a good-paying job, and go about their daily business, and no one disputes that. What Christians do dispute though is when certain militants among the homosexual community and their allies among other progressive/liberal sectors don't return the courtesy to us - the most recent example was the Christian baker who refused to bake a "gay wedding" cake based on his convictions. Did the baker refuse them business? No! And, if the gay couple in question just wanted a plain cake they could decorate themselves, would he have refused to sell it to them? I doubt he would have. And, if the same gay couple came in for a dozen doughnuts or chocolate chip cookies, I doubt seriously that they would have been denied service. Yet, for some reason the poor baker was deemed "hateful" and censured because he refused to make a specific item for the lesbian couple, that's all. It would be the same situation if a neo-Nazi wanted a Jewish tailor to embroider a swastika on a t-shirt, or a Black dry-cleaner was asked by the local Grand Wizard of the KKK to clean his Klucker robes - both the tailor and the dry cleaner would be in the right for refusing service in those instances. Also, if a gay baker were to be asked by a Christian couple to decorate a traditional wedding cake with the phrase "Marriage = One Man + One Woman," I am sure he would have the right to refuse that too (no traditional Christian would do this anyway though). So, if all these people have that right, then why is it only the Christian baker who is punished. A "gay marriage" being catered by a Christian baker is equivalent to a Muslim being asked to cater a pig roast for a party, in other words. And, the gay couple could have just went somewhere else instead of trying to force a private businessman to violate his convictions. It is situations like this which make the subject more a topic of discussions these days.
It is also important to keep in mind that from the Christian perspective, homosexual practice is sin, just like any other sin - Jesus died to save humanity from all sin. And, as Romans 3:23 reminds us, we have all sinned at some point and fallen short, so in that regard homosexuality is no different from other sins such as murder, adultery, or theft. What makes it - as well as transgenderism, which is closely connected to homosexuality although not the same thing - a more prominent sin is probably the fact that it is unnatural in practice - for instance, if a man runs around on his wife with the pretty young secretary at his office, it is still bad, still sinful, but at least it is normal sexual drives he is giving into, albeit perverted ones. However, homosexuality is viewed differently in that it goes against nature - two males or two females were not meant to copulate with each other, as for one thing the parts don't line up. So, as far as merit is concerned, homosexual behavior is just as sinful as anything else, but what does set it apart on another level is that it is a disordered behavior. And, so is transgenderism. That being said, let's examine these things in a little more depth.
Dealing specifically with transgenderism, as mentioned above it is an outward fruit that has a deeper root, and in order to remedy the fruit, the root must be treated. As Ryan Anderson notes in his book When Harry Became Sally (New York: Encounter Books, 2018) on page 196, in a conceptual sense gender identity is unlike race or true gender in that it is not an objective and verifiable trait, but is rather expressly subjective. Transgender activity is expressed in action rather than biology, and those actions are subject to moral evaluation. Also, unlike discrimination based on race, ethnicity, etc., there is nothing akin in the transgender movement to the type of discriminations faced by, say, Blacks with the oppressive "Jim Crow" laws in our nation, or the way that Jews were treated by Hitler in Nazi Germany or the genocide of Armenians in 1915 by the Ottoman Turks. People who identify as transgender can vote, hold jobs, etc., but in some situations, their inappropriate behavior has been addressed. The same holds true in regard to homosexuals too - homosexuals are not discriminated against in regard to their basic human rights, nor should they be, but at the same time flaunting homosexual behavior in a public place is inappropriate just as the same heterosexual behavior is - a couple fawning all over each other in public is not proper decorum no matter who you are. And, that is the root issue here. It goes back to a disorder that John Horvat notes on page 17 of his book Return to Order (York, PA: York Press, 2013) which he calls "frenetic intemperance," which he further defines as constituting two things:
1. The intention of throwing off legitimate restraints
2. The gratification of disordered passions
These two traits are endemic to our contemporary society, and when it comes to those who seek to subjectively redefine their identity, there are a few examples I want to share of how ludicrous this can be.
Rachel Dolezal
We are going to start mildly, as today not only is sexual identity now a subjective concept, but you also have people changing their race at whim too. Although the most high-profile example of this is the Congresswoman Elizabeth Warren now saying she is a "Cherokee Indian," (which earned a lot of derision, including nicknames such as "Fauxahontas" or "Jokahontas"), the most publicized example happened a couple of years back when a young White girl decided to identify as Black, and it caused a major controversy. Rachel Dolezal (b. 1977) is a native of Washington State who is naturally a blonde-haired, blue-eyed blonde of Czech/Scandinavian/German heritage who, due to her parents adopting and raising some Black children, decided to identify as Black herself. She says "she was born White but identifies as Black," which in a sane normal person's mind makes no sense. She even went as far as to join the NAACP and also teach African-American studies at a university, but this all came crashing down in 2015 when for the first time in her life she at least admitted that she was "born White," and that of course led to her dismissal from both the NAACP and the university she taught at. In recent months, she is back in the news again for welfare fraud and some other controversies, and she potentially could serve up to 15 years in the slammer for that. (taken from https:en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Dolezal&oldid=854121008 - accessed 8/8/2018).
Much like the more bizarre transgender individuals who subjectively redefine their gender, Dolezal is guilty of the same heresy by denying who God created her to be and instead she labors in a delusional fantasy world that she is a different race - this does violence not only to her own family, but also to the Black community.
Rodrigo Alves, the "Human Ken Doll"
The next individual of interest is not specifically transgender, but represents what it is to say "God makes mistakes" and thus he too embodies that heresy. Brazilian-born Rodrigo Alves is popularly known as "the human Ken Doll," due to the fact he has spent thousands of dollars in surgery to alter his appearance to look "perfect." A recent surgery he underwent even entailed the extraction of four of his ribs in order to give him a more flatter abdominal shape. At the core of Alves's obsessions there obviously lurks a bigger problem, that being something inherently psychological or emotional. And, to be honest, he is actually starting to look more like the Joker on the old Batman series, and he is now so plastic in appearance that he not only looks artificial, but even creepy. Some recent articles I have read about this individual suggests he has now declared himself transgender as well, and is now seeking to be a "Barbie" instead of a "Ken." Any way you look at it though, the whole thing is bizarre when it comes to an individual like this, and hopefully he comes to his senses before it's too late - in his case, these extensive procedures could even cost him his life.
