Two Places to Visit
If you haven't been reading the many fascinating thoughts and arguments at Disputations you have missed out on some really good material. John Da Fiesole has presented a great many thoughts and wrestled with some big, big, big questions and arrived at some interesting places. Thank God for it.
For those who read Spanish better than I do, Mr. Gonzalez at fotos de apocalipsis has a most interesting commentary on some of the materials at Disputations.
I know I have learned a tremendous amount and been enormously edified by all of the comments at Disputations. Sometimes words are simply inadequate to express the things we feel. But I hope Tom knows how grateful and how edified I am. What a marvelous way of following his mentor and guide and honoring and glorifying Our Lord and God!
Intriguing Questions
John da Fiesole always brings up the most intriguing questions. Witness Praying for the Past.
Discussion and Argumentation
Sometimes I wonder what people think the purpose of discussion and argumentation is. Some seem to think that the sole purpose is to win someone to a point, or perhaps to make points by showing up someone's errors. If that is the case. such a person will love talking to me because I'm just a walking mass of errors ready to spill out for all to see. My thinking isn't so much sloppy as it isn't particularly linear. I've described it elsewhere as recursive--think the surf at the beach. One wave of thought rolls in, breaks on the shore, recedes. A subsequent wave of thought follows in, sometimes rising further up on the shore, sometimes not making it so far as the first. It isn't neat, but it gets the job done eventually. I think it is why I like blogdom so well--I have a chance to rethink and clarify all sorts of muddy, sediment-filled half-thoughts. And that is how I see argumentation or discussion. I'm not interested in "winning" an argument--there is no purpose to that if by winning I have failed to arrive at the truth.
As I see it, the purpose of any discussion is to come to the truth of the matter. This is why I find it admirable when people in public life can admit that they have changed their minds. (Unfortunately, too often, the change is away from the truth, persuaded by causes other than sheer argumentation.) But it would seem a natural progression that at some point someone's mind might change about matters. Thus when I hear the Strom Thurmond was a segregationist Dixiecrat (or whatever one calls them) and now he is not, I think that someone has considered the issues--possibly politically, but in such a case also possibly morally and arrived at a different conclusion because of the persuasiveness of reasoned argumentation. Sometimes I become too involved in argumentation or discussion and take offense at was not meant to give offense--I'll recover, and I'll probably apologize.
There is no point to continued discussion if, for whatever reason, one is not willing to change one's mind in the face of the evidence. There are a great many reasons why this may be so. Perhaps the value challenged performs a present "protective" service. Perhaps the notion has become a habit of thought and will require a great many years of reflection and slow microscopic change to finally arrive at the truth. Whatever the case, once one has reached a point at which it is clear the discussion has devolved to the sophisticated equivalent of "No it isn't"/"Yes it is"--it is time to desist.
All discussion should be directed to the truth so one shouldn't be shocked to read from me some idiotic opinion or reason-challenging assertion today, to discover that tomorrow it has been modified. It's what I count on the generous members of the blogworld for. In many ways I have been brought much closer to the truth by courageous members of blogdom who risk my wrath to challenge my assertions. Here are some examples of how blogdom has changed my opinions:
*I now have a better comprehension of the place of St. Thomas Aquinas (although I must say it will be a while before I feel any warm fuzzies for him--I'm not so suspicious of him as once I was)
*I have a more profound understanding for St. Francis of Assisi--though I'm still put off by SOME of his followers. (Don't worry--I love St. Thérèse and am put off by the vast majority of her admirers.)
*I have clarified notions about prayer and its purposes--and such notions have much improved my prayer life.
*I have a greater love for the diversity of opinion--even opinions that I consider suspect or countermanded by the magisterium.
*I have learned the value of not judging.
*I have learned that the rumor and scandal too often promulgated by the media and bandied about is not the fullness of the truth. A specific instance is that one brave blogger challenged directly my opinion of a certain Bishop based largely on ignorance and hearsay and informed me that while he may have had some notions contrary to my own, he served well as a pastoral leader.
*I've learned that Orthodoxy isn't necessarily everything I believe. By that I mean that I used to judge people's opinions by the standard of rigid orthodoxy I felt I maintained. Well, my "orthodoxy" was neither complete, nor probably completely orthodox. Talking with Catholic people has shown me the wideness of opinion possible among those who are striving to be faithful to the magisterium.
