A New Look

Ok, so maybe this change wasn't for the better.

I kinda had to commit in order to see what the changes would look like. To all you professional bloggers out there, is there a way to edit out some of the unsightly features in any of these templates and then maybe put in some of my own more sightly ones?

Although I am usually more conservative when it comes to living life, sometimes I feel like I have to break free from those things which inhibit my creative motion.

Here's to freedom...

-CS

Speak No Evil

Lately I’ve really been struggling with what seems to be an over-fixation on the negative happenings of the Catholic Church in many Catholic blogs and magazine articles. At times I feel I cannot escape conversations with many well-intentioned and orthodox Catholics wherein criticism serves as the primary modus operandi. I myself am consistently guilty of sustaining a nit-picky and hypercritical view of the world at the expense of a more optimistic and charitable outlook. In a recent homily, Fr. Philip Powell, O.P. suggested that this cantankerousness at times becomes habitual to the point where even minute issues turn into even bigger ones; however, in reality--says Fr. Ph--they are more likely to be compared to the debate over the difference between a dime and two nickels.

For me this translated into the realization that there is something addictive in highlighting “what’s wrong with the [Catholic] world.” It is surprisingly easy to find incongruity and rejoice in that discovery as the product of a true and right usage of reason. The “problem” with pessimism, however, is that it deceives us (me!) into thinking we’re actually being virtuous. Granted we are called to make moral judgments and obligated to voice concern over the potential and/or real peril of certain errors. But in my life this easily depreciates into cowardice. The incongruities of life demand an excellent degree of fortitude and charity to overcome them, and because I am lacking in both, I recoil to that which is easier: taking satisfaction in my own ability to note imperfection. Jesus says thus concerning the Pharisees, who were possessed by this very tendency: “They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger” (Matt 23:4).

As I contemplated writing this blog, I felt like I was completely mired in this whole spirit of criticism. Am I not being critical of the critical and thus contributing to the same oppressive pessimism? Maybe. My hope though is to diagnose with as much clarity as possible the source of this negativity in order to more authentically treat the symptoms. And because I am limited in my own views, I invite any and all comments or suggestions. But already I sense that St. Paul gives us a hint at the answer when he tells us, “we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12).

-CS

Because I have nothing good to say...

...I thought it would be beneficial to quote someone who does.

For the past few weeks--both in regards to my thesis and the Theology of the Body talks I helped give to some awesome Evangelicals--the issue of religious plurality in society has been making my nose itch. And like most fits of nasal irritation, the solution is a bit out of my reach. But I present here an introductory quote from Christopher Dawson that seems practically applicable:

"[A pluralistic society] lays a greater weight of spiritual responsibility on the individual Christian. He can no longer afford to take his religion for granted. If he is to stand firm amid the shifting sands of democratic opinion, he must know where he stands and what he stands for, and since he is in constant contact with other forms of Christianity, he must know where they stand too--where they agree and where they differ and how far it is possible or necessary to co-operate with them in defense of their common interests and common spiritual values.

All this involves a considerable intellectual as well as a moral effort [emphasis mine], an effort which it is difficult for us to make at the present day when the whole tendency of modern popular education and public opinion is concentrating out attention on the problems of our modern secular democratic and technological culture which force themselves on our attention, through the thousand brazen tongues of organized publicity."--Christopher Dawson, from the Introduction of The Formation of Christendom.

A Response

Thank you for your response SD Papist.

I agree with you about the state of affairs between Muslims and Christians, and lament the "thinly disguised totalitarianism" that relativism has become in Europe.

But SD, you did not address the Church's social doctrine. Is what you're saying Pope Benedict did consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church? Please excuse the length of this response, but precisely because I want the Church to speak for herself in these matters, I am devoting a large portion of this blog to a text from Vatican II.

The union of the human family is greatly fortified and fulfilled by the unity,
founded on Christ,(10) of the family of God's sons.

Christ, to be sure, gave His Church no proper mission in the political, economic or social order. The purpose which He set before her is a religious one.(11) But out of this religious mission itself come a function, a light and an energy which can serve to structure and consolidate the human community according to the divine law. As a matter of fact, when circumstances of time and place produce the need, she can and indeed should initiate activities on behalf of all men, especially those designed for the needy, such as the works of mercy and similar undertakings.

The Church recognizes that worthy elements are found in today's social movements, especially an evolution toward unity, a process of wholesome socialization and of association in civic and economic realms. The promotion of unity belongs to the innermost nature of the Church, for she is, "thanks to her relationship with Christ, a sacramental sign and an instrument of intimate union with God, and of the unity of the whole human race."(12) Thus she shows the world that an authentic union, social and external, results from a union of minds and hearts, namely from that faith and charity by which her own unity is unbreakably rooted in the Holy Spirit. For the force which the Church can inject into the modern society of man consists in that faith and charity put into vital practice, not in any external dominion exercised by merely human means.

Moreover, since in virtue of her mission and nature she is bound to no particular form of human culture, nor to any political, economic or social system, the Church by her very universality can be a very close bond between diverse human communities and nations, provided these trust her and truly acknowledge her right to true freedom in fulfilling her mission. For this reason, the Church admonishes her own sons, but also humanity as a whole, to overcome all strife between nations and race in this family spirit of God's children, an in the same way, to give internal strength to human associations which are just (Gaudium et Spes, par. 42, emphasis mine).

The Pope and therefore the Church are pro-humanity and pro-dignity of the human person before being pro-Europe, even if the European culture is predominantly Christian.

