Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Recently, my wife and I had the great pleasure of going to Rome. The primary reason for the trip was business (she attended a conference at the Urbaniana), but we also made of it a 10th anniversary celebration and a pilgrimage. God gave so much to us leading up to our travels, during our time in Rome, and since coming back; I simply cannot say how great His grace is (for I do not know) and I cannot express the experience of receiving all these graces throughout these many weeks. For this All Souls’ Day, however, there is one particular part of the trip I would like to share: walking through the Capuchin crypt at the Church of the Immaculate Conception just off Piazza Barberini.

A few hundred years ago the Capuchin cemetery was dug up and the remains were used to decorate the crypt under the church. The crypt consists of a passageway with about six rooms along it. Each room has niches made not of stone or wood, but of bones. Within each niche is a full skeleton of a Capuchin friar clothed in the Capuchin habit. The walls and ceilings are decorated with bones in floral patterns. The light fixtures are also made of bone, hanging from the ceiling with a base in the shape of an eight-pointed star signifying our Mother to whom the church is dedicated. Instead of little cherub heads with wings there are skulls with shoulder blades (I think) used as wings.

It all sounds very macabre, especially to American ears. And when we look at pictures such as the ones below, it all looks very macabre to American eyes. It is radically different and expressive of a Catholicism unlike that in the United States. It was precisely for this reason that I absolutely had to see it. It is so thoroughly Catholic, a Catholicism that Americans are unfamiliar with. I want to experience the full breath and depth of Catholic life and devotion, especially what is so very strange or even abhorrent from the perspective of my particular culture.  What I discovered is that it wasn’t macabre at all. Being in the crypt, walking down the passageway and stopping at each room was one of the most moving experiences I had in Rome. It was a journey of prayer, stopping to pray at each room and meditating on the mystery of death and resurrection, meditating on the mystery of our being body and soul and the connection between the two even in their separation.

It was also slightly nauseating, but that’s a good thing. Death is not a comfortable subject for us. We say many beautiful sounding things concerning death, death in Christ, and heavenly glory, but will we find it so beautiful when it’s happening to us? The exposed remains make us confront death, the death of our loved ones, our own impending death, and the mystery of death. Christ is God made man and in Him we are man made divine. The mystery of death is transcendentally divine and putridly human. The Capuchin crypt reminds us of both and honors the dead in doing so.

A happy All Souls’ Day to you all. May the souls of the faithful departed rest in peace, and may perpetual light shine upon them. Amen.

1

2

3

4

5

6

 

Advertisements

Today most people are celebrating Halloween. It is also the day Protestants celebrate what they call Reformation Day. Even some Catholics are observing this day in honor of Luther’s posting of 95 theses 500 years ago on October 31, 1517. That there are Catholics celebrating this, simply shows how much ignorance there is concerning Luther and the history of the Protestant revolt. Sure there was corruption in the Church at the time (seriously, what else is new; the Evil One does not tire), but to say that Luther reformed the Church is ridiculous. Ten years after the event celebrated today Luther was already writing tracts against other Protestants. There was no clean break from Rome with a Protestant front reformed and united in Christ. Those who broke from unity with the Church of Rome quickly fractured and fell into disunity among themselves. As time progresses the divisions among the various Protestant communities has only increased, and just like the division with Rome these are divisions of faith, of doctrine, not merely divisions of praxis and life. What reform are we celebrating exactly?

Over the centuries the problem has been exacerbated by the parallel march of the so-called modern age with Protestantism. Religion like everything else in life is not insular. Some have claimed the roots of modernism with its extreme individualism come from Luther. I do not think this is the case, but I do think the two are intertwined. The furrows of the modern age were already being plowed and provided a fertile environment for Luther’s novel conception of faith and his novel conception of salvation based on that understanding of faith – an understanding centered on the self, not God, that is reflexive and assertive. (For more on Luther’s novel understanding of faith and its application to salvation I highly recommend Paul Hacker’s Faith in Luther: Martin Luther and the Origin of Anthropocentric Religion). Reciprocally, Luther’s thought acted as fertilizer for the seeds that would eventually sprout and bear the fruits of modern secular thinking.

