The Street Sweeper

The “Shocking” Relation between Innocent Smith and Chesterton’s Jesus

2011-05-14T02:55:00.002-04:00

During the time of the early Church, the Gospels were written in order to maintain the integrity and reality of Christ’s shocking presence here on earth. Of the many aspects depicted of Christ by the evangelists, one characteristic of Christ stands out. The Greek word θαύμα used by the evangelists, meaning “wonder” or “awe” or “astonishment,” can be found over twenty-five times within the Gospels to describe the manner of reaction from coming in contact with Christ. Whether they are his disciples, the Pharisees, the sick, the sinners, or agnostics, Jesus left people in θαύμα, in “shock.” There has been recent commentary on the shocking aspect of Jesus’ identity written by Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft which is aptly named Jesus Shock. Kreeft describes the shocking nature of Christ and how man must choose to accept this shock into their life. It is from this vein of θαύμα which G.K. Chesterton creates the character Innocent Smith in his novel Manalive. Chesterton characterizes the man Jesus in writings such as Orthodoxy, Heretics, and The Everlasting Man, as a shocking man alive. Notably, Chesterton states, “We should be shocked if we really imagined the nature of Christ” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 197). Innocent Smith, the main character of Chesterton’s Manalive, shocks and attempts to re-liven the other characters by performing actions which rattle and astonish. Although not a perfect Christ-character itself, Chesterton’s depiction of Innocent Smith throughout the novel draws from many qualities and insights that Chesterton sees in the figure of Christ: the man alive!

The first notable characteristic or image resonating in Innocent Smith from Chesterton’s writings on Jesus Christ must include his reference as a doctor. “In each case the scare was so wholesome that the victim felt that the victim himself has dated from it as a new birth. [Innocent] Smith, so far from being a madman, is rather a mad doctor—he walks the world curing frenzies and not distributing them” (Manalive Chesterton 75). Smith shocks the other characters within Manalive into realizing that their life is worth living, while treating them as the “sick”, those who need healing. Each person is boring, stale, and stagnant. To Smith, it is the bored characters who are maniacs, for they do not embrace a life worth living. In The Everlasting Man, Chesterton depicts Christ as “a strong-minded doctor dealing with homicidal maniacs” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 189). To Chesterton, Christ has come to save man from the sickness of sin. Jesus said, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners” (Luke 5:31-32). Christ desires a change of heart, lest man’s soul dies from the deathly wage of sin. Even Kreeft states, “The opposite of shock is boredom… The medievals called it sloth… [sloth] is spiritual anorexia” (Kreeft 43). Boredom, the lacking of shock, leads man to sin, a lacking of the good. Jesus came to bring shock as his main remedy. Similarly, Innocent Smith saves the lives of his “patients” through his shocking behavior by bringing them to new life.

One of the difficult quandaries which face the jury of Smith’s peers is this basic question: “Whether this [shocking] Smith is a man or a monster” (Manalive Chesterton 48). The fact that they have to explore whether Smith is real or mad demonstrates the inherent mystery of Smith’s shocking nature. Moon comments on Smith by saying, “I am by no means sure that I believe [Smith’s motives] myself, but I am quite sure that [Smith’s motives] are worth a man’s altering and defending” (Manalive Chesterton 122). Yet, the peers of Innocent Smith have only one conclusion: Smith is “really innocent” of any madness or lies (Manalive Chesterton 14). Even if someone is astonishing or wonderful, certainly their credibility will always be questioned.

In Kreeft’s Jesus Shock, it states, “Jesus-shock breaks your heart in two and forces you to choose which half of your heart you will follow” (Kreeft 41). There is no middle ground. Either Christ is a loony man or Chris is the Lord. Just as how Smith’s good intentions are questionable or mysterious, Chesterton makes the point in Orthodoxy to remark that, “If a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s” (Orthodoxy Chesterton 15). To better demonstrate Jesus’ mystical identity, Chesterton comments, “I have imagined the monster that man [Jesus] might have seemed at first to the mere nature around him” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 197). Also, Chesterton points out that, “The only explanation which immediately occurred to my mind was that Christianity did not come from Heaven, but from Hell. Really, if Jesus of Nazareth was not Christ, he must have been the Antichrist” (Orthodoxy Chesterton 86). Chesterton articulates that the shocking aspect of Christ, and Innocent Smith in Manalive, needed deliberation. Once again, just because Smith, like Jesus, induces θαύμα, “shock,” does not take away his credibility as one whose mission is to re-liven the hearts and souls of his peers.

And that, too, is something Jesus and Innocent Smith hold in common: A shocking mission. Reverend Raymond Percy offers this insight to Smith: “I believe the maniac was one of those who do not merely come, but are sent; sent like a great gale upon ships by Him who made His angels wings and His messengers a flaming fire” (Manalive Chesterton 94). In The Everlasting Man, Chesterton makes note that, “Jesus displayed a divine precocity and began his mission” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 189). It is with this divine precocity and shocking methodology that Chesterton affirms Smith’s Christo-related mission: the “[shocking] Smith” holds a pistol to the head of Modern Man. But [he] shall not use it to kill him. Only to bring him to life” (Manalive Chesterton 74). Interestingly enough, Kreeft brings to light this insight into Christ’s mission here on earth: “So what did God do next? The craziest thing of all, the deed no sage, no saint.., and no devil ever dreamed of: He became a human zygote… And then He gave Himself… to our souls” (Kreeft 48). Christ came to bring life. This wonderful parallel to Jesus can be plainly illustrated in the Gospels as well: “I came so that [man] might have life and have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). This clearly shocking mission of Jesus can be seen reflected by the mission of Innocent Smith to the characters of Beacon House: bring people to a greater fullness of life through mission received from a “divine revelation.”

Jesus and Innocent Smith, the shocking men alive, are also paradoxically plain. In Heretics, Chesterton articulates that because Jesus attracted crowds as a teacher and great mind, that he appealed to every person, everyman. “This plainness,” states Chesterton, “is the note of all very great minds” (Heretics Chesterton 132). Notably, Kreeft mentions, “Everything [Jesus] does is a surprise… [Jesus] would rather be known as crazy than rational” (Kreeft 47). Because of Jesus’ refreshingly original teachings, He can effectively carry out His shocking mission. In a similar way, the characters of Beacon House describe Smith as, “a man of business, a plain, practical man: a man of affairs; a man of facts and the daylight” (Manalive Chesterton 30). The plain aspect of Smith allows him to effectively façade his shocking agenda upon those of Beacon House. Smith sees very clearly the stale and hardened hearts of the Beacon House folk, and executes the only plain act: something maniacal. Now, Smith’s very “unorthodox” methods for shock, such as shooting his friends or traveling the world just to return home again, are the epitome of his originality, his plainness. “I don’t want people to anticipate me as a well-known practical joke,” says Smith,” I want both my gifts to come virgin and violent” (Manalive Chesterton 73). By being plain, both Jesus and Innocent Smith are paradoxically shocking and original.

Although Innocent Smith is a married man, and Jesus is explicitly not, there is still much consistent with the shocking perspective of marriage held by both Smith and Jesus. The people whom Smith encounters hold very pessimistic views of marriage. For example, Michael Moon, an Irishman who desires to woo the rich young lady Rosamund Hunt, says the following about marriage:

Imprudent marriages!... And pray where in earth or heaven are there any prudent marriages? Might as well talk about prudent suicides…. You never know a husband till you marry him. Unhappy! Of course you’ll be unhappy!... Disappointed! Of course we’ll be disappointed! (Manalive Chesterton 31)

The characters feel that marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people who cannot keep up their ends. That is why they are unhappy; that is why they are disappointed. Their unhappiness and disappointment derive from a stale understanding of what marriage was created for. They are bored with the concept of marriage. In light of Kreeft’s concept of boredom, he states that, “Recognizing beauty is the only remedy for boredom. Beauty relieves boredom because beauty is the object of love” (Kreeft 56). Beauty is more than just an abstraction: it is a tangible object of a loving communion in the example of marriage. Now, Innocent Smith combats this decayed concept of marriage by having engaged in multiple honeymoons with the same woman under different names. Although he is charged with adultery and polygamy, such awful charges, the jury comprising of the other characters come to the conclusion that, “It is just because he does not want to commit adultery that he achieves the romance of sex; it is just because he loves one wife that he has a hundred honeymoons” (Manalive Chesterton 123). It is by love, coming into communion with his wife, that Smith shocks life into his marriage. Meanwhile, Chesterton mentions in The Everlasting Man that, “[Christ] does not suggest anything at all, except the sacramental view of marriage” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 194). Jesus calls mankind to a higher standard, living in the goodness created by God. And although Smith’s marriage is not explicitly sacramental, it is “holy” in the sense that it is set apart from other marriages for a greater good. Instead of having sex for sex’s sake, in adultery, or marrying for the sake of marrying, in polygamy, Smith does not commit adultery or polygamy so that he can better live the good of sex and the good of marriage. The shock of life injected by Smith into his marriage through faithfulness and unity also injects life into the vision of the other characters’ marriages.

Now, one of the most obvious parallels between Innocent Smith and Jesus is that they are shockingly connected to death. Jesus and Innocent Smith have this distinct and wonderful relationship to death by attaching their ministry in such a way that death becomes a spouse of these men to produce a “fecundity” of shock, of θαύμα. Chesterton describes the relationship of Jesus and death by articulating “We are meant to feel that Death was the bride of Christ as Poverty was the bride of St. Francis. We are meant to feel that His life was in that sense a sort of love-affair with death, a romance of the pursuit of the ultimate sacrifice” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 207). Chesterton recognizes that death is the ultimate sacrifice one human being can make. Jesus makes this “ultimate sacrifice” by dying on the cross for man so that he may live. Death, as the bride of Christ, is joined by Christ to produce the greatest of human gifts from God: eternal life. Once again in Kreeft’s Jesus Shock, he states that Christ’s God-nature made his death even more shocking: “This man who has nerve endings all over his body and gets hungry and tired and bloody and nailed to a cross and dies—that is the ‘holy God, holy strong one, holy immortal one,’ the eternal Word of the eternal Creator Who spoke all time and space and matter into being” (Kreeft 49). That does sound quite shocking, indeed! While Chesterton recognizes this marital connection of Jesus and Death, the fecundity produced from the relationship of Innocent Smith and Death can only be described as really shocking!

Smith utilizes his partner, Death, to motivate the characters especially by means of wildly swaying, swinging, and shooting the pistol within close proximity of them. Dr. Eames’s encounter with Smith and his gun results in Eames exclaiming, “Do you mean to kill me?” (Manalive Chesterton 69). Eames is fearful for his life, and yet detects no remorse or reluctant movements in Smith’s pistol twirling. Instead Eames detects a crazed madman who embraces Death and wants his friends to encounter Death as well. When Inglewood asks Smith, “Why do you deal death out of that machine gun?" (Manalive Chesterton 19), Smith is not disconnected to Death, but, if anything, in a “love-affair” with Death. He works with Death, not to kill, but to bring life. Just like Jesus, Smith uses this romance with Death to give, to love, and to shock. In fact, the only time explicitly mentioned where Smith falls in love is with a woman who has provoked Death.

The uprush of [Smith’s] released optimism burst into the starts like a rocket when he suddenly fell in love. …What was worse, he found he had equally jeopardized a harmless lady alone in a rowing boat, and one who had provoked death by no professions of philosophic religion… He seems to have proposed to her on the bank. (Manalive Chesterton 93)

It is from this unique relationship that Smith has with Death that fruitfulness and fecundity spring forth. This fruit is the shock into life other people have gained by encountering Innocent Smith and Death. This fruit can only be appreciated in light of how the other characters, such as skeptical Dr. Pym, view the importance and origin of Death. “Brighter days, however, have dawned, and we now see death as universal and inevitable, as part of that great soul-stirring and heart-upholding average which we call for convenience the order of nature,” said Pym (Manalive Chesterton 57). Dr. Pym takes for granted the importance of death during the opening of Smith’s trial. His pessimistic attitude toward death as a problematic necessity minimizes the awareness of the goodness life brings about. Death is wrong, according to Pym, because it is inevitable and ordered; it is not shocking. And yet, it is only after the trial where the characters of Beacon House realize “we have come to think certain things [death] wrong which are not wrong at all” (Manalive Chesterton 122). The ordering and inevitability of Death is not wrong: the people of Beacon House merely needed something or someone outside themselves [Smith] to shock [Death] into their souls with life. That is the most basic paradox. And that is what, according to Chesterton, Jesus Christ did.

