Monthly Archives: July 2014

The Convenience of Marriage

30 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in C.S. Lewis, Humor, Matrimony, Sacraments

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

From Lewis today I have this profound insight into marriage. (Well, actually, I just had to post it because it is so funny.)

Aravis also had many quarrels (and, I’m afraid even fights) with Cor, but they always made it up again: so that years later, when they were grown up they were so used to quarrelling and making it up again that they got married so as to go on doing it more conveniently.

The Horse and His Boy, C.S. Lewis

Of course the reason this is funny is because there is some truth in it. I am always a little skeptical whenever anyone tells me, “Oh, my wife/husband and I never fight or argue.” After all, marriage is the joining together of a distinct and unique man and woman who are also fallen and sinful. As a result, our pride will from time to time (or most of the time) get in the way – those are the times when we forget that marriage is about giving ourselves to our spouse and not about what we can get out of it. Too often we forget this and when we do then quarrelling will result.

Our modern society doesn’t really understand that about marriage and that is why (at least it is part of the reason) that so many marriages end in divorce.* Just because there are disagreements in a marriage doesn’t mean that you picked the wrong person and need to move on and find someone else. I think it is quite the opposite. If we would use those times of disagreement in order to look at ourselves and see what we need to fix within ourselves, instead of expecting our spouse to be the one to give in, then we would be living our marriages as we should and would also be much happier for it.

At this point someone may be making a thousand excuses in his mind of why he is not the one that has to change. When this happens we need to remember that part of being a Christian is learning to die to ourselves. And this dying to self also applies to marriage. Every time you go to your spouse after an argument and sincerely say, “I’m sorry”, and then amend your life (or at least try) then you are in fact dying to self. And it is that dying to self that will lead to happiness – in this life and in the next.

*(Marriages don’t actually end just because a judge has granted a civil divorce. If it is a valid marriage it only ends at the death of one of the spouses. Another point of clarification needs to be made – an annulment also does not end a marriage; instead, it is a declaration by the Church that the marriage was never vaild to begin with.)

The Catholic Conception of Confession

28 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in C.S. Lewis, Catholic Church, Catholic Obligations, Sacraments, Salvation

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

My post today is yet another quote from C.S. Lewis. But, I am not posting it to show an instance of truth but one of misunderstanding. Lewis was much smarter than I can ever hope to be but his understanding of confession misses the mark.

So why point out this misunderstanding of confession? Primarily, it is to correct any misunderstandings that a Catholic may have about the Sacrament of Penance. (And hopefully to explain why confession is necessary to a non-Catholic.) But also my purpose is to give a more balanced view of Lewis. What I mean is that most of the quotes I post from him could have come from a Catholic saint – but Lewis was not Catholic and he should be treated as such. There is a danger inherent in accepting what someone says as the Truth just because you happen to like the person. And if we accept as true what Lewis has to say about confession then it would be very dangerous indeed.

I think our* official view of confession can be seen in the form for the Visitation of the Sick where it says “Then shall the sick person be moved (i.e., advised, prompted) to make a . . . Confession . . . if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter.” That is, where Rome makes Confession compulsory for all, we make it permissible for any: not “generally necessary” but profitable. We do not doubt that there can be forgiveness without it. But, as your own experience shows, many people do not feel forgiven, i.e., do not effectively “believe in the forgiveness of sins,” without it. The quite enormous advantage of coming really to believe in forgiveness is well worth the horrors (I agree, they are horrors) of a first confession.

Also, there is the gain in self-knowledge: most of [us] have never really faced the facts about ourselves until we uttered them aloud in plain words, calling a spade a spade. I certainly feel I have profited enormously by the practice. At the same time I think we are quite right not to make it generally obligatory, which wd. force it on some who are not ready for it and might do harm.

From a letter by C.S. Lewis

* – By “our” he means the Anglican view of confession.

So what is the dangerous part in this letter? It is the fact that Lewis thinks of the ‘Roman’ way of confession as merely obligatory, which according to canon law it is, when he should have first understood confession as necessary, which he did not as evidenced by his saying that confession is “not ‘generally necessary’ but profitable.” But, the reason that confession is obligatory for a Catholic is because it is necessary for our salvation. (At least it is necessary for those of us who have committed a mortal sin, which I think would include almost every person, if not every person, that has ever reached the age of reason.)

Here is a basic summary of why confession is in fact necessary: after baptism incorporates us into the life of God – the life of grace – (which was lost to mankind through the sin of Adam and Eve) we can, and do, still sin. Some of those sins are venial and some are mortal. And if a sin is mortal then we once again loose that life of grace – that connection with God that was given to us through baptism. In a sense, therefore, we have crucified Christ in our own hearts by sinning deliberately against Him. What is to be done to be forgiven and return to the life of grace? The Anglicans, just as Catholics, believe that baptism can only be administered once and so if you break that connection with God that was given to you through baptism then how can you get it back? The answer seems quite clear, if of course you believe what Jesus said to His Apostles, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:23) Jesus gave His Apostles (and their successors) this authority to forgive sins because He knew that we would continue to sin while we remain on this earth.