Because this blog is already very long, I will address one last issue where you say, "Islam may have a few truths, and insofar as they live in accordance to that truth, Islam has dignity, but even that is a double-edged sword. The truths they do have only make their untruths all the more potent." The Church is the champion of the dignity human person. We have to presume upon that dignity ALWAYS even when the person exhibits violence and irrationality.

Explain to me how what you propose the Pope is doing is consistent along these lines, especially when you yourself describe the situation as the Muslims "falling for it." The Pope did not only say, "I'm sorry you were hurt"; he also said, "In no way did I wish to make my own the words of the Medieval emperor...I wished to explain that not religion and violence, but religion and reason go together."

For me, Pope Benedict exhibits humility and strength. On this point SD, I second your "bravo."

And another thing!

That last point I think needs clarification.

While we would hope that Pope Benedict is incapable of making a diplomatic mistake, no amount of hope can change the reality that it is in fact possible.

What is the alternative? A "carefully" orchestrated plot to call the bluff of militant Islam? This is not the role of the Church, and it contradicts the Church's social teaching. We should not forget that the Church is the "sacrament of the salvation of the world," and that it is in fact possible for Muslims to be saved only because of the Church. The Church exists for the Muslims just as much as she exists for us.

The Church does have the moral responsibility of educating the world of those things that are against the dignity of the human person, violence being one of them. But the Church through her Vicar should not be the one to strong arm her way into the inner workings of Islam, especially when there is nothing intrinsically evil about the practice of Islam as a religion. Are we to expect from now on that the Pope will be addressing the evils of other religions haphazardly in obscure academic gatherings? I think this would be a subversive move on the part of the Pope for ecumenism everywhere: "so that's how the Pope wants to deal with things."

The humble apology of the Pope did not in my opinion look to be one of mere diplomacy or just "good PR." As Pastor of the entire world, he is in a certain (but real) sense, responsible for the salvation of everyone--including the Muslims. I do not think the Pope would have sacrificed authentic dialogue with peaceful and rational Muslims, nor do I think he would have endangered the lives of Christians so haphazardly. This would not be in accordance with the dignity owed to Muslims, nor would it be in accordance with the role of the Pope.

The Church can never be used as a "means" for anything. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that if Pope Benedict was so fed up with intellectual terrorism, that he would take it upon himself to use his position to effort a change in this way, especially when--as Christopher J said--the Pope has exhibited a pacific stance in regards to Lebanon AND Iraq, both having ties with radical Islam.

While I do think that the clash between Islam and the West is problematic and may one day lead to apocalyptical happenings, I don't think this is what the Pope hopes to achieve, nor do I think that he despairs of the possibility.

Any thoughts out there?

-CS

An attempt at a humble disagreement

I reprint here a response I made to Christopher J's Blog.

I've been fighting with this for awhile. While I'm trying to presume upon the wisdom of the Pope, while observing potential fruits from this "misunderstanding", I still do find myself thinking he was perhaps unintentionally careless about some of his phraseology. Check out this response:

Religion, Reason and Violence: Pope Benedict XVI and Islam

This line from Benedict makes me wonder:"I would like to discuss only one point-- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself-- which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue."Words like "marginal" and "interesting" do not match the subject matter in my opinion. Granted, context context context. This is an academic presentation intended to promote PEACEFUL but by no means passive discussion and disagreement in regards to some serious issues undermining the process as a whole.In my limited vision, I think Pope Benedict still could have stated the same issues differently, more pastorally. For instance, where he discusess Mohammed and jihad, I think he could (should) have exhibited more sensitivity--like pretending he was speaking to a Muslim in the audience.

My point is, I think Pope Benedict was trying to speak as an academic presuming upon an academic audience, a freedom he probably once had. As Pope--especially in our media saturated times--I think he has to show a different side.I mean, let's be honest, if the Pope was going to really speak about Islam and the violent issues, he would have done so much more pointedly and convincingly. That he deals with it in this cursory manner, lends me to think that he was making an academic presumption, a presumption all of us academics can respect and enjoy, but not one suitable for these times.

To say that after the fact, almost as a felix culpa, the "true colors" of the antagonistic side of radical Islamic movements have been conveniently manifested, would be (for me) reading into Pope Benedict's speech a duplicitous agenda unfitting for a Vicar of Christ of his virtue and character.

Mixed Drinks

After a long absinth, I figured it was high time for me to post a gin. I don't think there's rum-my on the board, I just wanted tequila time. Doubt it not, that I can make Whiskey sour from my shot at having Coloda fun. Oops! Looks like like Mai-tai is up.

Did you miss me?
-CS

Soul and Super-body?

ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!

With the proximate arrival of X3 AND Superman Returns, I can't help but entertain the usual boyhood daydreaming of having super powers. So to keep me grounded, I thought these might help.

ST I, q. 91, a. 3

ST I, q. 117, a. 3 and 4

Tomaso locates all the cool superpowers I want in God's elevating of our natures for his purposes. Ah man!

And just because I think it would be a really cool book to have. Whiskey? Sapientiae Amator?

-CS

Pop Culture Strikes Back

CS (not Lewis) on Grace:

At every moment of our lives, God graces us in existence and is eternally present to us. I heard a priest say once, that the word grace is literally, "that which is given." And sin is "that which is taken" or "manipulated" [take this to prayer and it will change your life]. Every moment of our lives is a grace because it is literally a "given situation." I can waste a lot of time complaining about how things are, but God has ordained and/or allowed every situation to be just as it is, and my desire should be to find him there since he gives himself to me always and everywhere, in every situation--even the really evil ones.

