All Ambrose

Junk Sex

Ambrose Little — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 21:39:00 +0000

I'll never understand how being a foul mouthed obnoxious jerk is something people think is a good, desirable thing to be. The fawning over this person's behavior I've seen is disturbing. How is it that being so ugly to others is attractive to some people?

I agree that the presentation sounds pretty poor and does a huge disservice to not only abstinence but also a healthy, chaste understanding of sex. It's not good to rely on fear mongering, scare tactics, and misinformation to get your point across no matter what the subject.

But still, this commentator's behavior is not really any better.

You certainly don't have to be a prude or "right wing extremist" to understand the value of abstinence, especially for teens:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/l…/birth-control/abstinence

Excerpt:
Special Advantages for Teens

Sexual relationships present risks. Abstinence is a very good way to postpone taking those risks until you are better able to handle them.

Women who abstain until their 20s — and who have fewer partners in their lifetimes — may have certain health advantages over women who do not. They are less likely to get STDs. Because they are less likely to get an STD, they are also less likely to become infertile or develop cervical cancer.

...

Sounds like a pretty attractive option.

You don't have to be a slave to your body's desires. Just like people can practice discipline to moderate their hunger for food and can exercise to stay in shape, we can moderate our sex drives and engage in healthy, close, meaningful, and loving relationships without sex.

Hookups are the junk food of sex. Life-committed (married) love that embraces sex for all it naturally is is not only the safest but also the most fulfilling. It is the health food of sex. The fullest outcome of sex is the intimate bonding of two persons out of which comes a new person to be cherished and nurtured in the context of that same loving relationship.

Is junk food enjoyable? Sure! Is it the best thing for you? Hell no. And we shouldn't pretend otherwise.

Review: 2013 Nissan NV3500 HD Passenger V8

Ambrose Little — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:16:00 +0000

If you're in the market for a big vehicle for a large family, a passenger van is probably your only real choice, and I can definitely recommend the Nissan NV3500 HD Passenger van. This is a review of our experience with it over the last year and eight months.

We currently have five children aged two to thirteen, and we may have more. Needless to say the usual options--minivans and SUVs don't really cut it for us, especially not for a new vehicle investment for the family.

So what's left? Passenger vans and a couple other oversized SUV options. Armadas and Suburbans are overpriced and barley top the common 7-passenger options, with not much room for stuff.

As I said, we didn't want to invest in a new vehicle only to have to go bigger in a couple years. So a passenger van was the choice.

I've never been a fan of the van look or the big honking bench bench bench approach. So I was thrilled to see another option. The NV may not be the most beautiful vehicle, but I think it's a head above the standard van look. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of it as a van--more like a truck or maybe a big SUV.

And its looks do grow on you; if nothing else, it is striking. Everywhere we go, we get comments--usually complimentary. In Russellville, I stopped by the Nissan dealership there, and the guys were like "wow, we've never seen one in person!" :) Be prepared for the comments--it's a common theme from other reviewers, too.

The seating is as awesome as the marketing makes it out to be. We haven't figured out the 300+ configurations, but the flexibility is awesome. We removed the last row (for now) and scooted the 2nd & 3rd rows back, which gives tons of leg room and copious cargo space, while comfortably seating eight.

We bought this in April 2013, just before an epic road trip. We put 2800 miles on it during that trip. Up and down mountain gravel roads, along highways, and of course city. Since then, we have taken a family trip to the Shore (here in New Jersey) as well as another, even more epic road trip from NJ to Russellville, AR to Dallas, TX to Tulsa, OK and finally back home--3300 miles. The rest of the time it is for lugging family around nearby, and it does fine for that, too.

I am a big guy--over 300lbs and six foot one. I was impressed how comfortable it was for many hours of driving. The kids were comfy, too, and my wife even rode in the 2nd row with the baby for some hours, although she reported not finding it super comfortable in the back mainly due to lack of reclinability. You will want to turn the headrests around in front because they force your head forward--that's a trick I learned from another reviewer.

The integrated seat belts are nice indeed. The back doors with the magnetic locking is great--worked with wind on an incline in the mountains. We love the sliding door--no more worrying about kids banging into things. As other online reviewers have reported, this particular model/year had problems with the sliding door locking mechanism. I would just expect that and let the dealership know others have had the same problems.

If you want to get a mat for the rear cargo area, be prepared to either go custom or jury-rig one of the generic ones. I ended up on this one. It doesn't cover the whole area (with the last row removed), but it does a good enough job and definitely is better than mucking your carpet up. The dealer-supplied mats are good for the other rows/front. We are using the winter rubber options in the two front seats--too bad they don't have that for the rear seating.

We did remove the second row (and third) and were able to pick up a game table, four swivel chairs and a tall side table with four stools, so it is a great option for transporting big stuff when you need that. There really is no shortage of space. It feels very comfortable and roomy, even on long trips. The pic above is our youngest at one in the center console--lots of storage room there, too. :)

We opted for the V8 SV with towing and tech. We haven't towed yet, but there is plenty of power. Sucker will get up and go when you need it for sure. I wouldn't go off roading, but as I said, it managed to power up the gravel mountain roads fully loaded with fam and cargo. Be nice if there were an AWD/4WD option, but no biggie most of the time.

MPG - we seemed to average around 14-15 mpg on the trip. You can get better if you stay closer to 55/60; I guess the drag at 70/75 pulls you back, plus of course stop and go--it will gulp gas, but you don't get this for its gas mileage. It's comparable, actually impressive, given what a big box it is. My V6 2004 Ram 1500 averaged 15mpg...

One thing I liked was the minimal options. I hate sifting through tens of options when configuring a car, always not sure about the choices, feeling like I'm wasting money or missing out, and ending up with a ton more $$ on the price tag. This one starts at a very, very good baseline, and doesn't burden you with too many options.

I'd say that the tech package is a must have just for the back side camera--you can't hardly see behind you, and sonar only goes so far. That said, I am very underwhelmed with the radio and nav. We kept comparing the built-in nav (which requires a subscription to keep it up to date) and maps on our phones, and the built in nav usually didn't pick the most optimal route, and it didn't give you specific other options.

I couldn't believe that it doesn't support Bluetooth audio streaming. Isn't this a 2013?! It requires you to use USB, and it doesn't have a pause--you have to turn it off and on. It also seems to get confused sometimes and you have to turn off and on and unplug to get it cooperating. Factory audio never fails to disappoint. The rear camera is integrated, so replacing it isn't much of an option.

Other than that, we wanted the front sonar, but you only get that with the top level trim, which forces you to get leather seats. Given we have a bunch of small kids, we opted to stick with the easier to take care of cloth in the SV trim and just miss out on the front sonar. Turns out this wasn't risk free--wifey has scraped the front bumper twice pulling into our driveway, which has stone pillars on either side. Not sure if sonar would have prevented this, but possibly. :)

You will have to practice parking in this behemoth, but just park a bit further out and give yourself extra room. Generally look for spots with an empty one on the far side (away from you), so you have plenty of room to swing in. As a rule, if it is tight, I find backing in to be more reliable as you have all the mirrors and camera to help. I have to admit this aspect worried me most, since the wifey is the primary except on trips. But it comes with the territory I suppose. You can get used to it.

Overall, we really do love it. It's perfect for us, and probably quite good for any large family.

Oh, and if you're in central NJ, I highly recommend Haldeman Nissan in Hamilton. They sell a lot of these (commercial), so they are familiar with them. Don Goldberg there went way over the top for us. He has since moved on, but I also leased a Leaf from them in 2014, and the sales guy Don recommended--David Borden--was equally pleasant to deal with. I like that dealership--very low pressure and they treat you fairly, in my experience.

No, Correlation Really Does Not Equal Causation

Ambrose Little — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 14:48:00 +0000

This author's claims fall prey to his own suggestive criticism of theism. The reason that higher education in the sciences and philosophy purportedly reduces religious belief has as much to do with contemporary popular antitheistic indoctrination in those fields as any supposed increase in knowledge, much less baseline intelligence.

In other words, you send young, malleable minds away from their social/familial roots when they are wanting to strike out on their own and make their way as independent adults (i.e., college age), and you put those minds into environments openly hostile to religion as most secular academic settings are today, and it is no surprise that the result is the lessening of religious belief amongst those who come out of those institutions.

And because of this phenomenon, it is also extremely socially unpopular to be strongly religious amongst highly educated and intelligent people today (I should know). The amount of ignorant, bigoted treatment religious people get amongst educated colleagues is inversely proportionate to those aspiring irreligious folks who run is less educated, less secularized circles.

In both cases, the argument is fallacious, trying to establish suggestive causation where none exists. He even admits the argument is fallacious ("correlation does not equal causation") but nonetheless moves full ahead suggesting that it does in this case. I point it out in case someone finds the suggestions somehow compelling--the basis for the argument applies equally to its antithesis (i.e., the claims of indoctrination and the desire for social acceptance).

Further, the same can be said of his claims for why intelligent religious people defend their beliefs (i.e., because we want to rationalize what we already irrationally believe). That's just human nature, and it applies equally to whatever we believe/hold dear, be that theism or antitheism. At the end of the day, we are all human beings trying to grapple with problems bigger than we can actually fully grapple with. This means antitheist or theist, you will believe things without good reason, you will rationalize things you already believe, and you will make logical jumps and leaps of faith based on your existing understanding of life, the universe, and everything.

This article is all boring, boilerplate contemporary antitheist arguments that are chock full of both fallacies as well as healthy doses of ignorance and prejudice, and the only way they make sense is if you already agree with his conclusions.

All Dogs May or May Not Go to Heaven

Ambrose Little — Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:51:00 +0000

Update 13 Dec 2014: Turns out I was right to seriously question the veracity of the story and its lack of credible sources: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/12/12/sorry-fido-pope-francis-not-say-pets-going-heaven/. Still, the points made below are valid. :)

----

There has recently been circulating that Pope Francis "broke from Catholic teaching" on whether animals will go to heaven. I have yet to be able to find a reliable reference that has the quotes in context. The closest I've found is this America Magazine article, but it cites the NYT article on the subject. I still can't find anything close to an official published text, but let's assume Pope Francis' words are being reporting in good faith. What does it mean? Does it really somehow definitively change Church teaching?

As the NYT and America article allude to, the short answer is no. The Pope made an off-the-cuff remark to comfort a child. He did not "declare" anything, much less define it infallibly (ex cathedra). I am typically not one to go around trying to reinterpret the Pope's words, but the brouhaha ensuing from so little substance here is just too much. (And also, a friend of mine asked me to share my thoughts on this blog.) So here you go. ;)

Doctrinal authority/certainty is a very nuanced topic in Catholic theology. There are degrees of certainty with regards to Church teaching. I try to summarize them in a prior post on this blog about theological grades of certainty. I really do recommend reading it, not because I think my writing is awesome but because I have used reliable Catholic sources to help summarize the subject. I won't restate it all here. If you read it, it will definitely help you understand where the Pope's remarks fall in our view of things.

Now back to the subject at hand.. Certainly we can hope and wish that we will somehow be reunited with our loved animals, but that is a far cry from making any kind of authoritative definition on the matter. Personally, I could see such a position being more plausible with regards to the General Resurrection than to heaven--because that is bodily resurrection, and it would fit better that some animals we love could be bodily resurrected (without implying that they have immortal spirits/souls, which I think is pretty indefensible from a Catholic point of view).

Many people get pretty sentimental on this topic, but sentiment is not a good way to discover and understand truth. Many say, "if my [pet] isn't in heaven, then it isn't really heaven, and I don't want to go there" or some such. I would suggest that these people ought to be more concerned that they themselves make it to heaven rather than worry about their pets. It is not a little presumptive to treat the question as if it were just a matter of what we would like our own personal heaven to be like. St. Paul cautions us to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." We are not even assured of our own presence in heaven, so to make definitive pronouncements about the presence of our personal pets seems a bit off, to say the least.

Let me put it this way. Traditional Catholic teaching--which is founded in centuries of solid Scriptural, theological, and pastoral reflection and shouldn't be easily dismissed based on personal whims or desires--is such that 1) animals are different from us; they do not have immortal souls like we do, and 2) neither do animals have moral faculties (and so neither can sin nor need redemption, in the sense of from personal/original sin). 3) There is, to my knowledge, very little foundation in our Tradition to claim that individual animals (e.g., my pet cat Aelfric) will be part of the Resurrection, much less in heaven prior to that as some sort of spiritual being.

So anyone, the Pope included, who wishes to offer a theological opinion to the contrary, has a lot of work to do to provide support for such an opinion. And for it to be taken seriously, it has to be more than "because I want my pet" or "because it wouldn't seem fair" or "because it would make little Johnny sad" or anything like that. It has to be more than some vague belief in God's goodness or broad extrapolations from a phrase or two in Scripture. It should square and be reconciled with what we do know as definitively revealed (see theological grades of certainty) and ideally fit well even with less definitive teachings.

IN ANY CASE, characterizing the pope's off the cuff consoling remarks to a child as some dramatic change in Catholic teaching is nothing but absurd sensationalism.

As I said, while many would classify me as a conservative (though I see myself as a firm centrist), I am not one of those purported reactionary conservatives who feels threatened by Pope Francis. I love Pope Francis. I love his pastoral style. I love how he challenges my preconceptions and makes me reconsider them. I love how he leads by example. I love how he emphasizes Gospel witness.

I also love Father Benedict, and Pope St. John Paul's writings (especially Evangelium Vitae) were instrumental in my joining the Church. Despite ignorant characterizations to the contrary, the traditional Catholic position on this question of animals going to heaven or not (and related considerations) has absolutely zero to do with some kind of animosity towards creation, nor is it some weird desire to feel special/different/superior to the rest of creation. It is simply a matter of thinking through the consequences of what we know of Divine Revelation and nature itself.

On Encouraging Religious and Priestly Vocations

Ambrose Little — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:30:00 +0000

I have had an interesting experience with people over time as I've been a parent now for some thirteen years. Every once in a while, for some reason or other, I mention that maybe insert-name-of-child-here will be a sister or monk or friar or priest. And it is kind of surprising to me how often my Catholic friends are quick to tell me, "or they could be a parent!" Or they say more directly, "you shouldn't pressure him/her to be religious. Being married is equally good." Something like that.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why Catholic friends are so quick to downplay the value of religious and priestly vocations. I think these would be the same folks who would readily pray for vocations to the priesthood and religious life and generally be supportive of parish awareness/promotional type activities for these vocations.

Why would it be great and okay and no reservations to pray for and encourage these vocations in the abstract/general, but when applied to a particular parent and child, we are all too quick to downplay it and really push that being a mom/dad or single lay person is just as grand?

I have had one explanation a couple times--"you don't want to force them into it, not that I think you would ever do that [but still I felt I should tell you this because I probably am not sure that you wouldn't]."

What are we so worried about? What would be so terrible about encouraging a child towards a religious or priestly vocation?

Let me say that I am not calling any of my friends out, and I do not intend to fault people for offering such a caution--it is a perfectly understandable concern to have, and I know they have good intentions. The reason I am taking issue is that I think we all need to second guess this tendency we have to make comments like this.

"Don't Pressure Them"

Part of their motivation seems to be extrapolating from the all-too-common story of parents wrongly pressuring their children to "follow in their footsteps" or discouraging them "from their dreams." I know that in our individualistic society today, such pressure from parents seems categorically wrong. It is certainly portrayed that way in popular media, over and over and over again. Whether it is choosing one's spouse or choosing one's profession, it's always the bad parent pushing against the freedom of the child.

Here's the thing, though. Not all parental pressure is bad. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of it is good--when it is done for the good of the child. Even when parents can be mistaken about the good or go too far with the pressure, it would be a dereliction of parental duty to essentially wash our hands and say, "you do whatever you wanna do." Parents have a right and a duty to guide their children towards what is good for their children.

Granted, that doesn't mean that parents always know best nor that they don't sometimes mix up their own personal good with that of their children. Sometimes parents can't see past their own prejudices for the good of the child. Sometimes parents just don't know their children well enough to provide informed guidance.

But when it comes to religious or priestly life, I have a hard time seeing how we could go wrong in encouraging our children to consider pursuing it, especially if we think we see signs of such a vocation. If we see a tendency towards art, would we not consider encouraging them to pursue that? If we see a tendency towards engineering, would we not encourage them to consider that career path? If we saw them showing interest in become a fireman or doctor, would we not encourage that?

"But Marriage is Equally Good"

It seems there is another underlying motive behind these kinds of comments. In the past, there has been a sense in the Church that downplayed the value of lay vocations. To counter that, there has been a concerted effort since Vatican II to promote the value of lay vocations and, in particular, lay participation in the life of the Church. I get that. It is good and right.

But I can't help but feel that we are not somehow overreacting and in our eagerness to promote the value of lay vocations, we feel we must somehow downplay the value of religious vocations. Or even say that they are equally good.

Interestingly enough, both our Lord (Matt 19:10-12) and St. Paul (1 Cor 7) indicated that unmarried life for the sake of the Gospel is superior to married life--for those who can accept it, for those who are called to it. The Council of Trent put it a bit more forcefully, and definitively (Session XXIV, Canon X):

If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

Saints have also noted that religious life, in particular, is a better way. (Several are mentioned in this article.) As that author notes, even recently Pope St. John Paul II said in his apostolic exhortation Vita Consecrata: “it is to be recognized that the consecrated life… has an objective superiority.” St. Thomas expounds at some length the interrelationship between the state of religion and perfection.

The constant teaching of the Church is indeed that a life of consecration to God is more excellent than that of the lay life because of the very many graces and helps it provides towards perfection in charity. She also teaches that for those who are called to it and can accept it, they should. Strictly speaking the married state is not equally good, from an objective point of view.

At the same time, this does not deny the value of lay life, nor lay contributions to the Church, much less lay contributions to the world, which is our proper sphere of activity and responsibility. More importantly, not every person is called to consecrated life. This means that for an individual, it may or may not be better for him or her to choose consecrated life--it depends on what God has called them to do.

