I notice most of the Republican presidential candidates are taking the position that the end justifies the means. So my example. Assume we capture an Iraqui and his three year old daughter. We know and the Iraqui knows a nuclear device will be set off, causing a minimum 50,000 American deaths. But we do not know where. Would we be justified in torturing the 3 year old if it would make the father give us the location of the device, saving 50,000 lives? Romney and the others (McCain excepted, but not on moral grounds) say yes. Same situation with torturing father. Now what does Catholic theology say about this; how does this fit into 'double effect' doctrine?
WC you are welcome to post here anytime, regardless of what the original post is about. We need your 'voice.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If it has been infallibly defined that the ends do not justify the means, I am not aware of it. However, the reason the Church hasn't bothered to define it infallibly is that it is universally agreed and taught that the ends do NOT justify the means. This is probably about a good of an example as I can think of "ordinary, universal magisterium" (which is one of the types of infallibility, but is never explicit and therefore hard to prove).
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, the Catechism says (my emphasis):
A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.
From the U.S. Catechism for Adults (my emphasis):
Some acts, apart from the intention or reason for doing them, are always wrong because they go against a fundamental or basic human good that ought never to be compromised. Direct killing of the innocent, torture, and rape are examples of acts that are always wrong. Such acts are referred to as intrinsically evil acts, meaning that they are wrong in themselves, apart from the reason they are done or the circumstances surrounding them.
From a USAtoday article:
At a news conference about the peace message, Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican's pontifical council on peace and justice, was asked if torture could be a legitimate tool to gain information that might prevent terror attacks.
The prelate replied that there was no justification for using torture, which is the "humiliation of the human person, whoever he is."
Quite recently Pope Benedict was talking about prisons and such and said:
In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances” .
The four "requirements" of double effect are the following:
1) The act itself is not intrinsically evil.
2) The bad effect is not intended, but the good effect is.
3) The good effect is not achieved through the means of the bad effect.
4) The good effect is proportional to the bad effect.
Torturing someone to save lives might satisfy conditions 2 and 4, but it fails both 1 and 3. All four of the conditions must be met for an action to be legitimate.
Labelling something intrinsically evil (as the Church does for torture) means that double effect cannot be used to justify doing that thing.
Any Republican who says that torture can be justified to save lives is going outside the bounds of Catholic teaching.
Robert here. Your explanation is the best I've seen, but if a person actually thought it helped the dead should the church correct them? alice here, excellent answer. i like it but most people i know see it differently. after all wouldn't my example be self-defense on a large scale? i'm talking about torture not candles.
ReplyDeleteRobert, on candles:
ReplyDeleteThe prayer offered *does* help the dead. In as much as lighting the candle is *part* of the prayer offered (or possibly even *is* the prayer offered), then it does help the dead. If someone thought that lighting a candle worked like magic, if someone had a formula like "if I light so many candles, they'll have a certain amount of time taken off of purgatory", then the Church should correct such superstitious thinking. (But I can't say it would be a high priority issue for me).
Alice, on torture:
No, self-defense cannot be used to justify torture. Self-defense involves killing someone who is an "unjust aggressor". An "unjust aggressor" is not "innocent". The U.S. Catechism quote that I provided above says that direct killing of an innocent is intrinsically immoral. This language is specifically used because it is NOT considered intrinsically immoral to kill someone who is an unjust aggressor. Because that is not intrinsically immoral, killing someone in self-defense passes the first condition of double effect. Torture fails the first condition of double effect: it is intrinsically immoral.
One of my favorite quotes is from a fictional character called Granny Weatherwax. For the fuller, amusing dialogue, go here.
Here's the quote I have in mind:
And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That's what sin is.
It's possible to kill someone in self-defense without treating them as an object. It's possible to recognize and respect the incredible beauty that they were made with, and still be willing to kill them if they're in the process of trying to kill you, and if it's the only way to stop them. Self-defense is not opposed to seeing other people as people; it is truly defensive.
If, on the other hand, you torture someone, then you are using them. You are using them as a tool, an object, to get what you want. Even if what you want is very good - saving the lives of many, many people - you have still used someone as a tool; in Granny Weatherwax's words, you have treated them as a thing.
And treating even one person as a thing is so fundamentally an evil that it cannot be made good by any number of lives saved.
anna, thanks. leave out the child, leave out the torture would it justified to kill the Iraqui man to get information from him? certainly torture is not as bad as killing. am i missing something? remember the iraqui man is not innocent. alice
ReplyDeleteRobert here. I have to leave Jack and Alice today. Off to Philly and then L.A. Kind of a touchy day. Tomorrow is birth day of John their deceased son. Tough on Alice, and I suspect Jack, although he always tries to be tough.
ReplyDeleteEven though I worked in the computer field for several years, had never blogged. I think it's good.
You might like this funny story. I think you know of Jack's nephew's son. They were coming to town for the big football game and always stay with Jack and Alice. Jack, who loves to kid, said they might have questions on Catholicism and s..I'm a year older than Jack but a life long bachelor.Scared me to death. But thank heavens I found out there is another blogger ,Liam, who handles such questions.
Never had a religious experience, but I am a bit sentimental.I was visiting here a couple of years ago when Alice and Jack were taking care of Frank and his foor problem. Jack and I were not much help, we hated to look at his cut and mangled feet. One day walked by the room and saw Alice, 5 ft. 110 lbs. changing some of his bandages and washing the feet of this strapping young man. I did get misty for a moment. Guilty. Impressed by Alice. I think this helps explain their more religious attitude. And the story of the pain medicine and the priest---Alice believes, and she's a great gal.
Have enjoyed visiting with you. Robert
Alice,
ReplyDeleteI had to laugh. You can't kill someone to get information out of them. Dead men can't speak.
You can kill the Iraqi man if he is an immediate threat. If he's about to push the button that will blow up the bomb, it's ok to shoot him in order to stop him. But in that case, he is himself an immediate danger. If he is your prisoner, then he is not himself an immediate threat, even if he won't tell you where the bomb is. To assault someone's personhood, to degrade them and make them into a thing, even if they are guilty, is just not ok. And it doesn't suddenly become ok just because there is a good cause for it.
Let me present an analogous scenario. Janice kills Bob's sister. Later, Doug comes along, ties up Janice, points a gun at Bob, and tells Bob he will shoot him if Bob does not rape Janice. Bob has a good reason (to save his life), and Janice is not innocent. But rape is intrinsically evil; and it is not ok for him to rape Janice, under any circumstances.
Torture is like that; it doesn't matter if the person is guilty, and it doesn't matter if there is a really good cause. You just can't do it to someone, ever.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you were there for Jack and Alice. I've enjoyed talking with you. If you want to keep blogging from L.A., you could do that. (You could set up your own blog, if you wanted, or keep using Jack and Alice's, if they don't mind).
Your story about Jack kidding you was quite amusing. :)
You say you have never had a religious experience, but are "sentimental". The way you talk about Alice caring for Frank sounds like a religious experience to me, even if it's only a mild one. Everything you admire in Alice is the same things we admire in Christ. I think I'll pray for God to reveal himself to you more explicitly. (Hope you don't mind).
God bless,
Anna
anna, when i wrote it i saw it sounded funny, but you got my point. thanks for your answer. robert is eccentric. buys old houses, fixes them up, and rents them to 'working class' people. makes money, but is world's best landlord. never raises rent, as long as tenet stays and doesn't damage property. spends nothing on himself, so worth millions, but no heirs. jack did scare him half to death about young men's questions. jack admits it was kind of a cruel joke. incidentally after seeing me helping young man, both Robert and jack help me with him. i'm pretty good but 6-3 185 pounds is tough when you have to move them. Robert loves to visit and this visit was better because of you. you can tell robert is a little anti-catholic, but not offensive. alice
ReplyDeleteAlice,
ReplyDeleteI'd definitely have trouble moving an 185-lb guy. I'm glad to hear that Jack and Robert helped you after they saw you doing it. Seems to me that all the guys were really impressed by what you did - they're still talking about it a couple years later. A verse comes to mind: "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." Matthew 5:16. Seems like you've been doing a good job of that.
Robert loves to visit and this visit was better because of you.
I think this is one of the nicest things someone has said about me. I'm so glad I could help, even a little. And I thought Robert was very polite, too, definitely not offensive.
anna, thank you. as i've said before somehow i feel guilty that i should have done more for my own son. i believe as i've said before that in some way the whole frank thing the pills, the priest, the taking care of him is in some way a slight kind of second chance for me. please don't think i'm morbid. just a thought. alice
ReplyDeleteAlice,
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's at all morbid. Let me quote from that "Waking the Dead" book (I think Jack said he read it; I'm curious if you did too).
"As we learn to walk with God and hear his voice, he is able to bring up issues in our hearts that need speaking to. Some of those wounds were enough to break our hearts, create a rift in the soul, and so we need his healing as well. This is something Jesus walks us into - sometimes through the help of another person who can listen and pray with us, sometimes with God alone. ... Our first choice is to go with him there ... We need time in the presence of God. This often comes on the heels of God's raising some issue in our hearts or after we've just relived an event that takes us straight to that broken place".
It sounds to me like you may be "brokenhearted", feeling guilty because of your son. If God sometimes "recreates" the scenarios which caused us to be wounded in the first place, then that can be a part of the healing process.
And there's definitely nothing morbid about having your heart made whole again.
Anna, just to catch you up. Alice had NO responsibility for John's death. She was very close to him and they had gone to NYC for 2 weeks and he died 3 weeks after they came back. Some how she puts these together. But she is not morbid but sometimes brings it up.
ReplyDeleteThe priest who said he had worked out the RCIA problem for me sent me an e-mail about a month ago saying give him another week or two. Have't heard from him since. His first assignment, so I don't blame him; probably ran into a little opposition up the line. I don't blame him.I'll just have to wait and see.
Good results on latest test. No spreading of big C
On John's birthday Frank and Brett bought Alice a beautiful dozen roses. Just as they were leaving Frank hugged Alice as he always does as said something to Alice. He said, Alice Reported.'I probably shouln't say this but we know this is John's birthday and he can never be replaced. You have Jack, your grandkids, your daughter, but if you ever feel like you need at least a part of amother son, I'd be happy to be that son.'
"Turn but a stone and start a wing."
'Tis you, tis your estrnaged faces that miss the many spendored thing."
The old teacher. The greatest christian poem ever written, I believe. Describes you. I guess I'm still with the "estranged faces."
Do you know this whole poem?