**setting the previous paragraph as the background music**

I can't help that God has designed me in such a way that I have an involuntary ability to unconsciously soak up certain things around me. I don't think I'm alone in this. It's easier to moderate what some of those things are now that I'm older and can reflect on my experiences, but it's part of the human condition for which I don't readily have to feel guilty. Sometimes I soak up some really great things, sometimes good things, and sometimes really nasty things--it's all a little mysterious. But when I look back on my childhood and my teenage years, I had no real "control" or conscious ability to live according to a certain ideal. Thankfully God gave me a conscience, but it was nevertheless immature at those times. Because of my socio-historical condition, I was raised in a very pop culturally-oriented society. Therefore, I soaked up a great deal of it (as many of you are painfully aware). I think it's unavoidable unless you have highly attuned parents, but even they have no absolute control.

All this to say, I can look back objectively at my life and choose to look at the culture I grew up in with disdain. The sound of a synthesizer can sometimes lead me to immediate nausea. [How ironic...I'm typing this in the Cap Bar with Collegium Cantorum's beautiful melodies coming from down the hall.] And yet, there is a layer of grace that covers my whole upbrining. There has to be. This is what is so wonderful about nostaligia; it can be the precursor to gratitude for the good things God has given us. Music and movies have the potential to generate nostalgia almost as mneumonic devices for grace. When we remember certain lines from a movie, we're reminded of good times or good experiences. But, there is also the potential to remember even a not so good line from a movie or song, and reflect on why I retained this line. Is it just because I'm sinful? It could be an invitation to reflection and conversion, God's showing me where I still need his grace.

This I hope doesn't trivialize our responsibility to be honest about where we might have a strong attachment to the "feelings" of consolation that come from music and movies. Neither do I intend to whitewash the media as pre-evil depending on an individual's disposition. There are certain forms of movies and music that are always and everywhere dangerous and to be avoided. Having said that, I will only digress momentarily to say, it is a whole other issue to think about the potential vocation some of us have in relation to the world around us. The Mystical Body has many members and some are called to be culturally savvy for the sake of reaching out to those enslaved by it. Others are called to renounce the whole enterprise all together as a reminder to the rest of us that there is more to this life than the fleeting pleasures of this world.

The Theology of the 70s, 80s, 90s, and Today

I write this post for those of us who yearn to find a responsible justification for our fixation with psychedelic funk bands, cheezy rock ballads, and 80s "B" movies. But of course I'm writing about it, so please be prepared for an extremely long post or 2. Maybe one day the Lord will give me the dual grace of eloquence and brevity. As it is, I have neither.

A liberal arts education has the advantage of turning us on to the pursuit of REAL truth, beauty, and goodness. And unsurprisingly, we naturally begin to take an interior inventory of things in our life, looking for the transcendent. This is a huge grace we've been given--to not only understand (to some level) what it is we have received, but then to responsibly reflect and begin to try to live according to what St. Paul says:

"...having the eyes of [our] hearts enlightened, that [we] may know
what is
the hope to which he has called [us], what are the riches of his
glorious
inheritance in the saints...(Eph 1:18)"

We know this inheritance is God himself, given to us individually and in communio. "God you are my portion and my cup." And so, we live our lives experiencing God proleptically, albeit in a hidden way (but oh so much fun!). He is hidden from us on one level because we encounter God as mediated (conceptually, materially, etc.). But sin also has this disturbing way of obscuring our way to God.

If I may quote a husky Cistercian priest: what does this have to do with us? We know that "leisure is the basis of culture" and to be a devout Catholic does not mean saturating our lives with only religious pursuits. So, yay, we can (and should) find joy and spiritual rejuvination in certain secular forms of re-creation. But not every form of recreation is spiritually edifying.

What readily comes to mind is the topic of this post, music and movies--the bases of the American culture. I want to come right out and say I have a certain bias when it comes to pop culture, and contend it is not de facto a sign of weakness or spiritual immaturity (there are other reasons for my weaknesses...hehe). It is true pop culture has this vulnerability of being a vehicle for mediocrity, and is therefore sometimes--maybe most times--objectively less good, less true, and less beautiful than many classical works of Western Tradition.

Taking it a step further, entertainment can be a sneaky little devil, quite literally. It has a certain addictive quality to it, both for those performing and those listening. As a musician, I have played before large audiences, and have to admit, there is a "high" that comes over you that is almost ineffable (I said almost), especially when the audience really "digs" your "fat chops." Performers therefore also have a nasty propensity toward vanity, and other forms of sin, e.g. "sex, drugs, and rock&roll (hip-hop, R&B, rap, country, etc.)." If the performers aren't acting about it or living it, they're singing about it, all to a catchy tune. The fans then have the additional struggle of fighting the temptation to make real idols out of these ma and pop stars, while filtering out all of the lies latent in the movies or songs.

And on this level, it's almost a non-issue that movies and music can be very detrimental to our spiritual lives. All of a sudden we're humming a song that speaks about fornication or quoting a line from a movie that in no way compares to the wit of ol' GK. It's this latter example that begins to snag on some, and sometimes even on me. Isn't it somehow formatively and therefore spiritually inefficient to run on a lower-grade of fuel when you can afford to fill up with the high octane of really good art and literature? I think most would be quick to say, "yes." I even want to be quick to say, "yes." But besides the justifiable immediate gratification of a "potentially quasi-morally neutral" movie or song (the good of tonal music, even if it is cheezy), there is I think a historical and formative issue.

