The Greatest Journey, part 3

I love to reread this each year, journeying through Advent, so I'm reposting it.

Continuing our examination of chapter five of Go to Joseph we now see Mary and Joseph set out on the trip to Bethlehem. Father Gilsdorf mentions things I never thought about in connection to this journey, such as how Joseph's skills may have come in handy or the concept of Mary as a living monstrance. Truly this is giving me something to contemplate as we grow closer to Christmas.

Saint Joseph, James Tissot

Then the day came for departure on the journey south to Bethlehem. Each day of this procession, Mary, like a living monstrance, rode astride the donkey, with Joseph walking along side holding the reins. Each night, he would have needed to have found shelter. Perhaps they stayed in roadside inns? The homes of friends and relatives? But surely, most often, the carpenter had to improvise, cutting and assembling branches to construct a lean-to. Nights in any desert are usually chilled, anyway, but given the time frame, this was also the traditional season of the cold winter rains.

On all sides were threats and terrors. Wild animals still ranged the wooded hilly areas.iii Other predators, equally cunning and merciless, were the notorious robber bands who scouted the trail for pilgrims to plunder. The courage, skills, and resourcefulness of Joseph are given wordless witness by the fact that this newly married couple not only made the journey but made it safely (undoubtedly with the protection of many angels).

In the daytime, there was the tedium of ascending hills and traversing valleys. As any woman who has endure the extreme discomfort of a late term will attest, this would have caused Mary extreme discomfort. This suffering must have struck a pained, compassionate response in her loving spouse. Bystanders probably observed them quickly and shrugged. Just a young man and his young, pregnant wife and nothing more. Who would have dreamed that before their eyes had just passed their Messiah, the Annointed longed for from the ages? Even less could they discern that the Messiah was truly "Emmanuel, God with us," the very Son of God. Scripture foretold that a virgin would conceive and bear a Son, and this was that very virgin!

Try as we might, the prayers and conversation of Mary and Joseph inevitably escape our powers of imagination. What did they share? How much did Joseph advance in holiness during this Advent?

iii Keep in mind that before the Romans denuded the Middle East and northern Africa of them for gladiatorial games, these areas were home to lions and bears.

In part 4 the journey continues.

What Are Ghosts?

Without our action or invitation, the dead often do appear to the living. There is enormous evidence of "ghosts" in all cultures .... We can distinguish three kinds of ghosts, I believe. First, the most familiar kind: the sad ones, the wispy ones. They seem to be working out some unfinished earthly business, or suffering some purgatorial purification until released from their earthly business. These ghosts would seem to be the ones who just barely made it to Purgatory, who feel little or no joy yet and who need to learn many painful lessons about their past life on earth.

Second, there are malicious and deceptive spirits -- and since they are deceptive, they hardly ever appear malicious. These are probably the ones who respond to conjurings at seances. They probably come from Hell. Even the chance of that happening should be sufficient to terrify away all temptations to necromancy.

Third, there are bright, happy spirits of dead friends and family, especially spouses, who appear unbidden, at God's will, not ours, with messages of hope and love. They seem to come from Heaven. Unlike the purgatorial ghosts who come back primarily for their own sakes, these bright spirits come back for the sake of us the living, to tell us all is well. They are aped by evil spirits who say the same, who speak 'peace, peace, when there is no peace'. But the deception works only one way: the fake can deceive by appearing genuine, but the genuine never deceives by appearing fake. Heavenly spirits always convince us that they are genuinely good. Even the bright spirits appear ghostlike to us because a ghost of any type is one whose substance does not belong in or come from this world. In Heaven these spirits are not ghosts but real, solid and substantial because they are at home there: One can't be a ghost in one's own country.

That there are all three kinds of ghosts is enormously likely. Even taking into account our penchant to deceive and be deceived, our credulity and fakery, there remain so many trustworthy accounts of all three types of ghosts - trustworthy by every ordinary empirical and psychological standard - that only a dogmatic prejudice against them could prevent us from believing they exist. As Chesterton says, "We believe an old apple woman when she says she ate an apple; but when she says she saw a ghost, we say 'But she's only an old apple woman." A most undemocratic and unscientific prejudice.

Peter Kreeft, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Heaven

As we head closer to Halloween, this seems like a good topic. And so interestingly told as is everything that Peter Kreeft writes.

Religion, Government, and de Tocqueville

What makes de Tocqueville's account memorable is the way in which he grasped the moral content of America. Coming from a country where the abuse of power by the clergy had made the anticlericalism endemic, he was amazed to find a country where it was virtually unknown. He saw, for the first time, Christianity presented not as a totalitarian society but as an unlimited society, a competitive society, intimately wedded to the freedom and market system of the secular world. "In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other," he wrote, "but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country." He added: "Religion ... must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of the country for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions." In fact, he concluded, most Americans held religion "to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions." And de Tocqueville noted on an unpublished scrap of paper that, while religion underpinned republican government, the fact that the government was minimal was a great source of moral strength:

One of the happiest consequences of the absence of government (when a people is fortunate enough to be able to do without it, which is rare) is the development of individual strength that inevitably follows from it. Each man learns to think, to act for himself, without counting on the support of an outside force which, however vigilant one supposes it to be, can never answer all social needs. Man, thus accustomed to seek his well-being only through his own efforts, raises himself in his own opinion as he does in the opinion of others; his soul becomes larger and stronger at the same time.

A History of the American People by Paul Johnson

This strikes me as something we all would do well to remember these days.

If Only More Americans Felt This Way

From A History of the American People by Paul Johnson

This book is dedicated to the people of America -- strong, outspoken, intense in their convictions, sometimes wrong-headed but always generous and brave, with a passion for justice no nation has ever matched.