We Should Encourage Vocations to the Priesthood and Religious Life

As the author of the article referred to above ("Sacrificing Religious Life on the Altar of Egalitarianism") points out, though, we cannot expect religious vocation to be obviously desirable in our contemporary culture. It is a way of total renunciation of worldly goods. In our fairly hedonistic, consumeristic, materialistic society, it is in many ways far more difficult to appreciate the good of religious and priestly life than it is to appreciate the good of lay/married life. Not only that, it is considered "normal" for people to get married and have kids and enjoy the good things of this life.

For children to even consider consecrated life, I propose that we actually do need to actively encourage it more so than lay/married life. We do at least need to clearly teach our children that it is an objectively better way of life. We do need to encourage them to seriously consider it and seek God's will to know if he is calling them to that life, and even more so when we see signs of such a call in them ourselves. Any inclination and willingness to look into it should be met with lots of encouragement.

We need not worry much about pressuring our children towards consecrated life for the wrong reasons. For most parents, having a child pursue such a life--especially if they have few children as is common today--is also a kind of sacrifice and renunciation for the parent. You are renouncing the good of grandchildren and, potentially, "the carrying on of the family name." You are renouncing the potential that they will "follow in your footsteps." You are renouncing the chance that they can take care of you when you are old or infirm. In many ways, all the toil of raising the child becomes a gift to God and the Church.

Granted, there is some small danger for pride to slip in, but I'd say that it's generally much easier to just go with the flow and let your children be "normal" and that we have far more wrong reasons to hope that they do not pursue such life. So if we need to be on guard against anything, it would be against apathy towards consecrated life, against a false sense of egalitarianism, against our own natural desires for our children to have the many good things in this life that they would have to renounce should they choose consecrated life.

We humans need help to participate in God's grace, and choosing consecrated life is no different. God may be calling many people to it who are not responding because they are too caught up in this world, because they never seriously considered it, or because their parents and friends didn't even mention it much less encourage them in it.

Similarly, parents need encouragement to encourage their children in this way. What they don't need is to be made to feel wrong or bad or defensive for encouraging religious and priestly vocations in their children.

Not only that, other adults in children's lives need to offer this same kind of encouragement. When children see what their parents teach them confirmed by others in their lives--especially others that they respect or perceive to be wise or authorities in some sense--then it can only help them to feel freer to consider this as a good and viable option for themselves. But above all, they need their parents' support and encouragement.

So the next time you hear a parent being thoughtful or wistful or excited or (especially) worried about their child considering religious or priestly life, I suggest that you encourage them rather than dissuade or warn them. And if you know the child, by all means, encourage him or her, too!

---
Some notes for the nit-picky..

1. I realize there is a distinction between religious and priestly life. That is why I have tried to be careful about my terminology here and mentioning both despite its repetitiveness. That said, they both involve degrees of renunciation of worldly goods and are countercultural, so I think the discussion here applies to both.

2. I know first hand that marriage and parenting in particular (especially for large families) require many sacrifices that also help us on our way towards perfection in charity. I am not devaluing that here; however, I do maintain with the Church that religious life offers a more sure path towards perfection in that it requires more absolute renunciation of worldly goods.

3. This is written primarily about Catholics and to Catholics, even though it is on my public blog. So this is not the time or place to discuss how crazy consecrated/religious life may sound to non-Catholics. If such comments are made, they will be deleted. You can contact me personally if you want to discuss that.

The Myth of Science vs. Faith

Ambrose Little — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:51:00 +0000

"Right here we have the major lie at the heart of modern anti-religious scientific propaganda: the war between faith and science." (see and also this for more on the historical facts about Bruno)

Yup. That about sums it up. It's a real shame, too, because I love science, and especially as it pertains to cosmology, and I really wanted to enjoy the obviously well-produced Cosmos. Plus, I like many others it seems have an odd fondness for Neil deGrasse Tyson, so it pains me to see him promote rubbish. :-/

It's high time we are done with the myth that religion is antithetical and antagonistic to science. It's time the Galileo type mythology be laid to rest and the actual history be rooted in its historical context, where it belongs. Even if you refuse to accept the historical facts and to take the time to understand the historical context around the cases like Galileo, you can't refute that these things happened 3-400 years ago. Talk about beating a long-dead horse..

The reality is that "religion" (a broad term indeed, and hard to generalize about) is not inherently antithetical to science, and specifically, Catholics and the Catholic Church are pro science. And it is because of our religious beliefs that we are pro science, not in spite of them. God is the very foundation of truth, of reality, and science is a way for us to discover and understand more about this reality, which again, is ultimately rooted in God.

Science and faith are two, complementary paths to discover truths about this reality we find ourselves living in. They work together and can only ever be complementary when understood with clarity and honesty--because they both illumine the truth.

One of my own patrons, St. Albert the Great, was a well known natural scientist in his time (the 1200s), and the historical facts are that many, many scientists (among them some of the most notable) were Catholic (and are today), including many priests and vowed religious. Ask yourself how it could be that there are and have been so many faithful scientists if faith and science were so incompatible as some would have you believe.

It is a historical fact that the very idea of the university came out of Christendom, at the very height of medieval, Christian, Catholic culture. That's right, those supposed "dark ages" brought about the birth of the university, of hospitals, and of most of the notions that imbue our current conceptions of the "common good." Even the so-called "Enlightenment" came out of this "dark" Christian past, and it wasn't in spite of it but because of it. The notion of "progress" itself, of a dogged pursuit of self-improvement towards an ideal of perfection--that, too, is a fundamentally Christian notion.

Furthermore, our contemporary notion of natural science as a pursuit in itself also has its Christian roots. It is a fact that the scientific method was formalized and popularized in the West by a Catholic bishop (Grosseteste) and a Franciscan friar (Bacon). None of this is to imply (obviously I hope) that the practice of science is inherently dependent upon Christianity; the point here is to simply recognize that historically science grew from Christian roots (remembering that this is contra the myth that the two are somehow antagonistic).

It is also a historical fact that the proposer of the Big Bang theory that laid the groundwork for a lot of modern cosmology was a Catholic priest (Lemaître). It is a historical fact that the father of modern genetics was a Catholic monk (Mendel). The list goes on and on.

It is a historical fact that many popes have made pro-science pronouncements and sponsored, supported, and established many scientific institutions. It is a historical fact that our official, most authoritative doctrinal documents are pro-science (e.g., the Catechism).

Despite the overwhelming weight of historical and doctrinal evidence, many atheists and even some theists continue to foster the delusion that faith and science are incompatible. This is either inexcusable ignorance or dishonest malice. There is no good, honest reason to perpetuate this myth. If you up to this point believe this myth, please educate yourself.

Surely we do have enough real disagreements to sort out without manufacturing and perpetuating patently false ones.. let me suggest something--the core issues that drive our real disagreements and is the true driver behind a lot of this myth and its popularity. It is twofold: 1) the relative value and trustworthiness of knowledge that comes from faith versus the knowledge that comes from science/reason and 2) the propriety of constraining scientific inquiry.

It is my hope to cover these two topics in upcoming posts. Stay tuned. ;)

Proclaim the Word!

Ambrose Little — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:41:00 +0000

Beloved:
Remain faithful to what you have learned and believed,
because you know from whom you learned it,
and that from infancy you have known the sacred Scriptures,
which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is inspired by God
and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction,
and for training in righteousness,
so that one who belongs to God may be competent,
equipped for every good work.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus,
who will judge the living and the dead,
and by his appearing and his kingly power:
Proclaim the Word!
be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient;
convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.

(from the second letter of St. Paul to St. Timothy, 3:14-4:2)

Avoiding Misunderstandings and Offense

Ambrose Little — Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:40:00 +0000

Life is full of misunderstandings. We all experience them. Stories are told about them. They can cause all sorts of trouble in this human sphere, sometimes serious. Many of these misunderstandings occur through no particular fault of any given party. It's just a consequence of the nature of our limited perceptions/perspectives and the boundaries imposed by language.

Life is going to give us enough of these without our help. We can do our part to minimize them. Here are some possibly obvious but terribly challenging guidelines for doing so:

Don't assume people know what you know. Do what you can to ensure a mutual understanding of relevant information.
Don't expect something of another without making it clear to that person what you expect. Be prepared for the unavoidable cases when they may not agree that your expectations are fair, reasonable, or realistic.
Don't expect everyone to see things the way you do, nor to value the same things you value. In fact, it is basically a given that they don't, and it's just a question of scale in how much you differ.
Be patient with others and try to understand things from their perspectives, in as much as you can.
Don't guess at others' motivations. Doing so is a source of much unnecessary ill will in the world. Often people don't even know what their own motivations are, so how much more likely is it that we don't know what they are? Instead, give people the benefit of the doubt, ask questions to understand, and honestly, truly listen to them.
Don't take offense. Just don't. It's basically never a good thing to do.

This last one calls for some clarification. This is not to say that you should never feel offended. It's also not to say that your feelings of being offended are wrong, though they very well could be (and probably often are, especially where personal offense is concerned). The point is not to take that feeling and embrace it, wallow in it, or otherwise stagnate in it.

If your conscience is well formed, then it's entirely possible that your sensibilities are good, and that when they are offended, it is an indicator that something is not good. On the other hand, I would argue that very few of us, and maybe not any of us, have such perfect consciences that we should uncritically trust them.

The main problem with taking offense is that it tends to throw logs on the fire of anger, and when we get angry, we tend to stop thinking clearly. We start from the offended sensibility that tells us we (or someone else) was wronged, and then we get angry, and then it makes it that much harder to think critically about if our feeling of offense was right, was true.

A better way is to be on our guard in relation to the feeling of offense, to train our minds to immediately set aside the feeling and go through a self-examination and reflection when we feel offended.

Are we feeling offended because of our own pride? If so, it's probably not good and should be dispatched immediately.
Are we feeling offended on behalf of another? If so, what are the rational grounds for that feeling? Is it because we have affection for them? If so, then we need to examine the supposed offense more carefully with a view to whether or not we are reacting due to our emotional attachment and not for good reason. If we are not attached to them, is there some real injustice?

If we think we have discovered a real injustice, the next thing to do would be to ensure that the offense was intended (see above). Chances are more often than not, the offense is due to some misunderstanding, and it would be better to find that out than to move on under the assumption that the offense was intended and that your emotional response is justified.

In any case, the way forward is not to hold onto the offense but rather to move on from it to a more soundly-based motive for further action, one that doesn't tend to shut the brain down. Likely what needs to happen is to recognize our own failing, our own pride or unqualified affection; maybe we just need to discover and dispel a misunderstanding, or maybe it is a real injustice that we need to counteract. Whatever it is, it's highly unlikely that taking offense and staying offended is the best way forward.

Disconnecting from Catholic Social Media

Ambrose Little — Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:00:00 +0000

After the latest brouhaha resultant from this post (and the convo before it I mentioned), I have been pushed over the edge. I'm done with Catholic social media.

It's not like this hasn't been long in coming. It seems what passes for the majority of Catholic blogging, and perhaps more so social media, is a sludge of conservative outrage inducing link regurgitating. The echo chamber is in full effect, and it has gotten worse since our new pope has been elected. Now it's not just the broader decadent Western culture that has the watchdogs frothing at the mouth, but apparently the Pope himself is not Catholic enough for them.

Enough already. It is downright embarrassing and, for me, infuriating. It's all just so much gossip.

We conservative Catholics need to stop conflating political ideals with Catholic doctrine, as if the Right has a corner on truth and goodness. We need to stop vilifying those on the other end of the political spectrum. We need to stop overreacting to everything homosexual and abortion-related. We need to stop setting ourselves up in our own personal popedoms. We need to relax about the liturgy. We need to relax about the world's sexual profligacy. We need to relax. Chill out a bit. Take a deep breath and stop wigging out every time something in the world doesn't align with the way we think it should be.

It goes without saying (for me) that I'm not suggesting keeping silent when we should speak. I'm not suggesting not being active in the political process how we should be. I'm not suggesting ignoring or suppressing Truth, Goodness, or Beauty. I am by no means suggesting we don't share the Gospel--exactly the contrary!

Look. Either God is in control or he isn't. If the world is going to hell in a handbasket, that ain't nothing new. The way things used to be ain't as great as we like to pretend it was in our whitewashed memories. Human nature is human nature. It always has been. Mass sinfulness has always been with us; it's just the predominate kinds of sin that change with the passage of time.

Thankfully, God doesn't judge us by the political order and culture we live in; he judges us individually by what we as individuals think, say, and do. If God intended to set up a perfect political party or government, we'd have that. But we don't, and it's not our job to try to set it up.

What we do have is the Truth. What we have are the Sacraments. What we have is each other. Real people whom we are called to truly love, even if we don't agree with them.

And don't tell me about "speaking the truth in love." Hogwash. The Truth is easily abused and can be wielded as effectively to drive people away from God as it can to guide them to Him. The Truth is also understood incompletely, by us. It is often miscommunicated, by us. It is also often misunderstood, and we are responsible to minimize that--we must be sensitive to where people are and adjust when and how we share the Gospel with them.

And this extends beyond social media (it just seems exacerbated by it, as are most things online, where it's so easy to reduce people in your head to mere ideas and words, stripping them of the dignity and love they deserve from us). My own dear lay Dominicans were recently discussing a situation where one of them found out that someone they have do some handyman work is gay--who was "married" recently. Apparently this was the source of great anguish--should she keep paying him to do a job? What if he brings up his gayness?? "You have to share the truth [in love] with him," says someone.

Really?!? Have we become so oversensitized to this issue that it becomes a major personal crisis to find out that someone you have hired to do a job that has absolutely zero to do with their sexuality is gay? Are we really obligated to foist our opinion of their life choices on them uninvited? Must we all shake our heads and tut tut about it? Would we have the same crisis if, say, we found out that they were a terrible gossip or an inveterate liar? Somehow I doubt it, especially if their sin was also one we personally struggle with.

And that's the crux of it. If this behavior is not the very definition of what Jesus was counseling against in Matthew 7, I don't know what is. All this outrage-inducing "socializing" does is keep our focus on others' sins and errors rather than our own, much less does it help us to share the Good News. I'd say the Devil is pretty pleased with the state of Catholic social media right now. Pretending for a moment that this is "New Evangelization" is utter self-deception.

Sharing the Gospel is the key. It's not good enough to say something is a sin. That's sharing the Truth incompletely. That, at its best, is ethics. Being a "good person" doesn't get anyone to heaven. What we really need to share is not "you are living in sin" but "Christ can transform your life, give you joy and give you peace." That's the message. That's the focus. Sin is just an opportunity for us to receive God's grace. We need to share that the mercy and grace of God is greater than all our sins put together.

We need to stand with our fellow sinners, not so as to condone sin but rather in recognition that we are all sinners, that we all fail, that we all utterly need the grace of God. If we are not truly with them, then we are not truly loving them. Compassion is the word. Suffering with others. Us versus them is not authentic love. Pointing out sin is not authentic love. It is pride masquerading as love.

And, so, for myself, all this outrage-rich social media is a very near occasion to sin (not to mention a waste of time and talent), because I am repeatedly tempted to hold these brothers and sisters in disdain, because I myself become preoccupied with their sins rather than my own, and so, give into pride.

Therefore, I am cutting off that aspect of my life rather than continuing to fall into sin. I have deleted circles. I have unliked pages on FB. I will continue to cull these things from my life as they come up. As I slowly rebuild my Catholic social connections, I will use this as a bar: Does this person refrain from fostering outrage and indulging in judging and condemning others? Does this person share things that build people up? Does this person appear to be truly concerned with sharing the Gospel and will they help me to?

Getting a Firearms Permit in New Jersey

Ambrose Little — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 11:28:00 +0000

Finally got my firearms permits! w00t!

In NJ, it is quite the process, and mine was somewhat exacerbated.

A Little Background/Why I Did It
It all started back in the beginning of April when I decided to pull the trigger (ha ha) and go through the process. It's worth mentioning that I grew up in OK and AR, where gun ownership is no big deal. My first rifle was a gift from my step-dad--a very old, somewhat crusty bolt action .22 cal. I spent a lot of time restoring it, and in the end, it was an effective rifle even without a scope. I guess seeing how I took care of that one led him to give me a newer one that had a scope.

My other family also had guns, mostly rifles and shotguns, and we weren't rabid hunters, but we did hunt sometimes. As a teenager, I took a gun/hunting safety course, in addition to being mentored by my family. I've also spent a fair bit of time at ranges shooting rifles and the occasional handgun.

When I moved to Florida in 2003, I left my rifles with my dad because I didn't expect to need them and thought he could make use of them. Since then, I haven't had a gun, but mostly just because I was busy with other things.

This year, though, the gun debate heated up again, and it got me thinking about it. I also don't live in the safest city in NJ. And I wanted to experience what it is like for a law-abiding citizen to exercise his constitutional right to bear arms in a highly restrictive state like NJ. Together these things foisted me out of my complacency, and I began the journey.

I'm hardly a gun nut, but I am definitely on the "right" side of the issue. I think Larry Correia sums up the reasons why better than I can. (BTW, since I read that, I started listening to his Monster Hunter series--good stuff!)

Step 1 - Figure Out What You Gotta Do
The easiest way is to Google something like "getting a gun in NJ." That ultimately landed me on what I thought would be a reliable source--the state police Web site. I also read up on the actual statutes (not fun reading, as you might expect). I was surprised to learn that to get a permit to carry, you basically have to have evidence that your life is being threatened by, e.g., a stalker, or that you need it for your job. I figure living where I do is justification for me to carry--considering that all the criminals around here do, but hey, I figured I'd save that battle for a different day.

Step 2 - Download and Fill Out the Forms
So I downloaded and filled out the forms from the state police Web site and called my local PD, who told me to just drop it off.