Break on 3: 1-2-3

It Takes 2 to Make a Thing Go Right (II)

Daniel 13:5-63

So back to the mantra: "the pictures do not show too much. They do not show enough."

It's this last part that trips me up. The soul is not a "part" in the body. Rather, as the body's principle, the soul animates every part of the body. Under "normal" circumstances--where the woman is married to a man--this same body can communicate one of the greatest gifts possible, the gift of herself in lifelong devotion to being a wife and mother. It is possible, though of course only "in a certain sense," to see the soul through the body.

[For the sake of "normalcy," this is not to the exclusion of the possiblity for the same body to communicate a complete gift of self to God and to others without being married]

Part of my hesitancy comes from experience. If we were looking at a piece of art (even a photograph), which tastefully depicted a woman in the nude, would we feel the need to say, "this doesn't show enough?" My guess would be probably not. And why not? Because the art as a medium opens us up to a deeper reality. It puts our eyes at ease and allows us to take in all the wonders of the body. It is obvious that pornography as a medium obscures the deeper realities of the human person; it forces the observer to exaggerate and distort the very being of this historically unique woman.

Now please do not get me wrong. I'm not at all advocating picking up pornography in order to try and redeem the medium by a one-sided optimism: "if I look at this the right way it can make everything ok." The form of the damn thing (yes, I said damn and meant it...it's not from God) is such that it can never be something else than a terrible perversion. I think really for me, it's knowing that there is a real person depicted in the magazine, who on account of her body, automatically gets associated with the "trash" part of "trashy" magazines. This is not to remove whatever responsibility the woman has to respect her body and the souls of those men who look at her. I just think I err on the side of seeing the woman as Susanna--in need of the benefit of the doubt in a culture that has more than likely taken advantage of her.

So to both the woman in the magazine and John Mayer, I think the body can show more than enough and is just as big as you are.

It Takes 2 to Make a Thing Go Right (I)

During my undergrad days it was quite normal to hear a certain phrase in connection with pornography; and ever since, it has almost served as a mantra for certain faithful (or perhaps not so faithful) adherents of Theology of the Body.

The phrase used and now in vogue is, "the pictures do not show too much. They do not show enough." The point being of course is that the woman in the magazine is reduced from a person of inestimable worth to an object of lust. And of course this is right "in a certain sense." Just recently a friend of mine (not Mr. C) and I were talking and he used this phrase and it struck me as a little, well, not entirely correct. And all of you who know me I'm sure can guess what happened next. Immediately a song, which has bothered me for some time, came into my head.
The song is a John Mayer song and the lyrics go **throat clearing** like eh-zo.

Some day I'll fly/some day I'll soar
Some day I'll be/somethin' much more
Cuz I'm bigger than my body gives me credit for.

Ironically, this comes from the same man who wrote "Your Body is a Wonderland." At any rate, what has bothered me about the song lyrics is how John confuses (perhaps with invincible ignorance) our sinfulness with the body. When John Mayer says he's "bigger than his body," what he means is, he's capable of more than his sinful nature gives him credit for. To say otherwise, would be to say that the body is evil and enslaves the soul.

Now it is true, our sinfulness is mediated through our bodies, but it's not the body's fault per se. [Insert attempt to make a quick though readily intelligible argument from Aquinas] The soul is the principle of the body...the body cannot go anywhere without the soul. And the soul needs the body in order to do human things like understand stuff, "there is nothing in the mind that was not first in the sense." The unity between the body and soul is so great that I can call this unity, "Reginald" - one subject.

On the one hand, if John is looking to place the blame for his frustration, he won't find it in the body. He'll be even more frustrated when the soul does not have a body. If on the other hand, he wants to accept his real lot, he'll come to know his soul is indeed trapped, but by sin and his only true freedom will come in realizing his unlimitted capacity for virtue, goodness, and perfection in and through his body - probably greater than he "gives it credit for."

Stay tuned folks...

Up and coming is a post where John Mayer and pornography both meet Aquinas and Mr. C (<--think John Paul II and TOTB).

We won't go

Sorry. I couldn't resist.
<- check out homegirl right here.

I think that a lot of people have expressed my own views about the issue. Regarding Flyte's comment, I think it's funny that today at work in fact, one of the other servers who is a 2nd or 3rd generationer told one of the cooks (in Spanish) that he was going to go on Sunday to rally against this bill in support of the aforementioned cook because, "who else is going to make my salads?"

I think Whiskey's comment is apt: believe in the American dream. How much better it would have been -going along Eric's lines - if the pro-immigration side really thought through their position and went out marching with American flags. Instead they made post facto claims of the United States stealing their land from them in the first place. Ay yai yai, mi gente!!! This doesn't help your claim at all!!!

Flannery, I think that's a fair observation concerning the immigrants who only come to work. They're more concerned with the reality of providing for their families; they don't have to buy into the American dream and that's ok. I agree also, along with Windmilltilter that they should take the necessary steps to be legitimate, while the opportunistic landowners, I think, should be hit with some legislation to help prevent the exploitation of those workers.

