Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex

Here is an amazingly well done video for vocations. I think the most moving section for me was JP the Great’s voice over. These folks acted on the late Holy Father’s words in a most gutsy way. Thoughts?

The spleen rupturing has begun. Catholic On-line is running three front page stories from CNS on reaction to the release of the “document.” We have seen a priest in Pheonix quit over it, which is not a bad thing–if he is that confused he should not be a Catholic priest. I do feel sorry for those who have such a distorted view of the human person that they are taking this as a rejection of them or their loved ones, friends, etc., as persons. I plan to pray extra hard over the next few weeks that this uproar becomes the catalyst for grace by which many confused souls suffering from same sex attraction open themselves to the truth and are reconciled with Christ and His Church.

That is the sound-bite that the Indy Star took from rationale that Gregory Hancock and his dance theater give for imposing his “Flamenco Mass” on unsuspecting Catholics. While liturgical dance is not prohibited by name in liturgical documents, it is certainly a novetly which Redemptionis Sacramentum rules out in its prohibition against introducing elements not contemplated by the liturgical books. Any changes in the Mass of this sort must be proposed by a conference of bishops and always have prior approval of the Holy See.

Besides being illicit, it is just bad liturgical theology. Hancock says he wants to offer another vision of Mass as an alternative way of worship showing that there is more than one way to speak to God. I guess I don’t have an argument with these assertions in themselves: it is certainly another vision of the Mass, it is an alternative way of worship, and there is more than one way to speak to God. The problem, of course, is the apparent presupposition that the structure of the Mass is a man-made method of speaking to God and so any Tom, Dick or Gregory can change it at will. It is not.

A couple of weeks ago, I posted on this kind of presupposition from The Spirit of the Liturgy. This attitude that we can make worship whatever we wish fits so well with what Cardinal Ratzinger called a “cry in the dark.” While I have no doubt that Flamenco dancing can be a very emotional experience, perhaps even more so for the performers, emotion is not the same as an experience of the Transcendent. Cardinal Arinze has identified the primary problem with liturgical dance, he has said that it draws away from the vertical and focuses on the horizontal level. He means that dance is inherently appreciated as entertainment rather than as liturgical worship. Why is that? I think that it is for the very reason that good liturgy is not spontaneous. In the Mass we are, as the Mystical Body of Christ, offering back to the Father, the Sacrifice of the Son. If we do not know the dance we are more apt to be drawn in by its novelty and (presumably) beauty than we are drawn to join ourselves with the act and together offer it to the Father. In fact, unlike prayers and singing, it does not seem to me that dance lends itself to a corporate act of worship. That is probably the reason that we have never seen dance in the liturgy until it started popping up a decade or two ago.

Assuming that it is well done and not obscene, I am all for offering this Flamenco Christmas pageant in the parish hall. My question is, why do so many insist on co-opting the Mass and separating the worshiping community from the authentic liturgy of the Church by imposing their personal sense of creativity on us when it is at odds with liturgical rubrics and liturgical theology?

San Antonio Archbishop Gomez provides some excellent advice for pastors and politicians to help clear up the confusion that so many have over how their faith lives intersect with their public lives. The truth is often the more difficult road to take. As Jesus warns, the road that leads to destructionis is the wide one.

With the imminent release of “the document” there are a lot of folks rupturing spleens over what they think that it will say. Most seem to assume that the leak to the Italian press is authentic, including the former editor of the U.S. Jesuit magazine, America.

Unfortunately Fr. Reese makes the same category mistakes as the rest of American culture and seems to think that the reductionist approach to anthropology reveals the truth about the human person. In other words, because a good portion of the medical community presumes that they can circumscribe the truth about human sexuality by assuming that sexuality and sexual attraction is simply a social construct, Fr. Reese seems to assume that this defines the truth. Thus, he makes the ironic claim that the Vatican is ignorant in reaffirming its current policy against ordaining men suffering from same sex attraction because they have not done a study to see how wide spread the problem is among the already ordained.

This absurd statement presupposes that if that if a sufficiently high percentage of SSA oriented priests are celibate and provide effective ministry that there should be no reason for them not to be ordained. This pragmatism neglects the Vatican II teaching which says that the Church is the expert on the human person. It ignores the authoritative teaching that says homosexual attraction is a disorder and the empirical evidence that disorder, left untreated, leads to further disorder.