Jesus shocks life into humanity by His very act of death. Chesterton brings this to light by articulating, “With [the death of Christ] we come face to face with the essential fact to be realized. All the great groups that stood about the Cross represent, in one way or another, the great historical truth of the time; that the world could not save itself. Man could do no more” (The Everlasting Man Chesterton 210). Just as how the world is dead without Jesus’ self-sacrifice upon the Cross, so too does the world of Innocent Smith lack any vivacity, ambition, or energy. It takes such a man alive, full of θαύμα, to awaken these people from their slumber. They need him. For, at the beginning of Manalive, Diana Duke asks, “What is there to wake up to?” (Manalive Chesterton 28). Kreeft can point toward an answer: “Joy. Joy always includes surprise, sometimes even shock” (Kreeft 45). Smith’s shocking nature and mission demonstrates the fullest answer: Duke and the rest of the characters must be shocked into life before they die.

Finally, both Innocent Smith and Jesus are the teachers of shock. Both give instruction interpersonally. For, it is only when persons are directly addressed do they change their hearts and minds. Especially in Raymond Percy’s letter, Innocent Smith says, “Until a pistol-barrel was poked under their very noses they never even knew they had been born. For ages looking up an eternal perspective it might be true that life is a learning to die. But for these little white rats it was just as true that death was their only chance of learning to live” (Manalive Chesterton 92). The characters of Beacon House are taught how to live, being shocked by death, through the original and novel teaching style of Smith. On the other hand, Chesterton describes Christ as a great teacher by having the “habit of assuming [His] point of view to be one which was human and casual, one which would readily appeal to every passing man” (Heretics Chesterton 132). Jesus, the great teacher, used such commonplace methods of teaching, such as parables, to illustrate His shocking truths. Kreeft notes that, “Christ teaches us joy… but [sometimes] we don’t listen” (Kreeft 65). The reason Jesus and Innocent Smith appeal to every man is due, once again, to their “shock”, their θαύμα. Although not every man is changed by this shock, like Dr. Warner for Innocent Smith or the Pharisees for Jesus, every man must admit that they had to either re-affirm their hard hearts or accept an invitation to new life. That is why Kreeft says, “Those who meet Jesus always experience either joy or its opposites, either foretastes of Heaven or foretastes of Hell. Not everyone who meets Jesus is pleased, and not everyone is happy, but everyone is shocked” (Kreeft 45). Jesus gives an opportunity for life to those who accept his shocking teaching. For Jesus teaches, “I am… the Life. Anyone who believes in me shall not die, but live forever” (John 11:25).

Both Jesus and Innocent Smith share many similar characteristics, using methods by which those people whom they encounter can only describe as shocking. The Gospels describe Jesus by using the word θαύμα, for his “wonderfulness” was recognized by all. Even Peter Kreeft’s book Jesus Shock offers evidence to support Chesteton’s thoughts on how shocking and wonderful Christ is. In the depiction of Innocent Smith, Chesterton plainly states: His creed of [shock] was Christian (Manalive Chesterton 92). Although not Jesus Christ himself, Innocent Smith does bring to flesh the “wonder and awe,” the θαύμα aspect of Jesus Christ. As a teacher, doctor, missionary, and lover, Smith’s figure is Jesus’ reflection, a “man alive” shocking life into a people of stagnancy.

The Art of Teaching: The Method

2011-02-28T13:12:00.002-05:00

Within the preface for The Art of Teaching, Gilbert Highet includes that, “Teaching is not like inducing a chemical reaction: it is much more like painting a picture or making a piece of music, or… like planting a garden or writing a friendly letter.” And, although there are certain prescribed characteristics of “good teaching”, there is no such thing as a scientific method for teaching—instead there is a “teaching method.” Highet includes two essential components for a successful method of teaching—preparation and fixing the impression.

The first stage of methodical teaching includes a preparation of the subject. Of course, no successful teacher cannot prepare for a class (note: double negative). Contrapositively, therefore, only a successful teacher prepares for a class. Now, preparation of a class includes three vital sections: a broad explanation of the class material’s importance, maintaining a firm grasp on contemporary issues pertaining to the class’s material, and an outline of anticipated material to be covered during the class. Highet warns, however, “A teacher who maps out his course badly, and neither sees where he is going nor tells his class what to expect, usually fails because he does not quite command his material” (147).

Many times, a teacher will begin class by “diving right into the material.” Students, however, remain bewildered as to the subject’s importance or relevance to his life—much less the subject itself. During my senior year in high school, my Calculus teacher neglected to tell me what a “derivative” was. I spent the whole first semester calculating derivatives, not knowing what they were or why they were important to the subject of Calculus. Had he simply said, “A derivative is a slope of a function,” on the first day of class, I would have understood Calculus with greater clarity—and perhaps received a better grade. Even Highet mentions that, “[A teacher] must explain [the subject], allow its merits to display themselves, fill in a suitable background” (73).

Next, Highet emphasizes that, “teaching the same old stuff year after year,” should be, “avoided at all costs by every good teacher” (81). Because most subjects are “living subjects”—meaning that information or perspectives change on the subjects over time—a teacher ought to grow and live along with the subject. In particular, teaching requires assimilation of contemporary issues relevant and pertinent to the subject—for fear that a student refers to the class as monotony. Even Highet exclaims, “Monotony in teaching is a fault” (81)!

Now, by constructing an outline of expected material to be covered during the semester, the students gain a better understanding of interconnectedness with respect to the subject. Also, an outline provides an adequate pacemaker—and just like a heart’s pacemaker, regulates the “beat” of the class—creating both expectations for the teacher and students. For, with a class outline, the class gains a purpose—and can visibly see its design for an end. Even Highet articulates that, “One of the aids to learning is the sense of purpose. One of [purpose’s] chief rewards is the sense of achievement” (69).

Highet makes note of historically successful educators—the Jesuit Order. Although Highet comes from a secular university (i.e. Columbia), he recognizes the Jesuit perfection of “fixing the impression.” One word, coined by the Jesuits, can sufficiently create an impressionable mark upon a student—repeat, repeat, repeat! (cf. 148) As a student who has experienced Jesuit education, I can attest to the effectiveness of the “repeat” strategy. For, the Jesuits “watch carefully and vary his questions to ensure that there is nothing mechanical about this repetition, but then urge once more repeat and once more repeat” (148). Obviously, repetition imprints the information upon a student’s mind and, in turn, remains readily available due to retention.

Hopefully, a teacher aspires to more than just giving information to his students. As Highet alludes, the methods of a teacher ought to bring a classroom into a “joint enterprise of a group of friendly human beings who like using their brains” (153)—for this is what Highet describes as the “best type of teaching.”

The Art of Teaching: Bridge Building

2011-02-28T13:10:00.002-05:00

According to Gilbert Highet, The Art of Teaching was named such because, “I believe that teaching is an art, not a science… You must throw your heart into [teaching], you must realize that it cannot all be done by formulas.” There, then, seems one aspect of Highet’s teaching method which differentiates from a scientific method—the human personality. It is one thing to build a bridge by constructing mathematical formulas and correlating those formulas to the material, however, there is such an admiration for beauty in visionary design meant for a greater aesthetic value than merely a formula. Highet advocates creative “bridge-building” by integrating the human person with the teaching method.

First of all, Highet describes the most vital attribute of a good teacher—knowing the subject. What good is there for a teacher who knows the same amount of information, if not less, than his students? Simply, there is none. Knowing the subject also means keeping tabs upon current growth in the subject and continually gaining knowledge pertaining to the subject. Now, Highet poses the question—“Why can a teacher not simply learn the rudiments of the subject, master them thoroughly, and then stop?” (13). The best answer to this is: one cannot understand the rudiments of an important subject without knowing its higher levels.

Now, how does knowing the subject relate to bridge-building? Without knowing how to build a bridge, one cannot build a bridge. There is no direction for which the bridge to start or stop, there is no knowledge of needed materials for building, and one knows not the purpose of the bridge! In the same way, without knowing a subject, there is nothing a teacher can give to a student—no direction, information, or purpose. Highet articulates, “The neglect of [knowing the subject] is one of the chief reasons for the bad teaching that makes pupils hate schools and universities” (14).

Now, Highet proceeds to discuss a second important characteristic, quite related to the first—liking the subject which one teaches. Now liking a subject does not mean liking all of a subject, but how trusting would one be of a doctor who disliked medicine? In the same parallel, liking the subject means a continued interest and total immersion in topics pertaining to the subject—even Highet proclaims, “If you do enjoy the subject, it will be easy to teach even when you are tired, and delightful when you are feeling fresh” (20).

The way a teacher “builds a bridge” between the students and the information requires mastery of especially contemporary knowledge. He is the architect who knows the recent advances in engineering while also maintaining the aesthetic integrity and beauty of the bridge. Highet asserts that, “A wise teacher will choose particular areas of his subject which he believes will be both interesting and illuminating, and will find that his increasing knowledge of them will give him a sense of mastery” (24). By keeping interested, the teacher also peaks the interest of his students—and, in turn, increases their ability to retain information.

Highet addresses the final mark of a good teacher—knowing and liking his students. He notes how, “The good teacher feels that same flow of energy [from the youth], constantly supplied by the young” (27). He admits, however, that there are some devil youths—whom he names as “eccentrics.” If anything, Highet encourages an impersonal relationship with these students—for fear that they would “explode” (42). But, by knowing the students, whether they are eccentric, viscerotonic (pleasure-drive), somatotonic (image-driven), or cerebrotonic (thought-driven), the teacher can better design the bridge over the gap* between the students and information.

Highet explicitly mentions two functions of the teacher—which distinguishes him from a business man or the likes. The first function includes, “Making a bridge between school or college and the world” (49). That means the teacher makes whatever subject to be taught—whether be Latin, Theology, or Mathematics— relatable and applicable to contemporary society, and having students recognize that respective subject in their daily lives. Secondly, the teacher must, “Make a bridge between youth and maturity” (52). This is the ability to structure the class to access the students’ youthful energy while not allowing frivolity to ensue.

Finally, Highet makes the statement, “Difficult though this bridge-building between two worlds may be, it is possible; it is necessary; it is done by the best teachers” (52). Obviously there is more to teaching than lesson plans and subject matter—just as how bridge-building requires more than just a knowledge of mathematics, engineering, and architecture. The best bridge-builders are artists (e.g. the Golden Gate Bridge). In a similar way, the best teachers are also artists, infusing their souls and hearts into teaching.

The Intellectual Life (Chapter 3-5 Summary)

2011-02-28T13:08:00.002-05:00

The Jesuit Order is one of the most influential Catholic orders of religious vocations in the world. They are known for many charisms—one, however, best summarizes A.G. Sertillanges’s commentary on the intellectual life—“Finding God in All Things.” Although Sertillanges was not a Jesuit (he was a Dominican), his The Intellectual Life surely overflows with encouragement for alertness to God’s beautiful creation, goodness, and truth.

Beginning chapter three, Sertillanges reaffirms that “the intellectual life” is a vocation—a calling from God to direct one’s life. And yet, he directly applies this vocation in context of another vocation—Christian Marriage. Among his many assertions concerning the married life, Sertillanges includes, “[a wife] can produce much by helping her husband produce…consoling him for his disappointments… soothing his sorrows… being his sweet reward after his labors” (Sertillanges 45). The wife ought to support the husband in his vocation, for that is her vocation in the marital relationship. Living in a Christo-centric relationship reveals God’s true presence.

Another way that Sertillanges offers the intellectual worker a glimpse into God’s presence includes Solitude. “Solitude enables you to make contact with yourself, a necessity if you want to realize yourself—not to repeat like a parrot a few acquired formulas, but to be the prophet of the God within you who speaks a unique language to each man” (Sertillanges 50). Certainly, Sertillanges suggests that within this prayer-state God grants the intellectual true inspiration. Sertillanges warns, however, “By carrying the cult of silence too far, one would reach the silence of death” (Sertillanges 63). For, a body motionless too long gets atrophy—in the same sense, silence and solitude must be balanced with intellectual work. Ultimately, articulates Sertillanges, the Truth (found in Jesus Christ) must be the intellectual’s final goal or end.