So, only a few things I have gained from listening to others. I have changed countless opinions, modified countless statements, in some cases completely contradicted myself. Like the sea and the shore my island of opinion and idea is constantly changing and reforming. I hold fast to the central truths of the faith--the skeleton and structure of the entire island--and the rest can wash where it will--it little matters and it provides a refreshing change of vista--a salubrious change of air.
So bring on the discussion, the argumentation, the notions, and the ideas--so long as you seek after the truth and don't merely wish to make points (come on--it's like shooting fish in a barrel) you are welcome. Even if you only wish to make points I may well benefit from the challenge.
Thank you all for all that you have done for me. God bless you.
Gratitude
My heart is so full of gratitude and a strong sense of the presence of God. The generosity of people discussing seemingly mundane and minor issues at Disputations has been so profound and moving. Each person actively seeking the truth, actively offering others the fruits of prayer and reflection--this is the very best of blogdom. The richness of charity has been monumental, and I have been blessed over and over again with insights, revelations, and clarity. Thanks to all who are so magnimous and kind in their sharing.
Possibility and Probability
More considerations on prayer--I truly believe "With God all things are possible" (in contingent being--to sidestep an extra-axiomatic problem). When I pray am I required to consider the probability of the event before I pray. That is to say, if there is a desired result on my heart that is very, very unlikely do I need necessarily consider the odds before presenting the need to God? I would say no. And yet there are legitimate arguments to suggest that it would be valid to do so. I leave others to trace them (classic math text ploy--the rest of the proof is obvious and left to the reader). However, as long as one is willing to accept God's will at the end, it would seem valid to pray for ANYTHING, no matter how unlikely. As long as we are willing to accept that miracles are at God's discretion, we can pray for healing for someone on their deathbed.
Is the prayer efficacious if the person dies? It depends upon frame of reference. Obviously, it wasn't efficacious in obtaining the desired end of the pray-er. But from God's point of view, it was imminently efficacious--the pray-er opened up lines of communication and shared with God the deepest needs of his or her heart.
So it would seem that consideration of probability is not necessary before engaging in prayer. The question comes down to do we honestly believe "With God ALL things are possible." (Remember the blanket caveat--so we don't need to engage in the metaphysics of ontology). It has been revealed to us and demonstrated time and time throughout history in the lives of the Saints and in the nature of history itself.
God is the God of possibilities--there is nothing He cannot do. There may be things He WILL not do, but nothing is beyond Him. Do I need to ask about the probability of God's choosing to do one thing or another. I don't think so. I think I must merely revel in the God of possibilities who blesses me beyond all blessing.
More on Prayer
Also from a response on Mr. da Fiesole's Blog. I wrote there much of what is presently on my heart and in my mind about prayer in general.
What I do believe and stand on is "With God all things are possible." IF they are possible, then it is not impermissable to consider them. And IF they are possible and someone is in desperate need of assistance to make them plausible, it would be remiss of me to deny that to them. But it doesn't mean they are saved by my prayers or even that it is likely that they will be. Nevertheless, what does the phrase mean if some things are patently impossible?
Does the possibility require one to pray as though it were a probability? No. Does it require one to pray for this particular intention at all? No. Some are moved to pray in this way, some in that. We needn't force all into the same mode of prayer--"we are many parts but all one body." If one is not strongly moved to pray, or the prayer is something one is indifferent about but can be folded into a larger intention--why should one pray as another is led?
Prayer is conversation with God and communion with Him. If I should be led to tell Him about my sorrow concerning the state of the world that results in such a miserable end to such truly terrible people--that is what God wants me to work on. Perhaps it is something He wishes me to think about because I am so hard and difficult a person myself--prideful, self-centered, quick to take offense and slow to forgive. Perhaps this subject of conversation allows Him to say things to me that He does not need to say to others who have other sharp corners to smooth.
So, while I say it is right and permissable to pray for the possibility of salvation for these people, I cannot see it as a responsibility.
What I DO see necessarily as a Christian responsibility is not to rejoice in their deaths. It is fine to be relieved, to acknowledge that the world is not the less for their loss, and that many people will be better off. But rejoicing and dancing about at the letting of blood is certainly not a Christian spectacle--and it was for that reason I first started my thread regarding the personal responsibility I felt for prayer.
God has given each freedom and in that freedom is included the freedom about what to pray about. God has an ongoing conversation with each person who will listen to Him. The subject matter of that conversation is unique to the individual.
Prayer is a gift of communication and it should be used as the Holy Spirit leads. If one is led to prayer it should be on God's terms, not on any other.