Keep in contact. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI assumed Alice had nothing to do with John's death. But she said she has felt guilty... that's a sore spot in her heart, a place that needs (or needed) healing. And it sounds to me like God has given her Frank, so that she can feel whole again, and blessed. That's really wonderful, that he said that to Alice.
Well, I hope your priest comes through for you. If he hasn't come up with anything in another month, send him an email to see where he's at with it, maybe.
Glad to hear the C's not spreading!
I didn't know that poem, but I googled it and found it. The Kingdom of God, by Francis Thompson. I really like it. It says just that, that I feel like I've been trying to convince you of. That God isn't some deity way up in heaven, to be worshiped from a distance. But that he is here, with you, now, waiting for you to look at him and see the depth of his love for you.
God bless,
Anna
Anna,thanks for your response. The poem I suggested is generally called "In No Strange Land". On the net where it cites "The Kingcom of God" they have left out the last stanza I believe. Right after Charing Cross it goes: Yea, in the night, my soul, my daughter
ReplyDeleteCry--clinging Heaven by the hems.
And lo, Christ walking on the water
Not of Gennesareth, but Thames!
I like it better than "The Hound of Heaven".
You're probably way too young to remember but in the 1950's their was a famous movie entitled "Love is a many spendored thing" Jennifer Jones and William Holden were the stars. The theme song of the movie was a popular song of the same title. Very few knew what it meant because they were not familiar with the poem. The song is still sung by some pop artists.
Let me quote from an essay of mine.
Theologians have often discussed the seeming difference(contradiction) between God's immanence and transcendence, that is God in the world, and in the second case God beyond and apart from the world....To me the best statement of God's imminence is found in Francis Thompson's poem "In no strange Land." {end quote).
And in some way this is a difference between catholic and protestant. The latter tend to emphasize the majesty, the utter 'otherless' of God, the utter separation of God and man without God's mercy. Reverse this description and you are at much of the essence of catholicism in theory and practice--the immenence of God. Both are right, but the key is the point of emphasis.
I'm getting lenghtly here but we see another distinction in the controvery over Mother Teresa's 'doubts'. Perfectly compatible with catholicism, which has always acknowledged 'doubt'as part of the religious experience. Protestants, on the other hand, from Luther to today,tend to view certainty of salvation as a sign, in many cases a sine qua non of salvation. Leave out the theologians; ask a protestant if he is "saved" and the answer will almot universally be yes. The catholic will not have such absolutel assurance:I hope so, but I need to continue to work toward that end.
I was glad in the last comment to report the positive. Despite my bright outlook on life I'm afraid I to often come over as "dark".
Let me know if you have the full poem and any other comments? Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteThis is where I found the poem, which refers to it as “The Kingdom of God”. It does include the last stanza that you quote. It's strange that Wikipedia is missing that last bit.
I like it better than The Hound of Heaven, too. I've heard people refer to “Love is a many splendored thing”, but never seen the movie or heard the song that I know of.
It's a little odd to me that you think Catholics are more likely to emphasize the immanence of God. Theologically speaking, I can maybe see that. We talk about the “Real Presence” and we use physical devotions to make spirituality more immediate to the senses. But the Protestants I have met are much more likely than the Catholics I have met to say that Christianity is about a personal relationship with Jesus, which is immanence to the extreme. Catholics are more likely to quote saints about extreme humility (some of which seems to me to border on self-hate).
Is the distinction about “doubts” as expressed in Catholicism and Protestantism supposed to be related to the immanence vs. transcendence as emphasized by them distinction? Because I would associate “doubts” more with God's transcendence than his immanence, so that would seem to go the opposite way as before? Unless they were unrelated differences between Catholics and Protestants.
Lengthy is good... it keeps the conversation going. :)
I completely agree that Protestants are more likely than Catholics to demand or expect some sort of assurance or certainty about their salvation. I think that Mother Teresa's doubts are a classic example of the difference between the heart and emotions. After she came to understand her darkness as an answer to her prayer to participate in Jesus' suffering on the cross, even though her internal darkness continued, she said of herself “today really I felt a deep joy”. Joy and misery going together: because the joy and peace that God gives operates at a much deeper level than our surface emotions or any conscious awareness/experience of God's presence.
This testimony is another example of how we should experience God working on a level much deeper than any emotion or feeling of “spiritual dryness”.
Even if we don't experience his presence, I think that it's really really good for us to see, welcome, and believe the workings of God in our lives and the lives of those around us. (Like with Alice and Frank). These things will move us, in our hearts, if we really believe they are God working to show his love for us. At the same time, we need to avoid trying to make ourselves “feel” happy about them; avoid sentimentality, which only mimics and maybe replaces true belief. Although I've heard many people recommend that we *express* things which we may not feel: that we should laugh, smile, and thank God out loud whether we feel like it or not, because sometimes it is just the right thing to do (often for the sake of others – especially little children like mine).
Anyhow, that's probably enough “other comments” for now. :)
Anna
Anna, I stand by my difference between catholic and protestant on the immanence-transcendent issue. In fact we once 'debated'at some length on b's blog how a religion based on 'feeling' alone can be dangerous. The protestants I know, or at least the more extreme ones, confuse feeling with direct contact with God.
ReplyDeleteWhy have sacrements, why a church, why even theology if one is under the influence of antinomiamism. "Spiritual manisfestations---prophesying , speaking with tongues and so on---may come to dominate the imagination of the devotee to such an extent, as to bring the sacraments into disrepute."
Honestly, Anna, when you see a mass revival on TV, do you believe the thousands who wave their arms in the air, fall to the gound, weeping copiously. are really being 'directed' by God or by mass emotion and feeling. When the TV preachers tell of Jesus physically appearing in their bedrooms or any place telling them exactly what to say and do---how are we to view this?
But you might say I'm only refering to a certain group; those who take "immanence to the extreme". But I think the weight of protestant theology is to the 'utter, otherwordliness of God'.
I see more religion in Alice washing the feet of an uncertain young man than in the rantings of a TV evangelist. I think that was what touched Robert. You're the expert but wasn't washing another's feet a 'sign' of humility and goodness in the New Testament?
I wait each day for your comment. Jack
By the way "doubt" was a separate issue. I was simply saying that catholics, and some other protestants do not regard certainty as to one's salvation a 'necessary' belief.
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI agree that a religion based on feeling alone is dangerous. I also think that a religion emphasizing thinking alone, or external actions alone without any correspondence to inner life, is dead.
Yes, the sacraments and the Church and moral considerations in general put limits on legitimate expressions of religious “feeling”. But the purpose of both the sacraments and the Church is to bring life to people. If people can't tell the difference in their lives between being Christian and not being so, except on a superficial level of “I now go to church for an hour or two on Sundays”, then Christianity has failed.
There is a balance to be maintained with spiritual manifestations like prophesying, speaking in tongues, etc. You point out the danger that someone might focus on these so much as to become excessively focused on emotions. And I agree that that is a danger of them. A related danger is the mistake of thinking that these things ARE faith, instead of being things which should HELP faith. (See Matthew 7:22-23). But there is also a danger in rejecting such manifestations, or being overly resistant to them, because they are gifts from God, given for our own good (See 1 Cor 14:39). It's a fence: you can fall off on either side. Many Christians, especially when they are new to any sort of charismatic experience, go too far to the emphasizing-emotions side. You, I think, tend to go farther in rejecting such things than I would like (the other side of the fence).
If I see a mass revival on TV, I am very skeptical. But I don't reject all together the possibility that God is really working to change some of those people's lives. Some may, because of that revival, find the motivation to start attending church regularly, to be more generous with giving money to the poor, to treat their children with less anger, to be less selfish with their spouse.
However, your skepticism with TV spectacles is not anything I would take much issue with. What I am more concerned about is how you would respond to prophecy and speaking in tongues and healing and such if it was happening in your own parish. If someone that the community generally considered a prophet said they had a word from God for you, would you be open to the possibility? If you heard the guy who sits next to you at Mass start speaking in tongues, would you assume they are making it up? Could you pray for someone's healing while really believing that God was going to make it happen? Have you ever considered what gifts God might have given you, for the good of yourself or others, that you might be neglecting?
TV preachers make a lot of money, if they present a good enough show. Accordingly, they have a lot of motivation to say cool-sounding things, regardless of how true they are. So I tend to distrust them. People who are involved in “regular” (non-TV) charismatic groups (Pentecostals? Catholic Charismatics) have much less motivation to fake things and are more likely to (but not sure to) eventually attain a mature attitude which includes charisms but puts them in their right place.
There IS more religion in Alice washing Frank's feet than there is the rantings of TV evangelists. Alice is living the faith. The TV evangelist, at his best, is talking about the faith. (But talking about the faith, if done well, is still often good, because it can help us to live the faith).
Anna, a bit of rambling on my part. I think it is quite clear that Paul is trying to 'pull in' the corinthians from looking upon certain 'manifiestations' of the spirit and neglecting the apostolic tradition Paul, it seems clear to me, thinks the church at corinth needs a curb not a spur. He acknowledges 'gifts' of the spirit but his emphasis is on their not getting out of control. Maybe we can take this up later but he does say"I would rather say five intelligible word to instruct others than 10,000 words in a tongue." His statement that speaking in tongues is useless unless there is an interpreter, and having heard people speak in tongues, not of men but of angels, because I have not read any case where the speaking is in an actual language, the message is usually quite bland and very unrevealing {God is great etc.} These gifts must not obscure the 'tradition' as was apparently happening in Corinth. As you know physical manifestations of the "holy spirit" have a very lean record in christian history. The 'jerks' the endless laughing, the convulsions, the 'dog barking' and on and on really became a part of church practice mainly since the 18 century. I do not question that some of these could be 'inspiried' but the overwhelming, it seems to me, are exstatic states.
ReplyDeleteI do read carefully your citations. Two struck me. The one about 'second chances' and the one about conversion coming slowly over a period of time. I'm not good enough on the compter to pull them while writing but they were very good.
Completely off the discussion probably, but Alice, very much into women's 'lib', has often said she has great sympathy with men because society expects so much of them, yet frowns on their showing emotion, because it is often looked on as a sign of weakness. Without boring you too much with John and Frank, I feel I should tell you many times when Frank was with us I saw tears streking down his face, which he would try to hide. I never mentioned it lest you think it was a sign of weakness. The tears were not from pain, but from what, I don't know. When Robert ask Alice why we took in a non-relative Alice said "because he's scared." I think she was right. Sometime I will tell you a simple story about our son that has troubled me. But I can't now. Thanks again. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteOf course Paul is trying to curb the Corinthians. They were out of control, making people think they were crazy. And I would give the same curbing advice to a church where people were barking like dogs and having fits on a regular basis, or if they were practicing prophecy or speaking in tongues in an disorderly way.