Fr. Reese makes the further absurd claim that those with strong heterosexual attraction should not be ordained because of dangers in all female environments as if a natural inclination is equivalent to a disordered inclination. Another absurd claim is that many of the priests who abused boys were actually heterosexual. Hmmm, I guess that they were really only attracted to women but somehow mistakenly projected femininity onto their male victims . . . ??? I am not sure I can even try to make start making sense of this outlandish assertion.

Whatever the document actually says, it is certain to be the opportunity for more opprobrium hurled at the Church from without and unfortunately, from within. It is clear that those who attack the teaching, for many reasons, identify the SAA inclination with the dignity of the person suffering from it. Until this connection is broken there is little chance that the Church’s position will be understood much less accepted.

The Archbishop of Dublin has said that homosexual men are not excluded from ordination as Catholic priests, according to a report in the Irish Times. The archbishop spoke about the problems he saw arising from religious conservatism in the United States; he remarked on the temptation toward “fundamentalism in a time of insecurity.” I am not really sure of the insecurity to which he is referring. I am concerned about the difficulty of so many intelligent men not being able to accept the clear instruction set forth by the Church. With so many souls at risk and the use of terms like “conservative” makes me think that the idolatry of politics has blinded and hardened the heart of another Church leader.

Thank you, Island Catholic, for the chance to evaluate where I am spiritually. This was not as easy as I thought as it would be, it only took me about a week to get it together, and here it is:
1. Write three things for which we’re grateful to God in this past liturgical year.
For our new Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.
For John Paul II and his example of holiness and courage.
For the improved understanding of and faith in the Catholic Church.
2. Write three ways in which we hope to improve our relationship with God in this coming liturgical year.
Walking more by faith and less by sight.
Learning to trust in God more, and less in my imperfected feelings.
Less procrastination and making more of the time given to me.

Since I am so late with this tag, I will not pass it to any fellow bloggers.

Well, no I am not really all that early with this post as it might at first seem; though it might be better to have waited until after Thanksgiving. However, we are travelling to Dayton for Turkey day. Actually we are leaving as soon as I get off work at noon. I am not sure if I will get to a computer for the next few days so I thought I would provide the text of an Advent reflection for the first Sunday (yeah…it is here already). Here is one for this year by Msgr. Stuart Swetland:

The First Sunday of Advent, November 27

Isaiah 63:16-17, 19; Psalm 80:2-3, 15-16, 18-19; 1 Corinthians 1:3-9; Mark 13:33-37

Happy New Year! For Catholics, the new liturgical year begins this weekend with the First Sunday of Advent. How appropriate that our New Year begins with the Lord’s call from the Gospel of Mark: “Be watchful! Be Alert!” (Mk 13:33).

For what are we to be watchful? While we are called to be alert for many things, most importantly we are called to be watchful for the coming of the Lord. The term “advent” comes from the Latin adventus, meaning “coming.” Although we are always to be ready and alert, in a particular way the season of Advent reminds us to be watchful for the coming of the Lord.

How does the Lord come to us? Of course most of us immediately think of the coming of the Lord in history as the Babe in Bethlehem. Here, God fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah when he “rent the heavens and came down” becoming Incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Christmas is the season where we celebrate this first “coming of the Lord.” Advent helps prepare us for this celebration.

But Advent, especially in the earlier part of the season, also looks forward to the Second Coming of Christ at the end of time. In the first coming of Jesus, He entered our history in humility and weakness in order to establish the Kingdom. In the Second Coming, He will come in power and glory to end history and usher in the completion of the Kingdom. As Christians, we express the hope of the New Heaven and New Earth when we pray “Maranatha–Come, Lord Jesus!” (1 Cor 16:22).

However, Advent does not just look forward to Jesus’ Second Coming or backward to remember His first coming as Man. It is also a season that asks God to come here and now. “Rouse Your power and come to save us” (Psalm 80:2). Advent is, as well, a season where we prepare for the Lord’s coming in grace to each of us in this present moment. The goal of Advent is that each of us, and all of us as a Church, will be closer to the Lord at this Christmas than we have ever been before.

Catholics ought not be surprised by the fact that Advent celebrates three “comings” of the Lord. For, in fact, all of our liturgical celebrations commemorate this. They remember a past event in the life of Christ, look forward to our completion in heaven with Him, and celebrate the coming of Christ in grace here and now. For example, in Mass we remember what Jesus did for us at the Last Supper and in His passion, death and resurrection; we look forward to perfect communion with Him in Heaven; and we celebrate His coming to us in grace and glory during the liturgy in Word and Sacrament. Our memorial acclamation also reflects this three-fold celebration: Christ has died (past), Christ is risen (present), Christ will come again (future).

