Saturday, July 28, 2007

Human Imperfectiblity

When St. Thomas More wrote his book about paradise, he gave it the title Utopia, “no place.” The 20th century political philosopher Eric Voegelin often referred to those who sought to create a heaven on earth as Gnostics, noting that any project to create such a paradise always came up short, and almost invariable the result was a waking nightmare. Indeed, Voegelin went so far as to observe that the real struggle throughout history was not between “left’ and “right,” but between those who believed that heaven could be made on earth through human means, and those who didn’t.

Voegelin’s Gnostics ranged from Nazis to communists to modern day liberals, each of whom sought to create a sort of paradise on earth. And, surely, each of these groups has, in its own way, sought to “Immanentize the Eschalon,” be it through the Nazi’s attempts to bring about the “Arian” ascendancy, the Marxist’s goals for an economic paradise, or the attempts by many of the American left to create a “level playing field” in which all views and outcomes are to be treated as equal.

All forms of political Gnosticism have a common thread, one which they share with the religious heresy from which they are derived. Gnosticism, at its heart, seeks to find perfection through knowledge, and thus ultimately abandons religion in favor of “hidden knowledge.” But knowledge alone does no beget happiness, let alone joy, nor can knowledge alone create virtue, nor can it end suffering. If knowledge alone could do this, then every doctor of divinity would be a saint, and the sins of the great men of genius would have ceased long ago.

The men and women who would be the new saviors of mankind often see only a part of the problem and none of the solution. Marx saw economic inequality, and blamed the world’s pains on the oppression of the lowly; Lenin and his ilk blamed greed for this, and attempted leveling and the persecution of those formerly in power, trading one oppression for another. Rouseau’s social contract was carried out to its bloody conclusions in the French Revolution, and his many progenies lived and died in the orphanages of France. Freud and later Kinsley saw the problem to be sexual oppression and repression, unleashing a sexual revolution which has devastated the family and left fewer and fewer people able to find meaningful, stable long term relationship. Russell and later Harris saw suffering, blamed God, and thus lost any answer to the riddle pain posed.

These men, and so many after them, have each in their own way sought to create their versions of a paradise or utopia—economic, social, sexual, or even atheistic. They and their followers have all expounded essentially: that man is corrupted by the current order, be it economic, political, religious, or social. Implied by this is the assumption that man can be made good—that he is perfectible—through human means aided by knowledge or reason alone.

What they forget or perhaps never knew is that perfection can only be attained through the aide of something which is itself perfect. Men may teach and learn morality, or virtues, or economic theory, but these things must actually be practiced to be useful—knowledge alone does not guarantee their widespread adherence throughout a society. Man is not perfect himself, and thus cannot make others perfect, let alone society as a whole.

This lesson was anticipated by Christ in the Gospels. Liberal Christians (not to mention agnostics, atheists, and other non Christians) are especially fond of quoting Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37, 41-42. These are the verses in which Christ tells his follower not to be judgmental; the verses from Luke state (New American Translation):

"Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven…. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,' when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye.”

This parable has become a catch-all for people who not only don’t want their character to be judged by others, but who would prefer not to receive moral correction from others. But it can also mean that a person is not meant to try and perfect others until he himself is perfect, but rather to point them towards the One who is perfect.

Many a Gnostic is also familiar with these texts, and will do his own share of citing them when he stands judged (or even corrected) by another. But the moment when he is doing the judging and the correcting, they are conveniently forgotten. The new Gnostic mistakenly trusts in the perfectibility of man, and decides that he does not need God. He trusts in reason and abandons faith, puts his hope in knowledge and forsakes grace, and looks to paradise while ignoring heave. The new Gnostics of all stripes set out to create a heaven without God and then are surprised when their creation is a living hell.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Sloth and Christian Minimalism

The question of the possibility and means of salvation is an important aspect of any religion. This is particularly true for the Christian religion, be it Catholic, Eastern*, or Protestant. Though each of these believes that salvation is not a thing which can be earned, I have noticed, in my various conversations with other Christians, a common and unfortunate tendency. Too often I hear asked, either implicitly of explicitly, the question “What is the minimum requirement which must be met in order to gain salvation?”

Most Protestants would immediately answer that salvation comes through grace, which is granted to those who have faith. In other words, trust in the Lord, Jesus Christ, and your trust will be rewarded with salvation. This is certainly a good start, but it answers the question rather poorly. How much faith does one need? How far does one need to trust the Lord? Infinitely far? That’s about how far Christ was willing to go when he died, and then rose again. But what does it mean for us, today? Such an interpretation also seems to ignore the Commandments, not to mention studying Scripture, and, for that matter, praying, as being incidental to salvation.