But that's not my point. Of course people CAN and DO practice manifestations in an excessive way. But my point is that there is a way for some manifestations to occur commonly in Christian life without it being excessive or disorderly.
Now, I make a serious distinction between gifts that are mentioned Scripture: tongues, prophecy, healing, discernment of spirits, for example – and practices that have no reference in Scripture and no mention that I am aware of in the early church – barking, convulsions, endless laughing. On principle, I don't rule out the possibility of God working through these latter things, but it doesn't strike me as likely. The only potential benefit I can see these giving is a lesson in humility. (Although laughing is said to be good for you – not endlessly so, though.)
The point is that these two types of practices should not be lumped together in our consideration. If you reject the latter entirely, I won't bother to debate it with you. If you believe that the former are not meant to be common, then that is where I disagree with you. My case is that they ought to be common, and if they are not, it is mostly on account of people not expecting them to be, rather than because God does not give them to us.
As for rather saying five intelligible words than 10,000 words in a tongue, I think you change his meaning by cutting short the context. “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. ” (My emphasis). Paul is not telling the Corinthians to stop speaking in tongues. He is telling them to stop or at least lessen speaking in tongues during the assembly.
And he has good reasons for doing this. If someone walks into a congregation where everyone shouts out different languages at random times during the ceremony, with no order at all, and no one can be understood – well, they're going to think about the same as you do when you walk into a church where people bark at you.
On the other hand, Paul's reason are pastoral reasons. He thinks speaking in tongues during the assembly is doing more harm than good, so he discourages it. This is a disciplinary matter, not doctrinal, which means there is no obligation to agree with the entire principle. A Catholic could legitimately think that it is ok or even appropriate to speak in tongues during Mass, although I wouldn't recommend they disregard Paul's words unless they have some good reasons for thinking their situation is different from the Corinthians.
“His statement that speaking in tongues is useless unless there is an interpreter”
Again, I think you are not getting what he is saying. He is NOT saying that speaking in tongues is useless without an interpreter. He is saying that speaking in tongues * to someone else* is useless without an interpreter. In 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4, and 16, Paul makes clear that the benefit of speaking in tongues (when no one else understands) is for the *individual* speaking. The fact that it doesn't benefit the whole church makes it less or not at all appropriate during the assembly, but the fact is that it really does benefit the individual spiritually to speak in tongues.
having heard people speak in tongues, not of men but of angels, because I have not read any case where the speaking is in an actual language, the message is usually quite bland and very unrevealing {God is great etc.}
I'm confused... how can you say both that you've never heard speaking in an actual language and then say the message is bland? Either way, I'd say it doesn't much matter to the individual whether anyone other than God understands the language he's speaking in. It does matter if he's speaking TO someone, but then either the listener understands or the speaker did a poor job of discerning whether God wanted him to speak to the listener. Speaking in tongues to yourself is worshiping God with your spirit, not a theological treatise. Have you ever offered spontaneous praise to God (in English)? It doesn't need to be fancy or theologically complex in order to be beautiful worship. It only needs to come from the heart. A single heartfelt “Abba” repeated over and over again is deeply meaningful worship. There are many songs which could be considered bland and unrevealing, yet they lift the soul, they express praise, they can bring us closer to God. The same is true for even the blandest of worship involving speaking in tongues.
Many Christians (including many Catholics, and, I think, including you, no disrespect intended) have gone the opposite way from the Corinthians. Instead of being excessive and out of control in their practice of the gifts, they reject the gifts altogether, shuffling them off as some rare or outdated phenomena, when they were meant to be gifts to help build the Church up. We should be encouraging individuals to speak in tongues, maybe not in church, but in their own prayers, for their own benefit.
And that is the least of the gifts. What about prophecy, which Paul actively encourages the Corinthians to include in their assembly, and only tells them to limit it to one person speaking at a time? Shouldn't we, too, be eager for the gift of prophecy? Shouldn't we make a place for prophets at Mass, so that when God wants to speak to us, we will be able to hear? Shouldn't we expect him to speak to us?
And healing. In Matthew 10:1, Jesus gave his disciples the authority to heal and cast out demons. How different would your life be if you really believed that God could completely heal you of your cancer? And that he wanted to; that he was only waiting for someone to pray for it with the authority he gave them to do just that. What would it take for you to believe in your deepest heart that YOU could command someone to be healed in the name of Jesus, and they would be? And would you even be willing to handle the responsibility that goes along with that?
And what about the other gifts? What about the other ones listed in 1 Cor 12: 7 -12: message of wisdom, message of knowledge, faith, miraculous powers, discernment of spirits, and interpretation of tongues? What reason can you give for thinking that God doesn't give these as abundantly as he did in the New Testament times?
Now tell me seriously, Jack. If you saw, in your own parish, a person who you knew had been suffering from some illness for a couple years now, and the priest commanded them to be healed in the name of Jesus, and the next week they told you they were cured, the doctors were mystified – would you believe, or would you make excuses, try to explain it away? If you believed, would that build up your faith? Would that not make you stronger, better able to live your life in a Christlike way?
These gifts must not obscure the 'tradition' as was apparently happening in Corinth.
Of course they must not override common sense, Tradition, or any other higher priority. But saying that they are not the highest priority in the life of the Church in general does not mean we should ignore them. They are one of the more neglected aspects of Christian life today, and we are suffering for the lack of them. We are suffering for the lack of deep faith, in general.
As far as Alice's position on men showing emotion, I'm inclined to agree with her. A man (or woman) doesn't need to cry at every sappy chick flick he sees (but he can if he wants!), and if a man's heart is moved in a deep way, then it is best for it to show in some way or another. And I'm not bored by hearing about John or Frank; I think the whole situation with Alice and them is moving, meaningful. It's always beautiful to see God at work in people's lives.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, first a point of clarfication. You ask in an earlier coment if a person at church spoke in tongues I would think they were making it up. You seem to imply that there could only be two answers:he was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit of He was making it up. Of course there is a 3rd alternative. He could be quite sincere, believe he is being 'used' by the holy spirit. but simply be mistaken.That is be in an estatic state which is quite common in psychological experiments.
ReplyDeleteOur discussion really is not whether such 'gifts' are possible , but how common they are. You say they should be as common today as they were in early christianity. But how common were they in early christianity? You give the list of gifts from corrinthians, but did you mean to apply that all christians had at least one of these gifts? So on what basis do you say they were common in the early church? Does Christ of them? Do early Christian writers, Biblical and otherwise speak much of tongues. I do not believe even the Montanist used tongues to any extent if at all.
Prophecy is not as B 16 has made clear the ability to foretell the future. I'm sure we agree on that.
Maybe you could agree with this: Of all the hundreds of thousands who even last Sunday claimes to speak in tongues, what percentage would you say were truly speaking in tongues. I would say, not questioning their sincere belief, very few. Most were in a estatic state.
Now why would I say that. Studies were done in the last century and this as to whether those speaking in a another language actually spoke in any existing today or lost languages or even in a syntax that might be considered a language. The answer has uniformly been no to me knowledge.
Do you not find it interesting that Paul in Chapter 13 verses 27-21 places tongues after almost all places in the church?
Now you ask about healing, what would be my reaction if I were to witness one? This has been investigated quite intensively and the evidence is very rare. Was it not Zola who said about Lourdes :I see the the crutches, but where are the artificial limbs? Again I am not denying the possibility of divine healing, but instead saying it is not "common." I should add that the TV evangelist have not produced any genuine medical healings not quite explainable by known medical factors to my knowledge
Let me again say I do not doubt the sincerity even of a Benny Hinn and certainly not his followers,
Several preachers have claimed they have raised the dead. If someone told you that had happened and they had seen it what would be your reaction?
I do accept the claim : the more extraordinary the claim the more extrordinary must be the evidence.
You say charismatic experiences could be far more common if people sought them. What evidence is this based on?
Last ,Anna, on these points, why, or is, a prayer in an 'unknown' tongue more valuable than one in English? Is it more sincere? Does it 'rise higher', does it prove the prayer is better than the vernacular prayer? Does it prove the tongues prayer is more filled by the divine? Were the prayers of the corrinthians a better model than the prayer Jesus taught us to say?
So Anna here we are. You say the gifts of the holy spirit should be more "common". I don't know if they are less common than at other times. But a last question, and I do not intend it to impertinent. At the last judgment, will the ability to talk in tongues make some more christian than those who do not?
But I do want to spend a few minutees on the 'gift of love' in this epistle. I am sure you are following Christ because you have the gift of love. As I read this passage love is caring for others withoou expecting to be "repaid." You have done that with me. You could become a 'blog master' and not spend time with a non-catholic who disagrees with you on some things. But you do, and you ask for nothing in return. And so why did Frank have tears coming down his face? Because Alice cared for him and ask nothing in return and he recognized this as the greatest gift. I',m sure he was thinking this lady cares for me just because she does. Alice always assured him when she checked him twice a night "Frank it is all going to be alright" I think this moved him to tears. 'Someone cared for me and ask nothing in return'You know, that seldom happens, and it is the greatest gift.
Last word today. Priest e-mailed me today and said I could become RC with RCIA. I hope all those catholics are going to be as nice as you, despite our little differences. Jack
Change last paragraph to WITHOUT Rcia. He just ask if I desire a weekday mass or 'family only' mass. Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteI didn't think you were attributing deliberate fakery to every person who “speaks in tongues”; my question was definitely aimed at whether you would be open to believing that someone you encountered could do something that was genuinely inspired of the Spirit, or whether it was not truly inspired.
You give the list of gifts from corrinthians, but did you mean to apply that all christians had at least one of these gifts?
Yes, I meant to imply that. Or if not every single Christian, pretty dang close to it, at least.