Dedication

I have not bowed to current academic nostrums about nomenclature or accepted the fly-blow philacteries of Political Correctness. So I do not acknowledge the existence of hyphenated Americans, or Native Americans or any other qualified kind. They are all Americans to me: black, white, red, brown, yellow, thrown together by fate in that swirling maelstrom of history which has produced the most remarkable people the world has ever seen. I love them and salute them, and this is this is their story.

From the Preface

How refreshing.

Eternity with the Trinity. Boring?

At this point the question spontaneously arises, What will we do from this point on? Won't it be boring to spend all eternity with the same three Persons, even if they are divine? We could answer with another question: is it ever boring to enjoy feeling wonderful? People get bored of everything except "feeling wonderful," and eternity brings "infinite well-being." ...

... The best answer to the question "What will our life be like with the Trinity?" is found in a legend narrated by a modern German author. In a medieval monastery there were two monks, Rufus and Rufinus, who had a deep friendship. They spent all their free time trying to imagine and describe what eternal life would be like in the heavenly Jerusalem. Rufus was a builder, so he imagined it as a city with golden doors studded with precious stones; Rufinus was an organist, so he imagined it as full of heavenly melodies.

They ended up making a pact that whichever of them died first would return the following night to reassure the other that things were indeed as they had imagined. One word would do. If things were as they had imagined, he would simply say Taliter! ("Exactly!"). If things were different -- but this seemed completely impossible -- he would say, Aliter! ("Different!).

One night while he was playing the organ, Rufinus died of a heart attack. his friend stayed awake anxiously all night, but nothing. He kept vigil and fasted for weeks and months, but nothing. Finally on the anniversary of his death, Rufinus entered his friend's cell at night in a circle of light. Seeing that Rufinus was silent, Rufus -- sure of an affirmative answer -- asked his friend, "Taliter? That's right isn't it?" But his friend shook his head no. Desperate, Rufus cried out, "Aliter! Different?" Again his friend shook his friend no.

Finally his silent friend breathed forth only two words: "Totaliter aliter -- Completely different." Rufus understood in a flash that heaven was infinitely more than what they had imagined and could not be described. He also died shortly after because of his desire to go there. This story is a legend, but its content is nevertheless biblical:

No eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man conceived,
what God has prepared for those who love him.
(see 1 Corinthians 2:9)

Contemplating the Trinity: The Path to Abundant Christian Life by Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa

Now that's something to think about, isn't it? Knowing that my vision is limited, nevertheless, I always have imagined Heaven as a divine library, which tells you where my passions lie (as if y'all didn't know that already).

A Little Bit of Flannery ... and her sense of humor

How can you not grow to like someone who tells a story like this with such humor? From The Habit of Being.

... Dear old Van Wyke insisted that I read a story at which horror-stricken looks appeared on the faces of both Caroline and Sue. "Read the shortest one!" they both screamed. I read "A Good Man is Hard to Find" and Mr. Brooks later remarked to Miss Jenkins that it was a shame someone with so much talent should look upon life as a horror story. Malcolm was very polite and asked me if I had a wooden leg.

Fathers and Sons and Rembrandt

The Return of the Prodigal Son

c. 1669

Oil on canvas, 262 x 206 cm

The Hermitage, St. Petersburg

via Web Gallery of Art

This is a very long but moving passage from The Father's Tale by Michael O'Brien. I quite liked it and think it gives a good representation of what I liked in the book. To set the scene, Alex Graham has pursued his son from Great Britain to Scandinavia to Russia, trying to rescue him from the cult that has him in its clutches. He's not sure whether his son is with them willingly or not. Therefore, sons and fathers are much on his mind at present. The review will come next week, but for now, enjoy this.

When his head cleared a little, he looked up. Before him was Rembrandt's Return of the Prodigal Son.

At first glance, the painting seemed to be immense, because he was standing only a few feet from it, and he was forced to crane his neck as he looked up from the battered feet of the son, through the tender hands that embraced him, to the face of the father.

Alex stepped back a few paces.

Red, umber, and sepia bathed the image in warmth. The son knelt before the father with his head on the old man's chest, as if seeking refuge in the folds of his garments. The father bent over him, both hands on his son's back, the fingers splayed slightly, palm to the flesh that had come from him, that had fled from him, and that was now returning to him. The hands protected and comforted. The tilt of the aged head and the half-lidded eyes conveyed infinite compassion, a wisdom that was in no way naive about the sins of the son but that submerged all wrongs in mercy. The dignity of the father embraced the degraded son in a communion that would restore him to his lost dignity.

To the right, robed in a different kind of dignity—that of the righteous, the good, the responsible—was the elder brother, who regarded the scene dubiously, and with resentment. His upright body was unbending, his hands clasped tightly around the staff of his authority.

Alex could hear the words of protest muttered by the elder son: "This son of yours..."

And the words of the father's answer: "This brother of yours..."

Was lost and is found.

Alex closed his eyes for a few moments. When he opened them again, he noticed that the youth who had been going slowly from picture to picture at the far ends of the gallery now stood a pace to his left. Oblivious to Alex's presence, he gazed solemnly at the image, his arms hanging by his sides.

Alex regretted the interruption but stepped aside to allow the other a central place before the painting. He expected the interloper to move on quickly, but minutes passed. How long they remained like this was impossible. to tell. The boy's stillness and rapt attention to the painting were inexplicable. He was in his late teens or early twenties, and Alex wondered how one so young would be capable of such concentration, if concentration it was Why was he not at school? Why was he not tinkering in the innards of a car engine, or pounding around an athletic field?

His face in no way displayed typical Slavic features. It was quintessentially primitive, the forehead slanted, brow ridges heavy, eyes small and inexpressive, cheeks hollow. His thin lips were parted slightly, and his chin was unevenly shaved. Brown hair was cropped close to the skull. His hands were large and his fingernails dirty. His blunt and muscular body was a peasant's torso with slightly bowed legs hinting at malnutrition. He wore a dingy green coat full of holes, and baggy workman's pants with cuffs suspended inches above wet, down-at-heel shoes.