The Advent season is a busy one for us all: presents to buy, trees to trim, cookies to bake, cards to send. But first and foremost, it is a season to “prepare the way of the Lord” (Mk 1:3). While wonderful gifts, a beautifully trimmed tree, perfectly baked cookies, or just the right card might be nice, it will truly have been a great Advent if we find that we can say we have indeed become closer to Christ than ever before. Then we really will have had a happy new year!

I have written on this topic before, and others have posted on the same idea as of late. Though, apparently men have less credibility on the topic than women. Any way, I guess I will take another shot. I don’t usually get as many transient visitors as others so I may be safe. Sexual purity, at least in a certain way, is much more difficult for men on average than for women. Why is this? It is because men’s psycho-sexual gifts (especially testosterone) help to focus their attention on women in such a way that men very easily can and often do reduce a woman to an object of pleasure rather than seeing her as a person. Compound this with the fact that women, on average, more than men are much more integrated in many ways. One of these ways can lead women to experience the compelling desire to be thought of as beautiful and desirable. In our current culture, this unfortunately is very often translating into immodest dress and behavior. Most men, schooled by our culture and succumbing to their fallen inclinations, are not complaining. Thus, often even committed Christian women can dress (if you can call it that) in ways that leave little to the imagination.

I suppose I should restate this. The human body is very very good! In fact, without it one cannot be a human person. The human body is beautiful (even for those of us past 40 it still has a certain aged beauty I suppose). The problem is that in our fallen state, lust is always lurking at the door. As John Paul the Great says, it is an ever present danger. We are all in this life together so we ought to help each other in the universal call to holiness. Those men and women who do not consider the affect that their attire and actions will have on others’ ability to see them as a child of God rather than a piece of meat ought to consider this. Those who do not care, should. We all need to keep our eyes focused on Jesus and to strive for a pure heart, a singular heart given wholly to God. This can be made somewhat easier, especially in Mass, if there are not temptations lurking in the next pew.

As an diocesan employee I was required to take the Virtus program which is our diocese’s approach to Protecting God’s Children. I was not exactly sure what to expect but in some ways it was not as bad as I thought. The video is certainly troubling, seeing victims describe the horror that they experienced and still do, and very troubling seeing perpetrators describe so matter of factly their modus operandi.

The program itself has some good points to it. It is certainly good for developing awareness and compassion. However, there were also some problem areas. One is that I do not think it does a good enough job of distinguishing prudence from general suspicion and therefore, I think that the the program general leaves one with the sense that one should have a general suspicion of everyone. Undermining trust and creating general suspicion is developing a cancerous environment. We are not made to suspect and distrust and the more we do it the more difficult it becomes to trust. This can lead to difficult working environments and in the extreme a complete breakdown in the functioning of organizations and institutions.

A second concern was that they tried to debunk certain “myths” without saying why they were myths or giving evidence to support themselves. The worst was the way they treated the myth that “Most abusers are homosexual.” In pure numbers this is true, but it is also true that those suffering from same sex attraction AND who actively live that lifestyle are 3-16 times more likely to abuse postpubescent teenage boys. Thus the risk for practicing “homosexuals” is very much higher. More troubling is the way they explain it is the definitions they make, like saying that a man who has sex with a boy is not a homosexual but a pedophile. Besides not distinguishing between pedophilia and ephebophilia, this seems to be succumbing to the noxious notion that gay is simply one of 5 to 6 different “genders.”

Finally, the concern I had was with the implications of the way this is taught to children. I am always cautious when I see schools trying to take on role of parents. I think it is especially problematic to assume that all children are able to understand and deal with this issue uniformly. In addition, a teacher teaching 20-30 students doesn’t know each child like his parents do and the teacher would not likely be in a position to be as sensitive to whether he was scaring or even traumtizing the child as would a parent .

In general, I get the sense that it was developed by lawyers/insurers to limit liability. I think a more comprehensive, faith centered approach needs to infuse this program.

I am all for doing everything we can to protect our children and Virtus seems like a start. However, I think it has problems that need to be addressed.

