As Stewards of God's Gifts

I wrote the following as a comment on another comment on an article about the opposition between Socialism and Christianity. This is something I have pondered off and on, though my knowledge of economics is pretty limited, so I don't tend to take too strong a position on these matters.

This is one area where I think it may be right to behave one way in the political realm and another in the personal realm (though the law should support, rather than discourage the personal behavior).

Generally, I think it is best to vote like a capitalist, work like a capitalist, and live like a communist (by sharing what he has, not by thinking like an anti-Christian Marxist).

What I mean is that a free market is simply the most effective economic system, though it should be restrained by some degree of law, to avoid dangerous work conditions, for example.

But also, as Christians we must recognize that our wealth is given to us by God, not simply for our own good, but for the glory of God. Our wealth should thus be freely given to support the Church and to support the "widow and the orphan."

Of course, since it is to us that God has given the stewardship of these goods, it should be up to us how we use them, and it is not wrong to consider them our private property. We do have rights over what we have been given. But as stewards, we cannot imagine these gifts as being solely for our own pleasure.

God gives us graces so that we might pass them on. Then God will reward us with more abundant graces, though not necessarily of the same kind as those we passed on.

Now, this is one of those times when my advice is hard for me to follow, but with God, anything is possible. I must repeatedly remind myself:

"What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world..."

The "Question of Coercion"

I recently came across this challenge to the faith in an Amazon book review:

My belief in God, if not out of love or a want to establish a relationship with God, would be based on nothing more than coercion:

I want a pleasing and pain-free after life; I want to be as happy in the after-life as I am with life, but I don't have or have a desire for a relationship with God; therefore, I may be cast to hell (which, according to this book, I've created). If I want to be happy in the after-life, I need to establish a relationship with God. I don't want a relationship with God either because I don't believe one can exist or I don't believe a relationship with God is beneficial for either participant; however, I want to avoid discomfort and joylessness. I'll establish a relationship with God so I do not experience pain or joylessness.

Unless I missed it, Tim doesn't address this, and I think it's quite possibly the most difficult obstacle for any organized religion; I would like the author to address coercion without resorting to "you've misunderstood the point of God's love."

I would say that the first problem with this "question of coercion" is that it ignores what Christians believe heaven and hell are. Heaven is a place where we are happy because we are in a relationship with God; therefore, if we truly want to be in heaven, we want a relationship with God. Basically, what the one who asks this question wants is to have a part of something without having the whole. He wants to live in a man's house without asking that man if he can come in, and without acknowledging the man once he is inside. He wants love without a lover, a smile without a face. He is separating the inseparable.

The alternative, hell, is terrible because we are separated from God. That is why we go to hell. We didn't want God, so he let us be alone. But, since God is the source of all good, we are left with no good, and thus no joy. This is a deranged choice, but we men make deranged choices all the time.

We cannot separate cause and effect. I cannot ask for sunlight, but without the sun. I think we all ask for such absurdities sometimes, and that is more-or-less the definition of sin. We want to live on a diet of candy, but without gaining weight, rotting our teeth, and having stomachaches. We want to walk through fire without being burned, but burning is inherent with fire.

Truly Present? Physically Present?

I'm sure I'm not alone in finding the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist confusing. Surely that is what drove Martin Luther to discard transubstantiation (the bread becomes the body) and replace it with consubstantiation (the body becomes present "with" the bread). This is also probably much of what led most other Protestants to drop the doctrine of the Real Presence altogether.

Now I find myself learning that I'm slightly more confused about the idea than I thought I was.

Apparently, "Catholic Church teaching does not teach that Christ is present in the Eucharist 'physically'; rather it teaches that Christ is present within the appearance of bread and wine, 'truly, really, and substantially.'"

This got me thinking. I wonder if the Church has not yet decided whether it would be correct to say Christ was "physically" present, or if it has decided that it is incorrect to say he is "physically" present. Further, I suppose I do not know exactly how Catholic philosophy defines "physical."

Still, I'll take the step of pondering what little I do know, in the hope we learn something, and also hoping that we will read more about this before letting ourselves be misled by my thoughts on the matter.

Christ is present under the appearance of bread and wine. We know this "appearance" extends beyond just the visual, and into all other senses and scientific measures. Now, is "apparently," in this case, the same as "physically?"It is possible (from the little I know) that they mean the same thing, but have different connotations. If the Church was to say, for example, "Christ is not physically present," would the problem be that we would misunderstand this to mean he wasn't "really" present? Or would the problem be that it isn't true, because he is, in a sense "physically" present? Or perhaps, is there a third option? Is it both incorrect to say he is not "physically" present, but it is also incorrect to say he is "physically" present?

Now, since I cannot yet answer these questions, I will try an illustration of what it might look like if "physically" and "apparently" are synonymous in this situation.