As for my basis for claiming that gifts were common in the early Church, it's mostly Biblical. Acts is the only Biblical book to really try to provide a history of the earliest Church. In there, chapter 2 relates the story of Pentecost and the speaking in tongues, chapter 3& 4 relates the cure of the cripple (and the building shaking in ch 4); ch 5 relates the “miraculous” deaths of Ananias and Sapphira, vs 12-16 talk about the numerous signs and miracles performed by the apostles; then the miraculous escape from jail. Chapter 6 says Stephen worked miracles and great signs, and his face looked like an angel's. Chapter 8 relates that the people welcomed the gospel “because they had heard of the miracles he worked and because they saw them for themselves”; Simon tried to bribe the apostles to be able to perform miracles himself; Philip is magically whisked around. Chapter 9 tells of Paul's miraculous conversion, more healings by Peter, even a raising from the dead. Chapter 10 tells of Peter's supernatural dream, and says that the disciples knew the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit because they heard them speaking strange languages. Chapter 12 relates another miraculous escape from jail; chapter 13 the blinding of Elymas. Ch 14 speaks of more “signs and wonders” in vs 3, relates the healing of a cripple. Ch 16 has a couple interventions by the Spirit, and an exorcism. In ch 18, another vision. In ch 19, speaking in tongues is mentioned again, to show that the baptism of John is not enough, that a baptism in Jesus and the laying of hands (Confirmation) is also what is intended. More miracles mentioned after that. Ch 20, a dead man raised. Ch 21, a prophecy from the Holy Spirit. A few chapters focusing on Paul preaching to government officials, and when the action resumes in ch 27, there's an angel intervention, and ch 28 has a miraculous escape from a snake.
So the history of the early church is chock-full of all sorts of supernatural occurrences. It was basically a way of life for them, to have these things going on. Speaking in tongues was probably the least of these occurrences in overall importance, but it was included in the lot. Again, to me, 1 Cor 12:4-11 strongly implies that it was common, maybe even universal, for Christians to receive at least one gift.
Does Jesus mention speaking in tongues? Yes, in Mark 16, around verse 17, he tells of the signs his disciples would perform.
What did the early church fathers think of miracles and gifts? See here for some quotes from them. It's a long article; I don't know if you would want to read the whole thing or not, but it's mostly a good one, I think.
Prophecy, as a gift, is generally about the present, the here-and-now. It may sometimes include some remarks relating to the future, but probably only if it relates to the present. (Like, some of the prophecies of the Old Testament go like “if you don't do such-and-such now, this bad thing will happen to you in the future”). So... if someone came up to you and said something to you like, “God told me to tell you that there's someone in your life that you need to forgive”, or something like that... could you believe them?
Of all those last Sunday who spoke in tongues, I would guess that most of them were legitimately tapping into the Holy Spirit. Have you ever noticed in the Corinthians passage that Paul never actually says or implies that what the Corinthians are doing is coming from themselves instead of from the Holy Spirit? He tells them what they are doing is unwise, they should cut it out, but he doesn't say that they aren't using the real gift.
Now why would I say that. Studies were done in the last century and this as to whether those speaking in a another language actually spoke in any existing today or lost languages or even in a syntax that might be considered a language. The answer has uniformly been no to me knowledge.
Do you know what studies those are? When they were performed, and who on? But I don't find this convincing anyhow. If I say in English, “holy holy holy God, mighty God, glorious one”; is a linguist who doesn't know English going to be able to tell me that there is some sort of syntax present that could be a language? I would not think so. There are no sentences, no verbs. It may be very repetitive.
Do you not find it interesting that Paul in Chapter 13 verses 27-21 places tongues after almost all places in the church?
No, not really. Tongues is the least useful of the charisms. Why shouldn't he put it last?
Again I am not denying the possibility of divine healing, but instead saying it is not "common."
I was not saying that miraculous cures ARE common so much as I am saying that they OUGHT to be common. That if they are not common, it is only because we lack the faith to perform them. Are all the people who go to Lourdes really miraculously healed? I would guess a good bit of them are, although I would assume some of them are also just suggestible.
As for scientific evidence, let me provide a somewhat lengthy quote from this blog.
Let me use one example: the Christian Scientists have been collecting testimonies of miracles for the last hundred years, and when I say miracles, I mean, cases where people suffer from diseases where honest-to-God doctors examine and give up on them, pronouncing the disease incurable; the person prays for healing; and they are healed; and x-rays and other honest-to-God examinations show the signs and symptoms of the disease entirely gone. There are enough of these testimonies to fill up a periodical published since the Nineteenth Century: thousands and tens of thousands of cases. After a certain magnitude of numbers, the normal explanations of mistake, coincidence or fraud just get harder and harder to accept. One at least has to come to the conclusion that the placebo effect can make physical changes in the body, restore lost tissue, mend bone, restore sight to the blind. Having once made that admission, we are no longer in the realm empirical science can examine. We are dealing with mind-over-matter.
I mention Christian Scientists as my example because I know they keep records, and their standard of what they admit as evidence is as good as what is admitted, for example, in the Audubon Society. If I and two witnesses say we saw a new species of bird, and had a written confirmation from a doctor or other professional, don't you think Linneaus would let me name it?
The number of atheists I know who have taken the time to sit down and go through even fifty of these testimonies is zero. They are not interested. I used to read CSICOP religiously (so to speak), and none of the issues ever dealt with anything but such obvious frauds that no sensible person, theist or atheist, would have believed (and, yes, I mean Uri Geller). And Christian Scientists are hardly the largest denomination of Christianity, and hardly the only religion that makes claims that the world works the way everyone secretly suspect it might work.
Moving on, TV evangelists, again, are a different thing entirely, IMO. I don't trust them in general, to preach well, to be sincere, or to heal genuinely.
Someone this very week actually told me they knew a guy who had raised someone from the dead, and said they would tell me the story sometime. I default to believing him, because I have found him to be a man whose judgment is reliable.
You say charismatic experiences could be far more common if people sought them. What evidence is this based on?
Personal experience. I have more supernatural experiences when I seek them in my life. Those around me also have more such experiences when they seek them (with belief) than when they don't seek them at all. Even the Bible seems to suggest that those who sought miracles from Jesus were more likely to get them than those who didn't. And doesn't Paul say in Corinthians to be eager for the gifts, even as he is reprimanding the Corinthians for how they use them?
I do accept the claim : the more extraordinary the claim the more extrordinary must be the evidence.
I accept this, too, in general. Which is why I'm not actually trying to tell you that you need to or ought to accept that any miracle or charism that you only hear about is genuine. But I think you are missing a piece of the puzzle in your skepticism. Christ also taught that faith is necessary for miracles to happen. Have you ever noticed Mark 6:4-6? It actually says that Jesus could not do any miracles, with a couple exceptions, because of the lack of faith that people had. And he was the Divine Incarnate! Over and over again miracles of healing and exorcism are linked in the gospels to faith. It's ok to demand that a miracle have serious evidence before you accept as fact that it was a supernatural miracle instead of the working of God through natural means. But that's not the same thing as expecting miracles not to happen, in your own life, in the lives of those around you. Do you see the difference? Believe that God is able to and desires to give you good things, even miraculous things if that is necessary, or if that is what you want. Be bold and trusting in asking him for things.
Last ,Anna, on these points, why, or is, a prayer in an 'unknown' tongue more valuable than one in English? Is it more sincere? Does it 'rise higher', does it prove the prayer is better than the vernacular prayer? Does it prove the tongues prayer is more filled by the divine? Were the prayers of the corrinthians a better model than the prayer Jesus taught us to say?
Is the Hail Mary better than the Glory Be? Is the Rosary better than the Liturgy of Hours? If a Christian speaks only in tongues without ever praying in their own language, then I think they would be putting their spiritual life in danger. If a Christian prayed only the Rosary, without ever praying another way, I would think they would be putting their spiritual life in danger, too. Prayer should have many aspects. The Our Father that Christ taught us – I think of it as a guide, an outline, that shows different elements that we should include in our prayer. As such it has a sort of superiority over most other formulas. But if someone's prayer consisted only of praying the Our Father, then I think they'd be missing out, too.
All forms of prayer have different advantages and disadvantages. That is why we do best when we combine several that complement each other. In my experience, one of the advantages of praying in tongues is that it goes directly to the spirit, as it were. If I am in a bad mood, praying in tongues is more likely to lift my spirit than, say, rote prayers (which usually just make me feel guilty because I have such trouble concentrating on giving them any meaning). One of the disadvantages of praying in tongues (in my experience) is that it doesn't of itself actively engage the mind. This makes speaking in tongues useful for when I want to listen for God's voice, but not useful for when I want to tell him about my day. It's also not useful for increasing the sort of wisdom that we gain from reading and meditating on the Bible. I find that if I am praying for someone to be healed, or anything like that, praying in tongues sometimes helps me focus the prayer, engage more of myself in the prayer. There it is being a supplement to the mental prayer for whatever I'm praying for. (Incidentally, I think Paul points out a related thought in 1 Cor 14:14-15).
At the last judgment, will the ability to talk in tongues make some more christian than those who do not?
Will having prayed the Rosary make some more Christian than those who didn't? Will reading the Bible make some more Christian than those who never even learned to read? Good heavens, no. But just as praying the Rosary and reading the Bible can make some Christian who might not otherwise be so, praying in tongues might help someone to be Christian when the devil begins to sling his arrows at them.
It's like this, Jack. God has given us an overabundance of things to help us on our way to him. The Bible, the Church (both in the sense of the Magisterium and in the sense of the overall community), the sacraments, sacramentals, the Rosary, the Liturgy of the Hours, the Examen of Consciousness, the charisms, the many many prayers, the devotions, the Rule of St. Benedict, the apparitions, everything. Some are more important than others. Every one of them is aimed at helping us to become holy, to become one with God. Not a single one of them can be *substituted* for holiness. There's not a single one of them which guarantees or IS holiness. Holiness is loving God and your fellow man. Holiness is Alice serving Frank's needs. If we lose sight of that, and begin thinking that the “helps” are goals in and of themselves, then we have gone astray.
But at the same time, those “helps” really do help, and we suffer for it if we reject an entire category out of hand. We can't and shouldn't do all of them, and we have to use judgment to see which are most likely to benefit us. My judgment says that faith is something which is sorely, sorely lacking in American Christianity. (Sentimentalism being more common – but that's not the same as faith). And I think that you, in particular, would benefit from some level of openness to a supernatural experience; that that would open the door for God to reveal more of himself to you. I'm not sure you fathom how much God loves you, Jack.
Change last paragraph to WITHOUT Rcia. He just ask if I desire a weekday mass or 'family only' mass.
I'm in a little bit of awe, Jack. I didn't know anyone did that kind of thing. I'm so happy for you that you are getting this desire of yours, that you are becoming Catholic. You know this is the hand of God at work again, right? (I'm not saying it's supernatural... but it is God who makes good things possible). This means you will be confirmed, right? I pray that the conferral on you of the Holy Spirit will do awesome things in your life.
I hope all those catholics are going to be as nice as me, too. ;-) Seriously, though, if you get your hopes up about how nice people are going to be, you're likely to be disappointed. Instead, put your trust in God, that he will be the one to take care of you, no matter how much the people in your life fall short. And then, if and when the people in your life don't fall short, you can count that as an extra blessing and praise God for it.