Because truth must be the goal of the intellectual, he must keep every eye out in observance for truth. Interestingly enough, the truth is everywhere—as long as one keeps looking.

Truth is commoner than articles of furniture. It cries out in the streets and does not turn its back on us when we turn our backs on it. Ideas emerge from facts; they also emerge from conversations, chance occurrences, theatres, visits, strolls, the most ordinary books. Everything holds treasures, because everything is in everything, and a few laws of life and of nature govern the rest. (Sertillanges 73).

What a better exemplification of “Finding God in All Things!” The alertness of truth must be the greatest attribute of the intellectual—for without alertness, the intellectual falls into a mind of a “commonplace man” (cf. Sertillanges 74).

Rich Mullins, a notable Christian musician, once said that he first invited Christ into his life at the age of four by singing, “Into my heart, into my heart, come Lord Jesus, into my heart.” In a similar way, Sertillanges alludes to the importance of inviting Christ into the intellectual’s life. “Children are taught ‘to give their hearts to God’; the intellectual, a child in that respect, must in addition give his heart to the truth” (Sertillanges 88). Throughout chapters three, four, and five, Sertillanges gives examples of how to allow God into the intellectual’s life: The Mass (cf. 90), Prayer (cf. 89), and studying Theology (cf. 110).

Sertillanges finishes by asserting that studying Theology supersedes all other fields of study, because it is from Theology that all other subjects flow. “The sciences and philosophy without theology discrown themselves more lamentably, since the crown they repudiate is a heavenly one” (Sertillanges 107). Historically, great thinkers like Aristotle, Francis Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, and Leibnitz were “renaissance men” because they broadened their field of study, or as Sertillanges would describe, a “Comparative study” (Sertillanges 102)— linking their studies to general philosophy and theology. For, “Theology has inserted a divine graft into the tree of knowledge, thanks to which this tree can bear fruits that are not its own” (Sertillanges 110). Overall, all other subjects, fields, and areas of study serve the purpose of supporting Theology—the study of God and His presence in man’s life.

In recognizing the truth of one’s life, the intellectual will surely “Find God in All Things.” The intellectual must remember this important maxim provided by Sertillanges—“The half-informed man is not the man who knows only half of things, but the man who only half knows things” (Sertillanges 122).

The Intellectual Life

2011-02-28T13:06:00.002-05:00

“I would put The Intellectual Life on the desk of every serious, and most of the unserious ones,” claims Fr. James Schall, SJ in his Foreword (Sertillanges xiii). Although Fr. Schall includes a humorous tone to his overall perception of The Intellectual Life, nevertheless he stresses and strains throughout the Foreword about the book’s importance and vitality to the life of an intellectual, much less a Catholic intellectual. Now, Fr. Schall, SJ is a professor of Political Philosophy at Georgetown University. He realizes the wisdom of thought and how it affects the way people execute political agendas and persuade others. Notably, Fr. Schall’s significance of endorsement alludes to the fact that the reader ought to realize how much of a positive effect this book encloses between its paper covers. Even more so, Fr. Schall claims, “[The Intellectual Life] will have an abiding, concrete effect on our lives” (Sertillanges xiv).

According to Schall, The Intellectual Life’s most astounding characteristic comprises in truth. Whether it is the truth about applicable study habits, effective note-taking, organization skills, or moral truths, Schall notes that, “[Sertillanges] does not hesitate to warn us of the intimate relation between our knowing the truth and our not ordering our souls to the good” (Sertillanges xii). Significantly, Schall makes continual references to how The Intellectual Life supersedes and transcends the times —“This book allows us… to know why we need not be dependent on the media…” (Sertillanges xiii). Just as how truth remains truth regardless of times and customs, so too, articulates Schall, does The Intellectual Life— this book “allows [the reader] to be free [from the times]” (Sertillanges xiii).

Vocation comes from Latin word “voco” meaning “to call.” Therefore, it follows that a vocation translates to a calling—usually defining one’s purpose in life. According to Sertillanges, a vocation more specifically, “comes from heaven and from our first nature” (Sertillanges 4). God plays an immense role in defining our purpose—from making us in his image, imago Dei, to revealing Himself in everyday life, and during mankind’s experience for coming to know ultimate truth. “If we are here, it is because God has placed us here” (Sertillanges 14). Our purpose totally and wholly depends upon God’s will and desire for us in our life. Although, it is our free will that, at times, gets in the way for answering our vocation, or call, to be effective intellectuals. And yet, this free will, articulates Sertillanges, is the most vital attribute and characteristic of being a human person—“[the will] is the most important thing!” (Sertillanges 10).

Not surprisingly, Sertillanges’s featured common virtues for intellectual workers can be summarized by the three Theological Virtues: Love, Faith, and Hope. “Tell me what you love, I will tell you what you are” (Sertillanges 19). Ultimately, as Catholic intellectual workers, love must be appropriately placed toward the desire of the Truth—namely Jesus Christ. The Jesuits have a phrase— “Finding God in all things.” Namely, God reveals himself through ultimate truth, and by using the intellect out of love for the Truth, the intellectual worker finds God—more than what he was expecting!

Faith flows from a deep trust that the intellect will not fail, even if it seemingly cannot reveal fully the truth at any one given time. Sertillanges asserts, “One has no faith in jewel merchants who sell pearls and wear none” (Sertillanges 18). Yet, Jesus Christ claims the truth and, according to Dr. Peter Kreeft—a philosopher at Boston College—Jesus revealed new himself as more Truth—leaving his followers thaumazō “to wonder.” Jesus fulfilled this truth gained through the faith in intellect inspired by the Holy Spirit. He is the trustworthy, faithful provider of The Truth.

And from this faith, Hope clings on to the promise of Christ that the Truth will be fully revealed. Once again, “By practicing the truth that we know, we merit the truth that we do not yet know. We merit it in the sight of God…when we pay homage by living the truth of life” (Sertillanges 19). In essence, the fullness of God’s truth in our lives will be gained when Christ comes again, during the parousia. This will only be gained, however, if we practice the truth, and live in the Truth— “the Truth is God” (Sertillanges 30)!

Ultimately, Sertillanges connects all studious virtues to flow from the Truth revealed with the help of the three Theological virtues. Whether it be through concrete note-taking, sufficient sleep patterns, or prudent interest in knowledge, the intellectual must remember this important maxim provided by Sertillanges—“To accept ourselves as we are is to obey God and to make sure of good results” (Sertillanges 28).

Brave New World: A Catholic Perspective

2010-12-31T01:14:00.003-05:00

Pope Paul VI promulgated the Gaudium et Spes, formally known as the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, which was released in the December of 1965. This document, published just after the Vatican II Council, refocused the Catholic Church’s view on the contemporary Christian way of life. From within its culmination, Gaudium et Spes points out, “Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness”(Gaudium et Spes 17). It goes on to say, “ Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly…often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing what pleases them, even if it is evil”(Gaudium et Spes 17). This aspect spoke volumes concerning man’s human dignity, free will, and enticement of hubris. On the contrary, thirty-four years prior, Aldous Huxley wrote a novel, Brave New World, which contradicted and perverted the future Vatican’s vision of mankind. Overall, Aldous Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, vehemently contradicts Catholicism’s teachings concerning society, happiness, and the human condition.

Huxley’s assault originates from the beginning of the novel, setting the stage for the rest of the imaginative yet fictitious novel. The opening chapters contain a glimpse of Huxley’s controversial social structure: Over the main entrance [of the thirty-four story
building] the words, CENTRAL LONDON HATCHERY AND CONDITIONING CENTRE, and in a shield, the World State’s motto, COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, STABILITY (Huxley). On the contrary, the Gaudium et Spes responds by articulating, “He [man] strives by his knowledge and his labor, to bring the world itself under his control. He renders social life more human both in the family and the civic community through improvement of customs and institutions” (Gaudium et Spes 53)

The term family, mother, father, son, and daughter in Brave New World are looked upon as blasphemy. When Tomakin reunites with Linda and John [the Savage], his ex-girlfriend and bastard child respectively, he is mercilessly ridiculed for having an exclusive wife and especially an illegitimate son (Huxley 152). Overcome with embarrassment as the Director of Human Conditioning, he immediately resigns from his post. The stability structure of a family dynamic is social taboo because a family is deemed too unstable to properly raise a child. By and large, a family violates the stability element of the World State’s motto. It seems fitting that the Catholic Church stands with an inverse perspective:

The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which a husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society (Catechism 2207).

From this passage, it is shown that the Catholic Church stands firm on the ideal of a strong familial base for the benefit of both person and society. Both stances on stability and freedom held on the Catholic Church implicitly suggest contradiction between itself and Huxley’s Brave New World. Naturally, Brave New World maliciously assaults the beauty of the Catholic Church’s vision for a supportive, caring, and loving family.

The Catholic Church holds a firm stance on how the human person is to be treated even before birth, including chromosomal specifications. Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but aimed at human beings selected to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity, which are unique and unrepeatable (Catechism 2419).

Instead of a family setting, Brave New World’s society originates from the designing of hatcheries and conditioning cells of human beings. A technique called the Bokanovsky’s Process allows for a series of arrests of development, checking normal growth, and egg responds by budding (Huxley 4). Tomakin, the Director of Human Conditioning, considers it to be one of the major instruments of social stability. The mass production of humans stemmed from the assembly line, an idea invented by Henry Ford in the first decade of the 1900s.

Ford’s Model-T car was produced at such a high rate that by it’s peak in production, over half of the new cars in the world were Model-T Fords. Huxley considered Henry Ford an integral part of the creation in Brave New World. Admired for his humility toward his empowerment of thousands of workers during the early 20th century, Ford said, ““I invented nothing new…to teach that a comparatively few men are responsible for the greatest forward steps of mankind is the worst sort of nonsense”(Collier 9). The introduction of Ford’s model-T was chosen as the opening date of the new era, Anno Ford (The Year of Our Ford). Because of how Henry Ford allowed for the success of so many people working under his new assembly line, he was motivated knowing, “If they weren’t working, they’d be scrounging for a buck here or there, or on relief. Maybe both. Relief carries with it no dignity, no pride. These men can hold their heads up…” (Collier 142). Huxley found Ford to be so empowering for the people of his time that Huxley attributed Ford with a god-like aura within BNW. For everything that has to do with God is forbidden, only Ford is important. “A whole collection of pornographic books. God is in the safe and Ford on the shelves” (Huxley 211).

Once again, Huxley’s parody of Ford’s amazing achievement perverts the true God, the Lord. Huxley cleverly replaces the word of Lord in Christianity with Ford. In Brave New World, the people worship Ford just as God is worshipped by the faithful of a community. For according to the community, “people who have never heard of Ford are uncivilized” (Huxley 98). Huxley’s mockery of Christianity extended as far as making “the sign of the T” instead of making a sign of the cross as well as “all crosses having their tops cut and became T’s” (Huxley 134). The Catholic Church makes a point of expressing Jesus’ divinity and kingship with these simple words: That man is rightly called a king who makes his own body an obedient subject and, by governing himself with suitable rigor, refuses to let his passions breed rebellion in his soul for he exercises a kind of royal power over himself. And because he knows how to rule his own person as king, so too does he sit as its judge. He will not let himself be imprisoned by sin, or thrown headlong into wickedness. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men (Catechism 2275).

Cumulatively, the Church states that because Jesus is perfect in every way and has gained us salvation through dying on a cross, He is the ultimate judge, standard, and royalty. As a result, it is Jesus, and only Jesus, who should be hailed as God.

Since God and Christianity were eliminated by this BNW, the community had to look to other ways to satiate their spiritual hunger. By Anno Ford 184, a hallucinogen named soma was being produced commercially. It was said to have “All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects” (Huxley 54). Soma practically assured the stability of the society while providing a “holiday” from reality whenever a person desired, and coming back without any side effects. And yet again, on the contrary, the Catholic Church calls to mind temperance and respect of body through drugs, stating: [Drugs] constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law (Catechism 2291). Brave New World’s encouragement of drugs as an attempt to rid the emotions and feelings of society sharply conflict with the Church’s teaching.