"Stefonknee" Wolscht
One of the oddest and most recent examples of transgenderism is embodied in the above individual, who is a 52-year-old man who now identifies as a 6-year-old girl. What is tragic about this individual is the sheer selfishness he embodies, as he abandoned his wife and several children of his own to "be herself." The sheer subjectivism of this individual defies logic, as the idea of frenetic intemperance is embodied in this "Stefonknee" person. I first heard of this person from a Mark Dice video I watched recently, and then another commentator, Steven Crowder, also did a segment on this person. The oddness of this individual is that not only is "Stefonknee" transgender as well as "age-fluid," but this person also identifies as homosexual himself. "Stefonknee" would almost be like a bad Mel Brooks comedy if it wasn't tragically real, and this individual has even been "adopted" by friends and in his mind he doesn't want to age - he says he'll be perpetually 7-years-old. The adoptive "parents" of this person also have a granddaughter, and they let this individual play with her - that constitutes a possibility for child abuse right there. Also, despite identifying as a seven-year-old, "Stefonknee" seems to have an affinity for kissing burly bikers as well as even working a job as a snow plow operator. There are many, many questions that emerge from this entire situation, and Crowder in his segment addresses those more at length on his podcast at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjC3zBKgL3M.
Then, if this wasn't bizarre enough, there are people who now identify as animals - sex-fetishists are saying they are puppies, ponies, and other such stuff, and there are many others who are trying to alter their appearances to "become" tigers, dragons, etc. I won't get into a lot of those, as to be honest some of this stuff is just too hard to stomach. Again, noting John Horvath, these are glaring examples of frenetic intemperance, and at the core of it is selfishness, subjectivism, and a basic denial of fact in favor of how one "feels." It started with the Fall in Genesis 3, where man decided to have a lust to "become God," and it began to formulate further in the Enlightenment when people like Descartes started proclaiming "I think, therefore I am." The problem with transgenderism is selfish subjectivism, and it is thoroughly Cartesian in that if one is biologically a man but thinks they are a six-year-old girl, a "Ken Doll," or a tiger, then one really is. It is also an embodiment of Aleister Crowley's credo, "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," which is in contradiction to what Jesus taught in the Our Father when He instructed us to pray to the Father, "Thy will be done," which the great theologian Romano Guardini defines as the "gateway petition" to the entire prayer. This subjectivism, which underlies all segments of this LGBTQ movement, violates what is called the common good, which late Brazilian philosopher Plinio Correa de Oliviera in his seminal book Revolution and Counter-Revolution (Spring Grove, PA: American Society for the Preservation of Tradition, Family, and Property, 1993) addresses when he says on page 77 that "the Revolution constantly turns against a whole legacy of Christian institutions, customs, doctrines, and ways of being, feeling and thinking that we received from our forefathers and that are not yet completely abolished." The recent postmodernist (and rabidly anti-Christian) trends in LGBTQ rights, "political correctness," and related phenomena embody this characteristic of a revolution, and also the violent aspect of it is embodied in the thuggery of Antifa and other terrorist groups. And, it does it insidiously - first, take prayer out of public life, especially schools (which happened in 1963), and then define what personhood is and dictate the value of it (Roe v. Wade and the legalization of abortion in 1973), and as a steady diet of bad worldview devoid of absolutes and standards is fed to schoolchildren and others, then a redefinition of standard institutions will be implemented (legalization of "gay marriage" in 2015). People call this stuff "progressivism," but in reality it is making society regress, and many innocent people will pay the price for it. It didn't appear out of a vacuum either, as forces have been at work to alter this for at least 500 years, from the Enlightenment-era influences of people like Descartes, Spinoza, and Machiavelli, to the "scientific revolution" of Darwin, Galton, and Malthus, to the engineers of sexual revisionism such as Margaret Sanger, Alfred Kinsey, Simone de Beavior, and ultimately to an all-out embrace of the "culture of death" by activist Supreme Court judges as well as the Peter Singers and Jack Kevorkians among us. Many believe that society as we know it is beyond redemption, and perhaps it is, but at the same time we must remember that ultimately God is in control of all things, and as "all things work together for good" for those who follow Him, it is also written at the end of his Revelation to us (Scripture) that He wins. This hope is what we should hold to as Catholic Christians, and we can enact a renewal of a "culture of life" and return to Godly order at the grassroots level. With all the talk of "safe spaces" these days, there is a certain logic in the concept in that good, godly, and traditionally-minded households and churches are the "safe spaces" for the life-affirming culture of life, and it is up to us to be the beacons in the darkness that envelopes our decadent society in order to bring about change on a positive basis. If we do our part then, redemption is possible. Let's just pray we do before it's too late.
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
Hell and the Lake of Fire
No catechist, clergy, or theologian enjoys talking about hell - it is frankly not a pleasant subject. Some have avoided the subject so much that they practically deny its existence. But, hell is a reality, although it is often downplayed and denied, ignored, or explained away by those who feel uncomfortable about it. I am going to just briefly address a couple of aspects of it, as this is not meant to be an in-depth study of the subject, and hopefully it will give a fresh perspective.
Recently, Barbara and I visited Smoke Hole Caverns, just on the other side of Petersburg, WV, close to where I grew up. I was there many years ago, but this was the first time in years I had visited and Barbara was itching to see some of the caves my home state of West Virginia is famous for. For those not familiar with it, Smoke Hole Caverns is located approximately halfway between the towns of Petersburg and Upper Tract, and it has been a popular local tourist attraction for years. The reason the place got its name was from the Seneca Indians who used to live in the area, and many used these limestone caves for shelter. While setting up camp for the night, the Indians would often have fires at the entrance of the caves for either heat or cooking, and the smoke from the fires left a carbon residue on the cave ceilings near the entrance that gave the caverns their name. You can actually still see it today, and the guide will point those smoke residues out to you during the course of the tour. Over the years, Smoke Hole has been used by Indians, Civil War soldiers, and moonshiners (the prominent thing you see when you enter the cave is a replica of a moonshine still, and the guide explains about how it worked - imagine people getting inspiration from those sources!), and the caverns extend back into the mountain almost two miles or more. In visiting the caverns after many years, one aspect of the tour that the guide demonstrated to us got my wheels turning about the subject at hand, which is why I am telling the story.