God bless you Jack.
Anna
Anna. I am surprised that you use Christian Science claim as proof of miracles. Those records are not studied by scientists because they are considered useless. Keeping records of what believers say and with incredibly poor scientific validity shows nothing. The gentleman you quote cites no specifics that can be verified.Medical personel have looked at these records and find them of no value. There is almost no scientific literature on the subject because scientist cannot spend there time on such. In addition the CS records are on a small portion of cures claimed by ALL religions and to my knowledge none have ever been verified by any scientific examination.As for Lourdes, out of millions upon millions of people who have gone there for cures only about 80 have been certified by the church itself as "miracles", and I believe their criterion is no scientific explanation can be giving. This, of course, is not surprising since medical doctors will tell you that many achieve cures without the doctors knowing exactly why.
ReplyDeleteI am also surprised that your source cites Christian Science which denies almost the whole corpus of catholic doctrine.
There is No evidence that Christian Scientist live longer than Catholics or non-believers which is stagering considering CSs deny the reality of illness!!!
You argue on two levels. The scientific level that would, but there is no credible evidence, show demonstrative cures based on the rather exact criterion of accepted methods of scientist. Your 'quoter' needs to show evidence acceptable to peer review and publishable in an accepted seientific journal for his claims. The accepted scientific method is for the proposer to prove his claim, not far a blogger to prove a negative. I notice a couple of Australian priest are offering a 5,000 award to anyone who can prove a Lourdes miracle FALSE. My heavens did they skip first year logic. In rational/scientific literature you do not ask a person to prove a negative. By the way you are probable aware of the Randi Foundation which has a never claimed
award of 1 million dollars to anyone who can prove, by accepted scientific evidence any miraculous cure. It has never been claimed.
Btw, CS does not have cures because as you know they deny the ultimate reality of the physical world--an early heresy the Church had to deal with in terms of those who denied Christ's humanity. The only reason you think you are ill is because you are not thinking right. Example from CS pamphlet I saw years ago: Child accidentally cuts himself with knife; he apparently is bleeding; CS teacher says "no your not, that's just in your mind". Child looks at hand and it is not cut. Mary Baker Eddy did not understand Plato, nor Berkeley, the great idealist as opposed to materialist. An idealist argues that everthing is really just mind. It has its defenders today. A very complicated arument can be made for idealism. Dr. Johnson once kicked a rock and said "Thus Berkeley, I refute thee."
Now Anna, I am quite certain there is no recognizable scientific evidence for miaraculous cures. But your having 'experiences' is an entirely different matter. You are an honest person; obviously an intelligent person. You say you have experienced 'gifts'. Now to start with there is nothing I could say that would change your view. Nor should it. Basically we have to follow our own experience. It is helpful to you and you believe it would be helpful for me. To me that is what you are saying and you believe somewhat like Newman who once wrote: I am as certain of the existence of God as I am of my own existence.
Anna, I believe we both understand, if not agree with, the others point of view. You have been instructive to me in many ways. But I would like for you to comment on the 'love' passage in 1Cor. What does it mean to you and how do you try to follow it. I've given you one: your time and energy with me. But what is your feeling as to the time spent on the 'gifts' as compared to the 'love' verses. I have always had a slight irritation over the use of the 'love' passage because in English we have only one word for love as opposed to the Greeks three. This leads to confusion. As Joseph Wood Krutch once put it 'Eros is sweating palm to palm and has nothing to do with love of others and love of God.'
So is it possible that seeking the 'gifts' may distract from other Christian virtues? I am not writing of you, but just in general. Of course, they should be in balance I know you say and practice. But does not Paul say love is the greatest gift, surpassing all others. What is relation to the end of Matthew[those on my right and those on my left at the last judgement) and certain Pauline teaching about 'faith', the necessary element in salvation. Oh, I'm aware that the theologians have fused these to show no contradiction, but what is your take?
You might be interested to know I talked to Robert on the phone yesterday about one of his rental properties. He ask about you, but is still boiling about the ugly e-mail mentioned above.His quote: I don't give a damn what Anna believes, but she ACTS like a christian.
Incidentally, this is a good compliment coming from Robert. Some time I'll print up the e-mail he sent to Mike so you can see a little more about my cousin Bob. Jack
Anna, are you still there? Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteHi. I'm sorry I took so long to respond. I'm definitely still here. Just busy with life, and it took me awhile to write out all I wanted to say. (I did it in several segments, saving it in a word editor as I went). Even right now, I decided to finish this, but my conscience is prodding me, suggesting that maybe I should have stopped about an hour ago so that I could have finished washing the dishes and started cooking the dinner I had planned. But who wants to cook or clean when I could be writing about religion? :)
I don't know that much about Christian Science beliefs, aside from a general impression that some of their beliefs are pretty strange. The point of the quote had nothing to do with their doctrines. The point of the quote was to show that there may be more evidence in favor of miracles than you realize. Mr. Wright points out that the miracles the CS put into its magazine have as much evidence in favor of them as would be required to claim seeing a new species in the Audubon Society. Combining this with the sheer volume of miracles reported, and that being only the ones among the CS – if you think about all the miracles reported by anyone, even if a good percentage of them are fake, that still leaves a lot of genuine miracles going on.
As with most things in life, Jack, this is not about proof. Jesus himself tells us that someone rising from the dead cannot convince someone who will not be convinced (Luke 16:31). This is about evidence, about a line of reasoning with which I hope to convince you that miracles are more common than you currently believe. And the reason I want to convince you of this is because I believe that if you open yourself up to the possibility of the supernatural in your own life, that your spiritual life will be richer because of it.
Now let me ask you what it would take for a miracle to be scientifically verified. The Randi Foundation offer, as it currently stands, would need more than a single verifiable healing. It would accept only an actual ability – something which could be repeated under laboratory conditions for statistical evidence. The charism of healing depends on God, and God heals who and when and where he wants to; he cannot be compelled to heal in a laboratory, because he is not a force of nature.
In general, the same is true of all miracles. Each and every supernatural occurrence is a gift from God, given for someone's benefit. Science examines phenomena which are repeatable, to discover the laws of nature. By definition, the supernatural is outside the limits of nature, and therefore science cannot rule on its validity. There is no test which can prove or disprove that a healing was supernatural instead of natural, because no medical doctor can know everything about the natural workings of the body. They can only testify that a healing is beyond what they expected, or not. The evidence with which a person must choose to believe that a miracle happened is the same sort of evidence (or lack thereof) with which a judge or jury must decide whether a woman was killed by her husband or by the neighbor: look at the testimonies of the people involved, the reliability of the witnesses, etc. Science may play a role (X-rays showing cancer is gone or still present, for example), but it is not the only or the most important role.
The other barrier to scientific publication of miracles is the sheer skepticism on the part of scientists. Not all scientists are skeptics, but in order to make it into peer-reviewed magazines, a miracle would have to pass by enough scientists that it is highly likely to be shot down by people who simply do not believe that such a thing is possible in the first place, even if the evidence in favor of it was otherwise reasonable.
Basically we have to follow our own experience. It is helpful to you and you believe it would be helpful for me.
I don't care whether you speak in tongues. I doubt that particular gift would benefit you much. I do think witnessing a healing or being healed yourself in a very visible way would benefit you. I think what I want for you is mostly just for you to have some sort of experience of God, something that will draw you into a greater love for him. It could be a healing, it could be just a direct experience, it could be most anything. But it doesn't seem likely to me to happen if you don't have some level of faith or at least openness to the possibility. So that's where I'm coming from. :)
But I would like for you to comment on the 'love' passage in 1Cor. What does it mean to you and how do you try to follow it. I've given you one: your time and energy with me.
What does it mean to me? It's a hymn, and ode, to love. It's further testimony to add to Matthew 22:36-37, that love is really “what it's all about”. It's the centerpiece of existence, the ultimate goal of the Christian life, and the nature of God.
How do I try to follow it? Good question. You mention my time and energy with you. In a sense, this is right, because I do try to be polite and charitable in my interactions online. But, really, this is not difficult for me. I enjoy talking to you and you don't say thing which make me angry; this makes it easy for me to talk to you. For me, it's not a real test of my ability to love. What does test me, what I find difficult, is things like not eating too much food, making myself keep the apartment clean, cooking healthy meals for my family, and giving enough attention to my kids when all I want to do is be on the computer. So when I do those things, that is when I feel like I am loving the way I should. Praying for people is also something I try to do out of love (I may be a bit intermittent with it).
But what is your feeling as to the time spent on the 'gifts' as compared to the 'love' verses.
That depends on the person. I do often enough feel that Charismatics spend too much time on the gifts and not enough time or thought on what the gifts are supposed to be directing us towards. But I feel that most non-charismatics ignore the gifts passage completely (as it relates to their own life), which is not the best route either. The better way is to have the gifts and direct them to building up love. Gifts without love is, as Paul points out, useless. Love without gifts is still love. But gifts, if used in love, can make love stronger.
Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' “The Four Loves”? He has some insightful things to say - not on the topic of gifts, but about the benefits and dangers of love. I mention this because he categorizes the different loves according to the Greek names for them, and you mentioned the Greek names. I don't suppose I would go so far as to say that Eros has nothing at all to do with Christian love, but as C.S. Lewis has it, Christian love is something you put on over the natural loves, to bring out the best in them.
So is it possible that seeking the 'gifts' may distract from other Christian virtues?
Yes. But to me, this is like saying it is possible that reading the Bible may distract from Christian virtues. It's true. Reading the Bible can lead people astray, caught up in their own erroneous translations. Seeking the gifts can lead people astray, caught up in the emotions instead of the end goal. (And neither reading the Bible nor seeking the gifts are themselves virtues.) But the dangers are not great enough to make me think that people ought not to read the Bible or seek the gifts. Both offer benefits that outstrip the dangers. So I would encourage people to both read the Bible and seek the gifts, but to examine themselves while they do so, to keep an eye out for when they might be neglecting the virtues.
Of course, they should be in balance I know you say and practice. But does not Paul say love is the greatest gift, surpassing all others.