To prevent humans from experiencing nature or creation, Brave New World conditioned them by associating books with loud noises and flowers with electronic shocks (Huxley 17). The conditioned people went into “conditioning rooms” where they would be shown images, such as a book, and shocked instantly upon the sight of the book. The concept of human conditioning stemmed from the experiment conducted by 1860s Russian scientist Ian Pavlov. Pavlov trained dogs to salivate at the presence of stimuli having nothing to do with a natural cause of salivation. Pavlov had noticed that for salivation to occur, it was not actually necessary for food to enter an animal’s mouth. Ultimately, Pavlov came to the conclusion that animals, even humans, could be trained to respond to unusual stimuli, such as salivating to a bell. After he came to this conclusion, he asked, “Does not the eternal sorrow of life consist in the fact that human beings cannot understand one another, that one person cannot enter into the internal state of another?” (Johnson 121-137).
The Catholic Church disagrees that a human ought to sacrifice his or her free will for the “good” of society. “Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts,” articulates the Catholic Church (Gaudium et Spes 77). Man’s rationality creates his beauty to choose for himself- his rationality implies a freedom. By conditioning human beings, Brave New World’s society manufactures nothing more than slaves to accomplish the will of a select few of the hierarchical society. Implicitly, Brave New World attacks not only the people, but also the Catholic Church and her teachings.

Man’s greatest search has always been the journey towards a perfect, fulfilling happiness. Brave New World offers an intriguing and controversial option pertaining to the attainment of happiness. Certainly, every society’s goal is to be happy, but Brave New World held a controversial corollary, “The secret of happiness and virtue- liking what you’ve got to do. All conditioning aims at that: making people like their inescapable social destiny”(Huxley 244). Brave New World believed conditioning people so that their free will will not interfere with “society’s happiness is also the individual’s happiness. Their argument says that, “People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can’t get,” (Huxley 278) and this is beautifully illustrated throughout Brave New World- for the conditioning they institute direct the people only to desire what society can give them, thus satisfying their needs and a satiating a hunger for happiness. On the contrary, the Catholic Church holds the following stance: Happiness is the attainment of comprehensive human fulfillment.
For Christians, happiness is only attained through union with God, which is the consequence of grace…For Catholic belief, happiness consists in an encounter with the perfect Persons of the Divine Three, and because this understanding of human happiness emphasizes the love, intelligence and personal character of happiness with God, it possesses some distinct advantages to the teachings of other religions and philosophical systems (Gaudium et Spes 34).

The Catholic Church unquestionably supports the beauty of human love, intelligence, and personality in relation to how humans are to be happy. Since Brave New World limits human’s ability of free will- specifically how to love, choose, and think independently, it stifles man’s inner desire to be “free”- attacking not only man, but also the Catholic Church.

Dr. Michael Pennock, former Saint Ignatius High School Theology teacher and nationally renowned theological writer, asserts, “The playboy/ playgirl mentality is irresponsible because it totally ignores one of the aims of sexual activity: the sharing of life,” in his book concerning Catholic morality Your Life In Christ (Pennock 226). It is the position that the Catholic Church stands firm behind, “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to the spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such” (Pennock 227).
Sharing life arouses the beauty in the human person’s sexuality. Brave New World contends a different view of sexuality. Lenina, a main character in Brave New World shows her influence of conditioning and a lack of care towards her sexuality by stating, “Never put off till tomorrow the fun you can have today” (Huxley 149). She is insensitive towards her sexuality, using it as an object and way to have “fun” while continually disregarding her irresponsibility to her dignity and person. Interestingly enough, Sigmund Freud, world-renowned psychologist and psychotherapist, wrote that work could provide some of the pleasure that, in a less restrictive culture, would be found in sex (Kramer 144).

Freud’s description of that type of culture, surrounded by constant sexual innuendos throughout work and leisure, seems supported by BNW. For it is stated multiple times throughout the novel, “Everyone belongs to everyone else” (Huxley 77). BNW disrespects the people of its society by encouraging erratic and irresponsible sexual behavior, which harms the dignity and worth of each person. The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, along with other writings, hold firm the Catholic Church’s teachings concerning human being’s free will, dignity, social structure, and religion. Because BNW seemingly perfectly contradicts the Catholic Church on numerous issues, BNW unreservedly and explicitly exposes direct contradictions towards the Church and her teachings for the goodness of society. It seems fitting that BNW is a book banned by many schools throughout the country, especially those of Catholic endorsement.

The Bat Comes To Me

2010-12-31T01:08:00.001-05:00

The conversion of St. Paul literally knocked him off his horse. The conversion of St. Ignatius of Loyola severely broke his leg. My conversion story, with the hopes of a path to sainthood, however, almost left me with a fractured skull. Although it seemed a minor experience at the time, it has been since the incident that I have matured in my faith and spiritual growth. Little did I know how the “The Bat Coming To Me” would change who I am.

The experience began on a pleasant September morning. I hurriedly ran into my Sophomore Morality class, for fear I would be late. Astutely, I took my seat just in time before the period bell rang. Music played in the background. The period bell rang. The music stopped. The entire class looked around. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, a red-haired man in a lopsided faux-hawk emerged from the shadowy corner of the classroom—with a wooden baseball bat.

Mr. Vilinsky, my morality teacher, bounded onto his desk and swung the bat like a madman. “This is a fuzzy pool noodle!” he exclaimed. He jumped down, momentarily staring at the entire class with crazy, wild eyes. “[J.A.], I don’t care what you say.” He raced across the room to my desk. “Don’t believe me, it feels the same as a fuzzy pool noodle!” Without knowing what was going on, I felt— Bam! Mr. Vilinsky slammed the bat down onto my desk. I felt the breeze of the wood come so close to my face I could smell the maple. Then he threw the bat against the wall. It splintered into dozens of pieces, just like major league baseball bats do. One of the pieces of bat flew toward my face. I ducked just in time to miss one of the most painful splinters of my life. Clearly this was not a fuzzy pool noodle.

Even though Mr. Vilinsky apologized for the accidental breaking of his baseball bat, I was still severely shaken up from the whole ordeal. He went on to explain that our minds do not create reality themselves, but reality reveals truth to our minds. The baseball bat was still the baseball bat, no matter how badly Mr. Vilinsky had wanted it to be a fuzzy pool noodle. It was the first time that I had ever thought about how truth affected my life—how it literally came flying at me in the face. Appropriately enough the lesson plan was named “The Bat Comes To Me.”

Since then, I have truly attempted to delve deep into my faith, going on multiple retreats, reading books by renown Christian authors such as C.S. Lewis and St. Thomas Aquinas, and being actively involved in my youth group. All of these things and more I have done in pursuit of God’s revealing truth in my life. Sometimes it just takes a flying baseball bat towards your noggin to light a spark. I would not have had it any other way.

Flying On Eagles Wings

2010-12-31T01:06:00.000-05:00

Gerald Ford, Neil Armstrong, Michael Bloomberg, and Frank Parater hold one common link—all four men have earned the rank of Eagle Scout. Over the past century, Eagle Scouts have earned a reputation for service, virtue, and leadership that is recognized worldwide. Attaining my Eagle Scout rank, however, almost never happened. When I was a fifth grader, a friend dared to be different and reached out to me. His act of charity inspired me to eventually earn my Eagle Scout and dare to be different through my leadership.

The experience began on a brisk, chilly June morning. I hurriedly ran to the waterfront at summer camp, for fear I would be late. Taking off my glasses, I arrived just in time for my Swimming merit badge class. Marking my attendance, the instructor told me to jump into the frigid, murky lake. I plunged in. The class continued. Just as it ended, I nonchalantly bounded over to the landing area to dry off. When I arrived there, I began searching for my glasses.

Feeling around, literally blind, I could not find my glasses. My heart sank. On only the second day away from my parents, I had lost my glasses. I panicked. How was I supposed to do all the cooking, washing, and overall camping of scouting without seeing? I asked the instructor if anyone had turned in a pair of glasses. Nothing. I somehow managed to find my way back to camp. There, I crawled into my tent-- embarrassed, homesick, scared, and overcome with emotion. My sightless eyes cried tears of despair. I no longer desired to be in scouts. Scouting took away my sight. Overhearing my uncontrollable sobs, the oldest scout in our troop came over to my tent and asked what seemed to be the problem.

DW Cashman, Senior Patrol Leader and future Eagle Scout of my Boy Scout troop, eventually coaxed me out my tent. Even more self-conscious that the oldest scout in the troop had caught me vulnerable, I explained to him, while huffing and puffing, about my missing glasses. He walked with me to the camp office to see if anyone had turned in a pair of glasses. Still nothing. On the hike back to our campsite, he reassured me that I would find my glasses and I would be just fine. Then, DW handed me something dense. I squinted at it hard before realizing what it was.

As I drank from the camp-contraband root beer bottle, I calmed down and began to loosen up. DW had reached out to me and treated me as a friend. His kindness and selfless giving restored my faith in Scouting. Throughout the week, he persistently checked up on me, making sure I was all right in spite of my sightlessness. Even though I never found my glasses, DW helped me to see—to see how a minor act of love in action could play a major role of inspiration. He is the reason I stayed in Scouting.

When I turned eighteen on December 1st, 2009, I finished my Scouting tenure with nearly 150 nights of camping, twenty-six merit badges, over two hundred hours of scouting service projects, surviving a week in the wilderness of Maine, canoeing over 150 miles in eight days on an Ohio River tributary, earning the rank of Eagle Scout, while holding both the second highest and highest leadership ranks in scouting, respectively—Assistant Senior Patrol Leader and Senior Patrol Leader. These accomplishments are enough to fill an impressive résumé. Ironically enough, the proudest and yet most humbling moments of mine will never show up on my Scouting résumé. These accomplishments would be futile without purpose; without meaning; without action—and ultimately without love.

During a November scout meeting, a young scout named Billy, upon hearing I was leaving due to scouting age restrictions, embraced me and nearly began to cry on my shirt. He said, “[J.A.], please don’t leave! Why do you have to? I don’t want you to leave. You are my friend.” That indescribable moment of humility poignantly touched my heart. “This is what scouting and life is all about,” I said to myself later that night. I had reached out and made a positive difference in Billy’s life—not by merely being a leader, but a friend. Mr. Oren Youngstein, my scoutmaster with over thirty years of scouting experience, told me at my last camp, “[J.A.], you know what makes you different than every other Senior Patrol Leader I’ve had? You care.”

Those two moments characterize the personal difference just one teenager can make. By daring to be different, scouting has defined my altruistic, charitable, and personal leadership. As President Jimmy Carter once said, “Eagle Scouts will inspire to become leaders in serving others.” Sometimes it takes losing your sight to see those around you who need a difference in their life. This is who I am and contributes to the person I will become. I would not have learned and lived this any other way.

Making Sense Out of God Part 1-- A Socratic Dialogue With An Unbeliever

2010-11-22T16:55:00.001-05:00

Reader: You claim to prove the existence of God?

Author: No, I do not claim to prove the existence of God. I only claim that choosing God makes the most sense. I say that there is enough evidence to suggest plausibility for belief in God.

Reader: So, what you’re telling me is that this God-thing is not definite? You cannot be sure?

Author: Can you be sure of anything, really and truly down to the core? Of course not. We get to a certain point within our human reason where there is a given, something granted by its very nature. We take that on faith.

Reader: Faith. Curious you should use that term concerning the most important belief which defines your whole human existence. People have faith in a lot of things: in school systems, politicians, Santa Claus, or in workout exercises. Faith in God is silly—shouldn’t your most innate belief/desire revolve around something that is 100% certain or sure?

Author: Again I answer, when is everything certain? Even certain scientific principles grant degrees of uncertainty or variability.

Reader: True. But science does not define your religion—your God does. Where does your God exist? Surely, we cannot see Him, touch Him, or hear Him.

Author: Well of course you cannot see Him, touch Him, or hear Him. He exists outside of the universe.

Reader: Then there’s no evidence for Him! Ha! Proved your entire premise wrong!

Author: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Take this for example: In a painting, do you see the painter? No. Well, not usually. But, in a painting, you do see the effects of the painter—the painter’s brush strokes, the color the painter used, the design of the painter’s mind. God is the painter; He has created the world, and you can find the effects of God in the world.