On this Revolution Day, marking 500 years of division within Western Christendom, divisions that have spread far beyond religion and the continent of Europe, I do not see a reformation. I see a world and Church being tossed in ever more violent storms of ideology and violence, and relentless attacks on what God has hallowed – sex, marriage, the family, priesthood, Church – from both outside and from within the Church Herself. I see a protestantism that has devolved into various political and social ideologies across the spectrum, and many Catholics of similar ilk proclaiming the same while calling it the Good News and clobbering the faithful with tweets, openness, degrees, and even shepherds’ staffs.

In the midst of such a storm and seeming degradation of Religion, on this dark All Hallow’s Eve, I look to the saints of tomorrow’s great feast and find courage in the words of Our Lady to King Alfred on the island of Athelney:

But you and all the kind of Christ

Are ignorant and brave,

And you have wars you hardly win

And souls you hardly save.

 

I tell you naught for your comfort,

Yea, naught for your desire,

Save that the sky grows darker yet

And the sea rises higher.

 

Night shall be thrice night over you,

And heaven an iron cope.

Do you have joy without a cause,

Yea, faith without a hope?

 

 

Fr. Mike Schmitz has a YouTube video on the question of the existence of ghosts – I Ain’t Afraid of No Ghosts! Check it out. This is the first time I have watched one of his videos, but I have heard people speak well of him before. The video is sound regarding our faith, but faith isn’t just content; it’s living. In this particular instance, I wonder about his pastoral application of the Church’s teaching as well as his personal understanding of what a ghost is as opposed to the common understanding.

Ghosts are commonly understood as souls who are not at rest and still dwell on earth. The reason for this is typically articulated as “unfinished business”. There is something or someone anchoring them to this world and until it is resolved they cannot find peace. This is usually conceived of in some kind of benevolent form and the ghost is merely attempting to finish the business. The strange happenings in one’s home or life are attempts at communication. Ghost anyone? Sometimes a ghost comes from one dying a violent death. Often times this circumstance is thought to lead to malevolent spirits who terrorize people. Even in these cases the story is fundamentally the same: unfinished business and a desire for peace. Poltergeist anyone?

poltergeist-iii-ending-tangina-leads-kane-into-the-light

It took three movies, but the bad man finally finds peace.

In the common conception of ghosts, there is fundamentally no difference between the above and Patrick Swayze.

ghost - patrick swayze

Fr. Mike is clear that there is no such thing as a “ghost” keeping its abode on earth. At the moment of our death, we enter into particular judgment and go to heaven, purgatory, or hell. It is not possible to stay behind. Unfortunately, he then goes on to practically identify the ghostly with manifestations of souls in purgatory. The purpose of the manifestations is to draw our attention to praying for a particular soul or for the souls in purgatory in general. This is a serious problem.

Contra Fr. Mike, I believe that the vast majority of manifestations of “the ghostly” are demonic. Regardless of whether or not I am right, the average Christian, such as myself, is not able to discern the difference and demons are very tricky. People believe in ghosts. Not as Fr. Mike understands ghosts, but according to the common understanding of ghosts. Demons have absolutely no problem whatsoever appearing in this ghostly form and luring people in. It is well documented that demons will even appear as benevolent ghosts to get people to open themselves up to accepting their presence. This acceptance lures them into precisely those things that Fr. Mike says we shouldn’t do and their acceptance opens them to much greater demonic activity of the type that has no semblance of benevolence at all.

The question of ghosts should call us to attention of spiritual warfare. It is on this note that Fr. Mike flounders and because of his misleading puts souls in danger. If we think that we are experiencing the “ghostly” as Fr. Mike puts it, then we need to be on our guard. I do not need to believe a ghostly presence is a soul in purgatory in order to pray for the souls in purgatory. However, if I accept the presence as a soul in purgatory then I certainly will not be on my guard against the demonic.

Bubble Buster

That Letter From Elijah

The Epistle (ancient snail mail for readers who ain’t church geeks) for this Sunday is Romans 12:9-21.  I’ll include the whole text a few paragraphs down, with some commentary, after a short personal confession:

My immediate takeaway is how short I fall of this lesson’s call to humane, common sense, non “religious” (that is, not loaded with ceremonial or otherwise churchy jargon) behavior.