Recently, Barbara and I visited Smoke Hole Caverns, just on the other side of Petersburg, WV, close to where I grew up. I was there many years ago, but this was the first time in years I had visited and Barbara was itching to see some of the caves my home state of West Virginia is famous for. For those not familiar with it, Smoke Hole Caverns is located approximately halfway between the towns of Petersburg and Upper Tract, and it has been a popular local tourist attraction for years. The reason the place got its name was from the Seneca Indians who used to live in the area, and many used these limestone caves for shelter. While setting up camp for the night, the Indians would often have fires at the entrance of the caves for either heat or cooking, and the smoke from the fires left a carbon residue on the cave ceilings near the entrance that gave the caverns their name. You can actually still see it today, and the guide will point those smoke residues out to you during the course of the tour. Over the years, Smoke Hole has been used by Indians, Civil War soldiers, and moonshiners (the prominent thing you see when you enter the cave is a replica of a moonshine still, and the guide explains about how it worked - imagine people getting inspiration from those sources!), and the caverns extend back into the mountain almost two miles or more. In visiting the caverns after many years, one aspect of the tour that the guide demonstrated to us got my wheels turning about the subject at hand, which is why I am telling the story.
Mineral formations inside Smoke Hole Caverns.
As we continued on the tour of the caverns, at one point midway into it the guide told us to stand still, and she turned out all the lights. The blackness was perfect total darkness, and you couldn't even see your hand in front of your face. After a few seconds when the guide turned on the lights, she explained the effects that prolonged exposure to such conditions can have. After 72 hours in that darkness, one can be temporarily blinded if they go back out into the sunlight. If you spend 30 days or more in it, your skin literally begins to peel off your body, your hair bleaches white, and you suffer permanent blindness. This verse made me think about an attribute of hell that Jesus describes in Matthew 22:13 and 25:30, where he mentions that "outer darkness" is the ultimate punishment for those who die in wickedness - the result of this outer darkness, as Jesus mentions, will cause "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Being in that cave for just a few seconds and experiencing extreme darkness gives you an idea of how discomforting it can be - it is not a pleasant experience at all. Imagine having to spend an eternity like that! And, the disfigurement that comes from prolonged exposure to such conditions - essentially, due to lack of sunlight, one's body literally decays alive - is a perfect picture of hell in a true sense, which is why in other parts of Scripture it is called the "second death." The mere thought of it is horrifying, as it should be to everyone who is enlightened with the knowledge of what the consequences of sin are. Yet, because we live in a world where it is so easy to return to the "comfort zones" of one's life (and, we all prefer that to be sure), an experience like that is often forgotten. As we will see though, God never intended that for us, and it is not His will to send anyone to that awful place. So, why does it exist, and why will people who die without the grace of Christ go there? Later on, we'll address that. For now, there are a couple of other aspects of the "other place" of eternity I want to talk about.
In reading Scripture, it is obvious that hell is a place of diverse landscape - it seems to have many chambers, but all of them have the same foreboding quality; they are frightening and not someplace one should strive to go. The "outer darkness" is but one aspect described in hell of Scripture, but there is another one that many people associate hell with, and that is what is called the "lake of fire." That term "lake of fire" is discussed many times in Scripture(mostly in Revelation)and was created for Satan and the fallen angelic hosts who followed him in the rebellion he instigated. While it was originally prepared "for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), as a result of the Fall in Genesis 3 it also has become the final destination of unrepentant evil doers (Revelation 21:8). A discussion at a later date of what that all entails warrants a post of its own, so we won't get into that. Rather, here, I want to talk about the "lake of fire" and what it actually is, as it is a subject of much discussion over the centuries - is it a literal "burning lake," or is it something else? Saints and visionaries who have had visions of hell over the centuries have described it many ways - St. Teresa of Avila, for instance, described the place as damp, vermin-infested, and smelly, but she also said that she experienced the fires of hell in a personal way that was not visible around her, but rather consumed her from the inside out. St. John Bosco described it as a white-hot, blistering cavern in which the intense heat didn't incinerate or consume, but just tormented. St. Lucia of Fatima described it as a vast lake of transparent flames that combusted upon impact, while St. Maria Faustina Kowalska described the place as utterly dark but with a "purely spiritual fire" that could not be seen yet was torturing the damned souls confined there ("Five Saints Who Had Terrifying Visions of of Hell," published October 28, 2015 on ChurchPop.com at https://churchpop.com/2015/10/28/5-saints-who-had-terrifying-visions-of-hell/ - accessed 7/24/2018). One thing about all of these visions of the saints stands out - they all essentially said that the fire itself cannot be seen, like one can see the red and blue flames of a campfire, but yet can be felt and is intense. The idea of the "lake of fire" was also illustrated by Jesus in His parables, and He took an example from the Valley of Hinnom, which was a large landfill in that day where fires were continuous burning the discarded rubbish of the people of Jerusalem, and earlier a more sinister aspect of that location has left its impression on history - many commentators believe that Hinnom was the location where pagan sacrifices of small children occurred during the time period of the Old Testament, and thus Jesus used the location as a way to explain hell's torments to the disciples. It is from that particular location that one of the older names for hell, Gehenna, comes. In contrasting that illustration with the visions of the saints, Jesus was basically telling His disciples that if they thought the burning rubbish of Hinnom was hot, it only was a taste of how bad the actual "lake of fire" would be, and despite the fire attribute, it was an indescribable fire that burned yet couldn't be seen in the same way your campfire could be seen. Along those lines, some years back I had a dream of my own that sort of goes along these lines, and I want to share that now.
The dream I had was an interesting one. In it, it was as if I was in a cavern where this huge subterranean lake of clear water was, but my presence there was more like a video monitor rather than being literally there. The scene in my dream then shifts to a kitchen, where a vile of that water from that subterranean lake was on a counter. Someone else in the dream warned me to not touch or consume that water, because it would mean that I could be destroyed. It turns out that the water was also combustible, and would spontaneously burst into flames without stimulus to do so. Upon waking from that dream, it made me realize that maybe the "lake of fire" was not what popular images of it often convey - maybe it isn't a fiery pit of white-hot flames, but maybe something more insidious. The dank pitch-black darkness of the cave, as well as the clearness of the combustible lake water in the dream, suggests that hell is just that - a place of outer darkness where a flame that cannot be seen or sensed nonetheless torments those who are consigned there. Our visit to Smoke Hole Caverns kind of also put the pieces of the puzzle together, and the picture it gave was more feasible.