Reader: Really? So the effects… such as… pain, suffering, evil, hatred, envy, spite, war, holocausts, fighting, and the likes are the effects of God. I don’t want to believe in a God that creates such an evil world. I mean, who would?

Author: Ahhh the old problem of evil. I’m quite surprised you brought that point up so early in our conversation. Your question of how can God exist and still allow evil in the world—two words: Free Will.

Reader: Free Will? Wait a minute… are you blaming human beings for the reason that evil exists in the world?

Author: Actually, yes. We are the reason there is evil in the world—it began in the Bible, the Holy Book Catholics believe in, where man chose to not choose God—by choosing evil.

Reader: OK. But I don’t believe in the Catholic Bible.

Author: Fair enough, but you did ask how I can believe in God. Well, how about someone you can trust.

Reader: Who? I’m well read in philosophy.

Author: How about G.K. Chesterton?

Reader: Well, I know he’s smart, but that’s all…

Author: The London Times had asked a number of writers for essays on the topic “What’s Wrong with the World?” Chesterton’s reply is the shortest and most to the point:

Dear Sirs,

I am.

Sincerely Yours,

G.K. Chesterson

Reader: Hmmm so what you’re suggesting is that I’m the one to blame for the world’s evil?

Author: Precisely. We all are. Collectively as a human race.

Reader: Ok. Well that’s all nice and good, but what about us believing in God because He is just some nice concept. We are comforted by the thought of a God, of eternal life, easing our consciences. Isn’t belief in God something that we ought to have grown out of before or during adolescence—like belief in Santa. As we get older, we don’t need a nice thought to comfort us unless we are immature in thought. I won’t believe in a God that is just some nice thought created by us at a young age to comfort us. Just like Santa, belief should dissipate.

Author: Gee it seems like you just keep bashing belief in Santa Claus. Neither here nor there, belief in God as a nice projection of the mind sounds oddly like a thought directly from Ludwig Feuerbach. He believed that mankind ought to “grow up” and realize that saying, “God is love” merely projects man’s desire to love; saying “God is morally perfect” merely projects man’s desire to be moral.

Reader: Yeah, actually, I told you I did a lot of reading. Feuerbach’s critique of Christianity rings true!

Author: Dare I ask if you’ve heard of C.S. Lewis?

Reader: Ah, yes. I’ve read all of his Chronicles of Narnia series. He is quite the engaging author.

Author: Well, Lewis believed that all natural desires of man corresponded to something real. Let me read you a bit of it from his work entitled Mere Christianity:

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for these desires exists. A baby feels hunger; well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim; well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire; well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.

Reader: So, what you’re saying is…

Author: Yes, that’s right. The natural desire and longing within the depths of your heart resides from the fact that you were created to be filled by God—and nothing else can fill that void.

Reader: But, what about the desire to be a supermodel? Or the desire to fight aliens? Or the desire to be Superman? How about those desires? Obviously those cannot be easily fulfilled.

Author: And you are exactly correct! Those cannot be easily fulfilled because they are not natural. Every human being during every time has hungered—thus food; thirst—drink; sexual desire—well, there’s sexual experiences. Every man during every day and age has believed in some sort of “higher power.” Whether they believe it or not, human beings desire God. The desire to be Superman, to fight aliens or to be a supermodel are not, wholly, natural desires shared by the prevalence of humanity.

Reader: But I don’t desire God!

Author: Ah, question for you, this time: What is most important to you? What would you be willing to give your life for?

Reader: Well, I think, honestly, in the depths of my heart, believe that I am the most important person. All of which is good depends on whether or not it is good to me.

Author: Then, my friend, you proved my point. You do desire God—but the god in your life is yourself. The thing which you value above all is You. You keep telling me about how you are depressed, saddened, and having your “mid-life crisis” – no wonder! Your desire for God is fulfilled by desiring only things of yourself.

Reader: Maybe I’m just a miserable person. Life has its ups and downs. You cannot make me believe that your God is the one to believe in.

Author: And you know what? You’re right. I cannot make you believe. Belief is a choice. That’s the beauty of free will. You choose. As Kreeft says, “God gives you just enough light to see if you want; enough light to not see if you want to; it comes down to whether you want to see Him.” Searching for God is easy if you want to find Him.

Reader: But that means nothing. One of my favorite philosophers, Bertrand Russell, who was asked on his deathbed what he would say if he met God once he died, replied, “I would ask Him: Sir, why didn’t you give us more evidence!?” Obviously for Russell, God, even if He did exist, gave no good evidence to suggest so.

Author: By claiming to be an atheist, one who rejects God, you must claim that you are one of the .1% most enlightened and arrogant people on the face of the planet because you have rejected the most basic desire—to honor and believe in the existence of some deity…

Reader: But I want PROOF!

Author: You will have proof only when you open yourself wholly for the search of God and finding His will. Allow Him to give you the ultimate proof of His existence: A Direct Interior Experience.

Reader: But…but… how are you so sure that it will work?

Author: I am not sure. I have faith. I have faith that when Jesus Christ said, “Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find”, He wasn’t blowing` smoke. I have faith because I have experienced the awesome power of God myself. I know that God exists because He has touched my life. The God I believe in is the sort of God who is kind and loving.

Reader: Why, then, doesn’t God reveal Himself to everyone to induce belief?

Author: Because He desires for us to freely love Him. What good is love if it isn’t free?

Reader: True… But I…

Author: I need to end the paper. I would love to chat with you more in the future! Let me know how finding God goes for you! Keep in touch. Oh, and please, call me J.A. It’s a title of friends.

The Sights, The Sins, The Saints

2010-11-18T20:38:00.000-05:00

Christian Marriage is under attack. If, in fact, this is a true statement, then three topics must be addressed: The fact that Christian Marriage is under attack; the enemy’s identity; and how to defeat the enemy. The victory cannot be ours if: we believe that the vitality of contemporary Christian Marriage is the likes of perplexing unicorns prancing on double rainbows—sheer bliss; we fight the battle against a mysterious aggressor or stupidly against ourselves; or we neglect the powerful weapons and safeguarding shields meant not only for our protection but also for triumphant victory! Lacking in any one of these three areas, we falter. This is a battle, however, at the expense of our souls— a battle we cannot afford to lose.

If “Christian Marriage is under attack” shocks you, welcome back to reality. No, not “reality” exhibited on game shows like The Bachelor, simulated on computer games like Sims, nor through virtual online relationships—those are not examples of reality. Reality comes from the Latin term realitas meaning “a fixed property.” Reality does not change—its objective essence self-promulgates. Reality’s presence outside man’s mind demands man’s responsibility to understand and know truth.

This is not the case even with such “reality shows” as MTV’s The Real World –founded in 1993— where, “eight strangers... picked to live in a house...work together and have their lives taped... to find out what happens... when people stop being polite... and start getting real...”[1] On the contrary, every hand-picked cast member of the show is paid a stipend to act in an attention-grabbing manner on national television—what good is a “reality show” if it cannot be controlled through attractive incentives such as financial gain and world-wide distinction?

Perhaps, in fact, this is not reality. Real World cast member Irene McGee even admitted, “We know Real World is not the real world… Can’t MTV think of a better way to raise audience awareness of domestic violence than to make it look cool?”[2] Ironically, the Real World is not the “real world.” It is, in reality, a mass-communicated attempt to distort values through entertainment. As Christians, we ought to be weary and skeptical of claims of truth for fear of dealing our souls to the devil coming at the enticement of a cheap laugh or quick pleasure. Our souls are anything but cheap—the devil knows this better than us.

Even G.K. Chesterton predicted over a century ago (1906):

If the modern world will not insist on having some sharp and definite moral law, capable of resisting the counter-attraction of art and humor, the modern world will simply be given over as a spoil to anybody who manages to do a nasty thing in a nice way.[3]

The reality is Christian Marriage and the family, from their very essence, constitute a vital and integral part of society. The reality is, though, that some families are faltering—they are bewildered and doubtful[4] about how to live with overflowing love. The reality is— Christian Marriage is under attack!
Christian Marriage is a covenant built on a commitment to love and serve the other in the real way that Jesus Christ loves his bride, the Church. St. Augustine coined the term “conjugal charity”[5] to describe the necessary attribute of a successful Christian Marriage. Man and woman are created, but complementary to each other— that is why “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”[6] Therefore, the child begotten, literally from the joining of two fleshes to become one flesh, really exemplifies the incarnate love between husband and wife— living God’s command —“Be fruitful and multiply.”[7] The design of human beings—as procreative beings—is not only visible through Divine Revelation but also through Natural Law.

The word “natural” comes from the Latin naturalis meaning “by birth.” The Romans used naturalis to describe the fact that men and women knew laws or truths by virtue of their birth—a “common knowledge” revealed by the inherent essence of reality. C.S. Lewis defined Natural Law as a Rule of Right and Wrong[8]—that is a biological law that subjects organisms to act specifically to a design. Lewis articulated that Natural Law specifically applies to not just a generic design of humans but, in particular, a standard of behavior which each human being ought to know and can expect each other to know. During a lecture on Defending Traditional Sexual Morality, Dr. Patrick Lee, director of the Franciscan University Institute of Bioethics, articulated that the premise for the foundation of Christian Marriage begins with the fact that, “We find in every culture men and women committed to bodily and spiritual needs of each other in the kind of union fulfilled by bearing, rearing, and raising children.” It seems interesting enough that the factors necessary for “conjugal love” exist in every culture during every time. Thus, it would follow that marriage, by its nature, would exist innately and essentially to the human reality. Even St. Thomas Aquinas states that, “[Marriage] is dictated by the law that is in us by nature because it serves the general good of mankind.”[9]

“Marriage serves the general good of mankind”? In 1997, Time magazine featured an article begging the question— “Why is Everything Getting Better?”[10] Why is life in America so good? Interestingly enough, every single reason why life is good in America, according to Time, revolved around the possession, distribution, and investment of money. And yet, as life was “so good” the divorce rate in 1997 reached fifty percent [11] --meaning that half of marriages would end in divorce— and over forty percent of marriages would dissolve within fifteen years.[12]This is the same marriage that, according to the Catholic Church, ought to be indissoluble, faithful, and fertile.[13] It seems that Aquinas’ vision for Christian Marriage “serving the general good of mankind” is under attack at its very core—unity.

Every issue pertaining to contemporary marriage’s dissolubility, faithlessness, and futility stems from the fact that Christian Marriage itself grapples with unity, with the – “two become one” concept. Pre-marital sex dissolves intimate relationships through the “lying body”—using the body in an act contrary to its nature. Contraception deprives and frustrates biologically the literal joining of one flesh to the other in the sexual act. Abortion terminates the incarnate love between man and woman. Sterilization removes a possibility for biological unity between spouses. Adultery or fornication divides the sexual act amongst multiple partners, not fully giving oneself to his or her spouse. Masturbation biologically isolates sexual stimulation—depriving the spouse of unity with the other. Anal or oral sex stimulates the partner without the intention of unity—in fact, anal or oral sex can be seen as “mutual masturbation” depriving biological unity from the other spouse. Homosexual acts intrinsically and essentially cannot unify the fleshes of both partners. There is a common theme—a lacking of “two become one.”

Popular culture encourages “free love.” It implicitly states that one ought to be “free” from responsibility and culpability resulting in the sexual arena. And, in fact, in a “free society” the aforementioned acts withholding biological and spiritual unity are socially permissible, much less publicly promulgated! In accordance with pop culture, an individual is only “wrong” when he/she violates his/ her conscience. Therefore, if both partners engage in pre-marital sex, or the likes, and fail to “violate” their consciences, their actions are permissible. Pop culture proclaims, “Two don’t become anything!”—sex is nothing more than a biological act.

And that is a lie. Pre-marital sex is a lie. Pre-marital sex communicates full union of the two bodies when they do not have full union of the two souls. Their bodies are one but their lives are two. The fact is that sexual intercourse is full physical union, a union “uniquely expressed and perfected through the appropriate enterprise of matrimony,”[14] one of the most intimate things two human beings can do. We speak the truth not only with our words, but also with our bodies. If the bodies are in full union without the souls, we fracture the relationship with the other—we lie to someone we supposedly love. The activity of sexual intercourse expresses full union whether we want it to or not— the ends of sex cannot be justified by the means of pre-marital circumstantial “love.” Nationally acclaimed chastity speaker Jason Evert reminds us, “If you want [true] love, you must reject its counterfeits.”[15]

Contraception, especially in the marital context, is a “sin against nature… and a deed which is shameful...”[16] The term contra-ception literally means “against conception”—frustrating the fertilization of an egg. Following forth from Casti Connubi, contraception is inherently against human nature— the sexual act is meant to be pro-creative and potentially life-giving. By the act of contraception, a man or woman violates human nature—the nature to be pro-creative.