Step 2.3 - Drop Off Forms in Person
I went to our police HQ (in an even-less-great part of town than I live in) and dropped it off. Next day I get a call from the detective in charge of permits, who says I filled out the main form wrong, was missing a form, and that I needed to type up my application using the editable PDF (the one I had already filled out by hand). He said to come and pick up a "packet" to apply. Then, once I had the packet done, I was to set up an appointment with him to go over them.

Step 2.5 - Pick Up the Forms
So I went back to the HQ, stopped by the desk, and asked for the "gun permit application" package. The lady handed me a package, and I said thanks and left.

Step 2.7 - Fill Out the Forms Again
There were more forms in the packet, including the mental health history form, as well as a handful of other things (like making copies of your DL) to do. I did all that and called the detective back. We set an appointment for Tues at 10a. Great--things are moving along.

Step Minus 1 - Get Appendicitis and Miss Appointment
Unfortunately, the Sunday (4/14) before my appointment, I came down with acute appendicitis and went into surgery for an old-fashioned appendectomy in the middle of Monday morning. So I had to call the detective and cancel. He said he had to put permits work on hold due to an investigation and wouldn't be able to get back to it for a few weeks. That happened to work for me because a little less than two weeks after my surgery, I had my family vacation planned. So we agreed to meet after that.

Step 3 - Turn in the Forms & Meet
It ended up being 6/5 before we could meet. I showed up with completed package in hand, only to find out that the lady gave me the wrong one--the renewal package instead of the new one. Thankfully, the detective was kind enough to let me fill out the correct extra forms right there (which included referral requests from people who will vouch for my character).

In addition, he gave me a new set of forms that I had to take to a local fingerprinting agency, which was also a surprising $57.50 that I was not expecting. That agency didn't have an available slot until 6/13, so more waiting...

Step 4 - Get Fingerprinted
Go to a separate agency, pay them about $60 to put all your fingers on a digital scanner a few times. Oh yeah, there was another form for this you have to fill out, both online and on paper.

Step 5 - Take Fingerprinting Form Verification to Police
Amazingly enough, even though the fingerprinting is digital and even though there is a digital form you fill out with the agency online, you still have to manually take the completed/verified form back to the police HQ and drop it off in person. It's almost as if they don't want you to get guns...

Step 6 - More Waiting
The detective warned me that his backlog is longish, so not to expect a rapid turnaround. Okay, by this point I am become one with the waiting, so I go with it (as if I have a choice). They have to do the background check and referral check.

Step 7 - Call to Check on Status
As I said, I am one with the waiting. Plus, it's not like I am in urgent need here, so I give it until 7/23. I called and asked to verify he got the fingerprinting paperwork and just to find out where we are. Next thing I know, the following day I got a call from the front desk lady saying my permits were ready to be picked up.

Step 8 - Pick Up Permits
Okay, phew. One last (I hope) trip to the police HQ. I stop by, and the lady takes me back to the detective's desk. The permit card is all filled out, but I guess they wait until you pick it up to put the date on the handgun permit--because they expire. That was considerate. She fires up an ancient typewriter and plops the date on, has me sign the card and the handgun permit, and fingerprints me again on the actual permit card.

Oh yeah, the rifle and shotgun permit is $5, and each handgun permit (you have to apply for those individually) is $2. I had to bring that in cash, exactly--they don't make change.

Summary
Okay, so I had to go to the police HQ FIVE TIMES in person to get my permit. In addition, I had to go to a separate agency for fingerprinting. That's a total of SIX interruptions of workdays--as with most government offices, they have restrictive hours you have to show up in (8a-4p). Luckily my employer is flexible about stuff like that, but I can't imagine how most working (i.e., upstanding citizens) folks whose employers are not so flexible would have to deal with it.

I started this process at the beginning of April, so it took roughly four months to complete the process. Who knows if I hadn't called if it would have been longer--I doubt they had just happened to finish it then. State law says that once the app paperwork is done, the department has 30 days to complete. And you'll note on the card, it was supposedly issued on 7/13--one month after I turned in my fingerprinting forms. ;) Now granted, I had a few-week interruption that was my fault, so we could say it took three months.

In terms of money, there is obviously the cost of transportation for those six outings. On top of that is the $57.50 for the fingerprinting and the $7 for the permits. So I spent probably $65-70 just to get the authorization to purchase guns. That's not the cost to buy an actual gun, to buy the ammo, to buy the safe to keep it safe. That is just to get authorized to buy.

On top of that, the closest gun range to me is 45-50 minutes away. There are some private ranges, but you have to go through a whole, multi-year process to get into those, not to mention do community service with them. In order to get any kind of competency then, I am going to have to drive about 2 hours to a range, pay someone to train me, buy a gun (or more). Living in a city, I can't just practice in the backyard. ;)

Commentary
As I said, part of the reason I did this was to go through the experience of just how much of a pain in the ass it is to legally get a gun in NJ. So far I've only been authorized to buy one, but what a pain. Time off from work. Several trips to agencies. Spending $70. All of this to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Now compare that to voting, another constitutional right. Certain people scream from the rafters if you even suggest that we require something as simple as a photo ID, which the vast majority of upstanding citizens already have. They yell about disenfranchising.

And yet, look at what it takes to exercise our 2nd Amendment right in NJ. How many citizens--especially those who live in areas where they might realistically need a handgun for self-defense--could afford to go through that process? Talk about disenfranchising.

More importantly, how many people who would abuse firearms would go through that process? I live in a city with high incidence of gun crime. I regularly see reports of illegal firearms on crimemapping.com in my area.

All this crap doesn't work to prevent the vast majority of gun crime. Further, it adds an apparently significant administrative burden to our already-stretched-thin police departments. If it takes that long to process permits, that's time that could be spent actually fighting actual crime instead. And yet there is a whole bunch of silliness about adding even more restrictions--even here in NJ. Heck, how about creating less overhead to get citizens guns and reinvest the time saved in free, police-led training programs for citizens? That sounds like a far more effective approach to me..

Next Steps
On the positive side, at least with some effort, money, and patience, we here in NJ can actually exercise our rights. Now that I'm allowed to exercise my constitutional right (as odd as that sounds), I'll be figuring out how to make some time to get to a range and do so. Glad to be through the process!

Fearology of the Body

Ambrose Little — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:42:00 +0000

Yesterday I had an.. interesting experience on Google+. As a joke I posted this:

So pissed. Today I saw FB using yet another one of my selfies in their ads! Gah! Faaacebooooook!!!!

I posted this on my Public feed. I thought it was funny. I also posted it on Facebook, where I found it.

So big deal, right? Yeah, that's what I thought, too. Until some folks started taking me to task for posting something that they consider to be too tempting for them (or maybe some imaginary lascivious person they are worried about being tempted).

Frankly, I thought the whole exchange was embarrassing. Not because I felt chastised but because I thought it displayed that not-unfounded caricature of Christians (and possibly more so, Catholics) as silly prudes--sexually oppressed and afraid of their (and others') sexuality. It is an unfortunate stereotype, and the reality that it is extrapolated from is equally unfortunate.

The reason those chastising me were wrongheaded is not that our current culture of licentiousness is right but rather that the foundation of fear upon which such a perspective is based is askew. Fear is the cornerstone of fundamentalism and the basic motivator for all that is bad in religious fundamentalism.

As Christians, we believe in the essential goodness of creation because God, the creator of all that is, visible and invisible, is essentially good. Our sexual nature as humans, while corrupted through sin, is also essentially good, and that includes our sex drive, our "sexual appetite."

Where problems involving sex arrive is with a distortion of our essentially good sexual nature. The most common distortion is inordinate desire, that is, desire that is out of proportion to what it rightly should be. From that stems the most common forms of sexual sin, such as habitual masturbation and many of the forms of sex outside of sacramental marriage. Often mixed up with inordinate desire is disordered desire, i.e., the desire for sexual gratification that is fundamentally disconnected from the primary purpose of sex--reproduction.

St. John Paul II's "theology of the body" did much to deepen Catholic thinking in a way that enhances our understanding of the positive, good nature of sex. I feel unworthy of the task of summarizing it, but the bottom line is that it provides a way to speak about sex as gift and as a language, a way to communicate our mutual, complete giving of ourselves to another in sacramental marriage, an intimate expression of that lifelong commitment, and ultimately, an expression of love that is inextricably intertwined with the purpose of procreation (and raising one's children in a family that is an extension of this self-giving love).

It is also in this way that, as St. Paul said, marriage is a reflection of the relationship of Christ and the Church, even of the infinite loving communion of persons in the Holy Trinity. This is why and how we Catholics speak of sex as beautiful and how we can cheerfully embrace the Creator's gift of sexuality to us. It is, fundamentally, a corporeal realization of theological love.

Contrast that with what I'm calling "fearology of the body." It's the perspective that is so afraid of the sexual appetite, so afraid of sexual sin, that it casts sex in an essentially negative light. Sex and sexuality become things to be shunned and avoided, or at the very least something to be dealt with from a distance with a hazmat suit on. Anything to do with sex becomes a kind of hazardous material. Dealing with sex becomes a list of don'ts, which is fine in as far as it sets more or less concrete limits, but it doesn't do much for helping us understand and realize the essentially good, theological nature of sex.

That kind of approach also warps our perspectives and makes us less free, that is, oppressed in a real sense, not in the popular sense of having limits on license but rather in the sense of being so afraid that you become not free to act, so afraid that you are not free to lovingly engage with others who do not share your perspectives, and more than that, so afraid that you begin to insist on constraining others' freedom due to your own fears and weaknesses.

And that's where this particular incident comes into view. If someone you know can't share an image of some guys standing around in their undies without taking him to task for supposedly providing an occasion of sin, your perspective on sex is seriously warped. This kind of thinking is what leads men to force women to wear burqas--because they might be tempted. It's the same kind of thinking that blames women for rapes. It is an abdication of personal responsibility and self control based in your own fears and inability to cope with your sexual appetites.

Yes, our sexual appetites are distorted due to sin. Yes, we must cultivate the virtues of temperance and fortitude, subjecting those appetites to the reason God has given us. But we must never think that mere avoidance of temptation is growth in virtue. It is, on the contrary, an indicator of a lack of the virtue of fortitude.

True self-mastery in chastity involves not this negation of our sexual nature but subjecting it to our will and channeling it into appropriate expressions. For married folk, this involves the aforementioned fidelity and mutual self giving to each other and, by extension, to our children. For celibate/unmarried folk, this means sacrificing the physical gratification of sex as an expression of our sexuality's essentially self-giving, creative, loving nature towards a larger community of persons, such as in religious communities, parishes, schools, hospitals, and even the world as a whole. In both states of life, chastity involves the integration of our sexual nature, not a rejection or fear of it.

Such fear of sexual sin also bespeaks of a misunderstanding of or lack of confidence in the grace of God. While we absolutely are called to greater virtue and holiness, which calls for action on our part, we must never become so bold as to think that it is our practice of virtue that brings us to God. God's grace is perfected in our weakness, as The Apostle put it. It is precisely that and when we do fail that we are blessed with the mercy and grace of God, which is a tremendous gift indeed, much more of a gift than if we were to achieve perfection on our own through the practice of virtue.

So we should not live in fear of our appetites, sexual or otherwise. While it is wise not to intentionally expose ourselves to occasions of sin, it is at least a bit off to try to coerce others to cater to our own weaknesses. If they choose to accommodate our weakness out of love for us, that is praiseworthy, but to require that of others for our own good is wrong.

Instead, let us focus on cultivating our own virtue in regards to our sexuality. Let us embrace it for what God meant for it to be. And for goodness' sake, let's not lose our senses of humor about such things. Humor is a good guard against fear. It also reminds us to not take ourselves too seriously and to rely on God's grace rather than our own (self-perceived) goodness.

Quantum Physics Proves a Spiritual Dimension

Ambrose Little — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 12:58:00 +0000

I made the title intentionally provocative, but this is interesting nonetheless. This is my extrapolation on what this scientist is saying in this article about science and free will (also Part 2). At the very least, it seems to make room for a spiritual dimension in reality, i.e., a dimension that is unaddressable through material-scientific means.

It would be interesting if, as we advance in our understanding of the cosmos, that rather than increasing some folks' certainty that God does not exist, we instead decrease that certainty. Of course, for the honest truth-seeker, there is no problem here. As most modern atheists claim to just follow the science where it leads them, then if they are honest, this should lead them in that direction.

Now they would doubtless point out that such a dimension, assuming that it does exist as indicated, hardly proves the existence of God. They'd be right. On the other hand, it does at least to some degree break down the "no scientific evidence" position that seems central to their conclusions. Keep in mind this is not about a "gap" (as in the "God of the gaps" critique) but a scientifically observed phenomenon that indicates an extra-material dimension. Given that science is prescribed by observable material phenomena, the discovery of an extra-material phenomenon indicates that science, as it is understood by most today, is not equipped to account for or explore that dimension. Some other means is needed.

We have that means today--reason and lived experience. In other words, this dimension is in the realm of philosophy and, potentially, theology.

Speak the Truth--In "Love" -> Barf

Ambrose Little — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:56:00 +0000

The next time I hear a Christian tell me, "we need to speak the Truth--in Love," I may just barf up all over them. Puh-lease. I mean, Really?!?

You see, it's not that the concept of speaking the truth is abhorrent, nor that loving others is. (Duh.) It's not even that sometimes, yes, you do have to tell someone something unpleasant for their own good.

The problem is that all too often this "love" is just a pretense. It is just a sham, a get out of jail free card. It is an excuse to make said Christian feel justified in taking others to task for their wrongdoing. Not only that, it is a habit that is easy to learn, and there are support groups for it that also pretend to be doing some great good (i.e., orgs that make it their mission to be perpetually outraged watchdogs). It is pervasive and pernicious.

Let's see.. what would Jesus say?

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

If your idea of "evangelizing" is to point out what people in society are doing wrong, to denounce and decry loudly from the street corners that they are doomed, you're doing it wrong.

We should be very, very reluctant to take others to task for what they are doing wrong because it almost surely means we are not looking at what we are doing wrong. And what makes it worse is that in overlooking our own faults, we fall into the even greater fault of spiritual pride and, quite possibly, begin to despise them. Heck, I am probably screwing up by just writing this post; I almost deleted it. See? It's a dangerous business..

If we truly want to love others, we need to first and foremost encourage them and celebrate the good that they do and then to have sorrow and compassion with them in their failings and difficulties, reassuring them that we're all in the same boat, that all of us need the grace of God, and that this grace is a freely given gift.

Read that last bit again. It's the pie slicer for our humble pie. Internalize it. This prayer by St. Thomas Aquinas is pretty good way to do it--pray it daily (excerpt):

My most holy Lady,

I also beseech you to obtain for me

true obedience and true humility of heart

So that I may recognize myself truly

as a sinner--wretched and weak--

and powerless,

without the grace and help of my Creator

and without your holy prayers,

to do any kind of good work

or even to resist

the unrelenting assaults of evil.

...

Obtain for me as well,

O most sweet Lady,

true charity with which

from the depths of my heart

I may love

your most holy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,

and, after Him,

love you above all other things,

and love my neighbor

in God and because of God.

Thereby may I

rejoice in his goodness,

sorrow over his evils,

despise no one,

never judge rashly,

and never in my heart exalt myself over anyone.

Pray. Try. Remember. When you fail, try again.

A Benedict Lover Defends Francis

Ambrose Little — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:26:00 +0000

A Post Wherein You Will Find Much Boring Centrism and Multi-Pope-Loving

Yesterday I read this post entitled "The Pope of our Punishment strikes." There are many ways to take a title like that. One of them is positive, in that I have seen others commenting on how "challenging" the new pope is to our comfort zones. One of them is negative, which is as a lament of how the new pope really is in some way a punishment (from God?) for us. And a third is a kind of satire--skewering the people who tend to do the latter by exaggerating the kinds of things that they say/complain about.

For a good portion of the post, I honestly thought it was the last one. Because the criticisms seem so insignificant--it's like the author is trying to find something to criticize and be offended. Alas, as I shared with my Catholic peeps on Google+ (where I came across this piece--sorry if ya can't see it), it is not satire; it is the second way above--true complaining and lamentation, which is odd given that the author's first post using that term was more of the first; I have no beef with that--I agree.

Unsurprisingly, the author took me to task for my über brief criticism on G+, and I fully intended to elaborate anyways. (At the time I was on my phone, which has a way of encouraging you to be brief. Now I sit before my full keyboard, so prepare yourself for my trademark verbosity! :) )

Let's analyze the post a bit. But before we do, by way of caveat, let me say to my non-Catholic readers that this post is probably going to seem somewhat bizarre, but then specialized concerns often do seem that way to outsiders.

Also, for my Catholic readers, this blog post outlines the reason for my general distate for the whole "Pope Francis is better than Benedict" theme that is still prevalent--I'm hardly one of those who fits into that crowd. Above in the pic you see (taken by my eight-year-old this morning) what is on two of our cabinets in our kitchen. The one is a thanksgiving note to Pope Benedict (BTW, I am the person behind thankyoupopebenedict.com); the other is of our new pope, celebrating his election--we celebrate and pray for them both as a family regularly. We also attend the nearby EF mass, and our oldest boy is a junior server there. And lastly, I am/have been a huge fan of Pope Benedict; I have read a lot of his stuff and followed most of what he said/did in office. In many ways, I felt like we were kin, intellectually and spiritually speaking. So this is where I am coming from--I'm not a flaming liberal. Ironically, for those who see Benedict and Francis as one being better than the other, here you'll find a long-time fanboi of Benedict defending Francis.

So without further ado, back to the concerns raised in the "punishment" post, which is couched in a criticism of Francis' purported "refusal to submit to the nature of the papal office," which the author seems to equate with, essentially, living large as pope.