The horrors of hell are not something we should desire for anyone, and definitely not something we should have as a final destination of our existence either. Even God doesn't will people to go there, and contrary to popular misconceptions at times, He is not wanting to zap people to fry in the lake of fire like sizzling bacon for eternity either. God's will is that all may come to him, and be restored by supernatural grace, but he gives us the choice to accept that option. Therefore, no, it is not God who sends people to hell, but people send themselves - hell is a choice for people to go to, whether they intentionally want to or not. The worst attribute, therefore, of hell is not the darkness, the hot fires, or tormenting demons - the worst punishment is eternal separation from a God who loved us and gave Himself for our sins, that we might have what He intended for us. Hell is real, and unrepentant wickedness has as its reward an eternity in it, but we have the free will to be saved from it, but that salvation requires that we believe in Jesus Christ, and accept what He did for us to be "saved" from that fate. Again, God gives us the choice, and whatever choice we make has its consequences. Again too, it is not God that sends us to hell, but rather our choice to reject Him that sends us there. God also doesn't derive joy from the tormented souls in hell - it breaks His heart for people to be separated from Him in such a way, as His love for us, the pinnacle of His creation made in the image He designed, is without limits. But, at the same time, God wants us to choose to reciprocate, as it is more meaningful that way. Therefore, contrary to the two extremes of the Calvinist mentality that unfortunately many of our Protestant brethren fall into - one extreme is double-predestination, where God determines who is "saved" and who is "lost" (a heresy in itself, I must add) while the other extreme is universalism, where everybody is predestined (the I in the Calvinist "TULIP" in other words - irresistible grace) for heaven and hell is temporary at best and nonexistent at worst (yes, these are both fruits of Calvinism!) ala Rob Bell and others - it must be understood that hell is a reality, and for those who reject God, it is their fate, but it is not God's choice but theirs. Outer darkness and a consuming fire of torment punctuate a deeper tragedy for the unfortunate soul that ends up in such a place - that deeper tragedy being eternal separation from God. If every person professing atheism would really have a revelation of that, I don't believe atheism would be an alternative for the human race any longer. Of course, in a sense there is no such thing as a true atheist - the atheist believes in one god too; themselves.
As mentioned, this is not meant to be a comprehensive teaching on hell and the doctrines associated with it, as that is for another day. Rather, it is just some reflections of my own that one can take or leave based on some inspiration I had recently. However, one thing is for sure - God loves each and every person that reads this, and He desires you have eternal life spent with Him. He doesn't want to consign you to hell, and indeed that is not His choice, but yours - God doesn't send people to hell, but people send themselves by refusing to accept God in their lives. And, it is that thought I will leave you with today. Thanks again, and will see you soon.
Thursday, June 21, 2018
The Secularization of Christianity Part XVII - Wrapping it Up
It has been a few weeks since I last posted, as life has gotten very busy. Due to this reason, I have decided to limit my examination of Mascall's The Secularization of Christianity to chapter 2, which bears the same title as the chapter itself. Most of the study of this series has focused on chapter 2 anyway, and this section is going to deal with the conclusion of the chapter.
Mascall is still evaluating Van Buren's overly secularized theology, and interesting enough he notes on page 74 that Van Buren observes a very marked difference between the approaches of Bultmann and Karl Barth for justifying the minimalization of the historicity of the Gospels. For Bultmann, the interest is primarily in the Kerygma. On the other hand, for Barth all that matters is the witness of the Apostles to the fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. In this, Barth is actually more in line with the historical position of the Church (surprising, given his lack of orthodoxy in other areas of his theology) in that he accepts the Gospel story as historical fact, whereas Bultmann doesn't. However, although Barth accepts the historicity of the Gospels, he also downplays it. This can also be problematic as well, for as can be seen with some of Barth's later disciples (notably Tillich, Niebuhr, and Hauerwas), the downplaying of the historicity of the Gospel accounts opens a Pandora's box of other heretical notions, such as attacks on the divinity of Christ and on the Magisterium of the Church (which to a degree Protestants do accept as part of the historical patrimony of doctrine they have received from the Church herself). This is why, while Barth is to be commended for defending historicity, his minimalizing of that historicity brings many of those who subscribe to his theology back to the same place Bultmann and his followers are. Historicity is therefore not a sideline or a mere footnote; it is fundamental to faith.
Moving on to page 75, Mascall dissects what Bultmann calls "Easter faith," and what is meant by this in the context of Bultmann's theology is this - the events of the Gospel were colored and shaped, in his view, by the "Easter hope" of the Apostles, and thus for him they are subjective essentially. For Bultmann therefore, it is possible to obtain a reliable picture of the kind of person Jesus was from what he deems the "various fragments" that "make up the Gospel tradition."
To bolster his view on this Van Buren refers to the writings of Ernst Fuchs (1903-1983), Gerhard Ebeling (1912-2001), and Gunther Bornkamm (1905-1990), all of whom were to some degree Bultmann's proteges. In quoting Van Buren's work The Secular Meaning of the Gospel on page 121 of that work, Mascall notes that Van Buren observes that each of these very liberal theologians focused on different aspects - Fuchs on the conduct of Jesus as a "great teacher" essentially, Ebeling on the issue of faith, and Bornkamm on the individuality Jesus noted in persons He encountered. Mascall notes that the fault in these approaches is that they all focus on what the investigators want them to focus on rather than accepting the historical record of the Gospels in their entirety. For all of them, and for Van Buren as well, the issue at hand is "freedom" and the proclamation of Jesus's message coming back to that - "Freedom," then, for such individuals, has precedence over faith, and it essentially means a sort of politicizing of the Gospel in a secular context. For the secularist, faith and the supernatural present issues, and therefore they must re-interpret historically-understood concepts regarding Scripture and the person of Jesus in order to justify their own conclusions. One recent author who demonstrates this is Jon Krakauer, whose 2004 book, Under the Banner of Heaven, is punctuated with Krakauer's mentality. Krakauer's book deals specifically with the extremes of Mormon Fundamentalist sects that practice polygamy in the American West, but in doing so, he paints with a broad brush all people of faith. One passage that exemplifies this can be found on page 297 of Krakauer's book where he basically paints with a broad brush Mormon Fundamentalists and committed Evangelical Christians such as former Attorney General John Ashcraft - for Krakauer, in true secularist fashion, to make any differentiation between cultic groups and legitimate Christian traditions is unreasonable, in that he sees one as fanatical as the others. This is essentially as well where Van Buren and others tend to go by emphasizing "freedom" over faith - faith is bad to them because it is irrational in their minds, but "freedom" is the key. Question is though, freedom for whom?? This reductionism of freedom being the logical meaning of the Gospels rather than the consequence of faith is one step away from denial of the divinity of Christ and other fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and it is exactly where Van Buren - as well as his predecessors such as Bultmann - are headed. As Catholic philosopher Plinio Correa de Oliveira, in his seminal work Revolution and Counter-Revolution (Spring Grove, PA: Association for the Preservation of Tradition, Family, and Property, 2014) notes, a rebellion against morality, which is rooted in faith, leads to a more or less unconfessed hatred for the very moral order as a whole, and this in turn is a revolutionary tendency to generate doctrinal errors as well as espousing things contrary to moral law (de Oliveira, p. 57). He also notes that secularism is atheism with principle, which means that it is incompatible with the Christian faith - that would automatically rule out Van Buren then as a true follower of Christ. This leads now to a sound response at the conclusion of the chapter to Van Buren by Mascall.