Heaving a sigh as old and as freighted as humanity, the youth caught himself, perhaps becoming fully aware that there was another person beside him. He shot a swift glance at Alex and shifted his body away. His face, which had been open and defenseless while absorbed in the painting, now closed in on itself, guarded and anonymous.

Alex too retreated into himself, wishing the other would depart.

Eventually the youth turned a few degrees in Alex's direction and murmured, "Zto horosho." It is good.

"Yes," Alex replied in the same tone, "it is good."

Now it was possible to attempt more.

"The father..." said the youth.

"Yes, and the son..." Alex replied.

"And...you see...the hands..."

Each sentence was left unfinished with spaces of many seconds between the responses. It was neither interruption nor inarticulation; it seemed to Alex that it was a necessary reduction, so that speech would not ruin what was now flowing back and forth between them.

"The boy...he came home," said the youth.

"And the father ran out to meet him," Alex replied.

A sudden tension crossed the youth's face. "If the father had not, what then?"

"But the son trusted."

"He risked..."

"The father also risks."

The youth turned to face Alex. He crossed his arms as if holding himself, as if he were cold.

"I...my..." He looked down at the floor, his eyes haunted.

For a moment or two, Alex could find nothing to say, and when he spoke he did not know where the thought had come from:

"The son should return to the father," he said.

"But what if the father does not want the son?" replied the youth.

"If he does not, then the son must remember." Alex pointed at the old man in the image. "Remember this face. It is a window. Through it you see the hidden face."

"The hidden face?"

"Yes. He is looking at you."

The youth glanced up at the painting again. Then back at Alex.

"How...this speaking...you and me speaking?"

"I seek..."

"You seek your son?"

"Yes. He is lost."

"I think maybe you will find him. A father such as you will find him."

"Will he want me?"

"I do not know. But I think it will be so."

"And your father?"

Once again a spasm of pain crossed the boy's face. He did not answer.

"Have you lost him?" Alex asked.

"I have run from him."

"You must return to him."

"Will he want me?"

"I hope it will be so. He should want a son such as you."

"But..."

"It may be he does not yet know you."

"Who are you?" the youth asked.

"You know me."

"Do I know you, sir?"

"Yes. And I know you."

Strangely, this did not disturb the other, though he spent a minute pondering it.

"Surely we have met before?"

"No."

"But tell me, who are you?"

"I am you."

the boy uncrossed his arms. He opened his mouth but said nothing.

"As you will be, in time," Alex said.

"I..." The eyes blinked rapidly, withholding tears.

"The child is father of the man," Alex said, looking up at the father in the painting. "Remember his face, for he too is your father. Remember my face also, and the words we have spoken to each other."

The boy looked into the man's eyes and nodded. Unable to speak, he walked from the room.

Alex left the Hermitage soon after, overcome by this inexplicable exchange. It was by now late afternoon and growing cold. The rush hour traffic had begun in earnest along Nevsky, but despite the roar he decided to walk the entire length of it to the Moskva. It took more than an hour, but it seemed to him that time had continued to alter its nature. he looked into many hundreds of faces on the way, and in all of them he saw what he had seen in the face of the peasant youth.

All men are my son, and all women are my daughter.

He arrived at his hotel room after six o'clock. There no messages. He lay down on the bed and covered his eyes with a hand.

A Little Bit of Flannery ... and How to See

More from The Habit of Being.

To Ben Griffith
4 May 1955

[...]

Occasionally I see the Georgia Review but not often; however, it would be very agreeable to me to see something written about my work for local consumption by somebody who knows something. Recently I talked in Macon (nobody had ever heard tell of me, of course) and it was announced in the paper the next day that I was a "writer of the realistic school." I presume the lady came to this conclusion from looking at the cover of the drugstore edition of Wise Blood. In a few weeks I am going to talk to some more ladies in Macon and I am going to clear up that detail. I am interested in making up a good case for distortion, as I am coming to believe it is the only way to make people see.

Flannery O'Connor, The Habit of Being

A Little Bit of Flannery ... and Fascism

Yesterday I wound up reading a long conversation about the new liturgy in a forum where one would not normally find such a thing. Among other things, there was an extremely angry person who continually called the pope a fascist and, as far as I could gather, seemed to feel that in stating her opinion in the most angry and forceful way possible, she was following in the steps of those who helped the Church stay on course. No amount of conversation, whether gentle or spirited (and there were both sorts) was enough to shake her set beliefs.

I was left to my own thoughts on whose steps she felt she was following and, therefore, my thoughts turned to the great saints who have been instrumental in changing the Church in the past. St. Francis of Assisi and St. Teresa of Avila are those who always come to my mind, although I never can think of examples where they were not obedient and respectful as well as continually trying to effect change. Not being educated extensively in their writings, I could be wrong, of course.

Most mystifying of all to me was the repeated appellation of Pope Benedict as a "fascist." I don't really understand what that means and I surely don't understand why it would be applied to him. It was, therefore, with delight that this morning I read in The Habit of Being, Flannery's own response to being called a fascist because she was Catholic.

To "A."6 september 55

I looked in my Webster's and see it is 1948, so you are five years ahead of me in your vocabulary and I'll have to concede you the word. But I can't concede that I'm a fascist. The thought is probably more repugnant to me than to you, as I see it as an offense against the body of Christ. I am wondering why you convict me of believing in the use of force? It must be because you connect the Church with a belief in the use of force; but the Church is a mystical body which cannot, does not, believe in the use of force (in the sense of forcing conscience, denying the rights of conscience, etc.). I know all her hair-raising history, of course, but principle must be separated from policy Policy and politics generally go contrary to principle. I in principle do not believe in the use of force, but I might well find myself using it, in which case I would have to convict myself of sin. I believe and the Church teaches that God is as present in the idiot boy as in the genius. ...

Whether or not this has any application to that pitifully angry person's labeling of the pope is anybody's guess. But I liked what Flannery said anyway.