So it burst my personal bubble.  My easing into the morning over coffee stumbled into full blown confession of sin.  How little of the verse I apply, and how poorly I apply those parts at which I do endeavor.

bubblesPic snagged here.

Then I got to thinking about the “bubble” accusation that we all fling around gratuitously these days: White people in suburbs live in a bubble, college students live in a bubble, the mainstream media is a big bubble of the like minded, etc. etc.

View original post 1,024 more words

In my previous post, I took Matthew Walther to task for his incredibly poor attempt to show why Game of Thrones is bad for our souls. To be clear, I do not take issue with his not liking the show or with his thinking it is spiritually dangerous. I know good Catholics, well-educated in the faith who watch the show, and I know good Catholics, well-educated in the faith who think the show immoral. The goodness or evilness of any show or book with widespread mass appeal is certainly a question worth pursuing. Additionally, the point of my response was not to defend Game of Thrones; it was to show that Mr. Walther had utterly failed in his attempt to identify the show as obscene and, therefore, as bad for us. If someone wants to argue for the show’s obscenity, please do, but do so intelligently.

Normally, I ignore such poorly reasoned diatribes. This one, however, kept gnawing at me. Yes, it disturbs me that someone who writes something so thoughtless and devoid of Catholic life apparently has some degree of influence on the thought and attitudes of many Catholics. (I saw the article because a former peer with a master in theology thought it was fit to share on social media. I have since learned that Mr. Walther also writes for the Catholic Herald and the National Catholic Register). However, this disturbance doesn’t explain the reason for my reaction being so visceral. It was personal. His words cut to my heart. His words were an implicit attack on something fundamental to my faith: the mystery of the human and Divine, and the encounter of the two. Literature was a key factor in my truly opening up to this mystery, but literature only became so in the light of Catholic faith. And it was Catholic authors such as G.K. Chesterton, J.R.R. Tolkien and Flannery O’Connor who revealed this to me. When Mr. Walther attacked Faerie and the grotesque in literature, he attacked a key factor in my life of faith. My previous response was superficial. It was a sufficient response because Mr. Walther’s own piece was superficial, no depth was required to answer him. However, the problems his piece implicitly raised concerning a proper understanding of faith and literature merit their own attention. In this post, I aim to provide a starting point for consideration.

Mr. Walther takes issue with the fantasy genre and the grotesque (which he immediately labels as obscene). He bemoans the lack of realism in much literature and film today, and considers dramas that deal with “morals, manners, marriage, and money” to be the stuff of emotionally mature adults, over and against the “nerd” created dramas of dragons, monsters, and magic. Such an attitude takes life out of art and strangles faith.

In her essay, “The Grotesque in Southern Fiction”, Flannery O’Connor speaks of the drive within our society that stories be realistic. The literary critics of her time meant the stories should accurately depict what is typical, the ordinary day-to-day life. Readers should be able to identify with the protagonist from their own ordinary experiences. The literati also said that stories should have social impulses, speaking to our times with its own particular social and psychological questions. There is a place for this. To Kill A Mockingbird and Go Set A Watchman are examples of wonderful literature that meet the critics’ criteria. Flannery O’Connor, however, is not that type of writer. She states that she is often accused of not giving an accurate depiction of life in Georgia. The reason, of course, is that she is not trying to, at least not on the surface of the matter. She depicts a deeper realism in her writing – a realism that is perennial, which goes beyond the mere psychological and particular social conditions of the time. Her realism is the divine penetration of humanity. It is exactly at this point that the grotesque enters into Flannery’s writing. (See my previous post for examples of this). We are fallen and we live in a fallen world. There is a darkness that has entered our hearts and the world. How else is the penetration of the Divine into this darkened world and our darkened hearts to be depicted other than as the quiet whisper that in its omnipotence works through our sin, not despite it? Flannery O’Connor’s stories are the literary illustration of John 1:5, a testament of hope.

Flannery O'Connor

Flannery O’Connor: Story-teller of Divine Hope

(Click HERE for a reading of the complete essay by Ms. O’Connor, herself).