So, like I said at the beginning, for Lewis to sound so negative about the Catholic obligation to go to confession shows that he missed the mark. The Catholic Church makes it an obligation for her members to go to confession out of love for our eternal souls – because she knows that it is necessary after we have committed post-baptismal mortal sin. If only Lewis had understood that then perhaps he would have done the one thing that I regret he never did – become Catholic.

The Rats in the Cellar

20 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Thought for the Day

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

We begin to notice, besides our particular sinful acts, our sinfulness; begin to be alarmed not only about what we do, but about what we are. This may sound rather difficult, so I will try to make it clear from my own case. When I come to my evening prayers and try to reckon up the sins of the day, nine times out of ten the most obvious one is some sin against charity; I have sulked or snapped or sneered or snubbed or stormed. And the excuse that immediately springs to my mind is that the provocation was so sudden and unexpected; I was caught off my guard, I had not time to collect myself. Now that may be an extenuating circumstance as regards those particular acts: they would obviously be worse if they had been deliberate and premeditated. On the other hand, surely what a man does when he is taken off his guard is the best evidence for what sort of a man he is? Surely what pops out before the man has time to put on a disguise is the truth? If there are rats in a cellar you are most likely to see them if you go in very suddenly. But the suddenness does not create the rats: it only prevents them from hiding. In the same way the suddenness of the provocation does not make me an ill-tempered man; it only shows me what an ill-tempered man I am. The rats are always there in the cellar, but if you go in shouting and noisily they will have taken cover before you switch on the light.

Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis

Too often people think to themselves, “I am a pretty good person. I have never done anything that is really wrong.” If that describes you then think hard about what Lewis says above – during those times when you are 'taken off guard' what is your reaction? I would hazard a guess that it is not, “Oh well, they just made a mistake. All is forgiven.”

If we are honest we would have to admit that our reaction many times to such situations is, “I'll show them! They can't do that to me.” Yes, perhaps that is not the reaction that we want to have but it is nevertheless how we do react. We must do something about those reactions. But how? They only way is to become a different person. But because all people have serious flaws that should not be copied there is really only one person for us to become – Jesus Christ. And isn't that, after all, the whole reason to be a Christian – in order to become like Christ?

Apples, Cats, and Demonic Thinking

16 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Josef Pieper, Philosophy, Pro-Life, St. Thomas Aquinas

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Caveat: in my writings about philosophy please understand that I do not consider myself an expert and could be mistaken about what I am writing. I am writing with the purpose of working these things out in my mind and using my blog as a means of recording my thoughts and tracking my progress in this very complicated subject. Of course, I always seek to adhere strictly to the teachings of the Catholic Church and so if any reader ever notices something that could be wrong then please let me know.

The intellect receives its measure from objects; that is, human knowledge is true not of itself, but it is true because and insofar as it conforms to reality.

St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I, II, 93, 1 ad 3

What on earth does this mean and why is it important you ask? This may sound convoluted but actually it is what I would call common sense. My understanding does not come from my own reading of St. Thomas but from those who are much more intelligent than I. In this case the quote, and my understanding of it, comes from Josef Pieper’s book Living the Truth, from Ignatius Press (1989) on page 124.

What St. Thomas is trying to tell us is that we know as being true only when our knowledge conforms to the reality that exists outside of our own minds. Here is an example of what I mean: if I see a red apple on my desk then I can truly know that it is a red apple through my senses. The apple really exists and I know this because I can touch it. And even it I did not touch it I could know that it is there through my sight. Also, my sight tells me it is red in color. Some might argue that the words red and apple are arbitrary and could be called by other names. This is true. For instance, it could be that in our language red is actually called blue and apples are actually called oranges but that doesn’t change the fact that in our language as it is red means something definite and apple means something definite. What I mean is that the things we call red apples are an objective reality that we have assigned the name red apple.

But this does not mean that it is our naming of the thing that makes it what it is. Instead, we all know what a red apple is because we have been taught what it is and we have experienced it through our senses or our intellect. If someone is speaks the English language and picks up a red apple and calls it anything other than a red apple then his knowledge of that object is wrong. But this is only true of those who have learned the Truth of the thing in question. If they have never seen a red apple (which is hard to imagine) then they would not know what to call it. But suppose someone had been taught the wrong word for it. Perhaps they were referring to an apple as a cat. Clearly this would be wrong but the person does not know any better. The solution would be to politiely correct the person and tell them that it is not a cat but an apple. You may even have to go so far as to prove it by showing them pictures of a cat and pictures of apples and then getting other people to corroborate what you are saying. In the end you would suppose that common sense would prevail – right?