In 1925, Pius XI published Quas primas and established the Feast of Christ the King in response to what he perceived as the danger the West had brought to itself with the rejection of Christ from both the private lives of many Christians but also from the public life of many more. The beginning of this rejection of God and His Son from public life can be traced in the West as far back as the Renaissance, but perhaps reached a critical stage in the French Revolution and the document, Declaration of the Rights of Man. The document might not seem too radical to us today but a fundamental shift in thinking that this document brought about, especially for a formerly Catholic country, was the assertion that a legitimate government derived its authority from the consent of the governed. Hmmm . . . that sounds like our Declaration of Independence . . . what’s the problem with this? Well, the problem is that all authority comes not from public support but from God. When God is removed from public life and the consent of the people is all that determines what a government can legitimately do or not do, we have lost our source of absolute moral norms. The logical consequence of this assertion is what happened in Nazi Germany with the final solution, in the Soviet Union with Stalin’s purges, and in the U.S. with the African slave trade. With the thinking that a government’s legitimate actions are circumscribed only by its electorate, then all of these events remain beyond criticism.

Wooahhh . . . some are saying. I see where this is going. You are advocating a theocracy when Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom implied and JP the Great and B16 have explicitly said that it is legitimate to separate Church from state. It is true that the recent Magisterium has advocated a certain secularism in public institutions. But they distinguish among certain types of secularism. Secularism which removes God from the public sphere is not neutral and it is not legitimate in their view. In fact, JP the Great even criticized the Italian government from removing crucifixes from public schools. This secularism which they are talking about is that in which the state recognizes that its competence is the temporal sphere not the religious, and so the state should make no laws compelling religious belief or limiting legitimate religious practices. It does not mean that the state must be devoid of references to God or even that it cannot accommodate the legitimate public expression of the religious belief of the majority of the public.

Pax Christi in Regno Christi . . . the peace of Christ is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ. Christ is ultimately the only solution to all of our problems. What the Covenant before Christ showed us is that we cannot get to heaven or even solve the worlds problems without Christ and His grace. The way to heaven is now open through Christ. The horrors of the 20th century show that without God, man becomes unintelligible and he ultimately turns on himself. Knowledge, technology, modern “science”–while these are goods in themselves and can lead to more comfortable lives for more people, without God they ultimately will become the means by which we destroy ourselves. Some think we have already gone over the precipice. On this Feast of Christ the King, I am reminded that Christ is the Lord of history and that with God, all things are possible. In the end, what gives me hope is that regardless of what happens now we ultimately know, Thy Kingdom comes!

Perhaps most Catholics are familiar with the pastoral provision which allows some ordained, married Protestant ministers to be considered for ordination as Catholic priests after they come home to the fullness of the Church. Most probably are not aware that since the mid 80s the Church approved the Anglican use Rite liturgy which drew from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. This is allowed to be used in parishes which were previously part of the Anglican Communion. The first Anglican Use Rite parish was established in San Antonio, TX in 1983 and pastored by the first man ordained under the pastoral provision, Fr. Christopher Phillips. Fr. Phillips was also on the commission which developed this Rite.

My mom is a member of that parish and I have been to their liturgy many times. As I was reading the complaints of some of the bishops about the new translation to the Sacramentary under the guidance of Liturgiam authenticam, it brought to mind the Anglican Use Rite. This is not the first time I have heard the changes. In a Roman Missal class I had taken, the professor shared embargoed copies of interim translations with us. The recent complaints indicate that many of the changes I had seen are still in place.

There are certain things about the Anglican Use Rite liturgy that are unmistakable, like the Elizabethan English used throughout most of the liturgy. There are also other things, like the priest facing ad orientum, the altar rail, a collect (instead of opening prayer) and a Sermon (rather than homily) which indicate that the High Anglicans who have come home to Rome had not adopted the changes since the liturgical reform began in the late 60s/early 70s. Other aspects of the Mass are even prior to the Tridentine liturgy. For example, the deacon processes out of the sanctuary, with incense and altar servers, and into the church as on an ancient solea and chants the Gospel reading. However, the order of Mass in this Rite is not completely from the Book of Common Worship. As you experience the Mass, there is a sudden shift in language that is hard to miss. When the Liturgy of the Eucharist begins, the language suddenly becomes much more familiar to the average Catholic. The Liturgy of the Eucharist is in large part taken from the current Roman Missal for the Latin Rite. However, especially with the people’s responses, one quickly notices that it is not always, exactly the same. For example, just prior to the Eucharistic Prayer when the celebrant says, “the Lord be with you.” The response is: “and with thy spirit.” After the Lamb of God the people respond three times with, “Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, but speak the word only, and my soul shall be healed.” Both of these are closer to what we will see with the new Sacramentary translations.