Mascall notes that Van Buren's conclusions are questionable in a couple of ways, starting on page 77. First, a sincere love of God necessitates trust in God, something Van Buren's concept of "Freedom" lacks. Therefore, if Van Buren's scheme is carried to its logical conclusion, Jesus Himself would have to deny God, and in essence deny Himself as part of the Triune Godhead - this conclusion is unacceptable to a true follower of the faith. Oddly - and secondly - Van Buren rejects God yet believes in Jesus (like de Oliveira asserts, this would make Van Buren a functional atheist). This creates a problem in that it divorces a historical knowledge of Jesus from faith for Him. This cannot be, and therefore is in the realm of the heretical rather than orthodox Christian faith and practice. At least however Van Buren acknowledges that the writers of the New Testament (and by extension, the leadership of the primitive Church) did not share his position, and with very good reason - Van Buren is heretical by their definition! Divorcing faith from historicity and attempting to secularize Christianity is an impossibility and a contradiction, as John Horvat points out in his book Return to Order (Hanover, PA: York Press, 2013) when he notes that the State best fulfills its role when it is permeated by a Christian spirit, working together for the common good. A secular state - and much less a secular theologian! - doesn't have the capacity to do that because the common good is subordinated to the whims and fancies of the ones wielding the power. The "freedom" of the Gospel message that Van Buren prefers to emphasize does indeed exist, but that freedom comes at a price - the price of our sin, and the ultimate act of supernatural grace being expressed to meet the true common good by Christ giving His life on a cross on a hill in far-away Palestine. That act, and the supernatural grace it imparts is received by faith, and only in faithfully receiving and believing those facts can a true freedom and restoration affect either a society or an individual (Horvat, p. 216). Mascall drives this home on page 80 by noting that even Van Buren has to concede that the Resurrection was not a mere resuscitation (as the Muslims and others suggest), as that would have little to do with impacting Christian faith. In other words, the historical truth of Christ being Who the Gospels say He is defines all aspects of Christian life, and it is the guiding force of Christian civilization.
Beginning on page 83, Mascall notes that Van Buren has a few problems with linguistic analysis he subscribes to. Van Buren concedes, rightly, that evidence should not intend to assert a resuscitation by the Apostles of Jesus's dead corpus. But, unfortunately Van Buren still reduces the witness of the Apostles to subjective experience by retaining the phraseology of Christianity but altering its meaning. His position, as Mascall defines it on page 86, is that God doesn't exist and Jesus ceased to exist - like the heretics, Van Buren has basically attacked the core doctrine of Christianity, being the person and divinity of Jesus Christ. While Van Buren though would accept Jesus as historical, he denies the divinity of Christ. Again, as de Oliveira correctly has asserted, this turns Van Buren into a practical atheist. This also radically redefines soteriology for Van Buren as well - essentially, the person of Christ and the accuracy of the Easter event have no soteriological effect on the Christian, but rather "the history of Jesus" and "a history of what happened on Easter" are subjectively accepted by the believer as a faith-crutch. In reality for Van Buren, they merely provide historical account and basis for the individual perspective - they are past events that are used as reflective points for guidance and encouragement, in other words. This reduces Jesus from being God the Son to being a "good man" and a "great teacher," and little else for Van Buren.
On page 89, Mascall makes an interesting observation on how Van Buren even views the concept of "freedom" - for Van Buren, it is like a virus that people want to catch rather than the act of supernatural grace it is, and thus it can be "caught" without subscribing to historical faith. Being a "good person" like Jesus is all that is needed (the old "salvation by works" heresy, in other words). Moving onto page 91, Mascall then notes Van Buren's two principles of interpretation as follows:
1. For Van Buren, statements of faith are to be interpreted as statements which express, describe, or commend a particular way of seeing the world, other men, and oneself.
2. Also for Van Buren, the norm of the Christian perspective is the series of events to which the New Testament documents testify, centering on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as merely historical events without spiritual merit.
In other words, for Van Buren, faith becomes a subjective but unnecessary exercise based on the outlook on the individual rather than an acceptance of historically-taught doctrine and the written account of the Gospels as truth. This obviously leads to a dilemma for him and others who profess Christianity but seek to reinterpret or outright deny its teachings.
On pages 94-95, Mascall notes that there is a tension between the traditional formulae of the faith as upheld in the historic Creeds of the Church and the radical reinterpretations of secularists such as Van Buren, and it blurs the line between the disciplines of theology and hermeneutics. In the historic Creeds, for instance, it is plainly stated that Jesus is the living Logos, the incarnate Word of God, and thus He is nothing less than God Himself. That is the orthodox and historical belief and teaching of the Church, and is a mystery of faith to be accepted by her faithful. Van Buren, who rejects God and reduces Jesus to a dead man, would have been condemned by the Councils that drafted these historic Creeds. This means then that traditional doctrine upholds two things:
1. Economy - relating to the created world
2. Essentiality - the inner life of the Trinity themselves
Van Buren's rejection of these historic aspects of faith inevitably trickles down to what he believes about other essentials of the faith. For instance, he rejects the Virgin Birth and thus the Nativity account because they cannot be understood "factually" (very Cartesian of him, isn't it?). He also rejects other doctrines - this means the supernatural dimension of the faith - based on the same idea. How someone like Van Buren can still identify as "Christian" while denying core Christian doctrines on very important matters escapes me, and like de Oliveira I would condemn Van Buren and others like him as functional atheists. And, that leads to a couple of final thoughts on the footnote Mascall has on pages 104-105.