Criticism #1) Pope Francis won't live in the papal apartments. The author speculates about how this must be costly/problematic for the exercise of the office. Maybe so, maybe not. It's just speculation. He goes on to impute falseness of character to the Pope--that Cardinal Bergoglio really must have been making plans for world domination as pope, even though he said multiple times that he didn't desire it or expect it. The irony here is that Francis has shown quite a tendency for off-the-cuff behavior (which the author also criticizes later), so why should it be hard to believe that he decided off the cuff to not live in the apartments?

On the contrary, this choice of living is not in line not with some disingenuous false humility but rather right in line with his way of life previously on record in Argentina, as archbishop and cardinal. If he's feigning humility, he's been doing it for a long time, and if he's been planning to be a falsely humble pope, he sure has been preparing for a long time. Talk about playing the long game!

Or we could just take him at his word, which seems more likely given his prior behavior (not to mention, it is more charitable to do so). And it's not just about some political need to "feel freer of curial bureaucracy" but the stated closeness and connection with those who are visiting.

2) I don't like how Pope Francis does mass. "But a papal Mass served by, say, gardeners in their gardening kit – is that humble or just inappropriate?"

Maybe it's not about being "humble"? Maybe it's about being close to average Catholics? It's hard to take seriously the criticism of a faithful Catholic gardener at daily mass being dressed in his work clothes while serving. Crap. Now I'm feeling guilty for all the times I served at daily mass while dressed in my work clothes. ;) Oh wait, no, I'm not..

This whole objection is exactly what the same author mentioned in his prior article: "those who have over-valued the trappings and ephemera of liturgy rather than directing their zeal more completely to the proper celebration of what is the Church’s liturgy." (Emphasis the authors.. and mine..) I have to admit a certain amount of sympathy here. I am personally a fan of smells and bells and high ceremony at mass, but I am not confused that my personal preferences should be the universal, unbreakable, only way to celebrate mass properly.

Pope Benedict himself spoke of "mutual enrichment" of the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms. It's not a one way street, despite the way traditionalists want to paint it--both forms enrich each other, i.e., "mutual." Whereas Benedict emphasized the EF, apparently it's time that Francis emphasize the OF. Those of us who are humble will try to learn from both and see the good in both--they are after all both part of the Church's liturgy.

"same simple (fast becoming monotonous) style" - So now the Pope has to change his "style" regularly in order to entertain (i.e., eliminate monotony)? What is the OF criticized for if not for over-innovation to entertain? Irony, anyone?

"humility or willfulness? Certainly the Pope has a right to set the tone of his papacy, but it is emerging very much a papacy the theme song of which could be Sinatra’s I did it my way. Strong – yes; humble – not so certain? Perhaps if this hermeneutic of humility were to be laid aside I would find his style not quite so disturbing."

Now we see a return to the accusation that the Pope is feigning humility, that he is using it as a show. See above. Not only is this uncharitable, it is hardly supportable. Did it occur to anyone that maybe he is just being himself? If I take anything from Francis, it is that he is authentic. It's not like he dramatically changed from who he was as Bergoglio. This is just who he is. Sometimes it comes across as showy, but it is hard not to come across that way when you are the Pope. People watch everything you do, so being humble by its very nature is at odds with the office, and it will inevitably seem showy.

And on that point, much could be said about Benedict. I hear it in my head now--the traditionalists trumping how Pope Benedict was doing something to "teach by example" in regards to the liturgy. "See? He wore this or that? So all the priests should! See? He put candles up--so all the priests should." Now that the new Pope is teaching something different by example--something that makes them feel uncomfortable, there are accusations of falseness flying around. The irony again, and this time more so because his teaching by example is truly, for him, just a way of life--probably far less premeditated than Benedict's examples in liturgy.

3) He really needs to get a clue what it means to be Pope. "He is successor to St Peter, holds the highest teaching authority in the Church, and needs to remember that his words now have a significance they never had when he was a priest or a diocesan bishop."

Does that statement not reek of condescension? Do we really believe that Pope Francis is some simpleton that does not, despite having lived his whole life as a Catholic, a priest, a bishop, an archbishop, and a cardinal, understand the impact of the papal office? It's not as if he was elevated from some rural parish; he was an archbishop and cardinal. One would think he understands the impact of the office.

"It does not serve his role as supreme teacher that the Vatican is having constantly to catch up with his unscripted words and try to record them and make them available."

Here we are again, speculating about how difficult it must be for Vatican staff as a justification for criticism. It smells of reaching. It's their job--boo hoo if it's a little harder on them. Not to mention, we have no idea how they feel about it; maybe they love it--new, exciting, challenging. How about comparing the relative brevity of Francis to Benedict? So let's speculate that what effort Francis adds by not always using prepared remarks, he relieves by being brief. I'm just engaging the point, but I really think it's not very weighty in any case.

4) His impromptu style causes PR gaffes. "Already we have seen more than one gaffe from his papal impromptus."

This is where I really got suspicious that it was satire. Are we really going to pretend that having papal gaffes is conditioned by whether or not remarks are prepared? Regensburg, anyone? Condoms? SSPX? Without wanting to encourage Benedict bashers, there is a whole litany of PR gaffes he made, and he was nothing if not prepared and very considered in what he said.

And as the author just pointed out, the Pope's words have a lot of significance. People watch what he says. Most of these people lack a lot of context and background and will misunderstand him. It's not a question of if but when, and prepared or not, it's going to happen.

As vicar of Christ, I suspect Peter didn't often speak from prepared remarks. Indeed, Christ told him, "do not worry about what you will say--the Holy Spirit will give you what to say when you need it." Obviously, this kind of thing only goes so far, and I wouldn't suggest everything the pope says is directly from the Spirit; however, if we're going to talk about appropriate styles, I think there is oodles of precedent for speaking from the heart rather than from whitewashed, PR-appropriate remarks.

"In fact it is so theologically muddy, and has been so misinterpreted by the media, that his words had to be clarified and explained."

Because yeah, that has never happened before in the history of papal communications. Oh hang on.. touches earpiece I'm being told this has happened a lot...

"Part of the problem is the Pope’s emphasis on doing good works, even outside the context of faith (ie by atheists). His words lend themselves to the easy imputation of Pelagianism."

This is called the slippery slope fallacy. And as we see below, it's not even a sustainable objection.

5) The Pope was mean to some people who told him how many prayers they said for him. Plus, he doesn't even know what Pelagianism is. Now we move on to the question of the Pope's own anti-Pelagian remarks. Quoting His Holiness:

I share with you two concerns. One is the Pelagian current that there is in the Church at this moment. There are some restorationist groups. I know some, it fell upon me to receive them in Buenos Aires. And one feels as if one goes back 60 years! Before the Council… One feels in 1940… An anecdote, just to illustrate this, it is not to laugh at it, I took it with respect, but it concerns me; when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: “Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries.” Why don’t they say, ‘we pray for you, we ask…’, but this thing of counting… And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through – not you, because you are not old – to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today…

The author of the article continues, "There are so many problems with this passage. There is the tone, which appears patronising and condescending as he looks down on (and resists the temptation to laugh at) those who might offer a spiritual bouquet of rosaries for his ministry."

Really? Because if you read what he actually said, you don't get that: "it is not to laugh at it, I took it with respect." Hardly condescending, but again, if you are looking to be offended...

"now-ridiculed faithful" - The Pope did no such thing. He said explicitly he received their gift with respect, not something to be laughed at. The problem here is that defensiveness is causing a hermeneutic of ridicule that is not there.

"Any pope before him would have been delighted." There is no way we can know this. Would Peter have been delighted? Who can say? I speculate that Bl. John Paul II might have also shared the concern, though maybe he would not have said so.

"Far worse is his equation of this spiritual bouquet with Pelagianism." He did no such thing. First of all, he is specifically concerned about the counting aspect, not the prayers that were offered for him. Secondly, he says "Pelagian current"--there is no "equation" with the heresy but saying that it smacks of it. Equating "Pelagian current" with formal "Pelagianism" is the same as equating the actual intent and documents/teaching of Vatican II with the "spirit of Vatican II."

What could he mean by Pelagian current, then? He hints at it--"this thing of counting." I know what he is talking about because I encountered that mentality when I attended an FSSP parish for over a year, and I have seen it to more or less degrees in the traditionalist circles I have ranged in both in person and online since then.

There is this mentality--it is one that says, "do this many things" for some good end, or that this prayer or this object is a sure guard against this or that evil or is a promotion of this or that good. We're not talking about the sacraments here but, at best, sacramentals (which have no divine guarantees). It's the same mentality that tries to put numbers of years on indulgences. It engenders superstition; it is questionable theologically, and it puts the focus on the means instead of the end.

The mentality that wearing this or that amulet will protect you from harm causes one to put his trust in the thing rather than God. Similarly, saying "do this many things" has the effect of focusing the trust in the number of things done, rather than in God. This kind of superstition is problematic in the "mode" of the religious act. St. Thomas illumines this principle a bit in discussing the question of wearing "divine words" about the neck. He says, "if hope be placed in the manner of writing or fastening" then it is superstitious. Also, we hear in Scripture Christ himself warning us about the heathen who pray, "hoping that they will be heard for their many words."

In all these cases, when the hope attaches more to a thing done (be it the wearing of a special object, the repetition of special words, the number of prayers said, and so on), it is superstitious, or at least tending towards superstition.

And we can easily see the connection with a Pelagian mentality here--one that puts one's trust in things we do or make rather than in God, one that detracts from or obscures the importance and value of God's grace. It is a mentality that stresses our doings rather than God's doings, our works rather than God's grace. It is not black and white. Again, the Pope doesn't equate the specific errors of Pelagianism with what is going on here; he says they share a current, i.e., a mode of thinking about spiritual things.

Francis spoke of "restorationist" (that's a polite way of putting it) groups that do really want to turn the clock back to pre-Vatican council days. They really do provide an environment for this kind of superstitious/Pelagian mentality to grow. The reform of this mentality was a positive outcome of Vatican II, and I believe this is what Pope Francis is talking about here.

Perhaps it was insensitive of him to choose the example he did, but the concern is real, and it is pastoral. It's great to pray for the Pope--his first act was to ask us to do so. But that doesn't preclude him from guiding people away from ways of praying that can be problematic. In any case, he was hardly ridiculing them.

"we might ask how else could they convey the scale of their corporate act? The number reveals that goodly number of people prayed a goodly number of roasries – for the Pope!"

I might ask, was it necessary to convey the precise number? Was it an opportunity of pride for them? As the Pope said, why not just say "we pray for you"? Or even, "many of us have been praying for you," or even "thousands of us have been praying for you"? The important thing was that they were praying for him, whether or not he actually knew about it, much less how many people, much less how many rosaries.

I have participated in a significant "spiritual bouquet" before, and I can attest that there was a certain amount of pride in the group from just how many things we had done, maybe even a bit of back-patting. That doesn't make the prayers bad, but maybe not counting could have removed the occasion for both pride and engendering a mentality that our "many words" would make us more heard.

Sure, it is nice to let people know you are praying for them. It is a good comfort for them. But maybe we can all do better by not trying to keep track of just how much.

"Moreover, how does one reconcile these remarks with his advocating atheists to do good works in the context of Christ’s blood having redeemed all humanity, even atheists?"

In short, his remarks about atheists have nothing to do with Pelagianism, and the connection attempted here just doesn't work other than as a way to, dare I say, cause confusion about what the Pope said. He wasn't suggesting that atheists are saved by their good works. He said that their good works are a way to a cultural meeting. IOW, it is a way to have something in common, a common ground, a path towards peace.

More than that, though, is that "these acts of love are in fact evidence of God’s activity in the person." This part of the "clarification" gives some insight into how the words on good works fit within the context of speaking of universal redemption. This ties in well with the Scripture that prompted the homily.

I would elaborate on this and suggest that such acts of goodness can be preparatory towards actual individual salvation. God gives the grace to do good, and that practice of goodness can incline one towards the Good, i.e., God. In our understanding of sin and virtue, such a concept is commonplace. Sin, even venial sin, develops a habit of sin that leads us away from God; similarly, doing good creates a habit of virtue that leads us towards God. It is a "beautiful path" one might say. ;)

6) "It is all very confusing, and a pope should not be in the business of confusion. He should not need help in making his remarks susceptible of orthodox interpretation."

So he's not batting 1000 on clarity in simplicity? I think we should, rather, judge by the vast majority of what he's said. He has an amazing knack for making difficult theology accessible. He treads the line between being comprehensible by the world and hardline orthodoxy very well. He challenges us regularly in our complacency and, I would say, in our navel gazing.

About navel-gazing...

On G+, another priest-friend challenged me in my being critical of this article. He said I was not being equally critical of another problematic piece I shared that was written by an evangelical Protestant. Even though, when I replied to him, I clarified I was not endorsing the article as a whole but the one quote I offered as a good observation, I would further say simply that I expect more of Catholics, especially of priests, especially of religious priests. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do.

More to the point, though, the other article was praising Francis' evangelical witness, something I strongly appreciate in Francis. This article I'm responding to here, though, is criticizing stuff that is anything but evangelical. It's all about us--the purported cost to the Vatican of the pope's humble and impromptu way of life, our being bored by the monotony of his liturgical choices and lack of ritual pizzazz, his not complete delight in and approbation of a spiritual bouquet he received from us, that we can argue with him on the appropriateness of likening that to a Pelagian current. It's all us, us, us. Navel, navel, navel. An evangelical outlook is, on the other hand, just that, an "out" look. It is concerned with the salvation of souls.

This is a point that I see Pope Francis challenging us on directly. Catholics need to be more evangelical. The New Evangelization needs to be more than just another Church program. It needs to change the way we think about the Church (some of us more than others). We need to open our eyes to the world around us--yes, to the poor and needy but also to the middle class atheists. We need to meet them where they are, find common ground and good we can share together.

To further illustrate this, consider the comments on his article and the ensuing article that was, shockingly, a clarification. Wait! I thought those weren't allowed?? ;)

"He has few languages (very limiting for a modern pope) and not much more theological grounding."

Really? I mean. Really?!? You can't be serious... First of all, number of languages is nigh on irrelevant. He has access to translators. Secondly, the guy is a Jesuit. We may not like their liberal approach to theology, but to suggest the Pope lacks theological grounding is 1) uncharitable, 2) untrue, and 3) the epitome of pride--as if we are the judges of that. Personally, since we're all offering our assessments of his theology, I've seen an amazing amount of it--it takes a lot more understanding to say things succinctly like he does than to elaborate in tomes.

"Quite honestly anyone who fundamentally disagrees with your original post cannot truly call themselves orthodox or faithful Catholics (perhaps that is a point they may revel in, who can say)."

And it goes on to even more shocking claims. Granted, this is not the author of the blog, but the author does respond:

"Thanks for your post, FC. You get where I am coming from. And quite frankly, what I wrote does not even make the scale when compared to some things the saints have written to and about particular popes."

Go see for yourself.

What utter pride and narrowmindedness, to blanket deny the orthodoxy and faithfulness of anyone who disagrees with the original post. Wow. Not only is it just a dumb, insupportable thing to say, it is again pride--as if they are the judges of quality theology, orthodoxy, and faithfulness.

7) "You are a blind pope-lover."

Okay, not in so many words, but that's the stereotypical defense when you come to the defense of the Pope with Catholics. What he did say was, " There are some also who see popes are little short of God re-incarnate."

This line is the last line of defense for the sedevacantist. They, of course, are the orthodox faithful. We who support the Pope are the Arians.

This reasoning is so pernicious. I have yet to find a way to break through it. It's the same reasoning used by Protestants and every other sect who considers themselves to be "the true believers." The reason you can't challenge it is that, naturally, their interpretation of reality is the only right one. Point out that the Church Magisterium exists to externalize judgment and provide us with the objective pillar and ground of truth, and they will claim that they are that pillar and ground.

Now, I will give Fr. Hugh some credit on this score. He reiterates his fidelity to the "office" of the Pope, and he is anything but a sedevacantist. I am not suggesting he is anything but a faithful Catholic priest. I only point out a path where the "but Arianism" line of thinking leads, especially for folks who think that they are the ultimate arbiters of orthodoxy. If you challenge such folks and defend the papacy, you de facto become part of their problem.

In this situation, I agree--we are talking about matters of prudence, and that is fair game. It is fair game to criticize and it is fair game for people to defend. In criticizing, Fr. Hugh is no more of a heretic than I am one for defending the Pope. I hope we can all agree on that.

What would St. Catherine do?

That said, as a Dominican, I'll bring up one of the pope-excoriating saints that Fr. Hugh probably had in mind--St. Catherine of Siena. A fellow lay Dominican, she railed against the pope at the time to return to Rome. Keep in mind, though, that in their defense, the Avignon popes had plenty of reasons to be in Avignon. They were none of them evangelical reasons, though. Plenty of worldly, practical considerations kept them there, not a care for the salvation of souls. St. Catherine called them out on that. Rightly so.

Can we even begin to suggest a similar case for Pope Francis? I hardly think so. Both St. Dominic and St. Francis were evangelical at heart, just as Christ and the Apostles were. These saints lived in a fully Christianized Europe--at the height of medieval Christendom. And yet they saw the need for a New Evangelization in their time and acted on it. Our Orders are evangelical at heart.

I think it is not for nothing that Pope Francis took on St. Francis namesake. He has said it on multiple occasions--his closeness to the poor and needy is not simply a humanitarian concern. Apostolic poverty is about the salvation of souls. It is evangelical. It's what animates Pope Francis. What he does needs to be interpreted in light of that.

His is not a feigned, showy "hermeneutic of humility"; it is a lively care for the salvation of souls. And that includes souls within the Church who are in danger--at all levels, from the curia who are tempted to careerism and worldliness down to the average Jane who can be tempted to superstition and the snare of private judgment. I think it also includes those who have become so enamored of their idea of "the Church" and "the liturgy" and what they think is or is not appropriate for hierarchical "offices" that they lose sight of what we're all about, what the Church is for.

