Love and Kindness

I am listening to a book that compares the life and works of Sigmund Freud (atheist and father of psychoanalysis) and C. S. Lewis (Catholic apologist and noted author and scholar).

There is much more to say about the comparison, but I was struck by a discussion of C. S. Lewis' confrontation of grief (when his wife, Joy, passed away) and his eventual understanding of pain, life, and God.

I hope that I can do this justice in recollection:

God made the universe, and us creatures. As the Bible puts it, He "so" made the world - that is, He also created the laws that govern it. (In the Narnia books, as the White Witch and Aslan confront one another, they *must* adhere to the laws that govern even the magic.) And while God is omnipotent, there are things, as Lewis points out, that even God cannot do, such as answer nonsense questions. And in general, God does not interfere with the laws of the universe that He has created.

Wishing for us, his creatures, to choose to love and serve Him, God gave us free will, thus introducing the possibility of "un-good" into the universe. "Un-good," or evil, is choosing not to do the will of God.

Above all, God wishes to love us - that's why He created us. But He wants to love creatures that are worthy of that love. Now here is an interesting problem - modern culture tells us that unconditional love is the ideal. That is, "I love you just the way you are." And to an extent, that is true. If you love someone, you are supposed to love him without trying to change him.

But that is not the same thing as love which demands the best from the beloved - the perfection of the beloved. If I love you, and I see you gaining weight rapidly, I am concerned for your health and wish you to stop this. Or if I see you drinking excessively, I might interfere. And in both cases, certainly in the latter, if your behavior persisted I might withdraw my love - or at the very least the expression of it - if you could not stop the behavior.

Lewis points out that there is a difference between the human notion of "kindness" and the Godly idea of Love. Anyone who has contemplated the problem of human suffering and pain cannot have escaped the question: "How could a loving God permit such a thing? If God is truly all-powerful and all-good, why would He let His creatures suffer so?" I used to ask this question in terms of my own parenthood - "I would not let my children suffer like this, how can God?"

Lewis says that what we are experiencing is kindness, not love. Love, he says, is "more splendid and more stern." Love wishes to perfect the beloved. Love demands that the beloved be the best he can be - thus a parent who is being kind to his child might give way to his fear of the dentist, but a parent who loved his child would insist that he go and deal with the fear and pain.

So in our daily lives, we will experience pain and suffering, and we use this as a means of perfecting ourselves. We find the reason for it, or we endure it. The Catholic Church (at least, when I was a child) suggested that you "offer up" your suffering to the suffering Christ - Jesus suffered profoundly, and His human nature even cried out to God in despair as He hung on the cross.

So in our own lives we urge those we love to be their best selves, and we do nothing to interfere with them becoming their best selves. We do not use kindness as an excuse to fail in our love for them.

Nancy Pelosi: Hypocrit of the House

I'm both horrified and gratified. Horrified that Nancy Pelosi made such a stupid remark to Tom Brokaw on August 24th's Meet the PressI. I don't really need to to into the details, as it's been played repeatedly, and discussed repeatedly.

But I'm also gratified that it happened, for selfish reasons.

1. I was right in a post I made to this blog during the Pope's visit to the U.S. when I said that the behavior of Catholic politicians was tantamount to Henry VIII demanding that the Church bow to him. Catholic politicians are now stating "Church doctrine," which is not Church doctrine at all (in the first place), and is not their purview (in the second place).

2. The dispute is out in the open. Prior to this, most people who don't know what the Church teaches could be led astray with comments like Pelosi's.

3. The Bishops have actually had the strength of character and faith to actually confront her!

Now I only hope that they will go further and outright condemn this kind of c***.

Actually, I don't argue the abortion case on the strength of the human being having a "soul." I argue it on the strength that human beings are exceptional, self-aware creatures, and if we start categorizing them as "wanted" or "unwanted," how far are we from Nazi Germany?

I don't support the death penalty, either, but not so much because of the "worthy of life" argument. I think if someone has committed a truly heinous act (killing a little child, for example), they've pretty much made themselves unworthy to be among the rest of us. On the other hand, I don't want to give that kind of power to state. If we let the state decide who has the right to live and who should die... well, Nazi Germany again.

I think there is plenty of argument against abortion without bringing religion into it - and it's probably counter-productive when it is brought in, because then it is too easy for pro-abortion folks to dismiss the position.

Now, Pelosi has a point - the Church I grew up in did counsel us that we all have a free will and a conscience - it was hoped that this was a "Catholic" conscience, which would guide us along Catholic principles. So, if we were starving and had no money, would it be a major sin to take an apple? Probably not - but this would be an area for one's conscience. If I killed my child (at whatever state of development) is not a matter of my conscience deciding the right or wrong of the matter. This is a mortal sin, by any measure, in the Catholic Church.

I stopped practicing the Faith many years ago because I couldn't justify what I was expected to do, and I couldn't live up to it. I felt it would be hypocritcal to attend Mass and the Sacraments if I was not able to at least try to live up to the rest of the program.

Nancy Pelosi should do the same.

A New Catholic Blog

I've decided to create this new blog to give full attention to issue to do with matters catholic and Catholic. The Church had been a huge part of my life growing up, but thanks to Vatican II and more particularly the aftermath, I was disaffected for a long time. Thanks to the unswerving dedication of the SSPX (about which much more to come!), it again is a huge part of my life, Deo gratias!