A Little Bit of Flannery

I am back to reading The Habit of Being, a collection of Flannery O'Connor's letters. She is such a likable person and alternately insightful and humorous ... so naturally I am going to try to find time to share some tidbits with you.

This one is a bit out of order but I thought I'd start off with something light. And it is such toss-offs that make me wish I'd known her.

To Sally and Robert Fitzgerald
3/5/54

I am sending you off the mixes and whatnot tomorrow and I hope you get them before the worm does. I found it all but the Maltex. The Southern child lives in such a rich environment that he don't need Maltex and it is not to be found in this community. I substituted an angel-food cake mix that Mama dotes on. All you do is spit on it or something and you got an angel-food cake. ...

This Tremendous Lover: Pride and Pride's Offspring

More of This Tremendous Lover. I have never heard this put quite this way or made quite so clear.

All such colored and touching accounts as are given of Eve's weakness owing to the charm of the fruit, to her thirst on a sultry day, to her lack of consideration--are quite incorrect. Since Eve had the gift of integrity, there could be no question of any weakness caused by a rebellion of sense-appetite. On the contrary, she knew clearly--far more clearly than we can imagine--what such a transgression of God's law would mean for herself, for her husband, and for the whole human race of whom she was to be the mother. And yet, "She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat" (Gen 3:6).

... To find the real malice of their sin, we have to look into their minds and try to realize the enormity of their pride and disobedience.

For that was the sin of our first parents--pride and pride's offspring, disobedience. We must remember the perfection of Adam's nature. His mind was endowed with powers and with knowledge that have never been surpassed by any of his fallen children. Unclouded by passion, he saw life clearly; he knew quite well that God had raised him quite gratuitously to a special share in His own divine nature and had made him His friend. He knew further that he was to be the father of the human race, and he was endowed with the wisdom and knowledge necessary for the instruction of his offspring. He knew, too, that his sharing in God's life by grace was dependent on his obedience to God, and he clearly understood that if he lost that grace by the forbidden sin, it was lost not merely for himself, but for his children.

Knowing all that, he calmly and deliberately decided to rebel against God's express command; and by his pride and rebellion he rejected God's plan for the happiness of the whole human race. ...

You would have to read the beginning of the chapter to see how the author leads us to the understanding of Adam's and Eve's natures that he sums up here. Suffice it to say, it is compelling and logical. I don't know why I always thought of Adam and Eve as being just more innocent versions of humans as we are now. It puts a different perspective on what I thought of as them simply being tricked by the serpent. The serpent tricked them into even considering the thought of disobeying but precious little pressure was put to bear when you think about it. It was a deliberate choice. Which is just what we do, whether it is a little or great transgression we undertake. We know deep down if we are headed down a dangerous road. In that we are like our most famous ancestors.

From my noon reading ...

I am rereading, slowly, the best book I have ever read about confession, Prayer and Pardon: A Sinner's Guide to Confession by Fr. Francis Randolph. This went straight to my heart and perhaps your heart needs it also today.

It is the love of God that makes the sacrament of confession possible. More than anything else, that is what I want you to remember out of this book: that God loves us already and is on our side in the struggle to reflect that love, to accept it, to pass it on to others. The heart of the Christian gospel is the message that God was born as one of us and that his name shall be called "Emmanuel", which means "God is with us."

From the Top of the Stack

A little something that struck me from my current reading, Render Unto Caesar by Charles Chaput.

The church engages the world in two ways: through the life of each individual believer and through the common action of believers working together. Every Christian life, and every choice in every Christian life, matters. There's no special headquarters staff that handles the action side of the Gospel. That task belongs to all of us. Baptism, for Catholics, does not simply wash away sin. It also incorporates the baptized person into a new life; and part of that new life is a mandate to act; to be God's agent in the world. Laypeople, clergy, and religious all have different tasks within the community of faith. Everybody, however, shares the basic mission: bringing Jesus Christ to the world, and the world to Jesus Christ.

Laypeople have the special task of evangelizing the secular world. And this makes sense. Most Catholics--the vast majority--are laypeople. They have jobs, friends, and families. They can witness Jesus Christ on a daily basis, silently or out loud, directly or indirectly by their words and actions. If we look for opportunities to share our faith with others, God always provides them. This is why self-described Catholics who live so anonymously that no one knows about their faith, Catholics who fail to prove by their actions what they claim to believe with their tongue, aren't really living as "Catholics" at all.

It's also why asking Catholics to keep their faith out of public affairs amounts to telling them to be barren; to behave as if they were neutered. Nothing could be more alien to the meaning of baptism. The Christian idea of witness, which comes from the Greek word martyr, isn't limited to a bloody death in the arena for the faith. All Christians have the command to be a martyr in the public arena-to live a life of conscious witness wherever God places them, no matter how insignificant it seems and whether or not they ever see the results.

I am privileged to see this sort of Catholic witness every six months, although this is at a time when my Beyond Cana retreat team friends are stepping out of their daily lives. They willingly and gladly step up and make heroic sacrifices to serve married couples in our parish. Most have little ones and must arrange babysitting for an entire weekend. When they return home, they are plunged right back into the thick of daily life with no time for rest. Couples with babies as young as 1 month old have sacrificed mightily in order to give a talk or serve even a greater role ... not because they lightly offered, but because there was no one else to step in, because the need was great and they could help.

Tom and I were called to this ministry at a convenient time with our children in high school and now in college. We do not have to give what these couples give. However, we see it as a moment when we can witness a microcosm of what the Church does in the lives of others each and every day ... through the lives of laypeople.

Catholic Basics--Moral Issues of Life and Death 6

As promised, I am following up my answers about pro-life issues with excerpts from Catholic Christianity by Peter Kreeft. This is the book I read that cleared up many of my objections to Catholic teachings. The excerpts for this series began here.