The Pope needs our prayers. He needs our support. He needs our defense even. What he doesn't need is public criticism that will almost certainly never reach his ears. That is more akin to gossip than fraternal correction. St. Catherine of Siena didn't hang out in a tavern and badmouth the pope. She made sure he could hear her. If we honestly feel the Pope needs fraternal correction, then we need to take it up with him, not spout off about it on our little corners of the internets.

HAPPY FATHERS DAY TO OUR HOLY FATHER AND ALL OUR SPIRITUAL FATHERS!

Where is All the Righteous Indignation Now?

Ambrose Little — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:12:00 +0000

The trial of corrupt abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell has produced some horrifying testimony: articles.philly.com/2013-04-09/new…
— Luke Russert (@LukeRussert) April 11, 2013

You know. One really does try to be fair and not give into conspiracy theories, but the continued utter lack of reporting on anything that can be construed as against abortion by all of the major news media outlets does give one pause.

I truly think that if more people understood the horrible reality of abortion (and didn't just argue about it abstractly in terms of rights and choice and life), we'd have precious few advocates of that obviously evil practice. The problem is that it is so horrific, so utterly despicable and disturbing, that you literally cannot stomach to think about it very long, much less see the results of so many mangled little human bodies. It is literally the same level of disturbing as the videos the Allies took in WWII after entering concentration camps. It is a Holocaust, one that is swept under the rug, probably much like the Nazi one was swept under the rug in Germany.

Oh look, HuffPo did finally pick up a story on it. Just look at the comments. One person says, "why have I not heard of this before?" But then you have the absolutely incredible assertions that "this is the kind of thing we'll have if abortion is outlawed." Hello? Abortion is LEGAL, and it happens. In what alternate reality does it make sense to say, "we need to make it more legal so this won't happen"??

People who support abortion generally are not monsters. That is because they either willfully ignore and suppress the horrific reality or have been so duped by our society that hides it that they don't really even know about it. Very few people who face the reality of abortion could possibly still advocate for it without some serious mental gymnastics and a large does of turning a blind eye. It is simply that disturbing and evil.

And yet these same people will, as a rule, treat you like you are some evil KKK white racist homophobe if you don't support what they, again euphemistically, call "marriage equality." Oh, they very nearly shudder with indignation if you dare to even question the matter. But barbarously butchering babies by the billion? No problem for them. No outrage. No indignation.

Talk about having things bass ackwards...

UPDATE (12 April 2013): This article also compares coverage to the coverage of serial and mass murderers. Another analogy is the coverage of the "bullying" at Rutgers. Another example is the coverage of the Penn State scandal. Of course, there's also Sandy Hook, and countless other examples. There was even more coverage of Philly's own Michael Vick and his abuse of dogs..

Again, where is the moral outrage about Gosnell? Why isn't this plastered over every news media outlet daily for weeks or longer, as in the case of these others. Why? Because it might cause people to question their thinking on abortion and come to terms with its brutishness, its evil, its utter unacceptability.

There's also this--a pro-choice reporter essentially admitting guilt--that they haven't been covering it but should.

We Believe in the Resurrection of the Body

Ambrose Little — Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:37:00 +0000

The New Jerusalem by Nicolas Bataille (1373-1387)

Some time ago, my lay Dominican chapter president asked me to prepare a study "on the Resurrection" for our March meeting. That meeting was Palm Sunday. The study went well, I thought, but it occurred to me that maybe others would be interested in it. So here are my study notes, slightly edited.

I asked chapter members to find and bring a favored Scripture passage on the Resurrection. Maybe you can think of one that you like now.

What do we mean by Resurrection?
I think when most of us think about Easter, we think about the Resurrection of Christ. It is after all the historical event that we are remembering. Most of the chapter members, as I expected, shared passages about this. One that I liked in particular focused on Mary Magdalene, whom we call "The Apostle to the Apostles" because she shared the Good News with the Apostles. She is also co-patroness with Our Lady of the Dominican Order, for this reason.

So yes, absolutely when we speak of the Resurrection, the first and most natural thing we think of is the Resurrection of Christ. It is a good thing for us to remember, but despite how awesome and amazing the event is itself, what is even more amazing is what it means for us.

READ 1 Cor 15:1-4; 15:12-22

Then also:

Ro 8:11
1 Cor 6:14
2 Cor 4:14; 5:1-5
1 Thess 4:13-18
Rev 20:12-21:5 - this is really amazing; just let it sink in and dwell on it ("selah")

I think sometimes we can get caught up in the recounting of the story of the Passion and Death of Christ, that it becomes more of a story about someone else, or maybe we personalize the story, so that we put ourselves in the feet of the Apostles, imagining what it must have been like for them. The sadness, the fear, the disappointment, the guilt--and then the elation of Easter, that Christ is not dead; he is raised from the dead. Again, we are overjoyed at his Resurrection--what a relief! He's not dead; he is risen!

This is all very good, but it is just a nice story if we stop there, if we do not go on to consider what it means for us. The significance of Christ's Resurrection lies precisely in that by his Resurrection, his conquering death and hell, we too can take part in it. Our Christian hope is in this--the resurrection of our own bodies.

But what does this mean? It is interesting how this fundamental aspect of the Christian faith is so often obscured and, in a sense, minimized, while it is actually the core, the kernel, the essence of the Gospel. It comes towards the end of most of the creeds, and it is easy to just rattle it off without really thinking about it. So in this study, I thought it could be helpful to focus on this aspect of what we mean when we say "the resurrection," in particular, what is referred to as "the general resurrection," meaning that which will occur for all people (hence "general") at the end of the world.

THE GENERAL RESURRECTION

Read Catechism 988-1004

Read 1015-1019 (Follows)
1015 "The flesh is the hinge of salvation" (Tertullian, De res. 8, 2:PL 2, 852). We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.

1016 By death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul. Just as Christ is risen and lives for ever, so all of us will rise at the last day.

1017 "We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess" (Council of Lyons II: DS 854). We sow a corruptible body in the tomb, but he raises up an incorruptible body, a "spiritual body" (cf. 1 Cor 15:42-44).

1018 As a consequence of original sin, man must suffer "bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned" (GS § 18).

1019 Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men.

This is the basic outline of our doctrine, but let's dig deeper, with the help of good ol' Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. If you recall, I recently drew from this book for a study on theological grades of certainty, so the bits in parentheses speak to that.

FIRST PROPOSITION
All the dead will rise again on the last day with their bodies. (De fide.)

Nearly all of the most ancient creeds specifically say "resurrection of the body" (or of the dead, which can only mean body). (I followed Ott's references to Denzinger to find that out.) Now let's go to the Scriptural references.

OT
Jo 11:24 - Martha professes faith in the resurrection.
2 Macc 7:9-11 - Maccabee martyrs profess faith in it.
Dan 12:2-3
Is 25:8; 26:19

NT
Jo 5:28-29; 6:39-40
Matt 22:29-32
Lu 20:37-38
Acts 24:15
And the passages already referenced above.

You can see this is one of the better attested teaching, and that is of course why it is considered de fide--as being directly revealed by God.

You may also want to read Summa, Supplement, Q75, a1.

Many of the Fathers wrote treatises on it, by way of apology and instruction of the faithful, some of them extensively: Pope St. Clement I, St. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ephraem, St. Basil, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, St. Peter Chrysologus, and of course St. Augustine

SECOND PROPOSITION
The dead will rise again with the same bodies as they had on earth. (De fide.)

This is a slightly more challenging proposition because it raises a number of interesting difficulties. Let's dig into it a bit more. First, let's establish it is de fide.

Job 19:25-27 - this passage is now disputed with reference to the original languages, which St. Thomas did not have access to. At best, it seems the meaning attesting to the "this same body" aspect is less clear, although it can still be seen.
2 Macc 7:11 - "these [tongue and hands]" will be received again
1 Cor 15:35-58 - this passage can be difficult, but St. Thomas helps tease the meaning apart. Note "What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies." This is the basic argument for understanding that it is this body, and not some other. We cannot rightly call it resurrection unless it is the bringing back to life of that which died, our bodies.
Phil 3:21 - change our lowly bodies, not give us a different one

Now from Denzinger, the parts that Ott refers us to.

Denzinger 429, The First Chapter of the Fourth Lateran Council (12th ecumenical council, 1215--against the Albigensians, Joachim, Waldensians, etc.) declares, "And finally the only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, incarnate by the whole Trinity in common, conceived of Mary ever Virgin with the Holy Spirit cooperating, made true man, formed of a rational soul and human flesh, one Person in two natures, clearly pointed out the way of life. And although He according to divinity is immortal and impassible, the very same according to humanity was made passible and mortal, who, for the salvation of the human race, having suffered on the wood of the Cross and died, descended into hell, arose from the dead, and to render to each according to his works, to the wicked as well as to the elect, all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear, that they may receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting glory with Christ."

D 16, the "Faith of Damasus" formula of the creed, Gaul c. 500: "...We believe that cleansed in his death and in his blood we are to be raised up by him on the last day in this body with which we now live…"

D 40, the Creed "Quicumque", a.k.a., the Athanasian Creed (some ascribe to St. Ambrose, also one "Anastasius"), which was used with authority in east and west, and in the liturgy, says, "…at his coming all men have to rise again with their bodies…"

D 287, Council of Toledo XI (675, against Priscillianists), The Creed of Faith, "In this example, therefore, of our Head we confess is accomplished (with true faith) the true resurrection of the body of all the dead. Neither do we believe that we shall rise in an ethereal or any other body (as some madly say) but in that in which we live and exist and move. When this example of His holy resurrection was finished, our same Lord and Savior returned by ascending to His paternal home, which in His divinity he had never left."

D 347, Pope St. Leo IX, in a letter of congratulations to Peter, the newly consecrated bishop of Antioch, in 1053, sharing the symbol of faith (the formula here was very much like the questions proposed to bishops being consecrated, "…I also believe in a true resurrection of this body, which now I bear, and in eternal life."

D 427, from a formulation of faith for recanting Waldensians, 1208, from the archbishop of Terraco, "We sincerely believe and with our mouth we confess the resurrection of this flesh which we bear and not of another."

D 464, 2nd Council of Lyons, 1274 (14th ecumenical council, concerning the union of the Greeks), from the profession of faith of Michael Paleaeologus: "The same most holy Roman Church firmly believes and firmly declares that nevertheless on the day of judgment 'all' men will be brought together with their bodies 'before the tribunal of Christ' 'to render an account' of their own deeds (Rom 14:10)."

D 531, Pope Benedict XII, edict Benedictus Deus, 1336, "…all men with their bodies…"

We see from these sources, including Scripture and ecumenical councils, that this doctrine is de fide, but we can do more to consider how it is so and what exactly the bodies will be like. For this, we turn again to St. Thomas, in the Summa Supplement, Q79ff. In it, you will see him referring back to many of the Scriptures above.

From these we better understand Some characteristics of resurrected bodies:

Incorruptible - they will not be subject to deformity, decay, or destruction.
Immortal - they will not die again.
Identical - they will have the same form and matter.

That they are incorruptible and immortal is, according to Thomas, due to two reasons. First, he explains that the principle of change in our bodies will be removed; this is due to the overall change in the state of the universe at this time--the new heaven and new earth will also no longer be subject to the same changing nature. This is equally true of the damned and the just.

The second relates to the restoration of original justice and the total subjugation of our bodily nature to our spiritual (also attested by St. Paul in the passage from 1 Corinthians 15 above--the "spiritual body," i.e., the body subject to the spiritual nature), so our immortal spiritual nature can prevent corruptible changes from happening to our bodies. This is only true of the just, who have received this grace of right ordering of our human nature.

As for identical matter, this presents some more interesting difficulties. It doesn't take a modern understanding of biology to find the difficulties in this teaching, and you can see even the ancients, both Greek and Jew, had trouble with it: Acts 17:18; 31-32; 26:5-8. And there is further evidence in the early Fathers' apologies and explanations around this subject as mentioned above.

St. Thomas first addresses the reasons why it must be the same, in Q79, a1: "For we cannot call it resurrection unless the soul return to the same body, since resurrection is a second rising, and the same thing rises that falls: wherefore resurrection regards the body which after death falls rather than the soul which after death lives. And consequently if it be not the same body which the soul resumes, it will not be a resurrection, but rather the assuming of a new body." Then also in a2: "... to maintain that he who rises again is not the selfsame man [199] is heretical [200], since it is contrary to the truth [201] of Scripture [202] which proclaims the resurrection [203]."

So it can help to ask, what does it mean to be identical?
Q79, a3 - does it have to be the exact same matter in the exact same place ("the ashes")? To answer this, Thomas gives us the analogy of identical matter of clock, toy, etc: "Now in artificial things, in order that the same artificial thing be remade, from the same matter [301], there is no need for the parts to be brought back to the same position. Neither therefore is it necessary [302] in man [303]." In other words, it doesn't matter if the same kind of matter is used to remake the various parts (heart, bone, ears), as long as the result is it is the same heart as pertains to it being my heart for me.

If we cast this is slightly more modern scientific words, we could rely on the concept of DNA. Our DNA forms, as it were, the schema for our bodies, the set of instructions that are used to give our bodies their particular identities. It isn't important that the exact matter in our body at any given time remain for us to retain our identities. We gain weight; we lose weight. Our hair and nails grow; our cells regenerate, and so on--the matter of our bodies is in constant flux. We no more have the same matter we had ten years ago, then we will in the resurrection, and yet we will have the same identical body.

Of course, St. Thomas didn't have the luxury of our modern scientific knowledge, and yet it is interesting how he uses different words that speak to the same realities. He speaks of "the truth of human nature," in terms of what will need remain for us to retain our identities. Q80, a3: "Whatever belongs to the integrity of human [118] nature [119] in those who take part in the resurrection [120] will rise again." And further in a4: What belongs to "the truth (essence/being) of human nature," which he says is, "what first belonged to the substance [346] of a man's body… and of that which was added secondly, thirdly, and so on, as much as is required to restore quantity."

He hits on the concept of DNA in Q80, a4: "all that was in the substance of the seed will rise again in this man who was begotten of this seed." St. Paul also speaks of a "bare kernel" and how God gives "to each of the seeds its own body."

He continues, "while certain parts are on the ebb and others are being restored to the same shape and position, all the parts flow back and forth as to their matter [391], but remain as to their species [392]; and nevertheless the selfsame man [393] remains." Again, it is not as if we could grasp the current matter in our bodies and say, "this is the matter I will have in the resurrection," but we can say, these arms, these eyes, this hair, in the sense that we would recognize them in ten years, and in the sense that if we had a DNA test, it would return positive.

The difference is that any defects in our DNA will be repaired, so our bodies will be the perfect body they should have been were it not for those defects and disorders. For the just, we will not be subject to either inordinate nor disordered desires.

In Q81, he addresses questions of age, size, male and female, animal functions. Our age will be the perfect age of maturity, meaning the point at which our body naturally achieves maturity, but before it begins to decay. Many speculate around 30 years or so. The same can be said for size/stature, except again, no defects or deformities will remain--we will have perfect health. Because being male or female is part of human nature and identity, we will retain our sex (and it will be rightly ordered), but as we will no longer have need of our animal functions, we will be "as the angels in heaven." Because we do not need to materially maintain our bodies nor to grow them, we won't need to eat. Because we will not need to propagate the species, we won't need to have sex. And so on.

For those who lack of matter for the resurrection of their bodies, St. Thomas says in Q80, a4: "substitution is made by Divine power so far as the perfection of quantity requires, as it does in those who die before the perfect age." This is also true if our matter were to be, for instance, shared in some way. For instance, we die, and our bodies feed other plants and animals that then are consumed by other humans--in such cases, God will make up for the insufficiency of matter.

Somewhat amusingly, Thomas also addresses the question of whether all of the matter that belonged to our bodies will rise again, in a5: "body of one who rises again will be very dense, or it will be immoderate in quantity." LOL. Just imaging our bodies if it were true that all the matter were resurrected. We'd be as dense as diamonds or as bloated as a blimp! He goes on, "the whole of what is in man will rise again, if we speak of the totality of the species which is dependent on quantity, shape, position and order of parts, but the whole will not rise again if we speak of the totality of matter." Again, the concept is akin to the idea of reconstructing the human body from DNA (as in the cloning in science fiction, if you will).

Our bodies will be our bodies (again about DNA), from Q81, a2: "At the resurrection human nature will be restored not only in the self-same species but also in the selfsame individual : and consequently we must observe in the resurrection what is requisite not only to the specific but also to the individual nature."

To put it briefly, it is not the exact same particular matter from any point in our lives (much less what was there when we died or remained thereafter) but the identity of our bodies, free from defect and disorder, and restored to perfect maturity, health, stature, and so on. What particular matter is used to form this body is for God to figure out, but it will be my body, this body, not some other and not some non-physical spiritual/ghostlike body. That's pretty awesome.

THIRD PROPOSITION
The bodies of the just will be remodeled and transfigured to the pattern of the Risen Christ. (Sent. certa.)

The qualities of the resurrected bodies of the just as outlined above:
- Perfect - completely whole, healthy, of optimum age, and rightly ordered

And also, as in Summa, Suplement, Q82-85 - the four qualities of beatified bodies
- Impassibility, the incapability of suffering
- Subtlety, spiritualized nature--not spirit but a spiritualized body--completely subject to the soul
- Agility, capability of the body to obey the soul with the greatest of ease and speed (near instantaneous)
- Clarity, brightness, the "glory" of our souls being seen in our bodies

These are drawn from Scriptural sources, either specific statements about our bodies, taken from the Transfiguration, and from that related about Christ's body after his resurrection. Our bodies will be conformed to his, like his, so we can derive these truths about our bodies based on what we are told about his.