While the Anglican Use Rite liturgy will not be the result of the new Sacramentary translation there are certain affinities, especially with those translations which kept the biblical allusions which were lost in the “dynamic equivalency” translations we now have. However, I think that there are other aspects of the Anglican Use Rite that have gone back and recovered important liturgical traditions that the West had lost. I am not suggesting that I think that the reform of the liturgy (which I expect to come) will result in the equivalent of the Anglican Use Rite, I do believe that there are some important parallels that I am seeing in the results of the new translation of the Sacramentary and what we see in the Anglican Use Rite liturgy.

The Anglican Use Rite liturgy is a very beautiful Mass. The liturgical music they use and the structure of the liturgy do a great job in reflecting the liturgy’s transcendence. I suspect that if our current Roman Missal were to move more in the direction of the Anglican Use Rite we would start to see a renewed appreciation for Mass which might even be reflected in the number of regular attendees. In any case, if you appreciate a liturgy that gives the more the experience of heaven than one of being around the campfire with music that should only be found on old 8-track tapes, then I recommend attending one of these if you ever get the chance. (Right now there are only seven parishes, all but two of which are in the great State of Texas).

That is essentially the message of B16 to modernity. He proposes Christ as a remedy to modern culture which is imbued with subjectivism leading to extreme individualism, and relativism, Christ as the model of a new humanism. His predecessor was fond of paraphrasing Gaudium et spes 22 that Christ reveals man to himself. B16 takes up this same idea. Since Zenit is down right now and I cannot post the link to it, I will post the entire article below:

Pontiff Points to Christ as Model for New Humanism
In Message to Pontifical Academies’ Session
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).-

Amid the prevailing individualism and relativism, Christians have the mission to present Christ as model for a new humanism, says Benedict XVI. The Pope presented this proposal in a message sent to the annual public session of the Pontifical Academies, held Tuesday, in the Vatican’s new Synod Hall. In this session, the 10th since Pope John Paul II established the Coordinating Council for the Pontifical Academies in 1995, the central theme — “Christ, Son of God, Perfect Man: ‘The Measure of True Humanism’” — was prepared by the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Pontifical Academy of Theology.

It is a topic, as Benedict XVI said in his message, of particular interest to him, given its “central and essential importance both in theological reflections and in each Christian’s experience of faith.” “Modern culture,” he said, “so deeply marked by a subjectivism which leads not infrequently to extreme individualism or to relativism, drives people to consider man as the only measure by which to judge themselves, losing sight of other objectives not centered on the self, which has become the only criterion for evaluating reality and their own choices.” “In this way,” the Holy Father continued, “man tends to fall back ever more onto himself, to close himself in an airless existential microcosm, where there is no longer any space for great ideals open to transcendence, to God. “On the other hand, man who overcomes himself and does not allow himself to be closed in the narrow confines of his own egoism is capable of an authentic contemplation of others and of creation.”

Imprint In this way, man becomes conscious of “his essential characteristic of creature in continuous becoming, called to a harmonious growth in all his dimensions, beginning precisely by interiority, to reach the fulfilled realization of that plan that the Creator has imprinted in his deepest being,” Benedict XVI added. “Certain cultural currents and tendencies seek to leave man in his minority, in prolonged infancy or adolescence,” the Pope said. “The Word of God, on the other hand, spurs us decisively to maturity and invites us to commit ourselves with all our strength to a high measure of humanity.” “The true disciples of the Lord, far from remaining in the state of children tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, make an effort to attain ‘to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,’” the Holy Father wrote, citing Ephesians 4:13. “Therefore, Jesus Christ, Son of God, given by the Father to humanity to restore the image disfigured by sin, is the perfect man, with which authentic humanism is measured,” he stated. “Every human being must encounter him and go to him — with the help of grace — and must tend with all his heart, with all his mind, with all his strength, to realize his life fully and to respond with joy and enthusiasm to the very high vocation inscribed in his being.”

Benedict XVI urged academics to “promote with enthusiasm and passion, each in his own field of study and research, the building of this new humanism.” “You have the task to propose again, with the competence that corresponds to you, the beauty, goodness, truth of the face of Christ, in which every man is called to recognize his most authentic and original features, the model he must imitate ever better,” he indicated. “This is, therefore, your arduous task, your lofty mission,” the Pope added, “to present Christ to the man of today as the authentic measure of maturity and human fullness.” ZE05111705

A recent symposium on sports at the Vatican and the Pontifical Council for the Laity opening up a section on “Church and Sport” together make it look like the Church is actively seeking new areas to carry out the new evangelization. I am surprised that this did not happen under the more athletic JP the Great. The more bookish but ever brilliant and committed B16 shows that even for some of us who have been his fans for some time, he still can bring surprises.