This use of the grotesque in literature is not limited to a specific genre. For instance, it can be used in fantasy, that genre to which Game of Thrones belongs and on which Mr. Walther appears to look down. While the grotesque is capable of fostering an encounter with the Divine, the fantasy genre is capable of unfurling the magic of creation before us. A wonder of the mystery of creation is as important as a proper understanding of the encounter of the human and Divine for a right faith. And this must be an actuality of the heart for right faith to be rightly lived. J.R.R. Tolkien had a breathtaking awareness of the unfathomable depths and richness of creation, and he says much concerning the connection of fairy-stories (of which fantasy is a type) to the mystery of creation in his essay, “On Fairy-stories”. This rather long essay has a plenitude of rich fertile material. There is much in it that relates to a few things Mr. Walther tossed in the air. However, as I stated in my previous post, it is not for us to juggle that for which he is not willing to take responsibility. As tempting as it is to dive into the sea of wonder found in Tolkien’s essay, we must abbreviate our examination of the connection between fantasy and creation.

Often times people think of elves and other such folk as supernatural. This is wrong. In contrast to fairies, it is man who is supernatural; fairies are “far more natural than he. Such is their doom.” And in a fallen world doom it is. The dwindling of Faerie, the diminishing of elves and other such creatures belonging to the fairy realm, is not unusual in fantasy. This is the way in The Lord of the Rings and Hell Boy for example. Their dwindling always corresponds with the increasing of man. In this we see the evidence that Faerie is far more natural than man and man is far more supernatural because in this we see the truth revealed by God in the early chapters of Genesis. After the Fall, man continued to increase and multiply, and progressively became more corrupt and ruined God’s creation in the building and spreading of cities. As we move further from God so to do we move further from creation; as we rebel against our Creator, also do we rebel against the stuff from which we were formed. But this is not natural to us. Despite all we do the inclination of our hearts our primal desire is for communion with God and with all living things in Him. Fantasy assists in achieving the satisfaction of this primal desire by drawing us back to nature, to a world more real than the “real world”. How?

Fantasy is that form of art that expresses the “notions of ‘unreality’” (those imagined things not of our world) with “the inner consistency of reality.” When this is done successfully it has an “arresting strangeness.” The arresting strangeness is fantasy’s advantage and disadvantage. It is disadvantageous because people do not like being arrested. They do not like to be jolted from their stupor and monotony, whether it is the monotony of the same thing every day or the monotony of finding a new thing every day. But it is precisely the arresting strangeness of fantasy that brings us out of our world and brings us into the real world. Indeed, this jolt allows us to escape. Escape is not desertion. It is not a coward’s run from Walther’s tried and true “morals, manners, marriage, and money.” No! It is a recovery of that which was lost, an amazement at that which has been familiar, and this results in conversion, of which, Evelyn Waugh said “is like stepping across the chimney piece out of a Looking-glass World, where everything is an absurd caricature, into the real world God made; and then begins the delicious process of exploring it limitlessly.” This recovery of a true sense of the natural wonder of God’s creation, this stepping out of a Looking-glass World enables us to see the beauty of the world. It also enables us to truly see the ugliness that we have done to it. Fantasy may very well be an escape, but only to open one’s eyes. Articulating this is difficult, so I will simply share my own experience:

There is a factory just south of my alma mater. I do not know what kind of factory, but being in steel country I always assumed it was that. It is quite large and quite ugly. The darkness of night does not hide it for it has many lights throughout, and there is a tall narrow tower at the top of which burns a flame. There was a clear view of it from my dormitory and the residents called the factory “Mordor” and the flame, of course, was the “Eye of Sauron”. The names, however, fall short for the place is in actuality a good deal uglier than Mordor and the flame less interesting and potent than the Eye of Sauron.

I would not have recognized the degree of ugliness if not for the fantasy that came from Tolkien’s mind and his act of “subcreation.” Without him and his work, I would have merely accepted the factory with mild disinterest. That the names fall short, draws our attention to another truth of fantasy: It cannot be more beautiful or more ugly than the world in which we live, but the otherness of it gives us the eyes to see our world. It does this because it is a story that images the Story.