FOURTH PROPOSITION
The bodies of the godless will rise again in incorruption and immortality, but they will not be transfigured. (Sent. certa.)

The understanding of the quality of the bodies of the damned are taken also from Scripture, implied in what is said of them. St. Thomas deals with this topic also in Question 86 of the same part.

Q86, a1: ""The dead shall rise again incorruptible"; where a gloss [13] says: "The dead, i.e. sinners, or all the dead in general shall rise again incorruptible, i.e. without the loss of any limbs." Therefore the wicked [14] will rise again without their deformities."

a2: immortal and incorruptible: " It is written (Apocalypse 9:6): "In those days men shall seek death, and shall not find it, and they shall desire to die, and death shall fly from them."
Further, the damned will be punished with an everlasting punishment [78] both in soul [79] and body (Matthew 25:46): "These shall go into everlasting punishment [80]."

a3: not impassible: "Now on account of the former co-operation not only the soul [129] but also the body will be rewarded after the resurrection [130]. Therefore in like manner the bodies of the damned will be punished; which would not be the case were they impassible. Therefore they will be passible."

SUMMARY
As noted already, these truths are at the very heart of the Christian faith. They are part and parcel of the Good News. Even that dealing with the damned is in accord with this being Good News, not because we, much less God, are spiteful and wishful that any should so perish--God forbid! Rather, it is in that part of God's perfection is perfect justice, and the only just recompense to a rejection of God's mercy is to be judged without the application of that mercy. We know that God does not desire that punishment, but in his justice, he allows for it. We know that God gives each person sufficient opportunity to take advantage of his mercy, so no one is thus condemned unjustly.

This is good news because we know that God is and remains perfectly just and that he rewards each of us according to what we have done. Even more, for those who throw themselves on God's mercy, they will be receive the additional grace of having their resurrected bodies glorified, transfigured to be like Christ to live with God forever.

"Behold, God’s dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them as their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, for the old order has passed away.” Rev 21:3-4

I Am Barabbas

Ambrose Little — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:33:00 +0000

During the Palm Sunday reading this year, more than any year I can recall, the figure of Barabbas stood out to me. I'm sure I've heard others make the connection, but you know how it is when you have a personal epiphany--it's like this blazing light that sears into your soul, all else temporarily drops away, and you can briefly see with some kind of unhindered clarity something that you didn't see before or maybe only saw less clearly.

This happened to me. Specifically the aspect of how Jesus quite literally took the place of Barabbas I mean, we often speak in a general sense about how Christ took our place in the sacrifice of the Cross. But for some reason, it just struck me how literal it was in the case of Barabbas.

But all together they shouted out, “Away with this man! Release Barabbas to us.” — Now Barabbas had been imprisoned for a rebellion that had taken place in the city and for murder. — Again Pilate addressed them, still wishing to release Jesus, but they continued their shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
Pilate addressed them a third time, “What evil has this man done? I found him guilty of no capital crime. Therefore I shall have him flogged and then release him.”
With loud shouts, however, they persisted in calling for his crucifixion, and their voices prevailed.
The verdict of Pilate was that their demand should be granted. So he released the man who had been imprisoned for rebellion and murder, for whom they asked, and he handed Jesus over to them to deal with as they wished.

This man. A murderer. A leader in rebellion. The Incarnate Word took his place.

We are often tempted to think that Christ couldn't possibly forgive our sin. Our sin is too heinous. Or we keep doing it--how could he keep forgiving on us? But he does. He took the place of a rebellious murderer. And he wants us to let him take our place as well. He wants us to rely on his atonement, on his mercy.

Yes, I am Barabbas, and Christ really did take my place.

Diabolical Debate or Divine Dialectic

Ambrose Little — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:21:00 +0000

Instead of starting from "how well does what this person has to say align with what I already think?", we would be better to start from "what can I learn from what this person has to say?". This is the way of dialectic and fruitful dialogue. Sadly, too often I forget this and fall into the comfortable cage of my own preconceptions and prejudices.

Must try harder. Must remember to pray first.

Clear Thinking About Redefining Marriage

Ambrose Little — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:05:00 +0000

Given what is going on at the Supreme Court this week, it seems only fitting to add some commentary on that for my post of the day. I know, because so few people are, I thought I'd fill the much needed gap. ;)

First, I'll offer some past commentary I've written on the subject. As I guess many people have, I've been pondering this subject in some depth for many years now, dare I say, "wrestling" with it. I seem to recall my first attempt to gather my thoughts on paper about it was back in the summer of 97 or maybe 98, but I no longer have that. And before and after that initial attempt, I have had innumerable (it feels that way anyhow) discussions with people about it.

Note Well: I should mention that I have family members (yes plural) who self-identify as homosexual. I have also worked with people who have identified as homosexuals--people I consider friends, and I have neighbors currently who make no secret of their sexual orientation. This issue is not something I take lightly nor dismissively, nor is it based on some kind of prejudice, nor is it based on simply quoting biblical passages, nor is it even based on what the Catholic Church says on the matter. It is quite simply based on natural law--something we can reason to based on natural evidence and considerations.

I would love nothing more than to just go with the pop cultural flow on this topic--especially these days with the increasing normalization of irrational hate and bigotry on the side of advocates of gay marriage, but as someone who makes an effort to try my best to understand the truth of things and to live accordingly, I cannot simply ignore what seems to me to be the truth of things in this matter.

The earliest writing of mine that I can readily track down of my writing on the topic is this post back in 2006:
On the Good and "Right" of Marriage - This one is still a pretty good reflection of my thoughts today, although I think/hope they've been refined a bit and maybe I'm a little more aware now of my own prejudices than I was then.

Review: Sexual Authenticity - In 2009, I read this great book written by a former lesbian. This book, probably more than anything I've seen or read, helped me to better appreciate the struggles folks in those situations face (inasmuch as I can), as well as to recognize prejudices I still had, even despite my efforts to be open minded about the subject.

Marriage Must Be Strengthened, Not Redefined - Also written in 2009, it was an attempt at restating a holistic consideration of the matter.

Speaking of Abominations - A 2010 response to/rant against those opponents of homosexuality that mainly rely on prejudice and simple-minded quoting of biblical passages to act in bigotry towards homosexuals.

Who Cares Who Gets Married - A 2011 rant/response to the stupid statement, "who cares who gets married?" that is often used as a way to dismiss the issue entirely.

What If My Child Were Gay? - A 2012 reflection on this question, one that is often posed by advocates for homosexual unions as a way to try to guilt people into caving on the issue.

And that's it of the publicly, readily available writing I've done on the subject. The rest is lost to time or locked in walled gardens like Facebook, G+, and elsewhere, but this sampling is I think a pretty good reflection on most of the issues and concerns involved.

I would set all of this up against what any advocate for homosexual unions has to offer (specifically with regards to the desire to redefine marriage to include these unions). As time has progressed, I have watched as the argumentation on the other side of the discussion has devolved to the point that it is rare to have someone engage thoughtfully and reasonably. More common by far is the throwing of epithets, the false comparison to the racial civil rights movement (and concordant demonizing of opponents of redefining marriage), and essentially a simple dismissal and refusal to rationally engage in dialogue.

Allow me to summarize the arguments advanced in the cause of redefining marriage:
1) By far, the most common and usually unspoken argument is that it feels right. It feels good to feel openminded and so "tolerant" (this moniker itself being just another dishonest rhetorical device, implying as it does that to hold an opposing position is "intolerant" and made even more absurd by the extreme, real intolerance shown towards defenders of marriage).

It feels good to feel like you're in with the crowd--all the kids are doing it, after all. Nearly every show (quite disproportionate to reality) has a token homosexual, and usually they are portrayed as the most fun-loving, lovable, and good persons. Sadly, the homosexuals I've known do not match up with this presentation. At best, they are just regular folks with all the usual foibles.

The efforts in popular media have largely succeeded to normalize homosexuality, which is of course the intent, but more than that the goal is to make it seem as if that if you don't go along with it, you are bad, you are a bully, you are intolerant, you are a bigot, which again is ironically exactly what this sort of thing encourages in reverse.

And boy, how telling is it that as I write this, my wife is watching a Crossing Jordan in which a pregnant homosexual woman is killed and her baby ripped out by a hateful religious bigot. What utter, evil bullshit, and yet, that is the caricature pushed by the popular media on those who oppose redefining marriage.

2) It is progressive and youthful to advocate for redefining marriage. Again, the media portray opponents as old, ignorant, backwards, stuck in their ways. Only rural, uneducated, bible-thumping old folks could possibly object, and, as the argument goes, it's only a matter of time--these folks will die off and become increasingly irrelevant, just like the racists of yore.

Well guess what? I know plenty of young, educated, intelligent, charitable, and thoughtful folks who don't go in for redefining marriage. Further, and perhaps more importantly, this is ageism. Progress is no reason in itself. Youth is no measure of wisdom (usually quite the opposite).

3) "Why are you so obsessed with what people do in their bedrooms?" I got news for ya. We are not obsessed with that. This is a variation on the "Who cares who gets married?" question. See the above post--same answer applies here. The short answer is that we are not the ones who brought the subject up. Maybe the subject deserves to be brought up, but in doing so, it opens the door for people to debate and discuss it. It is the hot button topic of our time, and so it is normal that we are talking about it.

It is only our peculiar contemporary cultural insanity with regards to sexuality and marriage that has occasioned this being a significant social issue. Marriage, more than other things in our society, is an ancient and well-tested institution that pretty much has always in every culture meant to mean the union of man and woman in a stable (ideally life-long) relationship ordered towards procreation and raising of the children from the biological mother and father in said committed relationship.

It would be better to ask, why are advocates so obsessed with flaunting their sexuality in public? We really don't want to know about it--keep it in your bedrooms.

4) "Redefining marriage to include homosexual unions is the 'civil rights' issue of our day." This is simply an untenable, reprehensible co-opting of a still-emotionally charged issue as a means to bully advocates of traditional marriage into silence and submission. After all, who wants to be like a racist, right? Racists are almost universally agreed upon to be a pariah in our society, and rightly so.

There are two problems with this assertion. First, there is a rather large burden of proof to make the case that redefining marriage is on the same level as the racial civil rights movement. (Hint: it's not possible to show this.) But more to the point, even granting that there are some superficial similarities (i.e., a minority group advocating for some perceived right), the similarity itself is actually no argument at all. Again, it is just a rhetorical tool, and a particularly vicious and dishonest one (not to mention the injustice it does to African Americans).

5) "I know so-and-so who had a very sad personal event (usually death or something healthcare related) that was made worse because of the legal status/not being married." This, again, is more of a rhetorical device than a valid argument. There are legal tools made to address such situations, and where they are still lacking, I think no right thinking person would oppose their creation (and not just for homosexuals but for any people in a loving relationship). Nobody wants people to suffer worse due to bureaucratic red tape.

There are two issues here as well. First, the problem can be fixed without redefining marriage. I think in terms of expediency and practicality, it may be hard to argue against that the redefinition of marriage is legally easier than addressing the problem in other ways--but that doesn't make that solution right. We can create a legal solution that is both correct and sufficient without redefining marriage.

Second, even marriage these days does not guarantee the elimination of bureaucratic red tape. I have been advised by multiple attorneys that I need to have a will in place, ideally also a living will, and a power of attorney--for my wife (and vice versa). This is needed due to the general breakdown of marriage in our society that has slowly eroded spousal privileges (because they have been abused and because marriage is so easily cast off these days). The point is, marriage itself doesn't fully address the bureaucratic red tape problem, so redefining it won't effectively solve this issue. We should have a simple way to designate any other person or persons to have the various rights, powers, and responsibilities over us and ours. Redefining marriage is not the best solution for that.

6) "I know so-and-so has had a hard time feeling accepted by society because of their self-identification as a homosexual." Again, no right thinking person would advocate against loving people regardless of their sexual orientation. Mistreating and abusing anyone due to their sexual orientation is wrong. Bigotry is wrong no matter what the cause.

But that does not mean we need to redefine marriage to solve this. Not being able to marry another homosexual person does not make homosexuals second class citizens. As above, this term "second class citizens" is another emotional bullying term. There is nothing (legally) stopping homosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex--that's what marriage is, a union of a man and a woman. Just because they don't want to marry a person of the opposite sex does not mean they are second class citizens.

There have always been individuals who don't want to marry because they value something else more highly (be it their personal freedom, not liking children, their religious vows of celibacy, their lack of interest in the opposite sex--whatever). The fact remains, they are completely free to marry a person of the opposite sex under law--they have that equal right, but they choose not to. The case is no different for a homosexual person. Merely wanting to live an alternative sexual lifestyle--no matter how deep seated one's sexual desires are--does not entitle one to redefine marriage to include that lifestyle.

Again, all right-thinking people should agree that mistreating someone based on their self-identifying as homosexual is wrong. But this does not automatically imply that we must all approve of that form of sexual activity or see all forms of sexual activities as equally healthful. I think that few people would suggest such a thing--that all forms of sexual activity are equally healthy--so where we differ then is on where we draw the line in terms of what is and is not healthy for a person. And no matter where we draw the line, I guarantee that those who engage in the forms of sexual activity we think unhealthy are going to feel that somehow we are not fully accepting of them and their choices.

But that's okay. There are plenty of people who don't approve of my choice of religion, my choice of food, and many of the choices I make in how I raise my kids. In fact, I know there are people who are more restrictive than I am in terms of what is acceptable sexual behavior. I'm okay with that--similarly, homosexuals that engage in homosexual activity need to learn to be comfortable with the fact that not everyone is going to approve of their behavior.

And lest anyone think I am missing the point that homosexual tendencies are not choices, let me assure you that I am not. I do not claim that they are definitely not biological. I do not claim that a person "chooses to be a homosexual." I do, however, make a distinction between biological and psychological dispositions and what we, as free human beings, choose to do with them. One mustn't hold people accountable for their predispositions; however, one can hold people accountable for actions.

This doesn't make those who disapprove of homosexual behavior bad or evil or inherently bigoted, nor does it mean that such people don't accept them as persons, as human beings with human dignity and all that entails. It certainly does not mean those people think they are entitled to mistreat homosexuals, but by the same coin, homosexuals need to deal with that disapproval of their behavior if they want to keep doing it. It's just a fact of life that people are not going to agree with nor approve of everything you choose to do.

Heck, I don't even approve of everything that I do. Does that mean I don't accept me as a person with human dignity? No, it surely does not mean that.

Still, I grant that homosexuals have received more than their fair share of mistreatment at the hands of bigots. And I fully agree that this mistreatment is wrong. I just want to be clear that this doesn't mean that everyone has to approve of homosexual sex to make up for others who have mistreated them, much less do we have to redefine marriage for that reason.

7) "Equal rights!" This is I think the strongest argument offered in favor of redefining marriage. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near as simple as most advocates for redefining marriage like to portray it. Our American culture (especially) is very into "rights" and "equality"--to an irrational extent. So most people who toss this one out, do so more out of this feel-good American sense of equality and some vague notion of "equal rights" than they do from having really thought it through.

Rights involve justice. Justice involves considering not just blanket "equality" but equality that is based in balance, in giving things their due. The lady justice holds scales, and not for no reason--because justice includes this notion of balance. Goods offered by the state, as they are to married people, are offered in relation to the perceived goods of marriage. Therefore, to make the case for homosexual unions being equal to heterosexual marriage, one would have to make the case that they, as a rule (i.e., as the norm), bring with them equal goods.

Chief Justice Roberts hit this nail on the head today:

I’m not sure that it’s right to view this as excluding a particular group. When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.
It is — yes, you can say that it serves some of the other interests where it makes sense to include them, but not all the interests. And it seems to me, your friend argues on the other side, if you have an institution that pursues additional interests, you don’t have to include everybody just because some other aspects of it can be applied to them.

Yes, it really does come down to not only two people in a loving, committed relationship but also 1) the capacity to normally produce children and 2) the typical raising of those children in a stable relationship by the same man and woman who brought them into this world. Are there exceptions? Sure--heterosexual couples can not have children, and these days, it is possible for homosexual couples to procure children artificially. But these are the exceptions, not the norm. And the law should reflect that. This article by two distinguished professors of law and one of bioethics tackles the intrinsic relationship between marriage and procreation far better than I can. I highly recommend anyone who doubts this connection to read it.

Finally, redefining marriage has other, undesirable consequences:

Before getting into these, I should note, in response to some critiques of this article that focus on these three points exclusively, that the following consequences do not sum up the arguments against redefining marriage. The burden of proof to change such a time-tested human institution belongs with those wishing to change it, and so they must demonstrate a compelling state interest in making the change. As seen above, they have not yet done that. That there are also negative consequences are not the sum of the case against redefinition; these are but part of it. The primary argument against redefinition is simply that marriage is intrinsically a heterosexual union, as illuminated in the article referred to above.

I will add objections to these points and answers to them as they come up.

1) It perpetuates the false notion that children are not integrally tied up in marriage, that their good and their future is unaffected by marriage. We all know such a proposition to be plainly false, and yet many are ready to enshrine that false notion into law by redefining marriage thereby implicitly tossing the normal good of children by the wayside.

Objection 1) Marriage is not just/only about procreation and children as seen by the fact that infertile and aged couples can marry, and there is no test/guarantee that fertile couples will have children.

Reply to Objection 1) See the article referred to above. It illuminates the nature of marriage and how it is intrinsically connected to procreation and children. Part 2 of the article also add further clarification on the matter.

2) There are inadequate protections of conscience and freedom of religion for those who do not hold with redefining marriage to include other forms of unions. It is not far fetched to see how, without such protections in place, people could be forced to violate their consciences and/or the tenets of their religion by being forced to marry, participate in such marriages, and/or recognize them in ways that they find morally objectionable. We see this happening with other issues of conscience such as abortion today, and even without the redefinition of marriage, people have been caused to violate their consciences or lose their livelihood. As I said, it's not far fetched at all.