But that is not the way our society acts any longer. Although most people would still be willig to accept what a cat is and what an apple is there are other parts of objective reality that they completely discard. For them human knowledge is true of itself, by which St. Thomas means (I think) that the truth is whatever we want it to be. A prime example of what I mean can readily be seen in people’s treatment of the unborn. What is the unborn baby, objectively speaking? It is nothing less than the offspring of two other human beings and, therefore, could be nothing other than a human being. Right? That seems to make sense to me. But in the minds of those who are pro-death it must be something else. How else could they acquiesce in terminating its life? There are only two possible answers to this last question. First, they might think that the unborn baby is something other than a human being: you know – the whole ‘it’s just a clump of cells’ mentality. But from what I’ve read most people, even those who are pro-death, do not believe that any more. (And even if they do believe the ‘clump of cells’ lie it doesn’t seem rational because if it is not a human at conception then at what point does it become one?)

So that leaves just the second possibility – the people in our country, at least those who are pro-death, are no longer rational. In other words, they have no common sense. If they don’t believe the ‘clump of cells’ lie but instead understand that it is a baby and they either approve or actually are involved with abortion then not only are they irrational in their thinking they are also antithetical to their own human nature. And there is another word we can use for that – it is called demonic.

The fact is that to be human means, in part, to be rational. As St. Thomas said, “human knowledge is true not of itself, but it is true because and insofar as it conforms to reality.” There is an objective reality outside ourselves which we did not create and which we do not get to redefine – it is what it is. And we can most certainly come to know that objective reality. Therefore, we cannot redefine the unborn as a non-person in order to dispose of it, and still think of ourselves as fully human. Instead, to be truly rational human beings we must accept the objective reality that that which proceeds from two humans must itself be human.

Order in the court?

15 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Pro-Life, What's Wrong with the World?

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Yesterday I had the displeasure of experiencing jury duty. This is only the second time I have ever had to do so in my life. But both of these experiences were for the same court in Texas. I won’t say whether it was state or federal court because I am not sure how much of that I can disclose. The first experience in that court was relatively painless compared to yesterday’s experience, which took a ridiculous amount of time. On the other hand, both experiences in that court have things that are causing me to write this post today.

First of all, when you arrive you find that there is no free parking. Granted, they do have a reduced rate for jurors ($2 instead of $10) but they are causing a MAJOR disruption in the lives of law-abiding citizens and, as such, they should provide a close, safe, and free place to park.

Next, when you get inside they immediately start to herd you like cattle that is waiting to get branded. Then they usher you into a large room with inadequate seating with about 1,000 other people. After everyone is seated some government employee addresses the crowd telling us basically to expect to be mistreated because there is going to be lots of waiting on our part. Then one of the judges comes in to address the crowd telling us how good it is that we showed up for jury duty. (Like we had a choice.) She also said that if we weren’t there then the judicial system would come to a halt. So basically we were not being viewed as individuals and law-abiding citizens but instead as tools that the governments uses to keep the judicial system moving.

Then they start calling the jurors to various courts and more cattle herding ensues. After this we were escorted in numerical order (like all other aspects of the government we were known by the number that was given to us and not by our names). My group of jurors – 65 in total – was dropped off at the door of the courtroom and told “Stay, that’s a good juror” like we were the family dog.

What happened next you ask? Nothing for the next two hours. They made 65 law-abiding citizens stand out in the hallway with only a few benches on which to sit for two whole hours without ever uttering a word to us. In that time no one ever came out to tell us how much longer it would be, what we were supposed to do or anything else.

The rest of the day was spent with the judge and lawyers talking to us and asking us questions. Oh yeah, and a lot more waiting out in the ‘hallway of no seating’.

Now let me explain why I have written this synopsis of my day’s events – it is to ask a question. Why is it that those who are summoned to jury duty are treated in such a manner? The ones on trial are treated better than those on the jury. Even convicted criminals are treated better; after all, there are laws in place to make sure convicts are at least treated like human beings. But in my experience there is no such concern for those law-abiding citizens that are summoned to jury duty. We (those 64 people along with myself out in that hallway) were treated really no better than animals. In fact, I have seen many family pets that are treated far better than we were yesterday. And why is that? I think it is because this country, especially its government, has forgotten that the people of this country, and in fact all people, are created in the image and likeness of God. And due to that fact, we all deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and not as tools to get a job done. Yet that is how we were treated. But really it makes sense that the government views us in such a way. After all, it is the same government that doesn’t even recognize us as human at the moment of our conception.