This last point brings us back to the grotesque. The Story, which is the history of the world and its salvation, is quite gruesome, filled with much that is obscene, and quite disheartening. Then there is the unexpected joyous turn. Yet how difficult it is to see that joyous turn today when we are tossed and thrown in the storm of human degradation. It is no accident that the wanderer of the Fairy realm and the grotesque story-teller of Divine Hope were also able to say:

Tolkien on Eurcharist

O'Connor on Eucharist

Amen.

 

 

On July 11, The Week published a piece by Matthew Walther on why Game of Thrones is bad for you. Starting out, one gets the impression that Mr. Walther is an ass. Reading on, one begins to realize that there may be serious deficiencies in his understanding of the Catholic faith and its relation to culture and art, a deficiency that ultimately makes him a liability in the crisis of faith and culture.

He begins by being incredibly insulting to a particular group of people who have done nothing to merit such treatment other than, apparently, offending him with their existence. These would be “nerds” of the D&D and LARP variety. “Two decades ago, watching [Game of Thrones] would have gotten you shoved into a locker.” He isn’t surprised that the show exists or that it has many fans because “nerds have always overindulged – that’s what being a nerd means.” No, what he finds astonishing is that of the show’s 23 million viewers most of them are “adults, seemingly well-socialized, emotionally well-adjusted tax-paying contributors to our GDP.” (I guess nerds aren’t these things). He then asserts, “Popular culture in the English-speaking world is in the grips of a downward nerd-driven death spiral.” As proof of this, his exhibits are comic book movies, the average age of video game players, and that most Americans between the ages of 23-40 have only read Harry Potter and “a fable about talking animals they were assigned in middle school.” (I am in this age range and have no idea what fable he is talking about). Five paragraphs in and he has not yet said why Game of Thrones is bad for us (aside from simply stating that it is “ultra-violent wizard porn – and boring ultra-violent wizard porn at that”), and I’m scratching my head wondering what nerds ever did to him.

Aside from being an ass, there are a great many problems with Mr. Walther’s opinion piece: one is his penchant for throwing things in the air and then walking away. His labeling of Game of Thrones as “boring ultra-violent wizard porn” is just one example. He doesn’t offer any evidence for the veracity of that label. He continues to do this throughout his piece: label, accuse, state, walk away. There are times when it would seem that he offers evidence to support what he says, but all he does is give information without any consideration of its meaning. (We will be looking at one such instance). This makes his piece rather difficult to respond to. He throws many statements in the air leaving the responder to juggle them in a chaotic mess. Well, no one is obligated to reply to every little thing he throws up but isn’t willing to take responsibility for himself. This reply will limit itself to just one accusation and let the others fall.

Mr. Walther wants to convince his audience that Game of Thrones is bad for them, that it is bad for their souls. Halfway through the piece we finally come to his first and only reason given for holding this: “It is obscene.” For evidence, he offers his own thoughts after watching the second to last episode of the sixth season. They are not much. He merely points out many horrible characters and things that they have done: e.g. incest, pushing a boy out of a window, burning a girl in sacrifice to a god, a woman so tall and broad that bestiality jokes are made about her, a drunken abusive king, a man eaten by the dogs he cruelly treated, and a young woman who had been routinely raped by the man who was eventually eaten by his dogs. Of course, these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. In all of this, Mr. Walther says nothing about any of these things. Yes, they are horrible, but he gives no context. Does he offer a complete picture? Are there good characters, admirable characters? What of character development? Is there a purpose? How does all of this play into the overarching story ark? Is there any kind of foiling? What of conversion, redemption, self-knowledge, ascendency? After watching six seasons, he should surely be able to speak of these things, but he doesn’t. He merely lists some horrible people and horrible acts they have done. It seems that the act itself and the horridness itself is enough to make a story obscene and bad for your soul.