I must stress that this book does not substitute for the Catechism and is best read as an accompaniment to it. Also, I must stress that this book is best read from the beginning as Kreeft, in following the Catechism, provides a logical construct for the reason the Church's teachings exist. That is just precisely the Catechism does, but this book is somewhat easier to understand, especially in its application to specific examples of modern life and the faith. Although this section necessarily addresses other issues such as capital punishment, euthanasia, suicide and more, I will be focusing primarily on abortion and the right to life.

13. The basic arguments for and against abortion
There are three steps, or premises, to the argument for outlawing abortion.

The first is that one of the most fundamental purposes of law is to protect human rights, especially the first and foundational right, the right to life.

The second is that all human beings have the right to life.

The third is that the already-conceived but not-yet born children of human beings are human beings.

From these three premises it necessarily follows that the law must protect the right to life of unborn children.

There are only three possible reasons for disagreeing with this conclusion and being “pro-choice”instead of “prolife.” One may deny the first, second, or third premises. For if all three are admitted, the “pro-life” conclusion follows.

Thus there are three different kinds of “pro-choicers”:

First, there are those who admit that all persons have a right to life and that unborn children are persons, but deny that this right should be protected by law (the first
premise). This is a serious legal error.

“The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation. ‘The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin….’80 ‘The moment a positive [human] law deprives a category
of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . .’81” (C2273).

Second, there are those who admit that the law should protect the right to life and that unborn children are human beings, but deny that all human beings have the
right to life (the second premise). This is a very serious moral error.

It is essentially the philosophy of power, of “might makes right.” Those in power – doctors, mothers, legislators, adults – decree the right to kill those who lack the
power to defend themselves: the smallest, most vulnerable, and most innocent of all human beings. No good reason can justify this decree; a good end does not justify an intrinsically evil means. If the babies shared the powers of the abortionists and could fight back with scalpels, there would be few abortions.

Third, there are those who admit that the law should protect the right to life and that all humans have that right, but deny that unborn children are humans (the third premise). This is a serious factual and scientific error.

Before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, all science texts taught the biological understanding that the life of any individual of any species begins at conception, when sperm and ovum unite to create a new being with its own complete and unique genetic code, distinct from both father and mother. All growth and development from then on is a matter of degree, a gradual unfolding of what is already there. There is no specific or distinct point in our development when we become human. (What were we before that – birds?) Only when abortion became legal did the science textbooks change their language and cease teaching this understanding – not because of any new science but because of a new politics.

Abortion is not “a complex issue.” Few moral issues could be clearer. As Mother Teresa has said,“if abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”

End of series.

(Note: you can also find the book as a series of pdfs or podcasts here. My series of excerpts would be found in Lesson 27.)

Catholic Basics--Moral Issues of Life and Death 5

As promised, I am following up my answers about pro-life issues with excerpts from Catholic Christianity by Peter Kreeft. This is the book I read that cleared up many of my objections to Catholic teachings. The excerpts for this series began here.

I must stress that this book does not substitute for the Catechism and is best read as an accompaniment to it. Also, I must stress that this book is best read from the beginning as Kreeft, in following the Catechism, provides a logical construct for the reason the Church's teachings exist. That is just precisely the Catechism does, but this book is somewhat easier to understand, especially in its application to specific examples of modern life and the faith. Although this section necessarily addresses other issues such as capital punishment, euthanasia, suicide and more, I will be focusing primarily on abortion and the right to life.

11. The universal agreement in the Catholic tradition about abortion

“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion [as distinct from miscarriage or spontaneous abortion]. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable” (C 2271).

The earliest Christian document we have after the New Testament, the first-century “Letter to Diognetus,” mentions abortion as one of the things Christians never
do, as a distinctive visible feature of their faith. The latest Ecumenical Council,Vatican II, reaffirmed this teaching in totally uncompromising terms:“‘. . . abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes’76” (C 2271).

The presence of “dissenters” or of heretics who reject some certain, essential Catholic (“Catholic” means “universal”) teaching does not make that teaching uncertain,
unessential, or non-universal. The Church’s teaching did not come from human opinion, so it cannot be changed by human opinion.

12. The Church’s policy on abortion
Catholic tradition distinguishes “formal”and “material” cooperation in any evil. “Formal cooperation”means direct, deliberate doing of the evil – for instance, a mother freely choosing to pay a doctor to abort her baby, the doctor performing
the abortion, or a nurse directly helping the doctor to perform it.“Material cooperation” means indirect or nondeliberate aid – for instance, contributing money to a hospital that performs abortions. Material cooperation is a “gray area.” Even paying taxes can be material cooperation in abortion when the government uses tax money to finance health insurance that covers abortions. It is not possible to avoid all material cooperation with evil. But it is possible, and necessary, to avoid all formal cooperation with evil, for any reason. No good reason can justify an intrinsically evil act.

“Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical [official Church-law] penalty of excommunication to this crime
against human life. ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,’77 ‘by the very commission of the offense’78 . . .” (C2272).

This does not mean that all who commit this sin are damned. Excommunication is not automatic damnation. But it does mean they have broken their communion with
the Body of Christ. For Christ cannot commit such a crime, and to be a Catholic is to be a member of his very Body, to be his hands and fingers. It is not Christ’s hands that abort Christ’s children.

“The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy” (C 2272). Forgiveness is always available for any sin, if sincerely repented, and ministries of reconciliation like “Project Rachel” deal compassionately with women who have had abortions.

Mother Teresa says: “Every abortion has two victims: the body of the baby and the soul of the mother.”The first is beyond repair, but the second is not; and the Church
does everything possible to repair and restore souls and lives torn by sin – which in one way or another is true of all of us. The Church does not judge the individual soul,nor should any of us. She says, as her Master did, “Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone.” She is not in the business of stone-casting. But she is in the business of the accurate labeling of human acts, just like her Master, who said not only “neither do I condemn you,” but also “go and sin no more” (Jn 8:11).