A Reminder from a Friend
In the course of conversation, a salient point was raised regarding the post yesterday about Saddam Hussein's sons. I think the point quite important and one that help to cast all of the discussion into perspective. While my post focused on these two more as a reaction to some of the schadenfreude that seemed to permeate certain sectors of the blogworld (mercifully not so much in St. Blog's) and the world at large, it did overlook a vast populace far more deserving of our prayers. In mentioning and commending Hussein's sons to God's mercy, we should never forget their victims, living and dead, and the brave men and women of the American Armed forces who presently lead lives of incredibly hardship and emotional difficulty in the hopes that the people of Iraq may see a better future and the world will become a better and more settled place. Those who are oppressed by evil are certainly in need of our prayers. Those who oppose evil need our support (regardless of where we stand of the morality of the action taken) because they still stand in harm's way to demonstrate a principle in which the American people as a whole believe--the right and necessity of a people to rule themselves and to be able to live in freedom without fear of what oppressors might do. So consider this my codicil to the previous post. While I will for a time commend Hussein's sons to God's mercy, I will keep in my heart always those who suffer oppression and those who oppose it, either by prayer or by the dictates of their government.
Courteous Conversation and Conversion
Wonderful insights from Kathy the Carmelite. I would have done well to read this earlier in the day--oh well, live and learn.
At Disputations Again
The usual coherent, reasonable, and charitable response to maunderings herein under scripted. I wish I could think in this way before I leap to some lamentable conclusions. I make a feeble effort at an apologia--but I fear it lacks any real fire or power. My thanks for the rejoinder and the reminder.
Reaction to the Death of Saddam's Sons
This will not be welcome in many blog-circles, but I feel I must do it and say it for my own sake and the sake of those who might otherwise be led astray. I pray for the repose of the souls of these two men. The world is a better place without them. But I know that God does not desire that He should lose even one of His beloved children. I praise and thank Him for His justice and I ask Him in obedience to His commandment to have mercy on the souls of these men and comfort the family that mourns for them. "Bless those that curse you." As I said, it is a matter of discipline and something that is actually much harder to say and mean than I thought it would be. But I do pray it, and I do mean it. These men do not deserve such mercy and lovingkindness, but then, neither do I. And I hope at my death that there are a great many waiting to pray me out of purgatory and into His embrace.
An Ardent Request for Continued Prayers
Please, please remember Dylan in your prayers. He has received some very discouraging news regarding his condition and he needs our thoughts and prayers to buoy him up. I assured him of the continued interest and prayers of the community here at St. Blog's and I thank all of you who have taken the time and effort to send messages through me or through other to Dylan. Each message helps him remember that people do care and are willing to help.
Please remember Dylan in daily prayers.
More on Just War
John da Fiesole at Disputations has a remarkable and helpful post on Just War Theory. I posted what appear below in response to his discussion. I repeat it here in the interest of full disclosure and making it possible for other responses. Reasoned answers help me find the way through this dark abyss.
(copy of the response to Mr. da Fiesole)
Thank you for the clarity of this exposition. Believe it or not, my aim is to think with the Church, but I have incredible difficulty wrestling with this for a whole panoply of reasons. More important than my subjective opinion is to strive to speak in conformity with Church teaching. I accept that JWT seems to be written into the Catechism and therefore should be received as part of the deposit of faith--but I also suppose how one interprets it, and the weight one gives to the issues must shape one's view. I think you ask or suggest a very important question in your post. Can a preemptive strike ever be truly moral? Can we truly have exhausted all possible solutions to a problem to avoid such an action? Can only defensive wars be regarded as just? I don't know the answer to these things. But I keep butting up against the incredible hardness of heart that makes this doctrine necessary. And it isn't the hardness of "their" hearts, but my own hardness of heart that I must face when I face this teaching. Perhaps that is what makes it particularly difficult.
Request for Info
I have a marvelous recording of a song by Gustav Holst, the melody of which I believe is taken from one of the "The Planets." One question--the title under which I have the song is, "I Vow to Thee My Country," But I'm fairly certain that the melody is used for a hymn that may or may not have those words in it? Is anyone familiar with this piece of music and if so, do you know if it has multiple sets of words to go with it (as does the Ode to Joy)?