How can I articulate the difference? It's not that gifts and love have to be balanced against each other in practice. It's that gifts have to be used to express love. The gifts are part of the “raw material” of life. They can be used in love to build something good that will last, or they can be used without love to build something of straw that will be washed away. That's why they aren't themselves virtues. The virtues – temperance, fortitude, patience, etc. - are all aspects of love. You can't be too patient or too brave. You can be unwise in your practice of patience or bravery, but that is not the same thing as being too patient or too brave; the ideal is still to practice patience and bravery and all other virtues 100% of the time. Whereas, the ideal is NOT to practice gifts 100% of the time. This is why I call them the “raw material” of life rather than the virtues which are the end goal of life. Gifts are some of the many different kinds of stones with which we build the house we are to live in; the overall beauty of the house is determined not by any one stone in particular, but in how the stones fit together; whether the pattern they form is one of virtue and love, or whether the pattern is one deficient in virtue and love.
What is relation to the end of Matthew[those on my right and those on my left at the last judgement) and certain Pauline teaching about 'faith', the necessary element in salvation. Oh, I'm aware that the theologians have fused these to show no contradiction, but what is your take?
When I read Romans, which is where Paul does the most talking about the necessity of faith, I see “faith” contrasted always to the Mosaic Law. There's a book called Introduction to Christianity, written by Pope Benedict before he was pope. (I recommend the book, by the way). In it, Ratzinger describes the fundamental choice of life as a turning away from oneself and towards God. Jesus calls this “loving God with all your heart and mind and soul and loving your neighbor as yourself”. Paul calls this “faith”, because for him, that was what it was. He had zeal for the Law, Jesus struck him blind, and that led him to God, to righteousness, to salvation. His experience of conversion had faith in Jesus as the essential element, because that was the element that was missing for him. So for him, “faith” is inseparable from “conversion”.
Because of this, “faith” for him means so much more than just an intellectual assent to a proposition about God or Jesus. “Faith” is the turning of yourself towards God, the submission of your whole life to his authority (see Romans 10:2-4). There are several places in Romans where it is clear that Paul thinks you have to practice what you preach: the whole of chapters 1 and 2 are a tirade against Gentiles and Jews thinking knowledge of God can be sufficient without practice of virtue. Romans 8:12-14 also speaks to the necessity of turning away from sin. In Romans 13:8-10, he confirms that “Love is the fulfillment of the law.” As far as I can tell, Paul thinks faith is so necessary for salvation precisely because he thinks that faith is necessary for practice of virtue/holiness.
So for Paul, faith is the same as conversion, which leads to holiness. Other people may describe conversion differently, because what they may have been most lacking may have been something other than belief in Jesus. In the parable of the goats and the sheep, Jesus makes it clear that a true conversion, a true turning towards God, is incompatible with not loving people. (John, too, picks up this theme quite a bit. See 1 John 2:9, for example).
Eldredge writes, in his Waking the Dead book, (to paraphrase), that the Bible is a bunch of stories of people “walking with God”. Instead of illustrating principles, it is a description of what it looks like to walk with God in various situations: in grieving, in war, in marriage, in dying, in celebrating, in praying, etc. My own take on the “what does it take to be saved” question is similar: John, Paul, Peter, and everyone else describe for us what it looks like when someone takes the path towards life and what it looks like when someone doesn't. No description (faith, love, baptism, Spirit, etc.) can be taken out of the context of all the other descriptions.
I am glad Robert thinks I act like a Christian. I know myself well enough to know that that is certainly not always the case. But I'm glad to know it sometimes is. And I'm sorry you got such a negative email from the other guy.
Anna, some good thoughts but a few demeures{sp?}. The Randi offer does not require repeatedbility. Only some type of proof that can be analyzed and rule out natural causes.I follow this fairly closely and as of this time there is to my knowledge no 'proof' of supernatural healing. But dare I restate a point you make. Miracles may come through an intermediary, as you an others have spoken to in Frank's case and I might speak in intimations I have at times.
ReplyDeleteNewman again: True belief is not just intellectual assent, but a willingness to ACT on that belief. Of course we cannot prove Jesus rose from the dead, but true Christians believe it to the extent they are willing to act on such a belief.
You puzzle me a little when you mix "miracles" and the "supernatural".A miracle is obviously the breaking of a natural law and can be examined by scientific means. The supernatural, on the other hand, is not subject to the probes of science and is a matter of belief--do you believe enough to act on it.
Anna, a personal question: Do you take your children to a doctor when they are ill? Does that show a lack of faith on your part?
Of course, a person can believe without natural proof.Take the "real presence". A chemical analysis ot the wine will show it to be only fermented grapes.So we might say a miracle has not occured. But we act, because we believe something supernatural has happened.If miracles are common would it not seem reasonable that the wine should be real blood?
I believe then that the supernatural acts through the natural. Christ WAS a man.But that does not rule out the supernatural acting through a human.
Anna, I have said many times before that nothing is absolute. I cannot prove as many philosophers have said that there is anything outside my own mind. But I am sure there is. I cannot prove there is free will because every effect has a cause ad infinitum. But I am certain as I sit here that I can get up at 6 or 7 tomorrow. I have a choice.
I do not believe Christian beliefs are ABSOLUTELY certain.But I believe enough to act as if they were true. That is the test.
So my point is how to we act? The atheist/agnostic on the whole probably acts as well as we do.But why should he? Because he recognizes a right and a wrong which clearly points to something outside us. He just does not see it.
Alice and I saw the Burn's documentary "The War." Alice was greatly moved. I think she saw John and Frank in each killed and wounded soldier. I may have failed with John, but she was granted a second chance with Frank.Maybe there is meaning here, because watching her take care of Frank, and the whole situation, makes me believe there is something more. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteFrom the Randi website: “1. This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers and/or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result.
2.Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts or records of previous events are not accepted nor considered.”
To me, this says that a single miraculous healing could never pass the Randi test, even if you could prove it was miraculous. The million-dollar prize would require someone to have an ability to heal which they could employ both for the preliminary test and, if they passed that, again for the “real” test.
As for Newman's quote, I like that. He says (much more concisely) what I was trying to say about Paul's view of “faith”. What kind of faith do you feel you have in Jesus? What does it mean for you, to act on a belief in Jesus?
You are puzzled by my mixing of miracles and the supernatural; I am puzzled by your distinction between them. :) God made the natural laws, but he is not limited by them. If he does something which goes beyond the natural laws, does that break them? Which is it, a miracle or a supernatural event? But maybe I get your point. The thing with Frank and the phone call was the work of God (supernatural) but through natural means (non-miraculous). Is that what you meant?
Yes, I take my children to the doctor when they are ill. But then again, I don't have that much faith. I ought to; I want to; but most of the time, I don't have the kind of faith that it takes to work miracles. Anyhow, no, I don't see taking the kids to the doctor as a sign of a lack of faith. Doctors have a noble role in trying to heal people; many times, God wants to accomplish his works (in this case, healing) through people. But while we ought to go to the doctor, we also ought to have faith that God will heal us and be open to the possibility that it will happen miraculously, yes?
Do you read at all? I think this post is highly relevant to the discussion on the Eucharist and faith. Read that first, and then the rest of what I say might make more sense.
If miracles are common would it not seem reasonable that the wine should be real blood?
Miracles are common; the wine is real blood. :) But you and I have different ideas of what it means for something to be “real blood”. For you, blood is defined by the scientific examination of it: hemoglobin, blood type, etc. For me, blood is defined by the experience of blood – not the experience by someone else, but by the person whose blood it is.
Again, let me point out that I'm not trying to say that miracles ARE common, but rather that they OUGHT to be common. That, in fact, they are uncommon only because (or to the extent that) we lack faith that they will happen.
So my point is how to we act? The atheist/agnostic on the whole probably acts as well as we do.But why should he? Because he recognizes a right and a wrong which clearly points to something outside us. He just does not see it.
Yes and no. All men have the potential to act according to the natural law, and some atheists do act better than some Christians. But they have fewer things to help them resist the temptation to sin. And the best they will generally do is to live a sort of basic morality. A Christian is called to act with a divine love: if you read all of Matthew 5, but especially verse 17 and verses 43-48, you can see that we are being called to something higher. The cultivation of virtue is something we all must do; the habits of restraining our disordered desires and acting according to well-formed consciences requires daily commitment. To my mind, the best way to grow in virtue is to meditate on the Scriptures (especially the New Testament) and examine our conscience (such as with the Examen) on a daily basis and to attend the Sacraments regularly. This won't force us to grow in virtue or act better, but I think it affects our heart, gives us wisdom and helps us to see the right path (which is the first step to actually following that path).
Anything that strengthens us to grow towards perfection, that helps us to commit ourselves to continually higher levels of love and service, is a good thing. Virtue isn't easy, so anything that helps us to actually DO what we ought to do should be taken advantage of.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, thanks again for your comments.
ReplyDeleteRandi wrote a whole book on 'faith healing' called, I believe, "The Faith Healers".
as you know the saying in science is "Anecdotes are not evidence." I tell you (being silly)"I saw an elephant fly"; is that any type of evidence?. So let's say you gather 100 devoted christians together and all pray for a miracle. Randi would accept this test. This has been tested. Anna, you seem to be saying there is no way to verify a miracle. But does that not make it a meaningless statement for anyone but the maker of the statement. Again any statement which you cannot design a test for its verifiability makes no sense.Of course, assuming an all powerful god any natural law might be broken, but the point is we would need to see if the natural law was broken and that gets back to some type of logical analysis.
Your statement about the doctors puzzles me. Certainly you are not saying that the thousands of deaths of children caused by parents who, on religious grounds, refuse medical assistance because 'faith' will heal them should be praised? I'm not sure you are stating as clearly as you can what you are trying to say?
On the wine issue, this does not bother me. The church explains this on the Greek doctrine of 'accident' and 'substance'as adopted expecially by the scholastics. I have no problem with the "real presence": fermented grapes are the 'accident' and blood is the 'substance.Your explanation puzzles me; my explanation shows a difference between the supernatural and a miracle.
My point about the atheist/agnostic was simply that they recognize there is a difference between right and wrong but are shaky why they should recognize this in a pure materialistic world? Again Newman.
Anna, you probably think I' ve been drinking but to be serious what is your reaction to Zola on Lourdes: "I see the crutches but where are the artificial limbs?"
Anna, here are 2 'supernaturals'both operating through the natural. My experience and the experience of my nephew's son and the other two boys. Incidentally, the young men have gotten some good advice from Liam, but he is so busy now.Hope he is back soon.They need some help/advice.
Most of all, hope you are back soon!! Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteThe only way to truly verify a miracle is to rule out every single possible natural explanation. Since there is no way for us to KNOW every possible natural explanation, then yes, there is no way to absolutely prove that a miracle happened. Instead, what can happen is that we rule out the * likely * natural explanations. Each individual will have their own evaluation of how likely a natural explanation is. Someone who is skeptical of the miraculous can keep finding increasingly unlikely natural explanations to explain why something happened. How far to go in looking for alternate explanations before you pass over from likely or reasonable into unreasonable – well, that's something each person judges for himself.