In this we find an incredible lack of depth in Mr. Walther’s thinking (or at the very least an incredible lack of skill in arguing). If this is all it takes to make something obscene then Sacred Scripture is obscene. The Holy Page is filled with genocide and other mass killings, child sacrifice, prostitutes, rape (both heterosexual and homosexual), polygamy, fratricide, heads being crushed or driven through, adultery, murder to cover up adultery, betrayal among brothers, slavery, gaining through deception, and all sorts of other uses and abuses. Need I go on? By Mr. Walther’s standard I’d have to conclude that Scripture is obscene and bad for our souls. We would also have to conclude that some of J.R.R. Tolkien’s and Flannery O’Connor’s works are obscene and bad for the soul. The Children of Hurin by J.R.R. Tolkien is filled with death and sorrow culminating in the suicide of the stories protagonist. This dark story includes incest and death at the hands of a friend. Flannery O’Connor’s stories are filled with the grotesque. Characters who are truly vile such as the man who indiscriminately murders an entire family (the little children included) or the man who marries an intellectually disabled young woman only to leave her in a diner far from home, who will be lost, confused, and hardly able to communicate when she wakes and finds herself alone. Then there are the people who could have prevented a man from getting crushed to death by a tractor, but say nothing and simply watch it happen because he didn’t fit in. An argument could probably be made that Flannery’s works are far more disturbing and depressing than Game of Thrones, and, yet, while she is grotesque, she is not obscene. Flannery O’Connor is one of the greatest Catholic authors of the 20th century. Her works are imbued with the mysteries of faith. But by Mr. Walther’s standard I’d have to conclude that her stories are bad for our souls.

Death of Jezebel

Is this gruesome scene from a medieval Bible manuscript or a comic book adaptation of “Game of Thrones”?

Game of Thrones may very well be obscene and bad for us. However, Mr. Walther has utterly failed to show this. He has failed so miserably that an argument for or against the T.V. show cannot be made in response to his article. All one can do is respond to his reasoning… or lack thereof. From reading Mr. Walther, we can’t really know anything about Game of Thrones, but we can know something about The Week: they employ an editor who thinks unreasoned rants are good journalism.

To be continued… HERE

Dr. David Mosley has a wonderful little reflection over at his blog, Letters from the Edge of Elfland. The view of our time concerning the Middle Ages is skewed largely by prejudice and ignorance. There is also, understandably, a great failure of people today to interpret things medieval as the medievals did. This leads to greater misconceptions and general aversion to the Middle Ages. We interpret them through our lens rather than their lens and, hence, make assumptions which simply are not true. This is aggravated by common prejudice that the Middles Ages are the Dark Ages, a prejudice which biases people today against all things medieval. We quite readily believe what we hear about Medieval times if it is negative. As I learn more and more of these misconceptions, I am progressively seeing the beauty of this period. However, as this beauty becomes clearer, a disturbing thought seeps ever deeper into my mind concerning our own period: it is dark. The reflection linked above gives a good example of a misconception concerning Medieval thought and by extension an opportunity to contrast it with today’s thought.

The common narrative concerning our knowledge of the cosmos and man’s place in it is that of man being thrown down from the heights of glory. It is thought that man held himself in the place of honor because he had a geocentric view of the cosmos. Everything was oriented towards him for we were at the center of all things, and it was upon earth alone that life existed, of which man was the pinnacle. Then we found out we weren’t at the center of the universe. Then we found out our sun is not at the center of the universe. As scientific knowledge of the universe grew our place in it became less and less significant. Today it is not at all uncommon to hear that we are insignificant little specks in a vast and infinite universe that cares nothing for us at all. However, this thought is from a materialist perspective. Medievals were not materialists, and it is wrong to interpret them through such a lens.

Medieval Cosmos - French

Medieval man was a religious man. Specifically, he was Christian. This means he affirmed both the material and the spiritual, therefore his conception of life and his perspective of the cosmos affirmed both as well. While it was believed that the earth was at the center of the physical creation, it was also believed that the true center of all creation, physical and spiritual – its ground, source, and sustainer – is God. And while the Medievals knew full well that the physical light of day came from the Sun and the physical light of night came from the moon, they also believed that the true Light and Illuminator of all the cosmos is God. The medievals may have believed that the earth was at the center of the physical universe, but as Dr. Mosley points out this also meant they were furthest from God; they were at the bottom of the order of creation leading up to the heavenly realm. Of all the realms of the cosmos, it was the earth which was darkest and most corruptible. Our location was one of the reasons used to explain why there are such horrible people and wickedness throughout the world. Contrary to the materialist modern view, religious medieval man had a healthy understanding of his place in the cosmos: he wasn’t insignificant; he was called to glory, but was not there yet, could be easily corrupted, and could not of his own means attain that glory. There is an inherent humility in this perspective.