It seems to me that there is so much opportunity for evangelization in sports. Especially for those who are committed to a sport as a fan and especially a participant, the sacrifices they are willing to make for progress, the commitment they make to their goal, their single-mindedness of purpose, all of these attributes that go into making up a great athlete are virtues for a Christians zealous for holiness as well. I suppose with its burgeoning it is about time for the Church to get in the game!

Cardinal Arinze gave an excellent summary of the problematic thinking about liturgy in an interview for Inside the Vatican and recently carried by Zenit. Not that active dissenters would pay much attention anyway, but for those liturgists who may have an open and obedient heart and simply be misled by the predominant liturgical publications (i.e. those who want to turn the Mass into their favorite Protestant service), have them take a gander at this…

In line with David’s fine post, and connected to the discussion of ID, I want to add here a bit about technology:

The two greatest thinkers in the twentieth century to address the issue of technology were Martin Heidegger (the most important continental philosopher of the century) and Jacques Ellul (a French Protestant philosopher whose monumental work “The Technological Society” and its later re-edition “The Technological Bluff” are the most thorough studies on the subject ever produced).

What both of these thinkers realized is that there is something radically “novel” about modern technology that is usually not accounted for. The standard “liberal” account of technology holds that human knowledge sputtered along until the rise of modernity, seeking to account for nature and to put it to the service of man, but never being able to do so because it lacked the capacity to detach man from his observations. It could not reach to the true causality-in-itself of nature because it projected onto nature characteristic features of man. In other words, it never truly escaped the confusions of mythopoetic thinking, of anthropomorphic projection — though the likes of Aristotle may have tried to do so!

In modernity, however, so the account goes, humanity started to look at nature as it is, in itself, without the fatal flaw of anthropomorphic projection. This gave rise to a truer form of knowledge, authentically seeing the world-in-itself for what it is. As such, this type of knowledge was able to give rise to technologies radically more efficient and useful; perhaps, even, so radically efficient and useful that they would enable the eventual elimination of labor, disease, injustice, warfare, inequality etc. Technology could be used to solve all our problems.

Heidegger and Ellul — and many others, though not expressing it as thoroughly or as well — recognized that this picture was fallacious. Modern technology was not just a better, more authentic form of knowledge. It was not just the breakthrough development of authentic vision that the “liberal” account of it supposed. It was not the fulfillment of the ancient desires, of man seeking to know the world and make use of it but never being able to do so because he could never get beyond himself.

No, both these figures tell us, modern technology was something so new, so radically different, that it presupposed not just a better, more efficient knowledge than what came before — though going in the same direction as ancient and medieval knowledge — but knowledge that is qualitatively different, oriented in an entirely novel direction, stemming not from a better vision of the world but from a reoriented will. That is, this type of knowledge was not the “truth” that pre-modern humanity had vainly sought for, but the object of desire of the burgeoning middle-class, whose characteristic preoccupations separated them from their pre-modern forebears.

This new type of knowledge has always been oriented toward making, unlike the contemplation prized by the Greeks (among others). Art (techne, the means by which we make things) and science (knowledge) were conflated in an unprecedented manner. Knowledge could not truly be knowledge unless it was also “useful.” It had to extend the condition of the middle-class, give to it all the things that it prized — “spacious and commodious living,” as Hobbes, one of the preeminent spokesmen among them, put it — if it was to be encouraged. Thus, the new knowledge (science) became intimately tied to the new, more efficient technologies of labor and production, of commerce and industry. The entire social order eventually was oriented around this confluence of knowing and making, driven by the will for comfort and sensual gratification. Other, more contemplative types of knowledge were devalued, cast to the side, even ridiculed.