Coming next, the basic arguments for and against abortion.

(Note: you can also find the book as a series of pdfs or podcasts here. My series of excerpts would be found in Lesson 27.)

Catholic Basics--Moral Issues of Life and Death 4

As promised, I am following up my answers about pro-life issues with excerpts from Catholic Christianity by Peter Kreeft. This is the book I read that cleared up many of my objections to Catholic teachings. The excerpts for this series began here.

I must stress that this book does not substitute for the Catechism and is best read as an accompaniment to it. Also, I must stress that this book is best read from the beginning as Kreeft, in following the Catechism, provides a logical construct for the reason the Church's teachings exist. That is just precisely the Catechism does, but this book is somewhat easier to understand, especially in its application to specific examples of modern life and the faith. Although this section necessarily addresses other issues such as capital punishment, euthanasia, suicide and more, I will be focusing primarily on abortion and the right to life.

9. Sins against the fifth Commandment

These include:

1. “Infanticide [killing an infant],70 fratricide [killing one’s brother or sister], parricide [killing one’s father or mother], and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break” (C 2268).
2. “The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death” (C 2269).
3. “The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason,
4. “as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger” (C 2269).Also,
5. abortion,
6. euthanasia, and
7. suicide all demand special treatment today, since the traditional consensus against them is rapidly breaking down in so-called “civilized” and “advanced” societies in the West.
   

10. Abortion and the Right to Life

The “bottom line” first:“[h]uman life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception [its beginning]. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life72” (C 2270).

The American Declaration of Independence has the same philosophy: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

We cannot pursue our end of happiness without liberty. (Therefore slavery is a great evil.) But we cannot have liberty or pursue happiness without having life. (Therefore
murder is a greater evil.)

The State did not create us, design us, or give us life. Nor did it give us the right to life. Therefore the State cannot take away that right.

All persons, not just some, have a “natural right” to life simply because of their nature, because of what they are: human persons. Only if someone gives up his right to life by threatening the life of another is it right to take his life, to protect the innocent other person. This is the morality of Western civilization, of Greek and Roman classicism at its best, of religious Judaism, of Islam, and of Christianity, of
Biblical Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy as well as Roman Catholicism. It is the “sanctity of life” ethic.

The other philosophy, the “quality of life” ethic, holds that only some, not all, human beings have an inalienable right to life; and that some human beings may draw the line for others and exclude them from the community of persons, from those who have the right to life. This same principle is at work whether those excluded persons are unwanted, unborn babies, the old, the sick, the dying, those in pain, those of a certain “inferior”or unwanted race,those who have the wrong political opinions, or those who are declared “severely handicapped” because they fail to come up to a certain standard of intelligence or performance such as “significant social interaction” – which standard is always determined by the killers.

Thus the “quality of life” ethic denies the most basic human equality and the most basic of all human rights. No two moral philosophies could be more radically at war with each other than the philosophy of the culture Pope John Paul II has called the “culture of death” and the philosophy of the Church of the God of life.

Coming next, the universal agreement in the Catholic tradition about abortion.

(Note: you can also find the book as a series of pdfs or podcasts here. My series of excerpts would be found in Lesson 27.)

Catholic Basics--Moral Issues of Life and Death 3

As promised, I am following up my answers about pro-life issues with excerpts from Catholic Christianity by Peter Kreeft. This is the book I read that cleared up many of my objections to Catholic teachings. The excerpts for this series began here.

I must stress that this book does not substitute for the Catechism and is best read as an accompaniment to it. Also, I must stress that this book is best read from the beginning as Kreeft, in following the Catechism, provides a logical construct for the reason the Church's teachings exist. That is just precisely the Catechism does, but this book is somewhat easier to understand, especially in its application to specific examples of modern life and the faith. Although this section necessarily addresses other issues such as capital punishment, euthanasia, suicide and more, I will be focusing primarily on abortion and the right to life.

4. The basic principle of Catholic ethics of human life
Persons are not things, objects of manipulation and control and design, to be judged by some other, higher standard than persons. There is no higher standard – God himself is personal (“I AM”). Persons are subjects, I’s. They are subjects of rights.They are not to be judged as worth more or less on some abstract, impersonal scale of health, intelligence,physical power, or length of life. Each life, each individual, each human being is unique, and each is equally and infinitely precious. That is the root of Catholic morality on all issues of human life.

5. Christ and the fifth Commandment
Instead of shrinking the fifth Commandment, as the modern “quality of life” ethic does, Christ expanded it. “In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment ‘You shall not kill,’ (Mt 5:21.) and adds to it the proscription against anger, hatred, and vengeance [Mt 5:21-22]. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. (Cf. Mt 5:22-39; 5:44) He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath” (Cf. Mt 26:52.).

Coming next, sins against the fifth commandment.

(Note: you can also find the book as a series of pdfs or podcasts here. My series of excerpts would be found in Lesson 27.)

Catholic Basics--Moral Issues of Life and Death 2

As promised, I am following up my answers about pro-life issues with excerpts from Catholic Christianity by Peter Kreeft. This is the book I read that cleared up many of my objections to Catholic teachings. The excerpts for this series began here.

I must stress that this book does not substitute for the Catechism and is best read as an accompaniment to it. Also, I must stress that this book is best read from the beginning as Kreeft, in following the Catechism, provides a logical construct for the reason the Church's teachings exist. That is just precisely the Catechism does, but this book is somewhat easier to understand, especially in its application to specific examples of modern life and the faith. Although this section necessarily addresses other issues such as capital punishment, euthanasia, suicide and more, I will be focusing primarily on abortion and the right to life.

2. The "sanctity-of-life ethic"
The opposite philosophy of life is the traditional "sanctity-of-life ethic," which is taught by all the great religions of the world, is the basis of Western civilization from its Judeo-Christian roots, is presupposed n our laws, and is the basis of all Catholic teaching about the fifth commandment.