Contraception also provokes shame. Comedian Robin Williams humorously articulated the shamefulness of contraception best in one of his recent skits by claiming, “I can't even get a condom on when I want to!”[17]—how embarrassing! By using birth control, condoms, the pill, etc., the spouse (in the marital context) implicitly says, “You can have all of me, except for…my sperm/egg.” Christian Marriage is giving of the whole self and unconditionally loving the other. By engaging in contraception, a person exhibits love for pleasure (or latex) instead of love for the spouse.

In the book of Genesis, a character named Onan “wasted his seed on the ground”[18] in an act of refusal to join with his wife for procreation and contributing to offspring for his tribe. This act, known contemporarily as onanism, resulted in Onan’s immediate death by God because Onan did not share that which was inside of him. He did not give everything to his wife. This sin of onanism acted as natural contraception—all Onan desired was pleasure, not procreation. Onan gave pleasure, not his whole self, to his wife—while “wasting” his procreative ability. Even natural contraception is shameful and against Natural Law!

Since the sexual act intends for the literal joining of two fleshes to one, the child produced expresses the incarnate love of the partners. The intentional termination of this “joining of two fleshes to one”, through abortion, is forbidden.[19] Even in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus remarks, “Therefore what God has joined, no human being must separate.”[20] Abortion separates God’s joining of man’s and woman’s flesh—while also killing an innocent human being. It divides the relationship of man and woman— and, in turn, literally “divides” the fetus. Abortion, with or without marital context, is an abominable crime[21]—to both partners and to the child.

The night of my high school senior prom, my best friend and his girlfriend had sex. Two months into the summer, his girlfriend found out she was pregnant—she tested repeatedly so as to confirm the pregnancy. She contacted him and informed him that she was, in fact, pregnant—and that she wanted an abortion. My friend, overcome with the reality of his fatherhood, requested that she ought to decide against the abortion. Their division over whether or not to terminate the fetus resulted in her threat of suicide, a severed relationship, and ultimately left my best friend heartbroken, child-less, and unnecessarily compounded with stress for college—she incurred the abortion just after they both began their undergraduate studies this fall. Why share this personal story? To illustrate the reality of how abortion viciously attacks hope for a Christian Marriage.

Peter Kreeft, renowned Catholic philosopher and apologist at Boston College, once said, “There are only two ways [to approach life]. Either meaning is surrounded by matter, or matter is surrounded by meaning.”[22] Either pleasure has meaning in life, or pleasure is the meaning of life. Kreeft suggests that pleasure does have meaning in life, but that pleasure is not the “end all, be all.” The sexual act cannot provide the ends of pleasure by the means of sex. Direct sterilization, such as vasectomies or hysterectomies, explicitly deprives the spouses of pro-creative ability. Although the Catholic Church allows for birth regulation, it condemns “morally unacceptable means”[23]—such as direct sterilization.
Adultery and fornication, on the other hand, arise the attention of a specialized criterion—sexuality’s value. In a basic economics principle, the value of an item is simply defined by the “supply” and “demand” of the item. If the supply of an item is vastly greater than the demand of the item, the item retains a low value. If, however, the demand of an item is vastly greater than the supply of the item, the item retains a high value.

Applied to the sexual arena, the value of sexuality would be infinitely great if, in fact, the “supply” – meaning expressing love through giving the free gift of an individual’s sexuality—would be limited to singularity and the “demand” – the desire to love and for love which permeates each person—exists infinitely high. The value of personal sexuality would be greatest if it remained solely within the boundaries of each other and given as a free gift of love—a Christian Marriage. By fornicating or committing adultery, the value of sexuality decreases infinitely because infidelity infinitely divides the “supply” of sexuality. Why is the value of sexuality so important to the human person?

Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communication with others.[24]

It would follow then that masturbation, the isolated intentional sexual stimulation of self, directly violates the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality’s value. If the gift of sexuality is not given, then its value is nothing—0!

While taking a high school class entitled Christian Manhood, my teacher exposed me to a concept named “The Masturbatory Fantasy.” [25]

In this fantasy:

1. Women exist to serve men.

2. Women are objects to be used and desired.

3. Pornography provides men images of perfected erotic women.

4. Men are gods.

5. The women have served their purpose.

6. The women have aroused men; they have worshipped men.

7. Women are men’s slaves.

8. Men control women.

9. Sex is an expression of power.

10. This is what men do; this is who men are.

11. Sexual freedom will make men happy.

And yet, this fantasy controls the contemporary man. The pornography company Playboy Inc. is valued at over $200 million itself![26] Playboy epitomizes the “Masturbatory Fantasy”—for example, “playboy bunnies” are erotic women paid as sexual objects to entice and arouse Hugh Hefner as well as men around the world at the whim of a Google search or page flip of a magazine. This fantasy, however, diametrically opposes the Catholic Church’s vision for the foundation of a Christian Marriage.

There are two worst-case consequences for being swept under the addicting title wave of the “Masturbatory Fantasy.” The first consequence disappoints the user of pornography to his/her expectation of reality. He (or she), angry that the real person with whom he/she sexually engages cannot adequately suffice for his/her standard of simulated stimulation during his/her fantasy, lashes out hatred toward the real person, which can ultimately end in rape. The second consequence intimidates and removes all confidence from the user of pornography—he or she desperately fears intimacy. This leaves the pornography user psychologically and physically impotent, unable to fully live out his or her ability to procreate and love the partner.

But perhaps C.S. Lewis most penetratingly describes the “Masturbatory Fantasy”:

For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete his own personality in that of another and turns it back, sends it back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival.”[27]

These consequences adequately suffice for answering why in 2007, there were nearly two hundred and fifty thousand reported victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault [28] and why thirty million men in the United States suffer from some kind of sexual impotence.[29] The Masturbatory Fantasy manipulates the match of pornography to light the fuel of lust producing a conflagration of sexual addiction and struggle.

Contemporary British pop artist Mika sings the song “Love Today” where:

Everybody's gonna love today, gonna love today,
Anyway you want to, anyway you've got to,
Love love me, love love me, love love.[30]

Mika does have one thing right—love!* The ever-ambiguous, open-ended, love “how you want” mantra once again replaces Jesus Christ’s direct call to “lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”[31] The seemingly blatant discrepancy between Jesus Christ and Mika underlies in specificity. Pop culture grants that, “yes, love is necessary, but it matters not the ends of love—Anyway you want to, any way you got to, love love me!” In a culture desperate for love, Pascal says, “It is natural for the mind to believe and for the will to love; so that, for want of true objects, they must attach themselves to false [objects].”[32]

Man, easily deceived concerning love, cannot truly gain happiness or eternal fulfillment on “égoïsme á deux”[33]—an effort to “get all they can get out of it.” This is why such acts as anal or oral sex cannot fulfill appropriate sexual morality. This type of “love” or affection, especially within the marital context, sexually stimulates the partners without procreative intentions. Therefore, anal or oral sex cannot morally satisfy the pro-creative necessities of the sexual act. Even though the act includes a partner, the sexual stimulation remains isolated—there is no explicit joining of fleshes within that sexual experience. This is why “mutual masturbation” accurately describes the anal or oral sex act—the gift of sexuality is not given, although with a partner, thus retaining the sexuality’s value, once again, to be nothing—0! It matters not how many zero-valued gifts of sexuality are exchanged between partners—the sums of zeroes are still zero.

Homosexual acts simplify to a specialized type of anal or oral sex between same-sex partners. It follows that if the gift of sexuality is not given, even in a “homosexual union”, then sexuality’s value is nothing—once again! Here C.S. Lewis’ Natural Law can also be applied: the biological design directly corresponds to the purpose of each design. The gonads are designed for reproduction—and, therefore, when used improperly without the intention of procreation, it precipitates that homosexual actions violate Natural Law.

What tempts man, though? Is it himself? Is it something ambiguous? Whom is the aggressor I, along with the rest of the world, struggle with? Many different philosophies blame humanity itself— including notable philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who claims that evil comes directly by the heart of man and that without society, the human person’s relation with other persons can only lead to bellum omnium contra omnes[34]—Latin for “a war of all [men] against all [men].” Hobbes describes that man needs society in order to maintain peace and serenity. It is curious, however, that the parts which sum society are the flawed man himself, whom Hobbes condemns. Hobbes suggests that man’s cure is more of his sickness? Perhaps, Hobbes’ philosophy of the human person is mistaken—perhaps man is not evil at his core. Perhaps, in fact, the human person was created “very good.”[35]

It follows, then, that man cannot be the direct source of his own temptation since he was created “very good.” Then what is? This tempter, this “evil spirit” must have a name, must it not? “Jesus asked [the possessed man], ‘What is your name?’ He replied, ‘Legion is my name. There are many of us.”[36] This tempter has an identity—demons. Traditional Catholic Theology accounts for three specific “demons” which uniquely tempt human beings: The World; The Flesh; and The Devil.[37] Each demon roams through the world seeking the ruin of souls.

“Our secular culture believes that anyone who believes [in demons] is at least an uneducated, narrow-minded bigot and probably mentally deranged.”[38] That is how effective demons can be. Their attempt to directly stifle the truth of Jesus Christ died when He died upon the cross—in contemporary society, however, demons have found a sneaky, yet successful, way to purloin souls from God. Belief in demons is mocked by the “enlightened mind.” Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap., the preacher of the papal household, observes:

A very curious thing is going on: Satan, driven out through the door, has climbed back through the window; driven out of religion and theology, he has come back through superstition.[39]

Demons infiltrate. They do not argue—they doubt. They ask, “Did God really tell you…not to engage in pre-marital sex? Not to fornicate? Not to masturbate? Not to use contraception? Not to engage in homosexual acts?... You certainly will not die!”[40]

There seems evidence enough to suggest that humans give into those temptations all too often in the sexual arena. No wonder the vitality of Christian Marriage suffers! The messages pertaining to living in marriage are filled with doubt, misdirection, and lies. Even Jesus said, “[The devil] was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.”[41]

In Kreeft’s satirical work entitled, “The Snakebite Letters,” the devil – affectionately named Snakebite—imparts wisdom through multiple letters to a younger demon named Braintwister, whose objective is to corrupt American society through perverting public and private morality and dulling the Catholic Church.

In one of the letters, Snakebite informs Braintwister of the following:

If [people] don’t find [joy] in Church, they’ll seek it elsewhere, and learn to think in these categories, our categories: Spirit (joyless) vs. Flesh (Joy); Church (dull) vs. World (interesting); Religion (boring) vs. Sex (fascinating); Piety (sissified) vs. Sin (strong).[42]

How evident this is in society! How often do I, as a Catholic, hear complaints about how holiness associates with unhappiness; how the Mass is dull; how being religious induces boredom; and how loyalty to God weakens a person’s strength? Catholics will attend the mass nowadays to be entertained—hoping that the priest’s homily will induce laughter, anticipation for a more upbeat responsorial psalm, and fervent prayer—for a speedy liturgy. This is wrong! We, as Catholics, do not attend Mass for entertainment! We receive enough entertainment from movies, TV shows, music, comedy sketches, and each other. We, as Catholics, ought to attend Mass for one, singular, sole purpose—to be wed to Christ through His body, the Church, and by His body, the Eucharist. Plainly and simply, the devil makes an effort to induce doubt, to distract, and to deceive.

Hell first sent forth the flesh from its gates to wreak havoc on the earth. The flesh lures man away from properly using gifts—it offers pleasure, with side-effects of course! The flesh, a demon, is obviously not physical or tangible, but its works can affect the physical, according to St. Paul in his letter to Galatia: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like.”[43]

Overcoming the flesh requires controlling passions. Not all passions are bad—in fact some passions are very good! “The most fundamental passion is love, aroused by the attraction of [the] good.”[44] The flesh, though, especially distorts the passion to love and to care for each other. The flesh leads to such marital issues including: contraception, masturbation, direct sterilization, anger, homosexual acts, and adultery.