“Big Science” was born. Much of the ID debate, it seems to me, operates within the confines of this delimitation of knowledge. Evolution theory presupposes it. When people tell us that science tells us “how” but not “why” their notion of science is formed by this orientation of will. The essential point, Heidegger and Ellul would agree, is this: modern science is only more “objective” than its ancient forebear in as much as it conforms to an a priori vision of the world formed by a will to mastery over nature…

ID_Series

Venerable Aussie’s link to Peter Singer’s chilling prognostication in yesterday’s post got my mind going again. I am especially thinking about Singer’s (I keep wanting to write Sanger . . . I wonder why??) obvious animus toward those with faith in God as backward enemies of progress. There seems to be a real dichotomy in his mind between technological progress and faith. It does seem that faith is inversely proportional to technological progress in terms of current geopolitical structures. Why does it seem that the most advanced societies, technologically speaking, are the most irreligious. Western Europe is well established in its post-Christian milieu, Canada is close behind, Australia seems to be keeping right up there, and the good ole U.S. of A. may still be a generation back but, at least in religious practice, we seem to be closing in fast. Do a quick search and you will find poll after poll cited as showing that scientists are in large proportion, non-believers.

Now I do not mean to sound like a Luddite. I’m using a computer over a DSL connection through a very advanced communications infrastructure that provides information access unparalleled in human experience. I am not suggesting we go back to flint knives and bear skin technology in what follows. However, there does seem to be something about technology and its affects on fallen human nature that, for those who are not careful, can be a catalyst for leading one away from God. Now I suppose there are other contributing factors as well, but I will focus on one thread.

The etymological root of “technology” is from the Greek techne, which means art. It is the practical knowledge which allows one to make things. Now it seems to me that the knowledge of how to make things, the ability to free oneself from the lower rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, tends to give us an independent streak . . . kind of like a two year old who is starting to exert his independence from mommy. The higher we get on the hierarchy the less we seem to think we need anyone else. Of course, this is an illusion since the more we become dependent upon technology the more we are dependent upon others. We have a decreasing capacity for self subsistence and basic survival skills. I think that this correlates with what we saw after 9-11 and the upsurge in church going. We were momentarily shaken from our illusory life of control and safety and recognized that we need God. But the quick fall-off in church attendance shows how quickly we forget.

Hubris is only possible with the illusion of independence and control over one’s environment. Science and technology provide, for some, this illusion. It is very compelling. With the progress we see being made, sometimes there seems to be no bounds. For our culture, science has become the messiah and the scientists, the high priests. Perhaps that is why we look for people to blame when levees collapse, reusable orbiters break up on reentry, world trade centers don’t withstand fuel laden airplane attacks? Proper use of science and technology are completely compatible with faith. However, I believe that we do need to be ever vigilant about the ways that it can affect our thoughts and lives.

These words from an Australian bioethicist should make one’s blood run cold. He stated, according to a recent Zenit article, that parents must use current genetic screening technologies for weeding out children, eliminating those “unfit” to be born, because they have a moral obligation to bear the best child possible. This is a very scary. The phrase “moral obligation” is not to be taken lightly. There are not many things these days which society recognizes as a moral obligation. Those things for which society agrees are obligatory, are most often accompanied with legislation. This ideology of eugenics according to utilitarian criteria is not new. It was part of Nazi Germany’s game plan and it was championed by Margaret Sanger and her crowd. It is now becoming mainstream.

I suppose that this could sound alarmist to some ears. However, I believe that we have already come to a threshold from which there is little chance of turning back in our desensitization to horrors such as abortion, a good portion of our society even advocates infanticide in the form of partial birth abortion. Those who advocated the “euthanizing” of babies up to almost two years old, instead of being dismissed as crackpots, are now given bioethics chairs at such prestigious institutions as Princeton. I think that Western culture is that proverbially frog in the frying pan. We are already so close to sizzling that I am not sure that there is much more desensitizing that needs to be done. Some think that the pressure to “screen” unborn children will come from “market pressures.” However, this will not work for a sizable portion of society that recognizes this as evil. It seems to me that for those with religious convictions, eugenic society’s only recourse is going to be legislation. I can see the argument now: “society cannot permit religious zealots to continue to contaminate the pristine gene pool that science and socially minded patriots have worked to achieve. We owe it to posterity to act now to ensure that we only allow women to bear the best child possible.”

Here is a good article that most might not otherwise see, by Msgr. Stuart Swetland:

During the semester, I regularly meet with the student leaders at St. John’s Catholic Newman Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. One of the things we discuss at each session is the attributes and requirements of authentic leadership. We look at various aspects of leadership like authority, responsibility, and accountability. One thing that our reflections routinely reveal about Christian leadership is the need for humility and the desire to serve.

Jesus teaches His disciples that their leadership must be different from that of the Roman Empire:

You know how among the Gentiles those who seem to exercise authority lord it over them; their great ones make their authority felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you must serve the needs of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mk 10:42-45).