There are three reasons for the sanctity of human life: its origin, its nature, and its end.

"'Human life is sacred because'" [a]"'from its beginning it involves the creative action of God'" [b]"'and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator,'" [c]"'who is its sole end'"1 (CCC2258).

"'God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right irectly to destroy an innocent human being'"2 (CCC2258).

If this is not true, then life is not sacred and God is not God. If it is true, then the "quality-of-life ethic" is as serious a form of idolatry as the worship of stone idols, false pagan gods, or evil spirits--all of which in ancient times also manifested themselves in the practice of human sacrifice, especially of children.

3. The sense of the sacred
Not all men throughout history have known the true reason for the sacredness of human life: that one God created all men. But most men and most societies have instinctively intuited that moral conclusion, even without that theological premise, and felt a strong sense of the sacredness of human life. they have often violated it--history is full of murder and bloodshed--but the sense of shame and guilt remained attached to killing, especially killing the innocent. These instinctive feelings--the sense of the sacred and the sense of shame and guilt--seem to be in crisis today.

The loss of the sense of the sacredness of human life seems closely connected with the loss of the sense of sacredness of three other closely connected things: motherhood, sex, and God. Of motherhood, for by far the most dangerous place in the world today in America is a mother's womb during the child's first nine months of life. Of sex, for the "sexual revolution" was a radical change not only in behavior but in vision, in philosophy. Of God, for "the fear of the Lord," which Scripture calls "the beginning of wisdom," is usually thought to be "primitive" and even harmful, even by many religious educators.

1 CDF, instruction, Donum vitae, intro. 5.
2 CDF, instruction, Donum vitae, intro. 5.

Coming next, the basic principle of Catholic ethics of human life.

(Note: you can also find the book as a series of pdfs or podcasts here. My series of excerpts would be found in Lesson 27.)

Catholic Basics--Moral Issues of Life and Death

As promised, I am following up my answers about pro-life issues with excerpts from Catholic Christianity by Peter Kreeft. This is the book I read that cleared up many of my objections to Catholic teachings.

I must stress that this book does not substitute for the Catechism and is best read as an accompaniment to it. Also, I must stress that this book is best read from the beginning as Kreeft, in following the Catechism, provides a logical construct for the reason the Church's teachings exist. That is just precisely the Catechism does, but this book is somewhat easier to understand, especially in its application to specific examples of modern life and the faith. Although this section necessarily addresses other issues such as capital punishment, euthanasia, suicide and more, I will be focusing primarily on abortion and the right to life.

Chapter 7
The Fifth Commandment: Moral Issues of Life and Death

1. The "quality-of-life ethic"
Throughout the twentieth century, Western civilization has witnessed a titanic struggle between two radically opposed philosophies of human life: the traditional "sanctity of life ethic" and the new "quality of life" ethic." This new morality judges human lives by the standard of "quality," and by ths standard it declares some lives not worth living and the deliberate "terminatino" of these lives morally legitimate. ("Termination" is the usual euphamism for killing) Life Unworthy of Life was the way it was described in the title of the first book to win public acceptance for this new ethic, by German doctors before World War II--the basis and beginning of the Nazi medical practices.

The criteria by which a human life is most often judged in this "quality-of-life ethic" today are:

• a. Whether it is wanted by another. Today this is usually applied to unborn children, to justify abortion: if the baby is "unwanted" by the mother, or predicted to be "unwanted" by "society," then it is thought morally right to take that life, in other words, to kill it. In other places and times, other "unwanted" groups have been denied the right to life, such as jews (the Holocaust), Blacks (lynching), and people with the wrong political or religious beliefs (in totalitarian states).
• b. Whether it has "too much" pain. Today this is usually applied to justify killing the old. But there is an increasing pressure to justify and legalize medically assisted suicide at any age.
• c. Whether it is severely handicapped, mentally or physically. Of course, there is no clear dividing line between more and less "severe" handicaps, or between "much" pain and "too much" pain. And with no objective criteria, the decision of whether it is right to kill must be baed on subjective feeling and desire.
  

Coming next, "sanctity-of-life ethic."

"Because of love!"

This was my favorite chapter from They Come Back Singing (reviewed here). I read it three times because the dynamics of the people's responses and the way the teaching built gripped me by the throat. I loved it. This is long but worth it.

Much thanks to Loyola Press for allowing me to excerpt this chapter. I typed this in myself so if you see typos let me know.

Kogwon Narju

Every day here takes me into new experiences, deeper experiences, yet linking me with the past. I am an old tree growing steadily but always with a new growth of leaves and blossoms. Grace and love move in my heart, and each place and event becomes a new sanctuary of the mystery of my faith.

Yesterday I traveled to the west side of the Nile with Ratib to do a one-day seminar in the settlement village of Cochi. When we arrived, after two hours of driving in the rain and ferry delays, I talked strategy and plans for the seminar with my lead catechists, Kenyi and Osura, as people were coming in to the chapel. Nearly a hundred people there.

It is Lent, so I focused on the theology of the season and how it fits into the church year. That led into a discussion of the life of Christ and why God even bothered to send his Son. What I asked, is the point of Jesus' suffering and dying for us? In these seminars, I use Scripture and lots of acting to engage the group as much as I can in a dialogue about our topic. I know that they have the truth within them. My job is to tease it out and help them claim it.

We were at it for more than three hours.

At the heart of the teaching was the fact that we sin and are forgiven and loved by the one who creates us, the one who sent his only Son as the promise of his love and forgiveness. We are loved sinners.

I asked everyone: "Well, what is sin?"

They gave a variety of answers: "murder," "adultery," "gossip," stealing," selfishness," "hate," "not being faithful to God."

"Are we all sinners?"

The congregation, in a convinced chorus: "Yes, all are sinners."

I pointed to a man in the front row. "Even this old man here?"