On the other hand, there is the so-called “Catholic” answer. Those Catholic who have read the Catechism would certainly agree, to some extent, with the “Protestant” answer, but what about the Sacraments? They’re certainly important, but some Catholics seem to rely soley upon the Sacraments, without regard to anything else. Moreover, the Sacraments are too often treated as dead rituals, a sort of replacement for those practiced by the Jews. The Sacraments go a very long way towards helping us, but this is severely diminished unless we go beyond this, to living the Sacraments. And what about the Commandments and Beatitudes, the Cardinal and Theological Virtues, the Works of Corporal and Spiritual Mercy, and the Precepts of the Church? Are these all for naught?

A common problem to both answers is that sins (and thus morality) cease to matter, beyond that it is Sin which causes us to need salvation in the first place. Mark Shea of the National Catholic Register gives an excellent example of this:
“I once knew a Baptist who was sleeping with her boyfriend. She knew this was wrong, but consoled herself that she was ‘bringing her boyfriend to Christ.’ She told me, ‘If I can just get him to salvation’ (meaning ‘saying the Sinner’s Prayer, and asking Jesus into his heart as his personal Lord and Savior’) then he can’t lose it.’ She believed in ‘eternal security.’ After the prayer, they’d be free to pursue unfettered fornication.”
This is certainly a problem among many Protestant groups (though often not really to this extreme). However, we Catholics are not “off the hook,” either, nor do we seem to be immune to this sort of mindset. The difference is in the way that we phrase things. While a Protestant might say, “I can get away with this sin, because I have faith,” a Catholic, even a fairly good Catholic, might be tempted into saying that he or she can get away with the said sin, “Because I can always go to confession and have it forgiven.”

Ignored by both the Catholic and the Protestant in this scenario is the element of repentance. Among other things, this means a desire to avoid sin in general and the sin being repented in particular in the future. Catholics would do well to remember that one of the Acts of Contrition includes the words “I am sorry for my sins with all my heart….I firmly intend, with your [the Lord’s] help, to do penance, to sin no more, and to avoid whatever leads me to sin [emphasis mine].” Various forms of the Protestants’ “Sinner’s Prayer” also include a resolution to avoid sins in the future. It’s not really possible to repent of, to be sorry for, a sin if one fully intends to commit the sin again.

Underlying both mindsets in the aforementioned scenario is the same temptation: namely, of becoming passive in one’s faith, or being passive towards one’s own salvation. It is true that the salvation comes from God, and that we can’t earn it; neither Catholicism nor Protestantism makes any claims to the contrary. However, this does not mean that we should (or even can) find some minimum level of faith (or grace) and then cling to that level, thinking “This much is enough.” That is a form of spiritual laziness, sloth at its worst.

Instead, salvation is a process which is constantly active, and so our faith too must be active. God may be working within us, but that does not exclude His working through us. Conversion to God, growth in faith, these things are a lifelong journey. Though faith applies more to spiritual matters than to physical ones, it shares something in common with our physical bodies: if not exercised, it becomes weak. If faith is not lived, then is must atrophy, and then ultimately die. With the loss of faith comes the loss of grace, for grace cannot work within a person who refuses to let it.

It is here that we return to the questions which I earlier asked of both Catholics and Protestants. What are the benefits of the Virtues, the Sacraments, and of studying the Bible? What is the reason for obeying the Commandments or the precepts of the Church? Why live the beatitude, perform the Works of Mercy, or engage in prayer? Why should we repent and “firmly resolve, with the help of [God’s] grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin?” The answer should, by now, be somewhat obvious. In doing these things, and in remembering that we do them for God, we are practicing our faith, making it a living thing which allows God’s grace to work within us. These things offer us a sort of “spiritual guideline,” a means of improving in our faiths.

Perhaps I’ve been baptized and have belief that Christ is Lord and Savior. Great! But if I am engaging in some particular sin, I should seek to repent of that sin, and to avoid it. Or maybe I’m a good practicing Catholic who’s placed his trust in the Lord, prays fervently, and is awaiting salvation: good for me! But if I’m also holding a grudge against my brother for some wrong he’s done to me, then maybe I should examine that aspect of my life. Or perhaps I exemplify the Beatitudes, not to mention the Commandments, in many ways—terrific! But that does not excuse me from deliberately avoiding Mass every Sunday and for failing to pray day after day and week after week. Nor would vast donation to the poor excuse me from avoiding the sick and imprisoned—the list goes one and on.