In the Old Testament, angels often took the form of men, and interacted with humans (which they may still do today). In some cases the angels physically interacted with the world and even ate food. So, like the Eucharist, these angels did not just appear as men visually, but appeared as men to all the senses. Still, what were they? They were not "really" men, though they could be called "men" just as statues of men might be called "men." They were "really, truly, and substantially" angels. But physically, are they men, or are they angels? It seems that "physically" they were men, though "really" they were angels. Of course, this leads us back to the same problem.

But either way we define the physical (as just the apparent, scientifically testable aspect of a thing, or as something more), I think the angel illustration does help me to better understand the Eucharist, and how it can fully appear to be one thing while being "really, truly, and substantially" another.

Edit: Okay, I should have read a few more issues. See the following [from This Rock]:

In Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI says, "To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. . . . [After the consecration] nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in his physical ‘reality,’ corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place"

Not that this completely answers my question, since if we defined physical as I did above, it would be "in the manner in which bodies are in a place." So it still seems to depend on the definition of physical.

Also, being that the Eucharist "constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind," I suppose the comparison with angels might be helpful, but not entirely equivalent.

According to Fr. J. Michael Venditti: "Yes, he is really, physically present, as really present as you are to those around you, though present in a different way--present sacramentally rather than in the normal physical way."

So he is "physically present," but not in the, "normal physical way." Yep, this is going to stay confusing. I can only figure that this means that he is physically present in a unique way, which has no correspondence outside the Eucharist. Thus, any word, such as "physical," that we use will mean something somewhat different than usual when applied to the Eucharist.

I guess this is similar to using words that describe God. If we call God "beautiful," he transcends the normal sense of the word, and at the same time, our normal understanding -- a visual beauty-- doesn't really apply. God is immaterial, and thus not visible to the eyes, yet he is the source of all beauty and infinitely beautiful.

OSAS 4: Reattaching the Branch

In discussions over this subject, it has been pointed out to me that some of the verses I have cited “prove too much.” To them, if these verses mean that a Christian can lose his salvation they also suggest that once salvation is lost it cannot be regained. Let's look at one example:

If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. [John 15:6]

If we read this a certain way, it sounds like the branches are cast into the fire as soon as they are cut off. Jesus does not say that the branch gets a chance to reattach.

But let's look at the sequence of events: The branch was cut off and thrown away, it withered, it was gathered up, and finally it was thrown into the fire. This does leave at least one step in between the cutting off and the casting into flames. There is a period where it lies on the ground withering.

Now, what if the branch was picked up before it finished drying out, and was nourished and reattached to the vine? Do the scriptures support such a possibility?

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! [Romans 11:17-24]

I bring this up because it uses a similar analogy of branches, but in this case it shows that branches can be removed and reattached. The problem is, however, that this verse is being applied to groups of people (Jews and Gentiles), thus it might not necessarily apply to individuals (e.g. if faith disappeared among Gentiles, the Jews would once again be grafted in). However, in my reading he is actually applying it to both. Yes, the Jews lost their place, but this happened “because of unbelief.” This is an individual level lack of faith. The Jews certainly did not reject Christ “as a people,” for the majority of early converts were Jews, including the writer of this verse.

Still, I will move on to an example that does not have the additional complexity of speaking about whole groups of people.

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. [James 5:19-20]

First, notice that James is speaking to his “brothers,” meaning fellow Christians. Second, notice that they “wander from the truth.” What would it mean for a “brother” to “wander from the truth?” It means that he was a saved person, abiding in Christ, but he abandoned the faith. But then it goes on to say that someone could “bring him back” and “save him from death.”

Thus, the scriptures do support the idea that one can be saved, but then lose his salvation, and finally be brought back to salvation. A removed branch can be reattached.

Flesh and Bones

The Church is the body of Christ.

Occasionally the people of the Church cause her wounds, but her bones are strong, and Christ will always heal her flesh. Let us, for the moment, envision this body as representing two things: Her flesh is her love and compassion, her softness. Her skeleton is the Truth, composed of her infallible teachings, the deposit of the faith, the Scriptures and Tradition.

Now, what happens when a church breaks off from The Catholic Church? It becomes more prone to decay. When it is injured, it is more likely to get an infection, and Christ is less able to heal it, since it is not as fully connected to him.

Thus, Protestant churches, as time passes will often get infections or tumors, and the only response is to excise the damaged tissue. This provides a kind of restoration, but at the same time it leaves scars and sometimes disfigurement.

Let us now look at some of the extreme examples of this disfigurement:

There is a minister named Fred Phelps whose congregation is often seen carrying signs that read, "God hates Gays." This is what happens when an injured body strips the flesh from its bones. We are left with a broken and gruesome skeleton. It keeps fragments of truth (not that God hates gays, but that god disapproves of sin), but it can no longer reach out and touch with healing hands. It only has vicious bony claws.

At the other extreme we find those in the liberal Episcopalian hierarchy. They have abandoned their bones, seeing them as too hard (or intolerant). They have become like a jellyfish stranded on the seashore, a blob of flesh that knows only how to be soft and has lost its real purpose. It takes bones to walk, and bones to reach out your hand to make a difference.