Mascall, in his concluding notes, references an article published in 1964 by Don Cuppitt (born 1934), a British Anglican priest and philosopher, that he wrote in response to some of Van Buren's views. The question raised is whether the Gospel is about God or about Jesus, and although Cuppitt correctly asserts it should be about both, he also observes that people like Van Buren tend to sunder the unity between Theocentricity and Christocentricity, a problem that stems back even to Barth's writings. As Cuppitt notes, the traditional understanding is that the Gospel is about God as personified in Christ (which is beautifully illustrated in catechetical literature by such great writers as Fr. Josef Jungmann and Msgr. Eugene Kevane - Jungmann's "spokes of a wheel" analogy of doctrine, for instance, asserts that all we believe points back to Christ, and ultimately as a result to God, of whom Christ is Incarnate). A new trend (new during the time both Mascall and Cuppitt wrote their works, but more evident today) is this paradox called "Christian atheism," which Cuppitt defines as this dichotomy of God as an evil "demiurge" of sorts and Jesus as a "tempering agent" as a holy man but not God Himself - this radically dualistic view of Christ is foreign to orthodox faith. God was present in typologies before the Gospels were written, and has been present in the course of human events since the dawn of creation. This "Christian atheism" has again raised its leviathon head in the teachings of people like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, as well as with other Protestant participants in the "Emerging Church" movement. This dualistic mentality of God being divorced from Jesus as a bad "demiurge" at worst or merely an Old Testament "covenant enforcer" at best doesn't do justice to the complete account of the Gospels within the context of all of Scripture. Cuppitt rightly asserts - and Aquinas would agree - that the correct understanding of this issue is that the Gospel must (and does) presuppose a natural theology; remember, God is the author of both Revelation and Nature, and the Thomistic principle here is that Nature never contradicts Revelation, but through supernatural grace Revelation perfects, elevates, and heals Nature. Van Buren and other secular/liberal theologians like him (including even "Emergent Evangelicals" such as Brian McLaren and others) cannot grasp this truth because they deny the supernatural as something that they cannot understand logically (which they have in common with Rene Descartes and other Enlightenment-era figures) and thus in doing so they deny the very essence of what it is to be Christian to begin with. The final thought on this now follows.
We live in an age that is characterized by Enlightenment thinking, unfortunately on greater levels and at greater depths than we realize. It may even impact us to an extent as individuals, despite how orthodox we may be. It also creates a toxic situation that is defined by John Horvat as "frenetic intemperance," and it is defined as being the following (Horvat, p. 17):
1. It seeks to throw off legitimate restraints (including orthodox faith, in the Christian context).
2. It seeks to gratify disordered passions by one of two ways:
a. Reinterpreting and redefining traditional language to fit a secular mindset.
b. Suppressing traditional definitions with intimidation and so-called "logic" (i.e.: "political correctness")
Although Horvat primarily deals with the effect frenetic intemperance has on the economics of a civilization, it can also be applied in other areas as well - ethics, theology, philosophy, etc. As a matter of fact, I would assert that the economic manifestation of this is driven by philosophical, moral, and religious undertones, and the change in those three areas is what manifests itself in selfish economic policies - as Horvat correctly observes, it throws the whole system off-balance. Van Buren is primarily a product - a fruit, if you will - of a poisoned legacy that goes back many decades, even centuries; Van Buren was impacted by Rudolf Bultmann, who in turn was influenced by F.C. Bauer, and he in turn by Friedrich Schleiermacher, etc. Ultimately, it goes back to the genesis of the via moderna during the Enlightenment, and such individuals as Spinoza, Descartes, Machiavelli, and earlier "trailblazers" such as Marsilus of Padua, etc. Of course, if you want the ultimate root of the problem, look at Genesis 3 - it involved a snake, a tree, and a gullible woman who should have known better in the first place. Heresies are based on recycled old lies, and one of the lies is an exaggerated self-importance of the individual to the point that such a person deifies himself, and thus the concept of an outside Creator or Savior upsets that ego trip. In other words, the secularization of Christianity has old roots, and thankfully the true Church has (and will) prevail. But, until that happens, there will always be the Van Burens who seek to destroy her from within, and they must be exposed for what they are, which is the value of Mascall's fine work we have discussed. God bless until next time.
Mascall is still evaluating Van Buren's overly secularized theology, and interesting enough he notes on page 74 that Van Buren observes a very marked difference between the approaches of Bultmann and Karl Barth for justifying the minimalization of the historicity of the Gospels. For Bultmann, the interest is primarily in the Kerygma. On the other hand, for Barth all that matters is the witness of the Apostles to the fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. In this, Barth is actually more in line with the historical position of the Church (surprising, given his lack of orthodoxy in other areas of his theology) in that he accepts the Gospel story as historical fact, whereas Bultmann doesn't. However, although Barth accepts the historicity of the Gospels, he also downplays it. This can also be problematic as well, for as can be seen with some of Barth's later disciples (notably Tillich, Niebuhr, and Hauerwas), the downplaying of the historicity of the Gospel accounts opens a Pandora's box of other heretical notions, such as attacks on the divinity of Christ and on the Magisterium of the Church (which to a degree Protestants do accept as part of the historical patrimony of doctrine they have received from the Church herself). This is why, while Barth is to be commended for defending historicity, his minimalizing of that historicity brings many of those who subscribe to his theology back to the same place Bultmann and his followers are. Historicity is therefore not a sideline or a mere footnote; it is fundamental to faith.
Moving on to page 75, Mascall dissects what Bultmann calls "Easter faith," and what is meant by this in the context of Bultmann's theology is this - the events of the Gospel were colored and shaped, in his view, by the "Easter hope" of the Apostles, and thus for him they are subjective essentially. For Bultmann therefore, it is possible to obtain a reliable picture of the kind of person Jesus was from what he deems the "various fragments" that "make up the Gospel tradition."