As for the Church and the tithing issue, this is not only a cultural issue. I mean, I know plenty of Catholics of all shapes, colors, and sizes who do not tithe. It's not like a lot of these people tithe all that much in their home countries either, though I know this was not at all Flannery's position. This is a catechesis issue. Too many churches emphasize tithing as necessary for "maintaining the building" or for "paying for ..." We should tithe because our money doesn't belong to us ultimately and ultimately all of us have the same "universal destination" of all our goods.

I tithe to the Church, because we all belong to each other, first to the local community, but ultimately to the same Body of Christ. It's my pledge of detachment to ever let Mammon force me into servitude (even when times are tough...10% is a lot when you ain't got no money). I say this because a great deal of people - justified on many accounts - become bitter at the Spanish-speaking communities because they're not "paying" for anything. That argument is the only one you hear from such people, which calls into question their reason for tithing and the relationship they want to have with those other people in the Church.

Point. The immigration issue is complex. One side has to admit exploitation and in some sense the necessity of the work ethic, that the immigrants bring [I'll fight with anyone on this last issue until I'm blue in the face. When I look out at the fields in California (and into my own family history), I do not see any other ethnic group represented in those fields]. BUT, the other side has to take responsibility for their actions and if need be with the help of more JUST laws, which will facilitate as much as is reasonable those who are here already to become legitimate workers. Too bad we can't legislate morality. My mom (from the mother country) I think rightfully becomes infuriated at the ingratitude of those people from Mexico who are blind to all that is evil in Mexico and have the nerve to populate their lives with all things Mexican in retaliation to the United States, in the name of "la raza." Even when there isn't an outrageous proposal!!!

As a Church however, we have to look at the situation graciously. Problem is...the Church is a little short-handed these days.

All seems so grey!

"How long will you tolerate our weakness, before you step into our sky blue and say, 'that's quite enough and your time is up?'"

Somos Americanos?

So 500,000 protesters showed up in California yesterday to protest a new bill that among other things proposes to make it a misdemeanor crime for an immigrant to be in the country illegally. This immigration reform bill also "allows illegal immigrants who were in the United States before 2004 to continuing working legally for six years if they pay a $1,000 fine and clear a criminal background check. They would become eligible for permanent residence upon paying another $1,000 fine, any back taxes and having learned English."

What does this have to do with body and soul unity? I am of the opinion that one's culture and heritage (heck even skin color) are not just accidental, but really create meaning, positively and negatively impressing the soul.

Now, before anyone accuses me of being one-sided (since I didn't add some of the other qualifications, which the bill proposes), I wanted to ask some of my fellow bloggers here for your open and honest thoughts about immigration and its effects economic, cultural, moral or otherwise.

Don't worry. I am not going to say "there are no wrong answers."

-CS

The Morning After Fill

Oh happy Lent.

After a Sunday and a Monday Solemnity in honor of the highest Saint in our Church after the Blessed Mother, I can't help but feel the effects of my still unquieted appetites. It's all really subtle. So after Feast days, the temptation is to be content with the little pleasures now since passed of good times, good food, and perhaps good strong drink. The sun is shining, the weather is so favorable how can one meditate at all on the sufferings of Christ? How can one see at all the need for a more intimate conversion when so many supposed blessings are all around?

Then there's the flip side of the same weakness of the flesh, which happens the day after a day of fasting, ergo this blog's very title. Without realizing it, it's so easy to begin to eat as if the previous day ever happened, in fact the body wants to compensate. And yet, I think this is the real test: to exercise temperance in relation to good things the day after both fasting and feasting. During a fast (and here I mean even just abstaining from meat), it's easy (at least mentally) to remember to seek after virtue, especially fortitude--the entire day is concentrated with the theme of self-denial. And during a feast, it's relatively easier to "let go" and live in the joy of the moment. But for me, temperance helps me to see how conditional my love for the Lord becomes on the outskirts. The Lord always lavishes upon me his love and his graces especially during Lent, so much that it's easy to think that I have merited it all by myself (but shhhh, sometimes I don't let myself know that I'm really just weak), and that this grace will endure. How I betray myself when I reach for more snacks on a day after fasting. Heck, I don't even really snack all that much when it isn't Lent!!!

So my beloved fellow bloggers, here's to not only seeking virtue, but for choosing Christ in every moment. Lord, more than physical consolation, more than the fear of weakness, pain or discomfort, I choose to desire you. More than the beauty of this day or the beauty of my friendships, I desire to choose you. And more than my words express and my half-hearted attempts at nobility and strength, my gracious Lord I choose you.

A Preposition

like

Meme?

So I'm somehow in a loop, but feel so far outside it. So I'm just going to do what Whiskey did.

7 cosas hacer antes de morir

1. become fluent in Spanish - it's tough when you understand most of it, but for some reason one side of the brain doesn't let the other in on the fun.
2. attain vocational security
3. stretch and be able to touch the back of my feet
4. lead as many souls to God as possible
5. allow God to lead my soul to him
6. legitimately run and touch the rim on a 10ft b-ball court
7. read as many books as all my friends have

7 Dinge, die ich nicht machen kann

1. not be in awe of the beauty of femininity
2. multiply loaves or fishes
3. write an impressive essay more than 8 pages
4. refrain from singing in the shower
5. redeem myself
6. maintain the life of anything vegetative
7. stand when people hold back laughter

7 things that attract me to my other half (going along Whiskey's lines)

1. its big toe is shorter than its neighbor
2. it always tries to compete, keeps things interesting
3. the way it cracks my fingers
4. I love how it scratches my back
5. it always inspires the song, "how am I supposed to live without you?"
6. it always inspires the response, "how will I live without you?"
7. I love how nothing can keep us apart