In Matthew’s version of this teaching, Jesus also says: “whoever exalts himself will be humbled and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Mt 23:12).

But what does it mean to be humble? Humility is a virtue, and like almost every virtue it stands as a golden mean between two extremes, both of which are vices. To have too little humility is the vice of pride–the belief that I do not need God, that I am good enough as I am, that others should bend to me and my will. Pride has an exaggerated view of oneself or one’s accomplishments. To have too much humility is to fall into the vice of false humility–to hold the mistaken view that I am worthless, of no real value, unable to accomplish or be anything.

Humility stands between the vices of pride and false humility. As St. Theresa of Avila says, “humility is truth.” Against pride’s lie, humble persons correctly acknowledge their sinfulness and their need for God. They recognize that all their opportunities and talents, that even their very lives are gifts from God. As Paul writes, “All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God” (Rom 3:23), and according to John, “If we say we have not sinned, we make [God] a liar” (1 Jn 1:10). Humble people recognize their need for repentance, forgiveness, and healing. Humble people know the truth that without God they can do nothing (cf. Jn 15:5).

But over against the vice of false humility, the humble also know that they are not worthless, that they have been created in the image and of likeness of God, that they are unique and of infinite worth, capable of becoming like unto God by becoming like unto Christ (cf. Gal 2:20). Emphasis on this truth helped make the self-esteem movement very popular a few decades ago. We needed to hear that each of us and all of us have an inestimable worth.

Humility unmasks the superficiality of the “I’m ok, you’re ok” mentality. Deep down, each of us knows we are not entirely ok. We are all sinners in need of salvation. Jesus cannot be our Lord and Savior unless we recognize that we need to be saved. So I know I’m not ok (and you’re not ok), but that’s ok because Jesus has come to heal us, restore us, and set us free.

Moreover, even if you and I were indeed ok, that would not be ok, because God wants more for us than that. In fact he is pretty emphatic about this: “I know your deeds. I know you are neither hot nor cold. How I wish you were one or the other – hot or cold! But because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of my mouth!” (Rev 3:15-16).

Jesus does not call us to be simply ok, He calls us to greatness, to perfection (cf. Mt 5:48). No one in heaven is just ok. One of the things that makes heaven heavenly is that everyone in heaven is perfected. There are only saints in heaven. God wishes to perfect and exalt us. This begins when we humbly accept our need for His transforming power of healing and restoration.

…”They believe and try to demonstrate that it is scientific to think that everything lacks a guide and order” -  St. Basil the Great

Is it just a technicality, that despite the lack of scientific evidence (Oct. 2005), activists hold so tightly to the biological causation theories as a their foundation of truth on homosexuality? Theories that brought so much promise to prove people were born “homosexuals”, have yet to be duplicated, unlike the strong evidence of environmental factors . No science can grasp the human spirit, the human soul.  Man is much more than the sum of his identifiable biological, structural or psychological parts. We are complex, unique creatures who respond differently to situations based on individuality, our environment, parenting, culture, etc.., so it is not likely a single cause of homosexual desires will ever be discovered.

Given the lack of evidence of a biological origin of homosexuality, why is there such a strong, organized effort to accelerate acceptance and promotion of homosexual intercourse? For example, in an October issue of Time, (information on Author) reported that students who attended a retreat were given a welcome gift basket which included A DVD of the 2001 film Hedwig and the Angry Inch, in which a teenage boy is masturbated by an adult (hebephilia).

Planned Parenthood among other sex instructional programs readily promote same sex acts as an option for teens. It is a scientific fact that impulse control, planning and decision making are largely frontal cortex functions which are not fully developed in adolescents. Add to the fact, that there is a significant amount of childhood sexual abuse among those with same sex attractions, and a high rate psychiatric problems. Is there any data to support this type of instruction? Is there a potential ulterior motive by some whose self-righteous actions may actually harm those, they claim to be supporting? Does there seem to be some type of inconsistency of acceptance of “homosexuals”? Why are those who pursue the homosexual lifestyle celebrated, while those who seek treatment and “revert” to a heterosexual lifestyle are ridiculed?

he Church acknowledges that homosexual attraction is a psychological condition that is not chosen, and those who are affected must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. The dignity of all people should be respected from the moment of conception to the time of death. There are many on both sides of this issue who are sincerely concerned over the welfare of those affected by homosexuality, but the application of compassion seems to be focused on different outcomes. Compassion for one may mean happiness in the here and now, while the other sees healing to the spirit and soul of the awesome human person.