Objection 1) This is a red herring. These rights can be protected without regard to the definition of marriage.

Reply to Objection 1) In theory that is possibly true. However, this is a very real consequence, and it is happening already. Basically, once homosexual unions are recognized as legal marriages, it makes it far easier to bring suits against those who object to them on moral/conscience/religious grounds. If homosexual unions are not granted equal status in law, then there is a much weaker case.

3) By divorcing the meaning of marriage from the normal procreative aspect, it removes any defensible rationale against other forms of state-recognized unions, be they sexual or even asexual in nature. Sex itself, divorced of its procreative nature, has little meaning, much less meaning as far as the state is concerned. Put another way, it should really be irrelevant to the state what the sexual orientation of the people involved is (that's the essence of the equality argument, right?). So as far as recognizing a self-declared committed relationship as "marriage," there is no reason to prevent others--regardless of their sexual orientation or behavior--from declaring they they love each other and want to commit publicly and legally in a "marriage."

Objection 1) This is the slippery slope fallacy.

Reply to Objection 1) This is not a slippery slope fallacy--that fallacy requires that there be no demonstrable rationale or evidence for the connection/consequences identified. On the contrary, the consequences are not remote/extreme nor is this based in an appeal to fear. It is just a simple examination of the rationale advanced in favor of redefinition and the logical consequences of it. We are talking about making marriage have nothing to do intrinsically with sex or procreation--that is the logical consequence of the homosexual "marriage" rationale. Even proponents of redefinition recognize that these are the rational consequences of their position.

Now maybe some advocates find nothing wrong with these other forms of unions. And frankly, if marriage were simply about loving people declaring their love to the world and getting some nice legal benefits for it, I'd as a rule agree that there's nothing objectionable in granting the status to any such persons. By all means--any two or more adults who want to enter into such an arrangement should be allowed--if that's all marriage is. But that's just it--marriage is more than that. It's always been more than that. It is inexorably tied up with (heterosexual) sex and, consequently, children, as expounded above.

The redefinition of marriage to these other forms makes marriage nothing more than a convenient arrangement of two or more people for the sharing of goods, rights, and responsibilities in a manner that has traditionally been seen as part and parcel of marriage. It strips marriage of what is core to it--sexual complementarity that biologically unifies a man and a woman in the communion of a family. That complementarity is by its very nature intrinsically procreative, even if not every sexual act results in procreation, even if there are impediments to the possibility of procreation.

In Conclusion
If we, as a society, want to sap marriage of all the good it does society, then I think we have to ask ourselves, what is all this hullaballoo about? If all it is about is people getting public recognition for their loving feelings toward others, then the state should just get out of the marriage business altogether. There is no reason for it to be involved. Let people have all the public ceremonies they want for that purpose in whatever religion or lack of religion suits them and matches their worldview!

If redefining marriage is about making it easier for loving people to care for each other (or to facilitate the equitable division of goods in the dissolution of such relationships), then by all means, ensure those legal apparati are in place and equally accessible to all. Even marriages are aided by extra legal contracts around individual goods (pre-nuptials). I don't see any reason why such agreements would have to involve marriage. Just write up a contract to handle it. Done. We don't need to redefine marriage for that purpose. Also in this case, the state doesn't need to be involved in marriage to solve that problem.

But marriage is not just these things--they are ancillary to it. Marriage is about both stable loving commitment and intrinsically procreative and child/family-oriented unions. Those conditions only apply to heterosexual unions. I would go further to say that we/society/the state have a lot more work to do to promote and support healthy families as I have previously argued. This is not just about "denying" homosexuals the "right" to marry. It is about recognizing how poorly we are doing as a society in encouraging healthy marriages and families and not letting the state of things get even more confused and deteriorated by further undermining the institution of marriage.

Strengthened for Martyrdom

Ambrose Little — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 21:50:00 +0000

On Sunday at Holy Name in Fishtown, where my lay Dominican chapter meets monthly for prayer, mass, and community, the recently confirmed children from the parish were dressed in red robes and sitting in the first pews. I was seated behind them, and it occurred to me that they looked like so many young martyrs. I thought about how the sacrament of confirmation gives the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

When they lead you away and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say. But say whatever will be given to you at that hour. For it will not be you who are speaking but the holy Spirit. Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved. (Mk 13:11-13)

Of course, the Holy Spirit strengthens us to be witnesses. The Spirit strengthens us to be soldiers of Christ, but the Spirit also strengthens us for martyrdom.

Sadly, such a thing seems less far fetched these days than it did when I was growing up, and looking at these kids, it makes me wonder how far fetched it will be when they are my age. The increasing hostility in the West to Christianity, while not yet to the point of outright violent persecution and martyrdom, it certainly seems more likely as the governments increasingly chip away at religious freedom and the President arrogates more and more powers to himself, including that of arbitrarily killing American citizens in the name of the "fight against terror."

How long before Christianity gets classified as inimical to the State due to our unwillingness to bow to the zeitgeist? Perhaps we will need this strengthening for martyrdom before long. Perhaps if not us, our children. Let us pray and hold fast to that hope we have in Christ, sealed with the Spirit for the day of redemption.

The Liebster Award – Helping Blog Communities to Grow and Thrive

Ambrose Little — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:49:00 +0000

Allow me to firstly thank Chris Weitzel over at LifeOnFire.org for choosing me among his nominees for the "award" (or "task"). I realize that I am definitely "undersubscribed." I mean, come on, people! This blog is awesome! ;) ;) nudge nudge

What is the Liebster Award and how do you get one?

The Liebster Award was started some time ago by a German blogger who wanted to assist others in finding great but, under-subscribed to blogs. The “award” nomination is granted from one blogger to another and is considered as “awarded” when the nominated blog completes a certain set of requirements. The current requirements have evolved over time and are as follows:

Post the Liebster award graphic on your site. (Google to find it if needed)
Thank the blogger who nominated the blog for a Liebster Award and link back to their blog.
The blogger then writes 11 facts about themselves so people who discover their blog through the Liebster post will learn more about them.
In addition to posting 11 fun facts about themselves, nominated bloggers should also answer the 11 questions from the post of the person who nominated them.
The nominated blogger will in turn, nominate 9 other blogs with 200 or less followers (We’re guessing for our nominees) for a Liebster award by posting a comment on their blog and linking back to the Liebster post.
The nominated blogger will create 11 questions for their nominated blogs to answer in their Liebster post.

That’s It! (ha ha)

Essentially, The Liebster Award is a way to connect smaller blogs to one another. It promotes the discovery of new blogs and also helps to increase traffic through link exchanges. While not an “award” in the traditional sense of the word, it is a great way to build up communities and to help other small bloggers to get discovered.

11 Boring Facts About Ambrose

I was born in Little Rock, AR and raised in Tulsa, OK. I have been called a hayseed because of my accent by a lifelong New Jerseyan, but I do not have an accent.
Despite my immense powers, my beard eclipses me in fame.
I am married to an immensely patient woman, and we have five fun and often annoying children.
I find thinking up facts about me somewhat tedious and self-indulgent, and the number of things to do for this "award" a tad much. But all for the greater good...
I grew up a charismatic, evangelical Protestant, began my journey towards the Catholic Church as a freshman in university and completed it with my wife on Easter Vigil 2001.
I am a huge fan of bacon, cheese, and spicy food. Who am I kidding; I just like food. And beer. And scotch. And sometimes wine. I brew my own beer and like to smoke meat.
I joined the lay Dominicans in 2007 and made my final, permanent profession in the Order in 2011.
Aaaagh.. four more?? Umm.. I like to shoot pool. I'm pretty good at it, as an amateur.
I'm a big sci-fi nerd. Star Trek: TNG, DS9, Original, Farscape, Firefly, Babylon 5, BSG, Dr. Who, to name some of my favs. Been to a couple conventions, but I have yet to wear a uniform. On the other hand, I do have a kilt.
My BA is in European History, with a late medieval focus, minor in humanities, but I make software for a living.
I'm really a nice guy, somewhere deep down underneath my big, mean brusque exterior.

My Answers to Chris' Questions

42, but what is the question?
Yeah, I'm not going to answer this one honestly. But ONE pretty dumb thing I did was TP the pastor's lawn (his daughter was in my class). What can I say, TPing our friends was a thing for a while then...
My superpower is the ability to win any argument, if I want to. ;)
I'll go with the obvious and say I'd want a good knife with me at all times while camping, maybe even a machete.
I'll take scotch any day over basically any other alcoholic beverage, and right now, I'm pretty keen on Clynelish 14. Gee thanks, now I gotta go pour one. Boston Lager is my staple beer.
I'll go with the horse-sized duck. If nothing else, it'd be delish to cook up later.
Holy Grail. Hands down the best Monty Python.
Thomism. Ha. There. Nice and big, so I don't have to pick among the many interesting things I've discovered about the Church.
There are tricks for such things? In general, I have cultivated a calm demeanor to try to deal with my hot temper. Also: Prayer. Confession. The Eucharist. Not tricks; just grace..
Yes. I watched Veggietales while I was still in high school, when (I think) it first came out. The kids have watched it some, too. I also liked the SNL spoof "Religtables" (for the name, mostly).
I don't really care that much any more. The favorite vehicle I've owned (still own) is my 2004 Dodge Ram.

My Nominees

Hopefully none of them will be offended if I assume they may have fewer than 200 subscribers. They may have many more for all I know, but at least I don't know that they are super popular.

Just Thomism - http://thomism.wordpress.com
Countercultural Father - http://ccfather.blogspot.com
Franciscan Focus - http://www.franciscanfocus.com (I know Chris also nominated her.)
Domine, da mihi hanc aquam - http://www.hancaquam.blogspot.com
Bilik Family - http://bilikfamily.com
Laudet Dominum - http://www.frcory.org/laudetdominum
Never Give Up - http://www.johnjanaro.com
nowhere - http://anonisnowhere.blogspot.com
Musings of Todd - http://musingsoftodd.wordpress.com

My Questions

Okay, now for the hardest part. Coming up with clever questions.. oh I give up on that. Here are questions, at least.

Why do you blog?
Did you grow up to be what you thought you wanted to grow up to be? What was it? How do you feel about your answer?
What is your favorite sci fi series?
What is your favorite book of the Bible? Feel free to say why.
Did I guess right that you are "undersubscribed"?
Do you think I should trim my beard? Why or why not?
Are you happy with your parish life?
What is the most quotable movie ever? Answer with a quote from that movie.
How long did you spend on this nomination thingie?
Which is better: pecan pie, chocolate pie, or pumpkin pie? Discuss.
What is the motto of the Order of Preachers?

Phew!

Evolution in the Economy of Salvation

Ambrose Little — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:00:00 +0000

A half-baked thought occurred to me the other day. The old Catholic Encyclopedia treats of three types of evil, one of which it calls "metaphysical evil," which seems to largely correspond to the idea of survival of the fittest, or more broadly that the nature of the universe is that it seems to be in a struggle with itself.

We know that the universe and many things in it preceded us, and that, cosmically speaking, we are very late to the party. We know that this "metaphysical evil" is a fact of nature, and that it seems to have in very large part shaped the world that we came into, and that it continues to shape it. We were not brought into a peaceful utopia that was shattered as a result of original sin. The world was in turmoil before us.

Our primordial nature, while given to us with original justice, contained its right-ordered-ness by grace, not by our natural nature itself, which without God's grace shared in this metaphysical evil. Our primordial nature was, shaped by this world striving with itself, inclined also to this striving. But through that original gift of grace, we were enabled to subject that nature and order it properly, in subjection to God and to live truly freely in that state of original justice, with true freedom to choose to embrace that right ordering or to turn away from it, as Adam did, thereby destroying that state of original justice and, in the economy of salvation, calling for God's further action to restore it.

At the same time, we must acknowledge that God knew Adam's choice before he made it. He knew that he would forfeit that original gift of justice. He knew before the foundations of the cosmos this would happen. Indeed, he ordered the cosmos in such a way to allow for it to happen--precisely so that he could bless us with the greater gift of his Incarnation and Redemption through the Cross.

Thus it seems to me--and this is just my speculation on the matter, not any Catholic teaching per se that I am aware of--that this striving nature, this principle of the survival of the fittest, this mechanism of evolution was part and parcel of God's Providence that led to the need for his own Incarnation and Sacrifice as part of his plan. Thus it seems it can be said that evolution is part of the economy of salvation.

God's Mercy Drives Out Fear

Ambrose Little — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:25:00 +0000

The other morning during our team Friday brekky, it came up again that I and some others do not eat meat on Fridays during Lent. One of the fellas present was raised Catholic, and someone asked him why he still eats meat. He said something like, "I gave all that stuff up a long time ago." Then he said something like, "Ambrose, maybe you can cover me?" At which my raised-Catholic-turned-atheist colleague laughed and muttered some kind of agreement.

"Noo.. sorry, it doesn't work that way, guys," I said.

Then my nominally-Catholic friend said, "my plan is to just wait until the end and then take care of things." To which my atheist colleague added, "yeah, that doesn't really make much sense that you can just do whatever and then make it all okay by confessing at the end."

"But it does make sense--that's what God's mercy is all about." I replied, which somehow ended the conversation. I think everyone wasn't ready for any kind of involved discussion on it. It was just Friday brekky at work after all.

In any case, it got me thinking about it. You know, it can seem like hell is a convenient religious stick to beat people into submission, but the problem with that idea is that through Christ's triumph on the Cross, hell has lost its sting. We do not rely on our own goodness, our own merits, to save us but rather Christ's. This is Good News--it ain't called that for no reason.

As our Holy Father recently said--God never tires of forgiving; it is we who tire of asking. It is also we who get it in our heads sometimes that it is we who save us, but it is not we--it is God. It doesn't matter if we wait until the last moment, God is still merciful. It doesn't matter if we have committed the worst of crimes, God is still merciful. God offers his grace to us freely, regardless of our own merits, because it is the infinite merits of Christ that justifies us, not our own goodness.

People need to get a handle on this, because as long as they think they are the ones who save themselves, they can and should live in fear--because such justification is impossible, even for the goodliest person. But once we realize that we are wholly dependent upon God for our justification, due to his infinite love and mercy, we no longer need to live in fear. God's mercy drives out fear.

Should we then live profligately and wait until the end? Hell no! Not just because it is a gamble--because we could die in our sin without a chance to repent. It is also because sin has consequences here and now. It binds us and makes us slaves, slaves to our flesh, slaves to our habits, slaves to the opinions of others, slaves to our own opinions of ourselves. It also has a tendency to hurt others in very real and serious ways.

No, those who are baptized have died to sin and been born into newness of life. It is a freedom, a freedom through that grace to begin our journey to reform our fallen selves, reliant upon his sanctifying grace freely offered in the Sacraments, to develop the virtues, to offer joyful penance, and to develop authentic human freedom. There is no fear here. We are assured of God's mercy. All we have to do is acknowledge our sins and ask for his mercy, availing ourselves of the infinite merit of Christ.

An interesting corollary is that this illustrates how Christianity is decidedly not just an ethical system dressed up in religious robes (nor an ethical system used by a priestly caste to control people). Without an understanding of God's mercy and why his infinite merit satisfies justice, one can make no sense of how the Christian ethical system is just. In fact, without God's infinite merit offered on our behalves, it would be terribly unjust. It is the Cross, or it is nonsense.

The Riches and Poverty of the Church

Ambrose Little — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 15:47:00 +0000

Much has already been made of our new pope's obvious humility and closeness to the poor and needy. Everyone who knows him seems to confirm it; he already has a history of living it (e.g., eschewing the episcopal palace and living in a normal apartment, preparing his own meals, using public transportation, telling his people to stay in Argentina rather than coming to his incardination and now installation as pope, to give the money they would spend on the trip to the poor, visiting the poor and sick, washing their feet, and so on), and he is making an effort to continue living it now that he is pope.

We have seen it in his choice of simple white cassock and black shoes when he was introduced; we presumed it in his choice of name; we have seen it in his choices to not take advantage of various papal niceties thus far, and I have no doubt that we will continue to see it.

Today he spoke on his choice of Francis, confirming that it is indeed after St. Francis of Assisi:

"Francis of Assisi...the man of poverty, the man of peace, the man who loves and guards creation... How I would like a church that is poor and for the poor."

One of the first things he did, the morning after being elected, was to visit the tomb of Pope St. Pius V, a Dominican pope, a reformer, and, interestingly enough, the pope who started the tradition of wearing a simple white cassock--which is the habit of the Dominicans.

St. Francis was also a reformer. Although he only became a deacon, he began a reform movement that spread like fire and continues to this day--an evangelical witness of poverty.

In those days, many people were losing faith because, in part, of the wealthy way in which many of the clergy, especially the high ranking clergy, lived. St. Dominic recognized this also, and this is in part why he enjoined the vow of poverty on his friars as well. It is a kind of evangelical asceticism, a closeness to the poor for the sake of the poor's evangelization.

Many, worldly minded people will appreciate Pope Francis' emphasis on the poor. Certainly Christ himself taught what is now called the preferential option for the poor (#57). And this is precisely what our Holy Father is living, showing, and teaching himself. The catch is, again, that this is all ultimately for an evangelical purpose. It is a way of leading people to Christ; it is not a simple humanitarian impulse.

Lest anyone think I am adding my own interpretation on this:

We can walk as much as we want, we can build many things, but if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord. ... When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness. ... When we journey without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord, we are worldly: we may be bishops, priests, cardinals, popes, but not disciples of the Lord. ... My prayer for all of us is that the Holy Spirit, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our Mother, will grant us this grace: to walk, to build, to profess Jesus Christ crucified.

These are the Holy Father's own words, in his first papal homily. And they strongly echo the words of St. Paul in his first letter to the church in Corinth:

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ... For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. ... When I came to you, brothers, proclaiming the mystery of God, I did not come with sublimity of words or of wisdom. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

Caring for the poor and needy is today, perhaps more than in any other age in human history, generally recognized to be a good, desirable thing. It is certainly common ground we can find with those who are on many other counts opposed to the Church. And that should give us some pause.