Again any statement which you cannot design a test for its verifiability makes no sense.
God exists. Can you design a test for this statement's verifiability? Miracles, being acts of God, are as untestable or testable as he himself is.
Certainly you are not saying that the thousands of deaths of children caused by parents who, on religious grounds, refuse medical assistance because 'faith' will heal them should be praised?
No, I was saying the opposite. That parents SHOULD take their children to the doctor. That one of the reasons parents should do this is because often God will work THROUGH the doctor to bring healing to the child. (Natural means for a supernatural event, yes?) But I would * also * encourage the parent to pray confidently for God to heal their child, and to be open to the possibility that he will heal them miraculously. As Sirach (38:9-14) writes...
“My child, when you are ill, do not rebel, but pray to the Lord and he will heal you. Renounce your faults, keep your hands unsoiled, and cleanse your heart from all sin. Offer incense and a memorial of fine flour, make as rich an offering as you can afford. Then let the doctor take over – the Lord created him too – do not let him leave you, for you need him. There are times when good health depends on doctors. For they, in their turn, will pray the Lord to grant them the grace to relieve and to heal, and so prolong your life.”
I don't really understand what Zola's comment on Lourdes means. He is expecting someone with an artificial limb to come to Lourdes? He is saying that no limbs have ever been regrown there, only healings that can't be seen (and therefore are in doubt)?
If the young men want help/advice from me, I offer whatever help I might provide. If they would rather talk to a guy, I understand that too.
God bless,
Anna
Anna Jack shoed me your offer to help answer question.
ReplyDeletesome of the questions would be embarasing but we appreciate you offering to help.We got to be honest. Half the time we can't follow what you are arguing about. I think you know our story. Jack thinks its amazing but can't call it a miracal. Somplace Jack told you Alice checked me two times a night when they were taking care of me. She always said dont worry it will be all right. I worried about the medical bill, she said the insurance would pay it. I just found out last week that Jack and Alice paid it all, over 8000 dollars.I also worried about the money i lost not working. But also last week I found out they put in my account all the money I lost plus 500 more. Total 2500. Maybe trying to help take her sons place has been a little help. Her son was totaly non athletic, smart as hell. The worlds' nicest guy. I am a athlete and not very smart, but both she and Jack treat me with the greatest respect. Both of them were crused by the sudden death of John, but expecially Alice. I hope I help a little bit.I read the part about my crying, I did because I coul'nt believe anyone could do what they did for someone who was not even related to them. Jack has gone to bed but told me to tell you he will reply tomorrow.He really looks forward to your e-mail. Frank
Anna I just reread this and said something that sounds bad. When I said I did not understand what your argument was I meant both of you. In fact------Jack do'nt kill me---I understand Anna better than you. Jack is heavy in philosphy which can be hard to follow. Frank
ReplyDeleteAnna, I'm going to ramble a bit.
ReplyDeleteDavid Hume, the philosopher of modern science, wrote in the 18tth century: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish".Would you accept this statement as valid? I think this is a fair statement of my view. This is Not to say that a miracle could not occur, but the standard must be very, very high.
Leaving that Newman said in the 19th century (The Grammar of Assent)that a confluence of probabilities can lead to certainty.
Now to get personal. My experience in my walk to catholicism is between these two. Over the last few years what might be described as a "confluence of probabilities" has occured to make me believe, but not to the point of certainty.
The finding of 'liberal' catholic blogs has shown me that there are many who do not simply walk in lockstep with the church on every issue.There is room for disagreement.
Vatican 2 is one of the great hopes for religion. The reaction against it, to me, is an effort to go the simple way of nostalgia. Back to blind belief, in some cases superstition, an acceptance of the universal yearning for a past 'golden age', free of problems.
The situation of Alice and me with the three boys.Probably the biggest 'miracle'was that these 3 from a town of 5000 with a catholic hard to find should attend church with Alice and find not what they thought,robes, incense,a strange language, no attention to the Bible, but find instead a religion that uplifted them. Remember, these are not scholars, had no real interest in religion,and could in no way be called 'model''young men.
And then the accident where they all saw through Alice what kindnesss, and dare I say love, really can be. No Frank cannot replace John, but the whole situation took Alice, to a small degree, yes, from her hurt by giving her a chance to 'wash the feet' of someone who was also hurting.
And for me ,Anna, your hanging in there with a "difficult case" after I apparently "p-----" off some of the other bloggers because of my possible rudeness and, I think in a couple of cases, their unwillinngness to 'exchange' with a Humean.
A couple of other notes. You saw Frank's comment. I saw it just before I started this post.
I still think the church is to oh, hum about the sex crisis. The comment from the Cardinal to the effect 'well, an isolated case, it doesn't mean much'shocked me. Did it you? Especially considering the monsignor's position. Kind of like having a spy in the Whitehouse!!!
Nov. 8 I will "walk" into the church.Thanks for your support on my little struggle over RCIA.
You and I are probably further apart theologically than any two bloggers. But you have been a great help. Now don't run off an become a Christian Scientist, at least until I'm "included." Thanks. Jack
Frank,
ReplyDeleteIf you have any not-embarrassing questions, feel free to ask me them. Sometimes I can say things without sounding all philosophical-like. :)
Being smart is fun, but it's not what life is about. There's this guy that wrote something about this topic: click here to read it. He basically says that being smart is a good thing, but what really matters is whether what you do is good. And the dumbest folk on earth can be good as easily as the smartest.
This reminds me of what you say about Jack and Alice. I think you respect Jack for being smart, but I bet it means a lot more to you the way the two of them helped you.
It's really, really cool the way they helped you out, Frank. You got some treasures there. Hang onto them.
You said:
When I said I did not understand what your argument was I meant both of you. In fact------Jack do'nt kill me---I understand Anna better than you.
It didn't sound bad when you said that. I don't expect everyone to get (or care about) the things that Jack and I have been talking about. If you and Jack started talking about baseball, I probably wouldn't get (or care about) most of what you guys said. :) And the “Jack don't kill me” - that really cracked me up.
God bless you Frank.
Anna
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI would technically agree with Hume, that a testimony does not establish a miracle unless its falsehood is even less likely than a miracle. But I think I have a much higher opinion of testimonies and a much lower bar for the likelihood of a miracle than you do.
You say you believe, but not with certainty. Do you want to be certain or are you comfortable with a degree of uncertainty?
There are certainly lots of disagreements in the Church; you certainly won't stand out in that sense (at least not on a wide level; your parish might be more one-minded about any topic than the wider church – I don't know). I think, though, that our disagreements are often a source of evil in the church, not something good about it. I would have all Christians agree on the same doctrines, if I could.
The reaction against Vatican II may sometimes be a sort of nostalgia for a problem-free age that never existed. But what I see the most among conservatives is a longing for formality in worship, for meaning, and for absolutes. These are things that were characteristic of the pre-Vatican II church but which are harder to find these days.
About the sex crisis: The priests who did it did grave evil. The bishops who covered it up neglected their obligation to care for the flock – very grievously. Once the scandal went public, the bishops were forced to improve their responses somewhat. The measures that they are taking to make sure no further abuse happens, the one-strike policy: I approve of that. I also approve when bishops who are innocent, who had nothing to do with moving abusers around, when they apologize on behalf of the Church. There remains a lot of room for improvement, though. None of the bishops who were guilty have (to my knowledge) admitted what they did and tried to make it right. Cardinal Mahony's decision to fork over $660 million: I don't object to Catholics being held responsible for paying the victims, but it seems like he did it just to put off any openness about how he handled abusive priests. That kind of defensiveness just makes the whole thing worse.
I'm not sure which Cardinal said it was an isolated case, but that would offend me. Even if you think it's a pretty small percentage of priests who have abused, that adds up to a lot of kids who have been raped or sodomized and continue to suffer the effects of that now. I think that, as a Church, our focus on the crisis needs to be in making sure it doesn't happen again and in helping the victims heal. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the top priorities for most people.
Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) is a group that is trying to help find ways for us to improve the way we do things. Many conservatives have sort of black-listed this group because the founders are mostly people who are very liberal Catholics; I think this attitude on the part of conservatives makes it harder for VOTF to accomplish real good. I would rather conservatives join VOTF and work together with liberals to bring about good change. I've heard that VOTF has tried a “Healing Service” where victims of abuse can talk to a priest or other Catholic, tell them about what happened, and the other person will apologize on behalf of the Church. Reportedly, this can be a very powerful thing for healing. I think we ought to be doing more things along those lines.
You and I are probably further apart theologically than any two bloggers.
That's funny, Jack. I may be much more conservative than you, but I know people who are way more conservative than I am, too. :) And don't worry, I'm not in the least bit of danger of becoming a Christian Scientist.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, just a very quick response. Will give more detail later.
ReplyDeleteI was not talking about the overall priest scandal, but the one yesterday. A monsignor who was on a vatican committee was caught on video making a sexual advance on a young boy/man. The committee he was on was to investigate cases of sexual misconduct of priest/clergy. He has been suspended, but what made me mad was the oh,hum attitide of a cardinal in charge of this work.These are not his words, but his implication was 'what's the big deal.' Do you see my reference to a "spy in the Whitehouse." This priest was on the committee to check sexual abuse and he was doing it himself!!!
Frank will really appreciate your taking time for him. I do always emphsize it's better to be good than smart. Maybe I shouldn't have said they were not "model" young men. But you live in a small town and your a foorball/basketball "hero", and girls chase you , you have a lot of temptations, and who can say we always win out over them. They are fine young men, but they will be even better as the years go by. Jack
Anna, I'm storing up replies. But a fast question. Frank, Glenn, and Brett had gotten some good advice from another blogger, but that blogger is busy and hasn't responded to them. Do you have a recommendation? I hate to answer their questions too much because of my rather 'radical' tendencies. Maybe they could ask you, but only if your husband gave permission and screened the questions.Some of the questions might be tough. But an easy one to start with.As you know young men, well all men, at times talk of sex; I believe you said that once. So here is a sample question from the three.
ReplyDelete'Because of what people have said and what we hear about we are afraid to ask personal questions of a priest about you know what.The priest we know seem very nice and helpful, but on this subject we are afraid.'
This is Jack. I framed their question very properly I hope. Let me know. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteI don't have the time for a full answer, but let me try to address the guys' question quickly.