In Order that the Conversation May Continue
I have been much edified by the comments on the post below. Please read Thomas's comment et seq. and continue the conversation if you desire. I find myself much in agreement with Thomas on nearly everything he has articulated, and I would be most interested in responses regarding Just War Theory and precisely what we are to make of it in the world today. Is it dogmatic, does it have the weight of doctrine? Or is it something taught by theologians with long and venerable history, but not necessarily with the might of the magisterium behind it. This makes a large difference in how one is to appreciate and analyze the doctrine. Even if taught by the magisterium, how do Vatican comments regarding the justness of the war weigh into the calculation? Or do they? Is there an objective standard possible, or is everything subjective--if so, on what basis can one reliably determine the justness of a war. And even if those in the government determine that a war is just, is it necessarily? If Hitler decides that the Sudetenland has historically been a province of Germany and poses a threat to German security, do we have a just war? That is, once a government has decided a war is just is it licit for every individual or is it possible that an individual could find that the war is not just and thus not participate or support it (Render unto Caesar, etc.) Or are all of my questions simply the result of a very muddled notion of what Just War doctrine is?
Please See the Prayer Requests of Recent Vintage at the Chapel
Many needs at the Carmelite Prayer Chapel. Thank you.
Tolstoy and Dostoievski and Joyce
I am reading Paul Elie's book The Life You Save May Be Your Own and Philip Yancey's Soul Survivor and so am suffering from a convergence of the twain. In both places, I am bombarded with Tolstoy and Dostoievski and their great contributions toward understanding and incorporating religion into one's life. In Elie's book, Dorothy Day is typified as a person caught between the two Russian visions; Walker Percy is discussed as a person who read Dostoievski and discussed it with good friend Shelby Foote throughout his lifetime. In Yancey's book the two are credited in some part with helping him come to a reasonable vision of faith.
I don't understand. I have enjoyed what I have read of Tolstoy--War and Peace and selected short stories and shorter novels. I have not enjoyed anything I have read of Dostoievski--his novels read more like ponderous treatises of dubious philosophical and theological points to me. Crime and Punishment reads likes proto-anti-Neitzsheism and the less said of The Brothers Karamazov the better. Now, I know these belong to the western canon, and I know that they are considered important works (speaking of Dostoievski) and were I still inclined to the theory that there are certain things I "should" read, I would try to work my way through these ponderous tomes. But thankfully, I have of recent date been relieved of the anxiety of having to read what I do not enjoy and what does not speak to me. I no longer buy the argument that one must read certain things to be either educated or "in-the-know." I've also come to the realization that life is too short to indulge those who do not retain my interest for long.
However, I am curious as to what exactly anyone gets out of these. I welcome comments from those who enjoy Dostoevski (Tolstoy to a lesser extent, as I'm already favorably disposed toward his work--rather unfavorably disposed toward his life and treatment of family). I'm sure many will tell me all the wonders I am missing, and perhaps I will be persuaded to take a look.
On the other hand, I tend to think I'm more like Merton whose formative influence was James Joyce. James Joyce, despite his life and his difficulties with the Church, is possibly my very favorite writer. I often am puzzled by those who don't "get" Ulysses. It is no more difficult than a great many other books the same people read, and yet the magic I perceive eludes them entirely. I have reread Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake countless times with endless enjoyment at the sly humor and the inventiveness of the writer, and strangely, it was Joyce (and my professor Coilin Owens), in part, who led me into the Catholic Church--perhaps more about that later.
I could wax rhapsodic about the virtues and wonders of the prose of Joyce, but I suspect that I would hear a gallery of yawns or sharp cries and reminders that his masterwork was once on the Index of Forbidden Books (as silly a notion as ever crossed a narrow mind.)
Anyway, I've stirred up enough fuss with this little note, I'm certain. Please let me know what you think. I'd love to hear more about ostensibly non-spiritual writers who have lead people to a greater appreciation of the value of faith. (These include novelists such as Graham Greene, Shusaku Endo, Frederick Buechner, Flannery O'Connor--you get the idea.)
Trying and Failing
Six or seven times this morning I have tried to convey my thoughts about sin and triumph over sin. I have failed miserably each time. This leads me to two possible conclusions--either the thoughts have not yet been brought into sufficient focus to be written down, or I am not sufficient to the task the topic presents. I am rather inclined to the latter conclusion as I think that only those who have seriously faced down their sins (with the help of grace) stand in a position to say anything that would be likely to help others regarding the topic. So, I will leave it alone for the time being and come back when and if the spirit leads, knowing that all that is good starts, consists in, and ends with Jesus Christ. To my mind that is the meaning of Alpha and Omega in our daily human lives. If Jesus is not the capital and the period, there is no point whatsoever in the action.