To bolster his view on this Van Buren refers to the writings of Ernst Fuchs (1903-1983), Gerhard Ebeling (1912-2001), and Gunther Bornkamm (1905-1990), all of whom were to some degree Bultmann's proteges. In quoting Van Buren's work The Secular Meaning of the Gospel on page 121 of that work, Mascall notes that Van Buren observes that each of these very liberal theologians focused on different aspects - Fuchs on the conduct of Jesus as a "great teacher" essentially, Ebeling on the issue of faith, and Bornkamm on the individuality Jesus noted in persons He encountered. Mascall notes that the fault in these approaches is that they all focus on what the investigators want them to focus on rather than accepting the historical record of the Gospels in their entirety. For all of them, and for Van Buren as well, the issue at hand is "freedom" and the proclamation of Jesus's message coming back to that - "Freedom," then, for such individuals, has precedence over faith, and it essentially means a sort of politicizing of the Gospel in a secular context. For the secularist, faith and the supernatural present issues, and therefore they must re-interpret historically-understood concepts regarding Scripture and the person of Jesus in order to justify their own conclusions. One recent author who demonstrates this is Jon Krakauer, whose 2004 book, Under the Banner of Heaven, is punctuated with Krakauer's mentality. Krakauer's book deals specifically with the extremes of Mormon Fundamentalist sects that practice polygamy in the American West, but in doing so, he paints with a broad brush all people of faith. One passage that exemplifies this can be found on page 297 of Krakauer's book where he basically paints with a broad brush Mormon Fundamentalists and committed Evangelical Christians such as former Attorney General John Ashcraft - for Krakauer, in true secularist fashion, to make any differentiation between cultic groups and legitimate Christian traditions is unreasonable, in that he sees one as fanatical as the others. This is essentially as well where Van Buren and others tend to go by emphasizing "freedom" over faith - faith is bad to them because it is irrational in their minds, but "freedom" is the key. Question is though, freedom for whom?? This reductionism of freedom being the logical meaning of the Gospels rather than the consequence of faith is one step away from denial of the divinity of Christ and other fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and it is exactly where Van Buren - as well as his predecessors such as Bultmann - are headed. As Catholic philosopher Plinio Correa de Oliveira, in his seminal work Revolution and Counter-Revolution (Spring Grove, PA: Association for the Preservation of Tradition, Family, and Property, 2014) notes, a rebellion against morality, which is rooted in faith, leads to a more or less unconfessed hatred for the very moral order as a whole, and this in turn is a revolutionary tendency to generate doctrinal errors as well as espousing things contrary to moral law (de Oliveira, p. 57). He also notes that secularism is atheism with principle, which means that it is incompatible with the Christian faith - that would automatically rule out Van Buren then as a true follower of Christ. This leads now to a sound response at the conclusion of the chapter to Van Buren by Mascall.
Mascall notes that Van Buren's conclusions are questionable in a couple of ways, starting on page 77. First, a sincere love of God necessitates trust in God, something Van Buren's concept of "Freedom" lacks. Therefore, if Van Buren's scheme is carried to its logical conclusion, Jesus Himself would have to deny God, and in essence deny Himself as part of the Triune Godhead - this conclusion is unacceptable to a true follower of the faith. Oddly - and secondly - Van Buren rejects God yet believes in Jesus (like de Oliveira asserts, this would make Van Buren a functional atheist). This creates a problem in that it divorces a historical knowledge of Jesus from faith for Him. This cannot be, and therefore is in the realm of the heretical rather than orthodox Christian faith and practice. At least however Van Buren acknowledges that the writers of the New Testament (and by extension, the leadership of the primitive Church) did not share his position, and with very good reason - Van Buren is heretical by their definition! Divorcing faith from historicity and attempting to secularize Christianity is an impossibility and a contradiction, as John Horvat points out in his book Return to Order (Hanover, PA: York Press, 2013) when he notes that the State best fulfills its role when it is permeated by a Christian spirit, working together for the common good. A secular state - and much less a secular theologian! - doesn't have the capacity to do that because the common good is subordinated to the whims and fancies of the ones wielding the power. The "freedom" of the Gospel message that Van Buren prefers to emphasize does indeed exist, but that freedom comes at a price - the price of our sin, and the ultimate act of supernatural grace being expressed to meet the true common good by Christ giving His life on a cross on a hill in far-away Palestine. That act, and the supernatural grace it imparts is received by faith, and only in faithfully receiving and believing those facts can a true freedom and restoration affect either a society or an individual (Horvat, p. 216). Mascall drives this home on page 80 by noting that even Van Buren has to concede that the Resurrection was not a mere resuscitation (as the Muslims and others suggest), as that would have little to do with impacting Christian faith. In other words, the historical truth of Christ being Who the Gospels say He is defines all aspects of Christian life, and it is the guiding force of Christian civilization.
Beginning on page 83, Mascall notes that Van Buren has a few problems with linguistic analysis he subscribes to. Van Buren concedes, rightly, that evidence should not intend to assert a resuscitation by the Apostles of Jesus's dead corpus. But, unfortunately Van Buren still reduces the witness of the Apostles to subjective experience by retaining the phraseology of Christianity but altering its meaning. His position, as Mascall defines it on page 86, is that God doesn't exist and Jesus ceased to exist - like the heretics, Van Buren has basically attacked the core doctrine of Christianity, being the person and divinity of Jesus Christ. While Van Buren though would accept Jesus as historical, he denies the divinity of Christ. Again, as de Oliveira correctly has asserted, this turns Van Buren into a practical atheist. This also radically redefines soteriology for Van Buren as well - essentially, the person of Christ and the accuracy of the Easter event have no soteriological effect on the Christian, but rather "the history of Jesus" and "a history of what happened on Easter" are subjectively accepted by the believer as a faith-crutch. In reality for Van Buren, they merely provide historical account and basis for the individual perspective - they are past events that are used as reflective points for guidance and encouragement, in other words. This reduces Jesus from being God the Son to being a "good man" and a "great teacher," and little else for Van Buren.
On page 89, Mascall makes an interesting observation on how Van Buren even views the concept of "freedom" - for Van Buren, it is like a virus that people want to catch rather than the act of supernatural grace it is, and thus it can be "caught" without subscribing to historical faith. Being a "good person" like Jesus is all that is needed (the old "salvation by works" heresy, in other words). Moving onto page 91, Mascall then notes Van Buren's two principles of interpretation as follows:
1. For Van Buren, statements of faith are to be interpreted as statements which express, describe, or commend a particular way of seeing the world, other men, and oneself.