Medieval Cosmos - English

Ironically, it is modern man who is guilty of what they accuse medievals of having done. It is common to hear today that we are insignificant specks in a vast universe. There really isn’t anything special about us. There are most likely more advanced civilizations in the universe and in our own galaxy. It isn’t unusual to hear the hypothesis that we aren’t even the first advanced civilization in our solar system. On the surface, it appears that this thought of man being so very little has soaked into our social consciousness. And, yet, it is also quite common to be presented with a conception of man that is not insignificant at all. We have a manifest destiny to go forth from our planet, to explore, settle, and find other life and civilizations. It is not uncommon in television shows such as Dr. Who and Star Trek for man to be put forth as truly unique and special among all the species of the universe – to see man as rising above the others or beating the odds against a vastly superior alien species, or triumph in defiance of the gods of ancient mythology. (I am very much a fan of these shows, especially Dr. Who). Often times the weakness of man is mixed with this (Star Trek is a great example). In these cases, a seeming weakness is either seen ultimately as a strength or there is the secular hope of man eventually evolving or advancing past the weakness.

Like the medievals, modern man knows he is called to glory, that he is not there yet, and that he is easily corruptible. Unlike the medievals, modern man believes he can get there on his own and that his glory is his own (meaning either for himself particularly or man in common). The key here is that glory is not given nor participated in, but what we make. There is an inherent pride in this perspective. Theocentric medievals are today accused of being anthropocentric and self-referential. That, however, comes with pride, not humility.

 

 

Over at Bensonian there is a post from little more than a year ago on one’s personal canon and life author.  I thought it a fun exercise and decided to put my own together. The following list did not have a lot of thought go into it. It is made more from memory, impressions, and awareness of what I seem to go back to. My personal canon in no particular order:

  1. The Silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien
  2. The Ballad of the White Horse by G.K. Chesterton
  3. The Road by Cormac McCarthy
  4. The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
  5. The Spirit of the Liturgy by Joseph Card. Ratzinger
  6. Flannery O’Connor, short stories
  7. Hugh of St. Victor, works
  8. Five Theological Orations, St. Gregory of Nazianzus
  9. The Little House by Virginia Lee Burton
  10. Ezra-Nehemiah

My life author is Cormac McCarthy.

And you?

 

Luminous Darkness

st-symeon-the-new-theologian“The same undefiled flesh which He accepted from the pure loins of Mary, the all-pure Theotokos, and with which He was given birth in the body, He gives to us as food.

And when we eat of it, when we eat worthily of His flesh, each one of use receives within himself the entirety of God made flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, son of God and son of the immaculate Virgin Mary . . .

He is present in the body bodilessly, mingled with our essence and nature, and deifying us who share His body, who are become flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone . . . This is the mystery all full of holy terror which I hesitate even to write, and tremble in recounting.

Thus, while from His immaculate mother He borrowed her immaculate flesh, and gave her in return His own divinity – o…

View original post 310 more words

Great post! I highly encourage anyone here to read it. I am not by any means a pacifist; I believe that one is just in defending themselves even if that defense extends to violence, and I believe that our police officers and soldiers provide a true good and do well in the just execution of their services. However, it is very easy (all too easy!) to root these beliefs in the wisdom of the world; and when one does this it puts them in opposition to God and His Revelation. So often the answer is both/and, but to truly find freedom in that answer and find rest in the mystery one must allow themselves to be challenged by God’s word and the witness of the saints. It is not an easy question nor is there an easy answer.

Dominus mihi adjutor

This post will upset some people, most of them from a particular socio-cultural-ecclesial context. However, before they give vent to the full fury of their outrage it is asked that they read this post carefully, and then read it again. Disagreement is expected and constructive argument encouraged. Abuse or vitriol will get short shrift. There is an issue to engage with here, and it is not to be camouflage for arguments ad hominem.

You will recall the atrocities committed against the Coptic Christians on Palm Sunday in Egypt. What may not be so clear in our memory is the Copts’ response.

View original post 1,539 more words