It rationalizes under the pretense of love that, “This pleasurable type of love, namely Eros, is a better type of love than others, including agape. Agape is not concerned with self, thus why ought I to neglect myself?”— This thought is an example of rational-lies. Yes, Eros is a type of love, yet primitive. Jesus demands agape, though, calling us to, “Love one another as I have loved you”[45]—Jesus died for his friends. The flesh attempts to confuse, bewilder, and baffle man—filling his mind with doubt.

In contrast, the demon named the world acts in hostility toward God and in alienation from Him. The world distracts human beings from answering Jesus’ call to act with agape love.

Even John the Apostle warns:

Do not love the world or the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, sensual lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever.[46]

The world is the obsessive video game, addictive music player, a Silly Bandz ™ faddish, enslaving workplace, or hand-magnetized text messaging. This demon, the world, literally idolizes anything and everything which can distract from God’s will. How well can we know our spouse in a marital context without knowing or desiring God’s will? Surely, without knowing God’s will, we cannot know our spouse well.

The most effective consequence of the world in marital context, lust, distracts the human person from recognizing the essentially dignity of the other person and value of the person’s sexuality. Even a youthful, pre-conversion St. Augustine exclaimed, “Oh Lord, make me chaste… but not yet!”[47] Augustine struggled with compromising chastity for lust—ultimately producing a son out of wedlock. Lust’s source, the flesh, surely enticed and influenced Augustine’s decision to engage in pre-marital sexual actions.

Even today, lust distracts man from his ultimate goal—to be wed to Jesus Christ in His Body, the Church, and through His Body, in the Eucharist. Men feel lonely, desiring to be filled—to be filled by anything! Even Fr. Larry Richards, a charismatic priest from Erie, PA, wrote about the vital role lust plays in distracting man from relationship with Christ: “Lust is trying to fill up any emptiness inside of you. If you are in a relationship with Jesus Christ and are spending time in His arms every day, then any lustful thought is going to seem like eating garbage in comparison.”[48]

Just as how people who are hungry tend to fill their hunger with the cheapest and most available source—usually “junk” food—similarly man tends to fill the desire for love with the cheapest and most available source—usually “junk” love, or lust. There is a reason why “junk” food is called “junk” food—it cannot adequately satiate the hunger for healthy foods—only temporarily alleviate a natural desire.

Lust is “junk” love—it has no place in a healthy marital relationship, and typically consumes those unhealthy relationships. According to a study in 1998, extra-marital affairs touched or affected 80% of marriages in some way.[49] Lust’s translation into extra-marital affairs suffices for the existence of the flesh’s demonic presence in contemporary society.

Finally, the most powerful of all demons relating to contemporary society’s struggle with Christian Marriage—the devil himself—holds his place as an upright, red, hoofed, horned goat who maintains existence only because God needs a caretaker of the damned. Even Stephen Lynch, well-known comedian and songwriter, describes the devil: “I'm in every Zeppelin album, I'm in all Rush Limbaugh's rants, I'm the reason that the Boston Red Sox even had a chance…”[50]

And this is exactly how the devil desires to be pictured—a joke. No one takes a joke seriously. Because if, in fact, the devil is not a joke, then man must take him seriously—and undergo serious action against him. Dare we reduce the devil’s workings in this world, especially in the marital context, as unrecognizable and, for all intents and purposes, invisible?

There is an old saying, "Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action; reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character reap a destiny." The devil sows thoughts making evil appealing and the good as plain. How so? Three words, according to Kreeft: Dim the Lights.[51] The devil darkens man’s thought—literally and psychologically. This has led to man compounding simple questions and rationalizing answers with incredible ingenuity with regards to Christian Marriage: Whom can I marry? Whom may I not marry? How ought I to live a Christian Marriage? How shall I treat my spouse or children? How does my sexuality apply to my Christian Marriage? How much should God be involved in my relationship with my spouse? God has given man two rules of thumb with regards to Christian Marriage: Procreation—“be fruitful and multiply”—and Fidelity— “Thou shall not commit adultery.” Nothing could be simpler. Therefore, all these “confusing” questions—without the straightforward answers—easily count for the devil’s work dimming man’s thought.

And yet, the devil doesn’t offer his own explicit agenda, per se—he only offers man the “freedom” to choose man’s own agenda. He claims, “You have a choice! Choose the pleasurable one! It appeals the most to you!” Adam and Eve did not choose to eat an unappealing apple—it was “pleasing to the eyes!”[52] As a result, Adam and Eve’s choice for “freedom” changed their lives—they lost preternatural gifts, severed their relationship with God, and severed their relationship with each other. Their “original sin” scarred proceeding generations and marriages in their desire for appeal and pleasure. The devil cannot kill the soul—only man can kill his own soul. But, as Kreeft describes, “[The devil] can blind [man’s] conscience by churning up heavy seas of desire and raising heavy rains of rationalization.”[53]

My sixth grade teacher, Sr. Catherine, always used to remind me that, “Idle hands are the devil’s playground.” When man is not loving, caring, or focused on the Lord, man’s temptation to engage in sin, the devil’s work, reaches its maximum—and usually results in man’s fall. When wives become idle in service to their husbands, or when husband become idle in love to their wives— the devil’s works begin to fester.

All sin is the devil’s work, though he uses the flesh and the world as his instruments. And man chooses sin. That is the only reason why the devil can do his awful work in marriage. And that’s the deepest reason why Christian Marriage is weak and why the family is dying. Because men and women are not saints.

This is the weapon! This is the only successful strategy! This is the only way spouses can win the battle for their triumphant Christian Marriage—one word: sainthood. Can you imagine it— Men and women wholly devoting themselves to each other in bringing each other closer to Christ? No, of course, we cannot imagine it. It seems almost inconceivable!

Inconceivable? Yes.* Unachievable? No. Just as how the devil can only purloin our souls with our permission, so too God has given man the free choice to live saintly and live with holiness. Absolutely no one and nothing can stop man from being a saint. “If you will look into your own heart in utter honesty, you must admit that there is one and only one reason why you are not even now a saint—you do not wholly want to be [a saint].”[54] This has to be the most terrifying and encouraging sentence ever written—because it faces the reality that man is not yet sanctified, but it reveals the true power to receive sanctification. God has given man the choice.

The problem arises: why are there so few married saints in comparison with those ordained or religious?

Selden Delany writes in his book Married Saints:

The reason why so few married saints have been canonized is probably to be found in the fact that the marriage state from its very nature does not provide such a favorable ground as the unmarried state for heroic sanctity on the grand scale—that is for such a complete holocaust of one’s life as to make it possible for heroism involved to attract the notice of onlookers.[55]

While married, the spouses are dedicated to sacrificing themselves for each other and their fecundity, children, with their whole heart since their flesh is literally joined together. Admittedly, it seems difficult to give the whole self to the spouse and God—the difficulty lies in a contrast of vocation?

And yet, in truth, even achieving sainthood (living the will of God) in and of itself is a difficult task. Even Jesus says, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven...everyone who has given up houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will… inherit eternal life.”[56] How does one live giving up all his worldly possessions and relationships for Jesus Christ—in a state of sainthood— and yet provide for his/her family? Two words: Ecclesial Communion.[57]

What is ecclesial communion? Ecclesial communion, within the familial context, describes the saintly strategy for successful Christian Marriage— being wed to Christ through His Body, the Church—specifically within the domestic church. The family of the domestic church is a community of faith, hope, and charity; it assumes singular importance in the Church, as is evident in the New Testament.[58] The family is a privileged community called to achieve a “sharing of thought and common deliberation between the spouses as well as their eager cooperation as parents in the children’s upbringing.”[59] Ecclesial communion brings the Church into the home, making Christ’s Body present to each other and to the children.

Only when spouses wed themselves to Christ through the domestic church does sainthood become reality for the married couple. By “marrying” Christ, the couple will overflow with conjugal love for each other and for their children. The fecundity of this conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation— there must be a full immersion in the life of Christ.

This is how, in fact, a couple can “give up their possessions.” They offer up all they have as a sacrifice in the name of Jesus Christ! They are living David’s Psalm: Sacrifice and burnt offerings you do not want; but ears open to obedience you gave me. Holocausts and sin-offerings you do not require; so I said, “Here I am.”[60]

And yet, by showing themselves obedient to the will of the Father in heaven, they educate their children to fulfill God’s law. Parents have a vital responsibility to give good example to their children. Through prayer, participation in the Sacraments, reading Scripture, and self-sacrifice from one spouse to another, children will learn from holy examples concerning how to understand or come to know the will of God.

Not only through example, but also instruction through catechesis effectively makes Christ present within the fruit of parental love. The Catechism describes parents as the “first heralds”[61] to their children—initiating their children at an early age on the mysteries of the faith, praying with them, participating in the Sacraments with them, and reading Scripture with them.

My parents bought me a picture Bible when I was seven years old. I had read it so much that the pages were falling out and it was missing the story of Samson. Yet, my parents valued exposing me, even at a young age, to Scripture, the Sacraments, the Church (we attended Mass every Sunday), and to Jesus. Their faithfulness to each other translated into faithfulness to the Lord by sharing with me the love of Jesus Christ. I can attest to the successfulness of early, yet age appropriate, catechesis within the familial context.

Although practice and evangelization play important roles for bringing Christ into the family, the essential component of a Christian Marriage lived out includes respect. Without respect, such familial atrocities including fornication, anger, and lust spiritually inebriate spouses—inducing a severed relationship, lack of trust, and faltering Christian Marriage. The Catholic Church states that, “Parents must regard their children as children of God and respect them as human persons.”[62]This respect is best expressed by the care and attention addressing children’s physical and spiritual needs. It even flows forth that education and catechesis result from the essential respect a mother and father ought to have towards their children.[63]

While growing up at a young age, my parents instilled the value of respect in me. They never engaged in hateful physical or verbal altercations with each other or with me and my siblings. I recall, though, that they punished me for “breaking the rules”—namely staying up too late, watching Power Rangers, or pulling the dog’s tail. Their responsibility to instill a sense of respect for me formed the person I am today.

I learned to respect others, respect things, and respect myself. Their loving, yet firm, initiative to bring me to know the value of God’s creation fertilized my spiritual “seed.” When I broke the rules, I needed to: apologize, recognize whom I hurt, reassure my parents that the rules would not be broken again, and engage in reparations for my actions. By gaining a greater sense of respect at a young age, the concept of “respect authority” came with less difficulty and with more understanding.

I failed to recognize it at the time, but I grew up in a domestic church setting. My parents encouraged me, even since I was in elementary school to prayerfully consider a vocation. When I was in fourth grade, my dad told me, “Brad, you should be a priest.” “Why, dad?” He jokingly replied, “Because it has good job security.” Eight years later, I received a letter from the Holy Cross Order informing me of my admission into their seminary at Old College on the campus of the University of Notre Dame. After thirty-five pages of application, five grueling interviews, surviving psychological batteries—including the dreaded MMPI—and prayerfully discerning my vocation, I chose to not attend. And that is OK. I share this story to illustrate that under the holy influence and prayerful encouragement of my parents, I could appropriately discern my own vocation.

That is what saintly parents do—encourage their children to come to know God more intimately. Even in the Catechism it states, “[Parents] should encourage [their children] in the vocation which is proper to each child, fostering with special care any religious vocation.”[64] This is exact what my parents did while I discerned the Holy Cross Order. They took time off work, sacrificing vacation days and time away from the rest of my siblings to encourage my discernment of a religious vocation. They truly lived as holy spouses—concerned with the spiritual growth of the family and encouraged me and my siblings to (whether we realize it or not) marry Christ through His Body, the Church, and in His Body, by the Eucharist.