7 things I say

1. Uh
2. Dang it!
3. Shoot!
4. Ahh man
5. yeah?
6. ooh ooh
7. hhhckkow are eh yoo eh doins?

7 books I love

1. Manalive - Chesterton
2. Mere Christianity - Lewis
3. Brothers Karamazov - Dostoevsky
4. Purgatorio - Dante
5. Nibelungenlied - anonymous
6. LOTR - Trio
7. Parzival - die deutsche Version - Wolfram von Echenbach

7 movies I love (keep in mind, I'm an 80s man)

1. Goonies
2. Shawshank Redemption
3. Tombstone (I liked it first Whiskey!)
4. I Confess (Hitchcock)
5. Rocky 1, 2 or 3
6. Back to the Future 1
7. La Bamba

7 people to meme (at this point everyone's been taken!!!) - Like everyone else, here's 4

1. Ladybird
2. My Lady Tongue
3. Flannery
4. Whiskey

**Addendum**
Where I come from "meme" is usually part of a much longer phrase, "to make memes," which is a euphemism for sleep. Usually at around age 2 or 3 it's customary to hear an aunt or uncle say, "come on mijo, you want to go and make memes?" Just thought you'd all like to know.

Fast vs. Feast

Remember, the only difference between "fast" and "feast" is the letter "e." Notice, it's not "ez?"
(insert uncontrollable laughter here)

I just love how there is a rhythm to our life, a rhythm assumed by the liturgical calendar and how it takes into account our frail humanity. On one level, I would like to think that I love my Lord so much that even if there wasn't a season specifically focused on self-denial and self-offering, I would still be committed to living that life. But it's precisely because my Lord loves us--you and me--so much that the Church gives us Lent just in case.

And it's this just in case part that has occupied my thoughts and what follows in this post. Lent has as its focus the whole pascal event; the life AND death AND resurrection of Jesus Christ is encapsulated in it. In the same way that Jesus' suffering and death--and by the same token his entire life--are ordered to resurrection, so our Lent is to be ordered to a resurrected life in Christ and in the Church.

Thankfully then, Lent is a gift to us BEFORE it is a gift of ours to the Lord. For many of you this is probably a simple truth. But for me, Lent for so long has been about what I'm going to do for God, and not about my allowing his mercy to purify me. More often, Lent turns into an extended exercise of white-knuckle will power. I'd much rather strain than admit my weakness. I think I have somewhere hidden in my mind that my self-worth is at stake and that each new Lent I'm actually going to redeem myself. There have been Lents where I haven't even asked the Lord what he wants for me to give up! I just do an interior inventory and assume God's invitation.

Truth be told, Lent is all about the Lord. It's encountering our weakness and dying to our own visions of what holiness is. Just the other day the Lord said to me, "go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy not sacrifice.'" For the first time in I don't know how long, the Lord opened this verse to me and humbled me, showing me that in fact I do need to "go and learn" what it means for the Lord to desire mercy. That I might be able to go a whole Lenten season without the consolation of a warm caffeinated beverage means nothing if I haven't allowed the Lord to show me mercy and then shown mercy to those around me (<-subject of future Lenten post). My sacrifices will never get me to heaven if they're divorced from his mercy.

My brothers and sisters, this Lent I pray for us all to openly receive the gift of Lent: the awareness of our sinfulness, the necessity of God's grace to heal us and to inspire our penances, and to beg for the grace to answer the call to lavish mercy on all those around us. I also ask for your prayers and for your mercy. It's so consoling to know that we share this journey together.

ad maiorem dei gloriam

Warning: Long Post - Infallibility I

And I’m shameless. Sorry the editor of this picture put "then" rather THAN "than."

I have to study AND I want to post. Anytime I couple caffeine with studying, I tune into a muse-esque station in my mind that screams for expression. So I figured, “let [my] powers combine.” The problem is my limited vocabulary and concentration get in the way. To help the situation, I have put in the Gladiator soundtrack to inspire me.

I am about to embark on foreign territory here and post on the Church’s social doctrine—or at least my assimilation of Dr. Lowery’s interpretation of it. Like some other posts, consider this Part I.

One of the greatest helps to me since I got to UD, was the correct understanding of infallibility. What does it mean for the Church to teach infallibly and what level of assent should I really give? The Magisterium can be divided eh-like-eh-zoh. Please eh note, two important things: the words define and teach (and/or their related forms) AND where the asterisks are.

Extraordinary Magisterium

***1. Extraordinary Papal Magisterium
(a) ex cathedra – the Pope defines dogma
i. Immaculate Conception – 1854 by Pius IX
ii. Assumption – 1950 by Pius XII

2. Extraordinary Episcopal Magisterium
(a) Bishops gathered at ecumenical councils [including Vatican 2!!!]
***i. They can define dogma (i.e., Dogmatic Constitutions)
ii. They can also proclaim the Gospel and/or give pastoral directives

Ordinary Magisterium
1. Ordinary Papal Magisterium
(a) encyclicals and apostolic exhortations (teachings)

2. Ordinary Episcopal Magisterium
(a) Non-universal
i. Bishops gathered like at the United States Conference of Bishops
ii. Pastoral directives
(b) ***Universally
i. VERY TRICKY
ii. a universal a-temporally conditioned consensus of what the Church has agreed
upon (TAUGHT) as dealing with divine revelation and faith and morals.