It should give us pause because we cannot risk losing our faith, obscuring it, or minimizing it in order to collaborate with them. It should give us pause when they demand we check our faith at the door. It should give us pause when they try to tell us to whom we can and cannot minister. It should give us pause when they try to define what is and is not acceptable service to the needy. It should give us pause when they refuse to let us collaborate with them because they think they understand what is good for people better than we do. It should also give us pause when many members of our own religious orders become so conformed to the world's model of service to the poor that they become indistinguishable from any other humanitarian agency.

While caring for the poor and needy is a good, it is not an end. As Catholics, as Christians, we know that our end is God. We were made by him and for him. When Christ exhorts us to care for the poor, it is with an eschatological purpose. It is because each person bears the image of God that each person has such great dignity, rich or poor alike. Thus we truly are serving Christ by loving our neighbor. Christ was not just giving us a nice, religious way of saying that we should help the poor. No, he was explaining that it is a metaphysical reality that we are serving him by serving "the least of these"; it is truly, really a way of loving both God and our neighbor by the same action. It is a direct, not an indirect, way to love God, who is our end.

And it is because of this that when we separate our acts of charity from their theological end, treating them as ends in their own right, that "things go wrong" as the Holy Father put it. If we are not, by our care for the poor, professing Christ and him crucified, we are completely missing the point. We are lopsided and wrongheaded. We get confused and potentially lost; "we profess the worldliness of the devil, a demonic worldliness" because seeking an end other than God, no matter how noble in appearance, leads us away from God, turns us in on ourselves, and that is the very way of the devil, who seeks nothing more than to draw us away from God.

Authentic care for the poor demands a lively faith. It is this faith that keeps us well rounded in our care, because poverty is not limited to lack of material things. We can be physically poor--suffering some lack of physical wholeness or wellness. We can be socially poor--lacking friends and companionship. We can be poor in justice--having suffered wrong at the hands of others. We can be poor in freedom--captive, in prison (physically, psychologically, spiritually). We can be morally poor--messing up our lives, the lives of others, and our relationship with God. And most seriously, we can be spiritually poor--living a sterile life devoid of transcendence and relationship with God.

And this is where I begin to get to the point. :) Some criticize the Church for all of our supposed lavish luxury. They see the grand architecture and amazing artwork, the fine ornamentation and the expensive vestments, and they claim that these riches are contrary to the Gospel and that they show a disdain for the poor. "If the Church really cared about the poor, it would sell all that crap and give it to the poor."

Ignoring the fact that Catholic charities far and away outstrip all global charities, both today and, even more so, throughout our long history, sentiments like these are an example of how "things go wrong." Because these things are themselves a ministry to the poor--especially the spiritually poor. The sole purpose of the Church is to draw us to God, and She uses every means at her disposal to do so--both the splendid riches of our most beautiful cathedrals and elaborate liturgies and the evangelical poverty of St. Francis, St. Dominic, and all those who profess such vows. She uses her intellectual riches to draw people through the mind, and She uses the corporal service to draw others through acts of simple kindness. She uses her supernatural riches of the prayers and merits of cloistered religious and hermits, the graces of the sacraments in every parish throughout the world, and the evangelical vigor of the apostolic orders and, yes, the laity as well. All that the Church is and does is ordered towards bringing people to Christ.

This of course does not mean that every action of every Catholic is so ordered; however, that is how it should be, and that is how the Church as both a supernatural and natural institution is ordered.

Pope Benedict XVI is known for his restoration of our liturgical riches. He taught us by his example that these are good means to enrich the spiritual poverty that has even become spread throughout the members of the Church. But he has also taught that "love for widows and orphans, prisoners, and the sick and needy of every kind, is as essential to her as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel." He on several occasions exhorted people to not waste vacations idly, but to spend them renewing our relationships with God and others, and he showed this in the way he spent his own. He untiringly gave us the riches of his intellectual efforts through books, apostolic letters, homilies, and audiences.

Pope Francis may have a different emphasis, one that focuses more on simplicity in practice and an evangelical poverty, according to his vows. That doesn't mean he is changing the Church, that he'll suddenly start divesting the Church of all material wealth, and it certainly does not mean he will lack a focus on orthodoxy (much less "change the Church's teaching" as if this were something a pope can do!).

Benedict did not eschew tending to the needs of the poor; his emphasis was on a different kind of poverty, one that the world does not so well perceive. It seems that Francis will emphasize other kinds. We should be reluctant, however, to take comfort that his emphasis is better received by the world lest we be lulled into a spiritual laxity. Perhaps that is why our Holy Father came out so strongly in his first homily emphasizing what he did. The world is not the judge of the Church, what is good for people, nor what is good for a pope to be like or focus on; only God is that judge.

Together our Holy Fathers illustrate the holistic way in which the Church cares for the poor, always keeping in mind, word, and deed "Jesus Christ, and him crucified" but exemplifying it in different ways with different emphases according to their particular talents and callings.

Five Reasons You're Not an Authority on Catholicism

Ambrose Little — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:52:00 +0000

As a convert to Catholicism, I have always found it somewhat disconcerting when any old Joe seems to think that because he was raised Catholic that somehow makes him an authority on Catholicism or, at least, somehow gives him credentials to speak authoritatively on the Faith, or considers his own opinions on par with that of our bishops.

You see it all the time, on TV shows, in the news, in politicians, in parishes, and in the random folk you meet every day. What makes it worse is especially on TV/in the news, when people are interviewed and asked their opinion on X, just because "they are Catholic" and/or "they were raised Catholic." The problem is that so much misinformation gets perpetuated this way, chief among which is the false notion that Catholics are independently free to form their own opinions on matters of faith and morals (and still be considered faithful/in good standing as Catholics), much less that their opinions are equally valid or authoritative as authentically Catholic positions.

So for those people, I offer these five analogies that illustrate why you're not a Catholic authority.

1. Being an American or raised an American doesn't make you an expert on the Constitution, U.S. government in general, U.S. economics, U.S. foreign policy, and so on; you get the picture. Growing up as an American no more makes you an expert on the United States of America than growing up Catholic makes you an expert on the Church nor the Faith.

2. Watching lots of movies does not make you an expert on film or the film industry. You may grow up watching movies. You may have watched hundreds of them in your life. This doesn't mean you know one iota about what it takes to make a movie, how to be an actor, how to be a director, or any of the various other minutiae involved. Nope, watching a ton of movies doesn't make you an expert on film any more than being baptized, confirmed, and going to mass makes you an expert on Catholicism.

3. Working at a large corporation for your whole career does not make you an expert on that organization. You may even be a division or department manager by the end of your career. You may be an expert at your job, you may spend a ton of time with the people in your department and on your teams, but your perspective is of necessity limited. Unless you are the CEO, and probably even then, there will be plenty of aspects about the company that remain hidden from you. And in any case, your expertise and experience is in one area. The Catholic Church has over a billion members spread all over the world; the doctrine of the Catholic faith has been reasoned about and practiced over nearly two thousand years. I guarantee, you can't speak for all of that, no matter how involved you are in your parish, no matter how long you've been Catholic.

4. Being raised among musicians does not make you an authority on music; it doesn't even make you a musician. You may be surrounded by music your whole life; you may attend many musical events with your family, but if you don't apply yourself to learn music, then you are nothing approaching an authority on it. In the same way, you can be around other Catholics your whole life, go to plenty of Catholic events, but if you don't apply yourself to learn the Faith and practice it faithfully, you are nothing like an authority on Catholicism.

5. If you grow up in a house of immigrants who speak a different language and came from a different culture, you are no expert on that language or culture. You may be able to understand it and relate to it; you may even be able to hold up a decent conversation, but if you didn't apply yourself to learn and practice the language and culture, you certainly would be no authority. Just so, growing up in the Church, learning the language of liturgy, and experiencing some aspects of Catholic culture does not make you an authority on it.

In all these cases, to become an authority, there is much more to it than just being raised in or around it, spending lots of time with others in the same organization/culture, attending events, or picking up the language. All of that is great and good in itself--nothing wrong with it, but it just doesn't make you an authority.

To become an authority on the Church, one should study ecclesiology, Church history, and/or canon law. To become an authority on the Faith, one should study one or more of the many specialties in Catholic theology such as dogmatics, moral theology, exegesis, and so on. Even so, it is impossible for one person to be an expert in all these things.

None of this is to say that it is hard to be Catholic nor that one needs to do such things to live a saintly life. In fact, one can easily and rightly be Catholic just by being baptized in the Church. It's just that "being Catholic" or even "being raised Catholic" by no means gives you any credentials to speak authoritatively on any aspect of Catholicism other than your own personal experience.

So I hope the next time you're tempted to say, "well, I was raised Catholic ," just keep this in mind--maybe add a caveat of your own lack of authority. And for the rest of us, too, there are plenty of authoritative resources freely available to learn about Catholicism. Judge what we say by them.

But keep in mind also that as far as Catholicism is concerned, the authority on interpreting such resources is the Church itself, specifically the bishops in communion with the Pope. It is not the dissenting Vice President, not the dissenting former Speaker of the House, not the dissenting famous comedian, not the dissenting news anchor or talk show host, not the dissenting parishioners, not the dissenting womynpriests, not the dissenting sisters, not even the dissenting priests. You can even be a faithful, cradle Catholic and still not be such an authority. You can even be someone who, like me, has extensively studied the Faith, and still not be such an authority, although our answers may be more reliable in this way. Still, always judge what we say by authoritative texts interpreted the way that the bishops in communion with the Pope interpret them.

And if a Catholic steers you away from our authoritative texts, waves his arms and says they don't really mean what they say, or, most tellingly, suggests that the bishops and Pope are wrong in their "interpretation," those are all pretty good red flags you're on the wrong track to understanding Catholicism. Such a person is about as far away from being an authority on Catholicism as they can get, no matter how long they have been Catholic.

Ambrose Little — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:59:00 +0000

Note: Until further notice, I'm officially putting this project on hold. It was practically on hold anyways, so this is just to let you know not to expect further progress any time soon. I find myself with insufficient time to prepare and write this at this point in my life, but I hope to take it up again some day.

This online table of contents will be updated as new parts are published. At that time, the relevant section below will be linked to the page. Also, since the book is still in development, this is not yet complete and things may get moved around a bit yet. Feel free to provide suggestions along those lines.

Introduction

Introduction
What to Expect
What We'll Cover
First Things First
Armchair Philosopher

The Beauty of Truth

What is Truth?
Just Say "No"
The Beauty of Truth

Beautiful Thinking

Human Dignity
Love
Hope
Faith & Reason
Identity
Imagination
Freedom & Commitment

Becoming Fully Human

Beyond Goodness

He Was a "Good Man"
A Personal God
Good and Evil

Into Eternity

Still Here (Vol. 1)

Ambrose Little — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:29:00 +0000

Just wanted to let anyone who comes across this know that I'm still here and still pursuing this, even though I've not posted here in forever. It's partly due to the busy-ness of my life, and partly because I've been more focused on study in my free time as of late than writing. That can only be a good thing for this book. ;) Just means it will continue to be slow going.

-ambrose

What We'll Cover

Ambrose Little — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:02:00 +0000

You can readily see from the table of contents the various topics that we’ll cover. This book has been stewing in my mind for years now, and I think I’ve already written parts of it in ad hoc efforts here and there. But at one point it struck me that perhaps there is a need to consider ancient philosophies anew, to seek out that which is true and beautiful in the hopes that it will help us on our way to become better, happier, and more fulfilled people.

I am talking about that which leads to a good life, but even more, I think we need to go beyond that—beyond goodness—and strive for perfection. It seems that the best way to do this is by a study of and reflection on those things that we inherently perceive to be intertwined with the concept of the perfect, chiefly beauty and, in particular, the beauty of truth and those things in which that beauty is most fully found.

I believe that in finding that beautiful truth, we can find a way for us to become most fully human, to be, as the old Army ad said it, all that we can be, and more. It also seems to me that there is a certain limit as to the fullness of humanity that we can achieve even through a reflective life working towards goodness and the fulfillment such a life brings. In order to go beyond goodness, towards perfection, we need to seek that Beauty which is beyond ourselves, which is beyond any human.

Therefore, this book is structured into parts that roughly follow this approach, starting with a consideration of truth, in itself, and how it relates to beauty. It moves from there into a panorama of beautiful thinking—particular ways of thinking about things that seem to have the most beauty. In considering those, we move on to see applications, to see examples of how to become more fully human. Finally, we go beyond goodness, towards perfection, in a consideration of transcendent Beauty and how such Beauty can help us ultimately reach perfection.

What to Expect

Ambrose Little — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:06:00 +0000

In asking what to expect, an author implicitly asks what is expected of you, the reader. The answer is simply that I hope for your patience and good will. I don’t expect any particular level of education. This is not a scholarly endeavor, and I do believe that any person capable of reason will have no problem following what we’ll cover.

I realize that so much of our lives these days are bombarded with information, most of which is just so much noise and wears on us, and even conditions us to some extent. Others have written about the supposed dumbing down of our culture due to the explosion of media outlets, particularly online and via mobile devices, that predispose us to prefer short bursts of information and that even contribute to forms of attention deficit disorder. So I know that writing in the manner of this book, I am gambling losing people—we will consider things of weight and importance that can’t be sufficiently dealt with in quips and talking points. That is where my hope for your patience and good will comes in.

At the same time, I suspect the supposed dumbing down is more reactionary talk than it is reality. We humans don’t change our natures so quickly. We retain the capability to stop and think seriously about things. We might get out of practice, and perhaps some have more of a knack than others, but I believe that if we try to put our minds to it, we’ll find it comes easier than we might have thought.

What I hope to write about are things that we all give at least passing thought to as we go throughout our lives. They are fundamental to the human condition, and we cannot avoid them, though we can ignore them or be distracted from them. I don’t think I have any special ability or deep intellect. For me, writing is more like thinking out loud, and reading is like having a window into the minds of others, to share their thoughts and touch their minds, thinking about things I’d not thought about before or in different ways than I’d thought of them.

So I hope that my thinking out loud will, if nothing else, help others to stop and perhaps think about things they’ve been distracted from, not things they can’t or don’t want to think about. Or maybe, if nothing else, these pages will simply show you a slightly different light on things you’ve spent much time reflecting on. In any case, I thank you for your time and for settling down with me to think on them.

Introduction

Ambrose Little — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:20:00 +0000

It is not without some trepidation that I embark on this endeavor. Writing a book that proposes to tell you why and how to become perfect sounds perfectly egomaniacal, if not entirely ludicrous, but I hope you will stick with me for a bit to give it a chance. You see, I do not propose to prescribe any particular form of life—and that is essentially what the subject of this book is, a guide to understanding and living life to its fullest—instead, I propose to lay before you both reasoning, evidence, and, I hope, some motivation for living the good life in its deepest sense.

I am not naive enough to suppose that the way I propose is complete in the sense that it considers all aspects of all human life for all time in all places, nor would I presume to believe that my exposition of life is the only one through which individual persons will find fulfillment. What fulfills you, what makes you happy and satisfied with your life at a very personal level, will vary as much as individuals vary.

At the same time, I do propose that there are universals to the human condition that can be treated in a general way and from which particular modes and means of fulfillment can be derived. It is these universals that I intend to consider in this text, and I hope to present the considerations in such a way that they are relevant and comprehensible by my contemporaries, if not those who come after.

Note, too, that the substance that we will consider together is not novel—I am not a guru proposing a new way of life. I have not the genius, gall, or desire to do that. Rather, what you and I will reason together about is as old as time for it flows out of the very foundations of time and existence as we know it.

Introduction to the Online Version

Ambrose Little — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:12:00 +0000

Hi there,
This site is dedicated to a book that I am slowly but surely working on. The book is called Beyond Goodness: The Art and Beauty of Perfection. No surprise--the site is named that, too. :)
The reason I'm doing this as a blog is so that potential readers don't have to wait until it gets published to read it, and I also would be happy to get feedback from folks before the book is published--kind of like an open source editing project. I will allow comments as long as they are constructive.
I am a full-time software professional and father of five, so work on the book will likely proceed at a pace in accord with my situation. (Yet another reason to publish as an online series prior to print.) I am not yet sure if the pieces will be written sequentially or not, but my intent is to roughly follow my outline and as new parts are published, link to them from there. I imagine I'll try to move sequentially just to maintain the story line for those subscribed in RSS.
Okay, enough logistics. Let's get on with it!

All Ambrose

Junk Sex

Review: 2013 Nissan NV3500 HD Passenger V8

No, Correlation Really Does Not Equal Causation

All Dogs May or May Not Go to Heaven

On Encouraging Religious and Priestly Vocations

"Don't Pressure Them"

"But Marriage is Equally Good"

We Should Encourage Vocations to the Priesthood and Religious Life

The Myth of Science vs. Faith

Proclaim the Word!

Avoiding Misunderstandings and Offense

Disconnecting from Catholic Social Media

Getting a Firearms Permit in New Jersey

Fearology of the Body

Quantum Physics Proves a Spiritual Dimension

Speak the Truth--In "Love" -> Barf

A Benedict Lover Defends Francis

Where is All the Righteous Indignation Now?

We Believe in the Resurrection of the Body

I Am Barabbas

Diabolical Debate or Divine Dialectic

Clear Thinking About Redefining Marriage

Strengthened for Martyrdom

The Liebster Award – Helping Blog Communities to Grow and Thrive

Evolution in the Economy of Salvation

God's Mercy Drives Out Fear

The Riches and Poverty of the Church

Five Reasons You're Not an Authority on Catholicism

Table of Contents

Still Here (Vol. 1)

What We'll Cover

What to Expect

Introduction

Introduction to the Online Version