The Call of Kultala

11 Friday Jul 2014

Posted by in Catholic Church, Dictatorship of Relativism, Politically Incorrect, Pro-Death 'Catholics'

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Fr. Z hits the nail on the head yet again. Read his article here to find out about the most recent pro-death 'Catholic', Kelly Kultala, that is running for political office.

Here's the first few sentences but you really should read the rest:

First, there is no such thing as a pro-choice Catholic.

Catholics are not free to choose what they are going to believe and what they are going to reject when the teachings are defined by the Church.

After reading the whole article I thought to myself – is it just a coincidence that this lady's name is so similar to Cthulhu?

Freedom and Happiness

06 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Eternal Life, Free Will, God's Will, Salvation, Sermons

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Sermon for the Third Sunday after Trinity

July 6, 2014

Two day ago we celebrated the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It was on that day 238 years ago that the founders of this country declared their independence from a tyrannical government that tried to choke the air of freedom out of the people of this land. The founders of this country understood that mankind must be free and so they broke away from that oppressive government at the risk of their own lives. But, in considering this freedom that they won for us and that we now enjoy, we come up against a very important question – what does this freedom give us the “freedom” to do?

The reason that we must ask this question is because our country now suffers from a very distorted view of what freedom is. For example, it is the rule of law in this land that women have the “freedom” to abort their children and it is increasingly becoming the law that people have the “freedom” to “marry” someone of the same gender. But are we ever really free to do such immoral acts, even it if is legal? Both of these wrong-headed notions of freedom – and others – come from the fact that the ‘idea of freedom’ in this country has become one of the freedom to do whatever we wish – that there are no universal moral standards by which to measure what we should or should not do. In other words, there is prevalent today a disordered way of thinking, which for many people is subconscious, that says there is no real way to determine right from wrong and that anyone who tries to do so is to be labeled a narrow-minded and archaic hate-monger. And it is this disordered thinking that leads even faithful churchgoers to say things like this, “Well, I do not believe that such and such is right; but if someone else wants to do it then who am I to say that they shouldn’t?” This attitude is – quite simply – wrong and, therefore, we must ask why this type of distorted thinking is so prevalent within our society?

To begin to answer this we must first acknowledge that mankind wants to be happy. And since I have made reference to the 4th of July we can of course remind ourselves that the Declaration of Independence says we have the right to pursue happiness. In addition, we should also remember that God Himself wants us to be happy. But, without a correct understanding of what will and what will not make us happy, many people fall into the trap of chasing this or that ‘thing’ thinking that it is the thing that will make them happy. It starts when we are children when we think to ourselves, “If only I could have that toy or that piece of candy, then I would be happy.” And then throughout the rest of our lives it really does not change that much. There are many adults that still pursue various things they think will make them happy – if only I could have that man or woman to be my spouse, if only I had that job, house, car, boat, home theater, vacation, etc., then I would be really and truly happy. But in the end none of these things can satisfy us because we were not created to pursue them as our ultimate goal. To be sure, God did create good things for us to enjoy but we can only really enjoy them if we are willing to be without them.

But why is it that these good things can make us so unhappy once we have obtained them? It is because we have forgotten, or perhaps never knew, that we have been created by God and for God – He is our ultimate goal – and if we put anything He has created as the center and ultimate goal of our life then we can never be truly happy. To say it another way, we need to understand and live our lives in accordance with the fact that the primary reason for our existence is to know and love God. With this in mind we can now understand how it is that we should use the freedom that we enjoy in this country.

If it is God who has created us, then it is He who knows what is best for us. And He hasn’t left us without guidance in this matter. Our Lord Jesus Christ has revealed to us the Way to happiness with God. We heard Jesus say today, “no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” We, as Catholics, know and believe that Jesus is the revelation of all that we need to know in order to be truly happy. The freedom that God Himself has given to us and that we enjoy in this country can only rightly be used in the pursuit of our ultimate end: to know and to love God. True, God gave us free will and we can, if we wish, choose to do that which is wrong. But if we misuse our freedom in such a way then we will not, and in fact, we cannot be happy. Our freedom and our happiness rests in God alone. And until we – as individuals and as a nation – understand and accept that fact then we can never truly be happy or free.

Freedom – but to do what?

04 Friday Jul 2014

Posted by in Eternal Life, Free Will, God's Will, Thought for the Day

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1731-1732

In this time when freedom means to most people the freedom to do whatever they want, we would do well to consider the Church's teaching on the matter. Yes, we have free will to choose between good and evil but we must never forget that there is good and evil to choose between. Many people in our society want to do away with any idea that there is sin – that there is good and evil – in order that they can pursure whatever sinful inclination they may have without remorse. But this is not possible. If we want to be truly free and to be happy then we must use our freedom to live in accordance with the will of God. After all, He made us, He knows and wants what is best for us, and if we follow Him then we will be happy for all of eternity.