Italian Lady at a Latin Mass

First Published: Monday, July 21, 2008

This Sunday at Mass I sat next to an elderly woman who was clearly Italian. During some portions of the Mass, she read from an Italian devotions booklet. However, when the congregation read or sang responses (Et cum spiritu tuo, etc.), she joined in, clearly understanding where we were in the Mass.

I write this as a good laugh on all the NO people who insist that "in the bad old days" there were so many "little old ladies" in the pews, reciting their rosaries, and not understanding what was going on in the Mass.

I also write this to reinforce the idea that for someone who does not understand the local language, having Mass in Latin can be a real grace - it can be one place where you will always feel at home, and understand what is happening.

The Multicultural Church

First Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008

I found this on the "New Liturgical Movement" blog. It is about how the traditional Catholic Church's chant and plainsong was so much more multicultural than the new, vernacular, modern, "inclusive" Church. Multicultural in that all members of the Church had the same experience, could speak the same "language," worshiped with the same words, and felt at home in Church wherever they went. The Church transcended cultural differences, it did not pander to them.

The fact is, the Church was founded in Israel under Roman rule. It grew up and flourished under Rome and in Europe. That it spoke Latin, and built churches that reflected European culture was apparently as it was ordained. Jesus did not found his church in the Sahara, or the Orient, or the Americas. But church members were expected to take this church, this experience of the numinous, and spread it to the world - and for better or worse, that included the language, the vestments, the rituals, and the architecture. Well, here, this blogger says it better:

Multiculturalism. The other day I met a priest from Uganda who was visiting the United States for the first time, and the topic quickly turned to music. He sang a Kyrie and I picked up on it, then I sang a Sanctus and he knew that one too. We then turned to propers and sang some of those. It was an instant connection of two completely different worlds. There is no other music that is capable of engendering that type of total global unity. The Catholic Church is a universal Church and we need universal liturgical forms that reflect that.

It is easy to tell the difference between fake multiculturalism and the real thing. The fake kind ends up being patronizing of other cultures, a disguised form of elitist imperialism in which we conjure up what we imagine what the foreign peoples of the world—aggregating their class interests—might desire. The real form deals with reality, and the reality in Catholic music for the world is that chant is the great unifying force. And by the way, this applies to issues of age as well. It is the music that unites the generations.

Nancy Pelosi to Slap the Holy Father!

First Published: Thursday, April 17, 2008

I've been watching - and really enjoying - Showtime's The Tudors series on Sunday nights. We all know that Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, establishing himself as Head of the Church in England. We know that he did this for ostensibly personal reasons - he wanted to divorce and remarry (repeatedly). But there was a climate of religious rebellion in Europe at the time that went far beyond Henry's willful actions.

Watching this series, I am caught up in the intrigues, the politics, and the power plays that lived behind the scenes, both on the side of the Church, and the various nationalities involved in what would later be known as The Protestant Reformation.

And then I happened to read an article this morning about how Nancy Pelosi and other wayward "Catholics" intend to humiliate the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and the Church, by presenting themselves to receive Holy Communion when he offers Mass in Washington, D.C. Here's the story:

"Benedict's stance on abortion and Communion has been painful for elected officials who inhabit the troubled zone where Catholicism and their political beliefs intersect.

Pelosi was one of 48 Catholic lawmakers — some who support and some who oppose abortion rights — who signed a letter in 2004 complaining about statements by "some members of the Catholic hierarchy."

"If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, the Church will lose strong advocates on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Catholic social teaching," they wrote. "Moreover, criticism of us on a matter that is essentially one of personal morality will deter other Catholics from entering politics, and in the long run the Church will suffer." (So in other words, if Catholic legislators are asked to live up to the rules of their religion, they will quit the Church? And if they want to avoid the scorn and ridicule, all they need do is not show up for Holy Communion!)

None of the Catholic lawmakers interviewed Wednesday said they hesitated to attend Thursday's celebration of Mass. This event, they said, is about bigger themes and values, such as hope and compassion."

And it dawned on me that I am watching a power play no less enormous than Henry's when he demanded that the clergy of England swear fealty to him, above their oath of allegiance to the Church. They caved. The question is, what will Benedict do?

The Epistle for This Sunday

First Published: Sunday, December 30, 2007

The Epistle for this Sunday (the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas) brought an idea into focus for me.

The Epistle reads this way: Brethren: As long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way from a slave, though he is the master of all; but he is under guardians and stewards until the time set by his father. So we too, when we were children, were enslaved under the elements of the world. But when the fullness of time came, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, that he might redeem those who were under teh Law, that we might receive tee adoption of sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba, Father." So that he is no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, an heir also through God."

The message made me think of a plot line for a sci-fi story, in which evolution and God's creation were indeed one; God chose a point in the evolution of man to imbue him with his Godlike qualities, and as man has grown and developed his mind and his faculties over time, he is being brought closer and closer to his own divinity.

Well, in fact, it is no sci-fi at all - whether in that way exactly, or in another, whether we were created perfect and fell away, or created imperfect with the job of moving forward, we are here to become better and better in all ways so that one day we can be worthy of the presence of God.