Yeah, CS, but dumb it down for me.

Interesting distinction. An infallible definition does not mean that the Church does not teach other truths infallibly. Some of you might be thinking, yeah, so what? But this doesn’t mean that everything the Church teaches or defines is infallible either. This is where Newman’s insight is great. The Church’s teaching authority prioritizes truths for us

I think a lot of Catholics desire this; they are always looking to pull the “infallible teaching” trump card. But like in all things concerning the Church, freedom is key! More on that latte (oops, time for a refill.)

Some further distinctions. What is infallibly defined was also infallibly taught before the definition. Fundamentals of Catholicism 101 teaches us that the Church has to make definitions because of a crisis—something is unclear, debated, etc.—which needs further clarification. When there is a proper understanding, there is no real need for the Church to exercise the gift of infallibility.

The TRICKY part is trying to determine whether or not the Church has taught something as infallible. What complicates things is that any of the above forms of teaching (ecumenical councils, encyclicals, etc.) can contain truths that are taught infallibly, but the whole document itself is not infallible. Infallibility does NOT equal inspiration.

(((Could you just give us an example already???!!!)))

For example…

I hope we would all agree that the sanctity of human life, the evil of abortion, and the evil of euthanasia are all infallible truths. If not, let’s take a look at what JP2 (he’s so GREAT) says about the sanctity of life in Evangelium Vitae.

…the Church’s Magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defense of the sacredness and inviolability of human life. The Papal Magisterium, particularly insistent in this regard, has always been seconded by that of the Bishops, with numerous and comprehensive doctrinal and pastoral documents issued either by the Episcopal Conferences or by individual bishops. The Second Vatican Council also addressed this matter forcefully, in a brief passage…[Emphasis mine].

The Pope draws our attention to the teaching of the Church—both the Ordinary Papal Magisterium and the non-universal Ordinary Episcopal Magisterium. Again, so what? Has the Church made any infallible definitions on the sanctity of human life? Note, both categories are not in the infallible definitions category.

Like I said, JP2 is so GREAT. He gives us the basis for a confirmation that the Universal Ordinary Magisterium *** has also taught the sanctity of human life as an infallible truth. In case you don’t believe me…

Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors, and in communion with the bishops of the Catholic Church, I CONFIRM that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church, and TAUGHT by the ordinary and universal Magisterium [Emphas MINE again].

Like we used to say on the b-ball court in middle school after somebody made an awesome shot “in someone’s face”: BOO-Yah!

So how about the fallible matters?

Stay tuned...

the highly elusive blog title is "on the move":

Manikin and Manichean

-Shhhh

You say goodbye, I say hello

Another week of fascination with the intimate union of body and soul.

This didn't happen to me this week, but how many times has it happened when someone you know, someone you sort-of know, or someone you don't even know waves in your general direction? Your soul screams aloud, "YES!!! YES!!! (with every side-to-side motion), somebody is acknowledging my existence!" You wave back. And then it happens. 1.5 seconds later someone comes up from behind you, really he or she just comes out of nowhere, waving to the initiator of this whole exchange, and proceeds to hug and laugh the day along with the person you so most badly wished would desire to do the same with you.

But we don't acknowledge that. Instead we mumble to ourselves "uh...um" and then pretend to run our fingers through our hair in a "side-to-side" motion, pretending as if this in fact is what we were really doing the entire time. If that other person thought we were waving back at her, well really she's just as wrong as...as...as well, as wrong as we were.

Back to the tag: you say goodbye, I say hello.

Our bodies our not just instruments. My mind doesn't just tell my hand to move back and forth really fast, while simultaneously spreading my fingers apart. It just so happens that this historically conditioned culture that we live in has agreed upon the meaning of this gesture. Sometimes it means, "hello" and at other times "goodbye." Still sometimes it means--when coupled with a facial expression in the "oooh"-formation--"stop" or "no, no, no not right now."

What am I getting at? Body language of course. You all see it. Sometimes we don't always pick up what the other person is "saying"; everything somehow gets lost in translation. And somehow in the Providence of it all, the Lord uses this albeit sometimes clumsy way, to show us that we can't not communicate. Even if we use no words, our bodies at times betray us. How many times have I blushed (ok, ok so I've blushed before. Sheesh, get over it), or how many times have I tried not to cry and boom it hits (geez, would you get off that already? Yeah, so what?)?

The body is at the service of the soul and serves our humility, but also our need for communion. I'd be a wreck if there weren't people in my life that could "read" me despite my acting.

Ah! The unspoken blessings of body language.

-I don't know why [I] say goodbye...

Ayudar a los Almas

...to help souls.

This saint--one of my favorites of all time and not just because he's Spanish!--is responsible for a spirituality that has influenced the Church (ooh, that's you and me!) and the world more profoundly than most realize. I would like to dedicate this post to this dear Saint in honor of him and his spirituality. Please accept it as my "Owed to Joy."

Ignatius' method, in my mind, is one of the spiritualities that is most attuned to body-soul unity. For anyone that has ever been through the Spiritual Exercises, and for those who have of yet not experienced its sublimitisness, every exercise is done within the context of the oft-cited phrase "ad maiorem dei gloriam" (note influence on first post). One of the merits of the exercises is that it they serve as a systematic reflection on the Life of Christ, but with all the freedom an individual can bring to them.