It's a good idea for Frank, Glenn, and Brett to find someone they are comfortable talking to. If they aren't comfortable with the priests, look at the other men in the parish. Are there any deacons? Permanent deacons are allowed to be married, so they could be a good choice. If there are any male RCIA teachers, that might be another good source, although there's no guarantee that RCIA teachers will be good at dealing with pastoral questions.
If there's no deacons or male RCIA teachers in your parish or whatever parish is by where they live, then you might see if there are any at other parishes in your neighborhood.
Another option is just to look around at the parish community; who do you know that they would likely be comfortable talking to, and who might be able to say something helpful to them? Think about whether they would be more comfortable talking to an older man or younger man, a married man or single, and then see if there's anyone that might fit.
I'm sensing that their questions are probably more pastoral than doctrinal, so I wouldn't think they would have to look for someone who has any particular education or knowledge about doctrine, just someone who maybe has some experience and who they're comfortable with and who you trust to give reasonable advice.
Got to go before dinner burns. :)
Anna
Hello Anna, I hope this gets to you, I am watching Jack and Alice dog today, they are out of town for a test today. They said it was fine for me to write you. I kind of felt funny telling about my crying when they took care of me, I tried to hide it but they saw what was going on. It was not from hurting but that they were so kind that made me cry. About being catholic. I have to be honest the first time we went to church with Alice we were curios, we had heard it was dark and misterious and went to look. When they came down the ayle they were singing a hynm we knew. The church was big and very nice. The service was in english, we were so dumb we thought it was going to be in latin; they read from the bible and we had heard that catholics did not pay much attention to the bible. The people were so nice and the priests. After the service we had coffee and drinks with the people. They didnt' ask embarrassing questions. You may think this is funy but before we went that day we ask alice what to wear, she said what you have on. That was so different. My family is babtist but they were glad I went. They want me to go to church.They are very pleased I am going to join a church.
ReplyDeleteYou know the story of my feet getting hurt. Alice says do'nt worry about how the priest knew.I know there is a lot of discusion about going back to latin. We vote very strong for english, its so clear to us. Jack says you went to church to see a show and found a religion. Sincerly Frank. Excuse my poor writing.
Hello Frank,
ReplyDeleteThere's this group I meet with every week, that I call my "Catechism" group. We're reading the new Catechism that the United States bishops put out. (It's way easier to read than the formal Catechism, but still heavy reading). Anyhow, one of the guys in this group is going through RCIA to become Catholic. He's 33, and his life has been pretty tough so far. Last night when our group met, he said that he was learning that it's ok for a man to cry. He said it's hard for him to learn this - his dad basically taught him to hold everything in or channel his feelings elsewhere.
I think this guy is right; that there are times when it's right for men to cry. And Frank, when people are being as good to you as Jack and Alice were - that sounds to me like an awfully good reason to cry.
That's funny what you were expecting the Catholic church to be like. I'm not surprised, really; I've heard some fundamentalist Christians telling people much worse things about Catholics than the ideas you had. I'm so glad you had a positive experience when you went with Alice. I've heard other people say they didn't have good experiences (they thought everyone was staring at them, or people weren't friendly enough, or something), and that drove them away. So it's good to hear when things go right.
Did you think it was cool that you could go to church in what you were wearing at the time? It sounds to me like you thought it was great being accepted just as you are, and I get that. I hear all sorts of opinions from Catholics about what should be worn to Mass. The parish I go to now, people dress pretty casual. Jeans and T-shirt are common enough. Others think that, if you would dress up to meet the President, then you should dress up to meet God (at church). I'm never quite sure what I think of that idea. But I usually go with jeans and as nice of a shirt as I can find that's clean, and no one at church has ever made me feel underdressed or unwelcome; I think that's important in a church.
Alice is right to not worry about how the priest knew about your foot. What's important is that God was working to provide you with what you needed, out of love for you; how He chose to do that doesn't really matter.
About going back to Latin: it's true that some people want us to go back to Latin. But really, I would guess 98% of Catholics are much happier with things in the language they understand, so I really, really don't think there's going to be a big change back to Latin in our lifetimes. (There are some Latin Masses said; most big cities will have one or a couple Latin Masses somewhere, I think, for those who really like it).
You know, the only reason that the Church first started to do Masses in Latin was because Latin was the language that all the people in the Roman empire spoke. Greek was the language that "educated" people back then spoke; the church chose to do Mass in Latin so that everyone, not just the educated, could understand. So when the Church decided to switch away from Latin into English (and other countries' spoken languages), it was kind of just updating itself, doing the same thing it had done before: switching the language so everyone could understand. So I think this change will stick, and we won't go back to having one universal language for Mass unless everyone on the planet starts speaking the same language. That's my take on it, anyhow.
If you have doctrinal questions about sexual issues, I might be able to help answer them. If you have practical questions - if you need advice - I'm probably not the right person to ask. My advice mostly boils down to don't have sex with someone you're not married to. :) As for stuff that happened in the past, confess it to the priest if you know it was wrong. If that's hard to do, if it's uncomfortable, remember they're obligated to never ever tell anyone anything they hear in confession. If you'd be more comfortable going to a priest in a parish that's all the way across town so you'll never see them again, then do that.
And, if you want to be married, then pray to God to send you a wife. (My husband did, and God sent him me.) :)
Anyhow, that's about all the advice I can think of. If you need more, look around when you're at church and see who you would be comfortable talking to about that kind of thing. It's hard to ask for help, but it's better than doing nothing.
God bless,
Anna
Jack,
ReplyDelete"I was not talking about the overall priest scandal, but the one yesterday."
I hadn't heard about that. (I don't really keep up with the news). I finally found some online references to the story, but they don't mention a cardinal saying anything, just what the guy himself said in defense. I don't really know what to make of the whole thing: he says he was "going undercover", and that he really believes there's a Satanist plot to draw priests towards homosexuality or something. Sounds weird to me.
However, as far as I can tell, the guy he was caught approaching wasn't a minor, so I'm not sure why it would be considered abuse, even assuming he was lying about the "undercover" thing. I thought the scandal was over him being gay, not him being a pedophile?
Hello, we do'nt were jeans to church. A lot of people do,we wore khaki??pants and open neck shirts with nice sweaters which by the way Jack and Alice got for us. I am glad you did not laugh at my crying. Your expainations are very clear. I know my writing is still bad but you should have seen it a year ago. Maybe he told you but Jack and Alice son in law went from methidist to catholic becuase he felt the people were more friendly. J and A took us to a real fancy meeting at a rich catholic condo.The people were super nice. Thank you for understanding about the crying. Frank
ReplyDeleteAnna. This is Jack. Frank is still here and he tells me to thank you for you response. He doesn't think his comment about jeans was clear. He thinks it's fine to wear jeans to church, but Alice is so proud of these boys she wants them to dress as he described. She's kind of a clothes horse.
ReplyDeleteThe story about the priest at the reported by Catholic World News , I think they call it. The story said the priest made improper advances to the young man/man and that the priest would be disciplined. When I saw it on TV the translation said 'I am a homosexual and there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex' and some other things I did not catch. They gave the priest's explanation and the TV studio crew could be heard laughing. The story in our local paper quoted a cardinal as saying something to the effect that the priest would be disciplined, but such cases are rare. It also said he was on the committee to check sexual abuse allegations.The comments by readers on Catholic World News were very cynical.
Frank will see this comment of mine and I want to say he really appreciated your comments about his crying. Remember he was 21 when this happened, and 21 year old 'men' should not cry. Even today he is sensitive about this, but your comments made him feel better. He also really liked your explanation about Latin at the mass.All three really like to understand what they are hearing without having to follow it in a book. Be back soon. Jack
I am still and J and C though the next few days, they say its fine if I e-mail you. This is not real important, but Jacks father die when he was 16. His father made good money as school admisintrator.When he died Jack got a school job as a jantor to help out as he went to school. One night he cut his hand bad at work and went to the emercency room. The nurse said o, your hands are so dirty, they were because he had been working. He told me this last year and how embarased and mad he was.I think he might have been remembreing that when he told nurse off who told me your feet are so dirty.I guess their is no point in this story, but maybe it shows how people remeembreing things and how long being put down is in our minds. Thanks to you again. Thanks for not putting me down. Frank
ReplyDeleteFrank,
ReplyDeleteWell, if you wear khaki's to Mass, then you are probably better dressed than I usually am. :) I can understand feeling embarrassed about crying. Sometimes I get in a mood where I cry at the drop of a hat. I'll read something in a book, or see something on TV, or watch my kids for a moment, and all of a sudden I'll be all choked up over nothing and feeling silly about it. (And I cry at sad movies all the time). My husband doesn't cry like me, but occasionally a good movie will bring a tear to his eye, and then I feel better about my own tears.
That makes sense about Jack and the nurse from when he was young. Looking down on someone because they are dirty is a failure of Christian charity; it's a far cry from the respect that Jesus treated everyone with. I can see how a bad experience with that in his childhood would make him more sensitive to it as an adult.
Jack,
I guess I don't really know what to make of the Vatican official scandal. I don't want to assume the worst about him without being in a position to know him personally. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, so I'm not willing to conclude from the news reports that his story is false, even though it seems the simpler explanation is definitely that he is, in fact, gay. Does that make sense?
I see what you're saying on the Monsignor. You probably did not see the Cardinal's statement which 'ticked' me off more. Maybe further details will come out later.
ReplyDeleteFrank has gone back to school. What you say really means a lot to him. The crying thing was really big for him and you have really helped. Also not making any comments about his writing is important to him. His English teacher gives 50 per cent on does it communicate i,e. can the person who reads it tell what you are writing. He scores high on this. 25 per cent on spelling, punctuation etc. He needs to improve on this. And 25 per cent on style-sentence variety, syntax etc. He does average on that.Please keep in contact with both of us. We both think you are a great friend.
ESPECIALLY, since we saw on your blog that you were not having a good time. Corny: But when it rains it pours. You took time to comment to us, which was certainly something special to us. Jack and Frank
Jack,
ReplyDeleteIf you find any references to the Monsignor online which include the Cardinal's comments, feel free to provide the link so that I can see them.
Frank's writing wasn't a problem. I've seen much worse than his.
The funny thing is, when I wasn't feeling well, I actually had more time to respond to you, because I had a good excuse to sit in one place all day and be on the computer. Now that I'm feeling better, I don't get to do that anymore. I have to actually do all the things that need doing - washing the dishes, cleaning up, cooking meals, etc. Somehow, whenever I try to do all the things I feel I ought to be doing, I find I don't really have very much time left over for being on the computer, and I just have to fit in little bits of time here and there.