The journey of faith will never be completed in our lifetimes. The final goal of every Christian should be endless faith in the Lord, and perfect love towards God and man. Ceasing to work towards these goals is the equivalent of saying that they are too hard to be worth attaining (sloth), or that they have already been attained (pride). Either attitude certainly leads to the weakening of our faith, and both place us at risk for the abandonment of our faith. Salvation is not attained by some minimum requirement—be it in terms of faith or works performed. It must instead be granted through God’s grace, which works in us when we live our faiths. Thus, rather than reaching for a certain level and then stopping, we must journey ever upward, ceaselessly living in Faith and love, and tirelessly obeying God’s will in our lives.



*Though I will be excluding the Eastern Churches here, because I don’t have as much contact with their members.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, here are some related ones:

Sola Fide and Works (Nicene Guys)
Another Thought About the Importance of Works in Salvation
The Place of Works in Salvation (Nicene Guys
Contentment: The Virtuous Vice
Homogeneity in Heaven and Hell
Religion or Relationship
Sloth (Poem)  
_____ 
Or return to Equus Nom Veritas Home.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

A Brief Reflection on the Nature of Freedom

As the nation celebrates its birthday, one can’t help but reflect upon the concepts of freedom. Freedom, that grand precept to our nation, fundamental to the liberty that we all enjoy. If one were to ask any American, nay, any westerner, if he knows what freedom is, the reply he’d likely receive is laughter. Of course he knows what freedom is, who doesn’t? But if one were to ask him what freedom is, the answer may be a bit more slow in coming.

When it does come, the answer more likely than not will be that freedom is the ability to do whatever one wants, when one wants to do it, without hindrance from others. If this is freedom, then there have been very few men who have died free, and even fewer born that way. And what is to be done when two people’s “freedom” to do “whatever they want” conflict with each other? Is one to be less free because what he wants to do cannot be done? Surely it’s not true that some people are necessarily less free than others.

When defining freedom, one might instead say something about rights, not least of which are life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. These things are certainly important, but freedom surely is more than a collection of rights: if freedom was reduced only to this, why would anyone ever give up property, leisure, and even life itself to defend it?

What, then, could this thing possibly mean, freedom? The late Pope John Paul the Great once stated that “Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” Freedom, then, is the ability to live rightly, in being able to do the right thing—and living freely then means that one must actually make the right decisions and follow them through to their ends. It means sometimes making sacrifices, giving up some of the luxuries and lesser pursuits of life, even sometimes suffering or dying, that one may be virtuous in his life, just towards others, and, yes, faithful to the Almighty.

In his essay on courage and the Fear of God, the philosopher Russell Kirk noted that "Meek before Jehovah, Moses had no fear of Pharaoh.... What raises up heroes and martyrs is the fear of God. Beside the terror of God's judgment, the atrocities of the totalist tyrant are pinpricks." In refusing to obey the Pharaoh, in choosing to obey the will of God, regardless of the consequences, Moses was truly free. He refused to bend, to do a thing that he knew was wrong for the sake of convenience; he risked death rather than submit to the Pharaoh’s tyranny.

He would risk nothing to do what is right is most easily enslaved. Many a man is enslaved by wealth, comfort, and a myriad of other pursuits. Those with material wealth may appear to be freer for it, but if they live for that wealth, they become enslaved by it—they serve the whims of the market, or the government, or whatever is the source of their wealth. The same is true of those who value only their own lives, they become the servants of any who are in a position to end them. This is a thing which was well understood by the saints and the martyrs, those who were willing to sacrificed everything they had in order to pursue the truth and to live (and die) in their faith. In following Christ’s example, in living their faith even under torture or unto death, these people have borne witness to the maxim that “the truth shall set you free.”

This was a thing which was especially understood by Christ. It was He Who asked what good it was for a man to gain the world and lose his soul (Mark 8:36 and Matthew 16:26). As Pope Benedict XVI observed, Christ "in obedience to the will of the Father, offered Himself for love.” This was the penultimate act of freedom, "as an informed choice motivated by love." The Holy Father further notes that for Christians, the true meaning of freedom is "to follow Christ in the giving of self even unto sacrifice on the Cross. It may seem a paradox, but the high point of the Lord's freedom was on the cross: the pinnacle of love." Truly, is there a greater freedom, than the freedom to give everything one has, one’s very life, for those whom he loves?

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

My Blog Has a "Viewer Rating Level"

Mingle2.com rates my blogs as:

Online Dating

This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:

  • abortion (56x)
  • death (16x)
  • sex (6x)
  • gay (4x)
  • suicide (3x)
  • rape (2x)
  • gays (1x)

Thanks to the folks at I4Veritas for finding this.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...