[ooh, ooh what does he mean?] I'm glad you asked undisclosed observer. For the sake of brevity, I will limit myself to one aspect of the exercises: meditation on Scripture. The first thing one does before meditating on a Gospel passage is to "compose the place." Lay everything out in your mind, see the sights, hear the noises, smell the smells, touch the place, touch the people. Then, and only then, allow the narrative to happen in your mind. Afterwards, interact with the characters, hold the newborn Christ child, embrace the crucified Lord, eat the leftovers from the multiplication of loaves and fishes!!!

I know. Sounds a little too "touchy-feely." But this is precisely the point. The Lord can and actually wishes to communicate to us as individuals, with our own individual ways that we have experienced what it means to sense. There's so much freedom here. No one has to feel guilty if their composition of place is not correct! Why do you think there is so much of a disconnect among those seers in the Church and the private revelations they have had. The Lord speaks in a unique way to every one of us.

And don't forget, I said "guided" earlier. The presence of a spiritual director in one's spiritual life is key. There are more or less correct ways of interpreting what the Lord is saying. But the Lord is himself not bound. We believe in a wild and untamable God, even though we have true formulations concerning who he is. Every meditation on the Lord is open to his completely free and gratuitous desire to fashion us (and our senses!) according to his purpose and for his glory!!!

Please excuse this not superfluous desire to lose myself--so as to find myself.

So, body-soul unity. Our senses are not always to be distrusted, but can be redeemed. So many times I think we hear of saints like St. John of the Cross and we hear about purgation and the need to purify ourselves of unhealthy attachments to sin and our senses. Granted. For those who have gone through week 1 of the Spiritual Exercises you may recall, it's literally Gehennish, a meditation on all of it and on our sinfulness. But that's not the whole story. Do you think the saints ever really knew they were saints? At one point, a decision has to be made to live the freedom of the children of God, to admit our weaknesses, while simultaneously trusting in the Lord to purify our desires and our senses in the very act of using them, clumsy with imperfection as the whole enterprise may be.

It is to this that I am indebted to St. Ignatius, in granting the freedom to be a saint in the way that the Lord has made me. The saints are useful as pointers and models, and yet, the Lord wishes to do a "new thing" in all of us.

ad maiorem dei gloriam!

The Venerable Bean

It always comes back to this for me.

Part of my fascination with body-soul unity is how "there is nothing in the mind that was not first in the sense." It's in the best interest for my soul to have a body that senses so that it can have something to go on. Let's take my infatuation, er...uh...appreciation for coffee. Everytime I smell it, I hear John Denver belting out at the top of his lungs, "...you fill up my senses."

And yet, the uncultured, nay the the pagans of ill-trained palates hurl ungodly castigation against our most beloved of beans - may it be brewed forever. Low brow and low brew, insipid with no top lid, through pure sophistry these attempt to dissuade others from the consumption of our ebony-roasted inamoretto because of "the inconsistency of a remote pleasure in smell coupled with the subsequent bitterness in aftertaste." Oh, would that they should bridle their tongues, those reservoirs of all things bitter! What follows is the unfounded claim that consumption of our espresso-natured bean leads to death. To death they say! Such navery knows not nor notes nimbly Nature's nobility.

Were I to experience such banality in my presence, I would not hold back, I would "speak plainly" and with more conviction than e'er was heard: Get thee to a brewery!!!

Some of you might be shaking your heads...consider this Part I.

Plight of the Humble Plea

Can I just say that starting a blog page is probably not the smartest thing to do in the middle of studying for one's comprehensive exams?

More to the point: learning how to do (er...maintaining, yeah that's it) what you want with it becomes an immediate distraction. I feel rest assured that at least one whiskey drinker knows "mein kampf." Rest assured though I may be, to the "happy few" that have mumbled through this post, something more substantial is on the horizon.

But until then...check out the link on my sidebar to "Bill Powell is Alive." He's a good friend of mine from undergrad days, who never lets down with his humor or wit.

Pace!

I must confess

I DID IT!

I published a post and then REMOVED it. I know, "shame, shame, shame, no your name." I used to get tired of my own voice, but I didn't realize that I could get tired of my own voice-over as I read what I published. Eck! Why have a blog if it's not going to sound remotely interesting to the potential reader?

The sad thing is that I woke up this morning with an idea for a good post title, but noooooo. So now I have to settle for shameless humor. Unless of course, I go back and...*ouch* what was that?

See what I mean?

Yo, so what I'm about

I can't help feeling like I'm trendy.

Nevertheless, not everything that "everybody is doing" is necessarily bad. I mean, hey, we're all souls determining our own matter and by the looks of it, these days I'm determing a lot more matter than in my younger years. But I digest. In an effort to battle that tendency in me to focus on the negative, to be a clanging cymbal (1 Cor 13:1) instead of a clashing one (Ps 150:5), I dedicate this page ad maiorem dei gloriam.

So even the simple realities-like the unity of body and soul-which I take for granted, I wish to showcase as meaningful. Heck, I even foresee a blog that is completely enamored by gravity. I mean, think about it. Here we are tied to the earth, contrary to the hopes and dreams of those who desire the gift of flight (or at least "momentum-propelled, low-gravity-type gliding") and yet a simple magnet can laugh in the face of gravity when it picks up a paper-clip. "Lucky!"

And yet, I reserve the right to "speak plainly" and use quotes "superfluously" and even express criticism against those things I feel may not be to my liking. But I detest.

Mostly I want to talk about the same stuff everyone else is talking about, but hopefully against this more noble background.

Here's to being trendy,
clashing symbol