"Yes, all are sinners."

"Even this beautiful young mother and her child?"

"Yes, all."

"But surely not Kenyi, your good and holy catechist?"

Lots of nodding and laughs. "yes, all." (Kenyi cracked up as I shook my head at him in mock disapproval."

"But surely not me, the priest? A sinner?"

Now there were lots of snorts, and a chorus of "You, too!" I acted hurt. More laughing from the congregation.

Then I asked, "Did Jesus tell us any stories about how God forgives our sins and loves us in spite of our sin?

There was hesitation, and then a hand went up: "yes, the prodigal son."

"Could you tell us that story?"

The woman stood up and utterly nailed the parable; she was animated, capturing all the attendant emotions and convictions of the story. I asked her to come forward to play the role of the parent of the child who spends his inheritance and then returns to fall on his parent's mercy. She was a frail-looking woman, maybe forty-five, wearing a colorful green and black headpiece. Another person was chosen to be the wayward child, and they acted out the moment of the boy's return after blowing all his inheritance in Kampala. The son fell on his knees, begging forgiveness from his mother. She picked him up and embraced him, showing unconditional acceptance of her son.

While he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was moved with pity. He ran to the boy, clasped him in his arms and kissed him tenderly. (Luke 15:20)

To the woman, I said: "Why did you forgive your boy?"

She responded, "Well, he is my son. I must welcome him and forgive him."

"But why must you forgive your son?"

From the back of the chapel, an old woman exclaimed, "Kogwon narju!" It is the Bari for "Because of love!" -- the ultimate explanation of the mother's act and of the Incarnation. The mother in the drama nodded her head in agreement. So did I.

To the boy, I asked: "Why did your mother forgive you?'

"Because I am her son."

"But you are a selfish and greedy son."

"But she loves me."

I kneaded this truth; Kenyi was pacing me now, figurative fingers on the pulse of my heart, seamlessly tying toegther in Bari my theology and rhetoric.

I instructed the actors to sit down' everyone present applauded. Then I asked a man and a woman in the chapel, Josephina and Mawa, both parents, to come up.

I asked Josephina: "Would you buy exercise books for your daughter who needs them for school?"

"Yes."

"Why?"

"I want her to have the right materials so she can finish school."

"Why?"

"Kogwon narju--because I love her."

I turned to Marwa and asked the same question.

"Yes," he said, for the same reason.

I said to everyone in the chapel: "Now remember, we are trying to understand how much God loves us."

Then I said to Mawa: "You daughter has to go to Kampala for a medical procedure. Will you raise the money so she can go, and so you can go with her?" Such a trip costs forty dollars in this land where one dollar is a fortune.

"Yes, if I can, I will do everything in my power."

"Why?"

"Because I love her."

When I asked Josephina the same question, she didn't miss a beat: "I will cut firewood and sell grain and borrow from friends so that she can go."

"Why?"

Before she could answer, I turned to the congregation, listening intently, and asked them for the answer.

In a single voice they responded: "Kogwon narju."

I turned to Josephina again: "And if the doctor says your child's kidneys are failing, but she can be saved by a transplant of one of your kidneys--a serious operation in which she will probably live and you might die--would you do it? Would you give one of your kidneys?" (Everyone in the chapel was gripped now, leaning forward, trying to answer the question for themselves.)

"Yes," Josephina answered firmly. "I have lived my life"--said this woman in her early thirties--"and my daughter deserves to live." Smiles, nods, and sighs from the people.

"Why would you do this?"

"I love her. Kogwon narju."

Now I asked Mawa what he would do.

He hesitated, then said, "I have two other girls; if I die, who would provide fo rthem? Perhaps it is best that my daughter die." In a flash I was thinking of all the families I have known in three different refugee settlements who have lost at least one child, some five or six or seven.

"And if the doctor says you will not die if you donate one of your kidneys?"

"Then I will gladly give one of my kidneys."

"Why?"

"Kogwon narju."

I asked them to sit down. The chapel was buzzing. It was a good drama, but it was not over.

The next question I posed to all. "Suppose a doctor comes to you and is trying to find a volunteer for a kidney transplant for a sick person in the village. You look like a possibility as a donor. The person will die without a transplant, and in giving your kideny you may die. Would you do it?

Someone in the back asked: "Who is it?"

I answered slowly: "It is your worst enemy."

Silence.

Then lots of head shaking, nervous laughter, bewildered looks; an old man in the back walked out, waving his arms as if to say, "This is crazy talk." Kenyi laughed as he translated the gentleman; I think he softened it for me. But the old man returned, interested to know what people would say. A mother, nursing her baby directly in front of me, couldn't stop laughing. There were lots of puzzled looks as the people sunk their teeth into the question.

The hands started to go up.

"No way."

"Never for my enemy."

"I would give my kidney. Jesus died for his enemies; am I his follower or not?"

"Humanly, this is impossible. Perhaps with the grace of God, but who has that grace?"

"How is it possible to love this person if in our death our dependents will be without us?"

The chapel was abuzz; everyone was talking--to themselves, to me, to their neighbor, to God--a hundred people engaging their faith, engaging the spirit of God's heart. I reminded them of our question: How great is God's love?

After much discussion, we concluded the seminar. Kenyi and Osura took everyone through a recap of the day's teaching in Bari, with no English to obstruct things. Then they asked the people for an evaluation of the day. They were unanimous: this has been good teaching; we must do it again.

As we left, happiness moved across my heart like the Nile's morning breeze over my face, It was stiflingly hot, I was tired and hungry, the trip ahead would be long and bumpy, I was surrounded by so much poverty--yet I was filled with consolation. It can't be just joy at a job well done. Is it not the joy of the Spirit in me, the joy of God in me?

Ratib smiled reflectively as he downshifted over the last difficult terrain to the main road. He was happy that the day had gone well and that the people were appreciative. Ratib, a Muslim, is my biggest fan.