As another illustration, I would like you to imagine a police officer. He is a strong and confident man, trained to enforce the law. He has his uniform, his badge, his gun, and all his other equipment. This is the way a police officer is supposed to be.

Now, a Pastor in one of the conservative Protestant denominations is like this police officer, but without his uniform and his badge, and missing much of his equipment. He is still willing and able to fight crime, but he is seriously hindered.

The liberal Protestant ministers, like the aforementioned Episcopalians, are in a different position. Such a minister may have the uniform and carry much of the equipment, thus appearing from a distance to be a fully equipped officer. But, when you get closer, you see that it is not a police officer in the uniform, it is a great dane.

Modesty and Madness

Well, I'm still not planning to write much, but I'll point out a couple of interesting articles.

This first one is a great piece on modesty at Mass:

Don't Wear that Mini to Mass

And this second one is about homeschooling parents who are doing a great job of educating their children, but still have the German goverment threatening to take away their kids due to anti-homeschooling laws put in place by the Third Reich in 1938:

German Government... Threatens to Seize Custody of Son from Homeschooling Family

Been a While

Well, it's been a while since I've posted, and I don't have much to say at the moment either.

But I will explain a bit: I have been working on a project that's been taking up the energy I devote to writing stuff related to Catholicism. In short, I'm trying to develop a ministry or a set of programs which will address certain elements which are often neglected in modern Catholic parishes, primarily community and evangelization.

Lately, one of my favorite Catholic websites has been Fr. Barron's WordOnFire.org, so check that out if your looking for some good reading or videos.

Pseudogamy 101 & 102

I have to recommend this brilliant set of articles by Anthony Esolen. I'll give a little bit of the first one here, but make sure to go and read them both!

I've written [...] that the real social problem we in America face is the number of people who are not married who behave as if they were. I'd like to revise that claim. Our problem is pseudogamy, false marriage, and it assumes many forms. Same-sex pseudogamy is but the latest and most flagrantly absurd, but it is not the first. We find the most fundamental form, from which other corruptions rise up like diseases, when a man and woman go through the ceremony and utter the traditional words "as long as you both shall live," while harboring the mental reservation, "as long, that is, as I am happy," or "as long as the marriage 'works,'" whatever that is supposed to mean. In other words, in the fundamental form of pseudogamy, we don't have people who are not married behaving as if they were, but people who are married (or who present themselves as having been married) behaving as if they were not.

Read the rest of the article and then the next article by following the links below:

pseudogamy-101

pseudogamy-102

Hopefully there are more in this series.

Pope Pius XII Video

Here's a short video related to the post below:

Communist Conspiracies & Pope Pius XII

Many of us have heard the accusation that Pope Pius XII was in league with the Nazis, siding with them in their attempts to exterminate the Jews, or the less severe accusation that the Pope was more concerned with protecting Vatican property than with defending the Jews, leading him to remain mostly neutral.

The book, Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy, has a chapter on this accusation, which quotes the 1941 New York Times, saying, "the Pope put himself squarely against Hitlerism," and again in 1942 The New York Times reported that, "he assails violent occupation of territory, the exile and persecution of human beings for no reason other than race or political opinion." It also explains that at the end of the war, the Jews praised Pius XII for his help. I'll note that the full quotes, and the rest of the chapter give far more evidence, but this suffices to show that there has been some serious historical revisionism going on.

Then where did this accusation come from? The first time anyone heard this charge it was in a play called The Deputy. This play's supposed author, Rolf Hochhuth, cites an unnamed bishop along with various unconvincing documents (like some which just quote anti-Catholic Nazi officers) as proof of the play's claims.

What I just learned about this matter recently, though, is that the entire charge, and the play that brought it into public knowledge, may have originated as a communist plot.

Former KGB "Romanian point man," Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa, who helped perpetrate the plot wrote, "In February 1960, Nikita Khrushchev approved a super-secret plan for destroying the Vatican’s moral authority in Western Europe."

He continues, in a 2007 article, to write, "Eugenio Pacelli, by then Pope Pius XII, was selected as the KGB’s main target, its incarnation of evil, because he had departed this world in 1958. 'Dead men cannot defend themselves' was the KGB’s latest slogan."

Pacepa worked to help "in pilfering hundreds of documents connected in any way with Pope Pius XII out of the Vatican Archives and the Apostolic Library."

Though, "no incriminating material against the pontiff ever turned up," his superior in the KGB, General Ivan Agayants, still went ahead to create a "play attacking Pope Pius XII, entitled The Deputy, an oblique reference to the pope as Christ’s representative on earth. Agayants took credit for the outline of the play, and he told us that it had voluminous appendices of background documents put together by his experts with help from the documents we had purloined from the Vatican."

He goes on to write that, despite the fact that by 1974 "newly released information show[ed] that Hitler, far from being friendly with Pius XII, had in fact been plotting against him. [...]Today, many people who have never heard of The Deputy are sincerely convinced that Pius XII was a cold and evil man who hated the Jews and helped Hitler do away with them."

For an even more detailed account of the whole controversy you can read The Myth of Hitler's Pope, by Rabbi David G. Dalin.