2. Also for Van Buren, the norm of the Christian perspective is the series of events to which the New Testament documents testify, centering on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as merely historical events without spiritual merit.
In other words, for Van Buren, faith becomes a subjective but unnecessary exercise based on the outlook on the individual rather than an acceptance of historically-taught doctrine and the written account of the Gospels as truth. This obviously leads to a dilemma for him and others who profess Christianity but seek to reinterpret or outright deny its teachings.
On pages 94-95, Mascall notes that there is a tension between the traditional formulae of the faith as upheld in the historic Creeds of the Church and the radical reinterpretations of secularists such as Van Buren, and it blurs the line between the disciplines of theology and hermeneutics. In the historic Creeds, for instance, it is plainly stated that Jesus is the living Logos, the incarnate Word of God, and thus He is nothing less than God Himself. That is the orthodox and historical belief and teaching of the Church, and is a mystery of faith to be accepted by her faithful. Van Buren, who rejects God and reduces Jesus to a dead man, would have been condemned by the Councils that drafted these historic Creeds. This means then that traditional doctrine upholds two things:
1. Economy - relating to the created world
2. Essentiality - the inner life of the Trinity themselves
Van Buren's rejection of these historic aspects of faith inevitably trickles down to what he believes about other essentials of the faith. For instance, he rejects the Virgin Birth and thus the Nativity account because they cannot be understood "factually" (very Cartesian of him, isn't it?). He also rejects other doctrines - this means the supernatural dimension of the faith - based on the same idea. How someone like Van Buren can still identify as "Christian" while denying core Christian doctrines on very important matters escapes me, and like de Oliveira I would condemn Van Buren and others like him as functional atheists. And, that leads to a couple of final thoughts on the footnote Mascall has on pages 104-105.
Mascall, in his concluding notes, references an article published in 1964 by Don Cuppitt (born 1934), a British Anglican priest and philosopher, that he wrote in response to some of Van Buren's views. The question raised is whether the Gospel is about God or about Jesus, and although Cuppitt correctly asserts it should be about both, he also observes that people like Van Buren tend to sunder the unity between Theocentricity and Christocentricity, a problem that stems back even to Barth's writings. As Cuppitt notes, the traditional understanding is that the Gospel is about God as personified in Christ (which is beautifully illustrated in catechetical literature by such great writers as Fr. Josef Jungmann and Msgr. Eugene Kevane - Jungmann's "spokes of a wheel" analogy of doctrine, for instance, asserts that all we believe points back to Christ, and ultimately as a result to God, of whom Christ is Incarnate). A new trend (new during the time both Mascall and Cuppitt wrote their works, but more evident today) is this paradox called "Christian atheism," which Cuppitt defines as this dichotomy of God as an evil "demiurge" of sorts and Jesus as a "tempering agent" as a holy man but not God Himself - this radically dualistic view of Christ is foreign to orthodox faith. God was present in typologies before the Gospels were written, and has been present in the course of human events since the dawn of creation. This "Christian atheism" has again raised its leviathon head in the teachings of people like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, as well as with other Protestant participants in the "Emerging Church" movement. This dualistic mentality of God being divorced from Jesus as a bad "demiurge" at worst or merely an Old Testament "covenant enforcer" at best doesn't do justice to the complete account of the Gospels within the context of all of Scripture. Cuppitt rightly asserts - and Aquinas would agree - that the correct understanding of this issue is that the Gospel must (and does) presuppose a natural theology; remember, God is the author of both Revelation and Nature, and the Thomistic principle here is that Nature never contradicts Revelation, but through supernatural grace Revelation perfects, elevates, and heals Nature. Van Buren and other secular/liberal theologians like him (including even "Emergent Evangelicals" such as Brian McLaren and others) cannot grasp this truth because they deny the supernatural as something that they cannot understand logically (which they have in common with Rene Descartes and other Enlightenment-era figures) and thus in doing so they deny the very essence of what it is to be Christian to begin with. The final thought on this now follows.
We live in an age that is characterized by Enlightenment thinking, unfortunately on greater levels and at greater depths than we realize. It may even impact us to an extent as individuals, despite how orthodox we may be. It also creates a toxic situation that is defined by John Horvat as "frenetic intemperance," and it is defined as being the following (Horvat, p. 17):
1. It seeks to throw off legitimate restraints (including orthodox faith, in the Christian context).
2. It seeks to gratify disordered passions by one of two ways:
a. Reinterpreting and redefining traditional language to fit a secular mindset.
b. Suppressing traditional definitions with intimidation and so-called "logic" (i.e.: "political correctness")
Although Horvat primarily deals with the effect frenetic intemperance has on the economics of a civilization, it can also be applied in other areas as well - ethics, theology, philosophy, etc. As a matter of fact, I would assert that the economic manifestation of this is driven by philosophical, moral, and religious undertones, and the change in those three areas is what manifests itself in selfish economic policies - as Horvat correctly observes, it throws the whole system off-balance. Van Buren is primarily a product - a fruit, if you will - of a poisoned legacy that goes back many decades, even centuries; Van Buren was impacted by Rudolf Bultmann, who in turn was influenced by F.C. Bauer, and he in turn by Friedrich Schleiermacher, etc. Ultimately, it goes back to the genesis of the via moderna during the Enlightenment, and such individuals as Spinoza, Descartes, Machiavelli, and earlier "trailblazers" such as Marsilus of Padua, etc. Of course, if you want the ultimate root of the problem, look at Genesis 3 - it involved a snake, a tree, and a gullible woman who should have known better in the first place. Heresies are based on recycled old lies, and one of the lies is an exaggerated self-importance of the individual to the point that such a person deifies himself, and thus the concept of an outside Creator or Savior upsets that ego trip. In other words, the secularization of Christianity has old roots, and thankfully the true Church has (and will) prevail. But, until that happens, there will always be the Van Burens who seek to destroy her from within, and they must be exposed for what they are, which is the value of Mascall's fine work we have discussed. God bless until next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Now that we have examined the story of Noah in-depth, what we begin to see as we launch into Genesis 10 is that the population begins to inc... -
In January 2010, I started Sacramental Present Truths as a platform for my own reflections and teachings on Biblical and theological issues...
-
I have mentioned earlier about the Highways and Hedges project, and as part of it I want to share the history of some oft-overlooked smaller...