The greatest example of the domestic church, not surprisingly, must include the Holy Family. St. Mary, the mother of God, and St. Joseph extraordinarily expressed living examples of love, catechized Jesus by bringing Him to the temple, and respected each other while instilling respect in Jesus. By placing his trust in Mary during the time just after the Annunciation, Joseph exhibited authentic love for Mary—“fierce as a torrent, calm, smooth and unruffled as a lake, fresh as springing water.”[65]

The presentation of Jesus in the temple depicts Mary and Joseph as devout Jews, faithful observers of the law of the Lord.[66] Therefore, their example of piety towards the God perfectly illustrated to young Jesus how to come to know God’s will. Another Jewish tradition required a lamb to sacrifice to make up for sins or, if the lamb proved unaffordable, two birds. Scripture says that Mary and Joseph purchased a pair of birds[67], so we know that the Holy Family, who belonged to the working-class poor, was not well-to-do.[68]

Finally, the Holy Family begot Christ literally through their marriage! The fecundity of their love allowed Incarnate God to really present Himself. Their love permeated all components of their relationship—epitomized with Mary’s fiat to God’s will. Jean Guitton describes the relationship between Mary and Joseph by stating:

Their love, like all other loves, but truer, had its center of gravity in what not yet was. Joseph and Mary may have had no thought of the Future, but the Future was about them; they breathed it already in the great and solemn happiness they both enjoyed.[69]

By saying “yes” to God’s will, the Holy Family said “yes” to Christ’s presence within their marriage and family—the whole goal of a Christian Marriage. This is sainthood—saying “yes” to Christ, saying “come into my… heart, spouse, and marriage!”

Kreeft reminds us that there are, therefore, two infallible prognoses: One, if you we do not use this weapon, we will not win this war. Two, if we do use this weapon, we will win this war.[70] Remember, this battle, this war, this conflict is for our souls—a battle we cannot afford to lose. The devils desires for us to live dissoluble, unfaithful, and futile marriages. How can we win, though? We can win, because we wield here the world’s most unconquerable weapon, the strongest force in the universe. To translate it from the abstract to the concrete, the weapon is Christ’s Blood.[71]

The weapon has succeeded; it has won; it is victorious on the cross. Our only choice, simply, is to accept Christ. Just as at Mass, it is our choice to receive this weapon— this weapon making present the real loving God of the universe. That is why it will work—because love never gives up.

The world, the flesh, and the devil will continue to deviously seduce, but all that is with them will dissipate. Even if the “DJ Got Us Fallin’ In Love Again”, clearly the song will end, the passion will pass, and all that will remain is one thing: love—whether we have loved our spouse or not. “Love one another as I have loved you” is the “catchphrase” of living a Christian Marriage. Even as Fr. Larry Richards guarantees, “[Love] will change your family. [Love] will change the world.”[72]

[1] "The Real World / MTV Real World." Classic TV & Movie Hits. <http://www.classictvhits.com/show.php?id=1075>.

[2] Ibid

[3] "G K Chesterton: All Things Considered: The Boy." <http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/gkc16017.htm>.

[4] John, Paul. On the Family: Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio

[5] Cf. Stravinskas, Peter M. J. Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia. 625-28.

[6] Mt 19:5 The New American Bible

[7] Gn 1:28 Ibid

[8] Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. 15-18

[9] Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologicae: A Concise Translation.

[10] Pooley, Eric. "TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE? - TIME." Editorial. Time Magazine

[11]Cf. United States of America. US Dept. of Commerce. Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1997.

[12] Ibid

[13] Cf. John, Paul. On the Family: Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio

[14] Pope Paul VI. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes

[15] Evert, Jason. Web log post. Chastity.com

[16] Pope Pius XI. Casti Connubi

[17] Williams, Robin. "Robin Williams Live On Broadway Script”

[18] Gen 38:9 New American Bible

[19] Pope Pius XI. Casti Connubi

[20] Mk 10:9 The New American Bible

[21] Pope Paul VI. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes

[22] Kreeft, Peter. Making Sense out of Suffering.

[23] CCC 2399

[24] CCC 2332

[25] Cf. Bonime, Walter. "Masturbatory Fantasies and Personality Functioning." Collaborative Psychoanalysis: Anxiety, Depression, Dreams, and Personality Change.

[26] Adams, Russell. "Playboy Loss Narrows but Revenue Slips .” The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com.

[27] Lewis, C. S., and Walter Hooper. Narnia, Cambridge and Joy: 1950 - 1963.

[28] "Violent Crime." Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). <http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31>.

[29] Schow, Douglas M. Facts about Erectile Dysfunction, Impotency, Vasectomy Reversal, and Treatment Options."

[30] Mika. "Love Today."

* Sarcasm

[31] Jn 15:13 The New American Bible

[32] Pascal, Blaise. "81." Pensées. The Provincial Letters.

[33] Cf. Smyth, Kevin, trans. "Marriage and the Family." A New Catechism: Catholic Faith for Adults.

[34] Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan

[35] Cf. Gen 1:31 The New American Bible

[36] Mk 5:9 The New American Bible

[37] Schreck, Alan. "Life in Christ and The Holy Spirit." The Essential Catholic Catechism

[38] Kreeft, Peter J. "How to Win the Culture War"

[39] Cantalamessa, Raniero. The Holy Spirit in the Life of Jesus: the Mystery of Christ's Baptism.

[40] Cf. Gen 3: 1,4 The New American Bible

[41] Jn 8:44 The New American Bible

[42] Kreeft, Peter The Snakebite Letters

[43] Gal 5:19-20 The New American Bible

[44] CCC 1765

[45] Jn 13:34 The New American Bible

[46] 1 Jn 2:15-17 The New American Bible

[47] St .Augustine. Selected Writings of St. Augustine

[48] Richards, Fr. Larry. "Be A Man Who Is Strong." Be a Man!

[49] Cf. Peterson, Karen S. "Affair Statistics." Americans for Divorce Reform, Inc.

[50] Lynch, Stephen M. "Beelz” <http://www.metrolyrics.com/beelz-lyrics-stephen-lynch.html>.

[51] Cf. Kreeft, Peter The Snakebite Letters

[52] Cf. Gen 3:6 The New American Bible

[53] Kreeft, Peter The Snakebite Letters

* Inconceivable, defined by Vecini in The Princess Bride

[54] Law, William. A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life

[55] Delany, Selden Peabody. Married Saints

[56] Mt 19: 24, 29 The New American Bible

[57] Cf. CCC 2204

[58] Cf. Eph 5:21- 6:4 The New American Bible

[59] Pope Paul VI. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes

[60] Ps 40: 7-8a The New American Bible

[61] CCC 2225

[62] CCC 2222

[63] Cf. CCC 2228

[64] CCC 1656

[65] Guitton, Jean. The Virgin Mary

[66] Cf. Lk 2: 22-38 The New American Bible

[67] Ibid

[68] Cf. Glavich, Mary Kathleen. The Catholic Companion to Mary

[69] Guitton, Jean. The Virgin Mary

[70] Cf. Kreeft, Peter J. "How to Win the Culture War”

[71] Ibid

[72] Richards, Larry. Be a Man!

St. Ignatius of Loyola-- A Biography

2010-11-05T19:13:00.000-04:00

“There are very few people who realize what God would make of them if they abandoned themselves into his hands, and let themselves be formed by his grace”

– St. Ignatius of Loyola

The above quote cannot more accurately and adequately describe the life of St. Ignatius of Loyola. A man fervently devoted to the Lord through potent prayer, humble service, and ceaseless vigor for God’s greater glory, Ignatius directly and explicitly inspired others to come to know the Lord—even today his Company of Jesus, the Jesuit Order, remains arguably the most influential Catholic religious order in the world.

Ińigo de Loyola was born on December 24, 1491, in Azpeitia, a Basque province in northern Spain. Ińigo, the youngest of twelve children, illustriously lived a youthful and passionate life as an early adolescent, concerning himself with swordplay, gambling, and womanizing, while engaging in vain activities such as hair-grooming, nail clipping, and lavish bathing.

As a faithful Spaniard, Ińigo’s father sent him to learn discipline, obedience, and prudence under the watch of Juan Velasquez—a governor of King Ferdinand of Spain. Eager to express his zeal and masculinity to gain glory, Ińigo enlisted in the Spanish military and found battle quickly against the French while earning for himself accolades and respect amongst his peers. Ińigo’s dreams for eternal glory changed with a sudden chain of events.

While engaging in battle against an overwhelming French army at Pamplona in 1521, a cannonball struck Ińigo in the legs. One leg was completely broken, and the other was also damaged. Although the French handily defeated the Spanish, the commanding French officers ordered for the courteous treatment of the gallant injured Spanish soldiers—this included Ińigo. Eventually, by the kindness of French Colonel Andre de Foix, Ińigo returned back to Azpeitia, where his leg refused to heal correctly.

Disgruntled and disheartened that his eternal glory to serve as a personal soldier for the king of Spain was indefinitely halted, Ińigo insisted that his leg be re-broken to hasten the healing process and maintain his prideful egotistical self-centricity. Simultaneously, to pass the time, Ińigo requested literature from his sister-in-law. She gave him the only two books in the house—The Lives of the Saints and The Life of Our Savior. Displeased, he asked her if she had Amadus of Gaul, a popular romantic book about knights and their valorous deeds, and she again replied that those were the only two books in the house. She left the books next to his bedside. It was not for days until Ińigo caved and began to read.

At first, Ińigo read almost against his will. But, once finished, he read the books again—and again! Each time Ińigo read them with more interest, excitement, and peaked sensitivity. He read intently about St. Francis Assisi, St. Dominic, St. Paul, St. Stephen, and others while finding one pervading and encompassing theme—these saints lived lives as soldiers for Christ and engaged in exciting and daring adventures. The more he read, the more Ińigo saw himself as a saint, serving Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth. It was at this point that Ińigo began to refer to himself as Ignatius after the early church father St. Ignatius of Antioch—a martyr for the Christian faith and inspiration to Ińigo.

After anesthesia-less surgery to repair his broken and sluggishly-healing leg, Ignatius sought Confession from Fr. Jean Chanon, a well-reputed Benedictine monk who lived near a Shrine at Montserrat. Ignatius’s confession lasted three straight days. After confession, Ignatius committed and dedicated his life for the greater glory of God. “I have lain awake at night and thought only of how best I could serve God. I am happy in no other thought. I wish to do nothing else,” Ignatius confided to Fr. Chanon.

As Ignatius grew in his devoutness and piety, he developed and wrote the Spiritual Exercises— a way of understanding and living the human relationship with God in the world through personal Christo-centric meditations—in a cave near Manresa. The Spiritual Exercises form the cornerstone of contemporary Ignatian Spirituality and serve as distinct prayer focused on the life of Christ. The “Principle and Foundation” of the Exercises states, “Human beings are created to praise, reverence, and serve God… to save their souls.” This Ignatian Spirituality can be summed up by this phrase—“Finding God in all things.” Ignatius realized the particular importance of a sacra-mentality which invites a person to search for and find God in every circumstance of life.

This unique perspective of sacra-mentality drew praise and followers as well as caustic criticism. In particular, Ignatius faced charges of heresy and was imprisoned by the Spanish Inquisition. Fearing that Ignatius spread contradictions of the Catholic faith and did not recognize the pope as Christ’s vicar, the Inquisitor Don Alonso thoroughly questioned and viciously interrogated Ignatius on the grounds of faith and papal authority. Finally, Alonso confirmed, “I find nothing wrong with this man.”

While Ignatius gained a reputation for his piety and sincere devotion to the Lord and the Catholic Church, he began to gain followers. Some of the first followers of St. Ignatius included Bl. Peter Favre and St. Francis Xavier—men persuaded by the example of Ignatius’s zealous love for Christ. For example, Ignatius pestered Francis Xavier daily with the question, “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?” Slowly and surely Francis experienced metanoia, and agreed to join Ignatius’s Company. Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, and Peter Favre founded the Company of Jesus, men who pronounced poverty, chastity, and obedience to the Holy Father in Rome.

It was not until 1540 that Pope Paul III established and approved the “Society of Jesus.” At this, Ignatius called together all the Company, and voted for a Father General—the head of the Company. Ignatius received all votes except his own, and out of humility rejected the decision to lead the Company. So, a re-vote was issued, and yet again Ignatius received all votes except his own. Overwhelmed with humility and unworthiness to lead men, Ignatius sought the advice of his confessor. Finally, after three days once again in confession, Ignatius agreed and became the first Father General of the Society of Jesus.

St. Ignatius of Loyola died on July 31^st, 1556, after having served fifteen years as Father General of the Society of Jesus. By the time of his death, the Jesuits had founded fifteen colleges in Spain, seventeen in Portugal, three in Germany, and two in France. Today there are over 13.5 thousand Jesuit priests in the world and over 50 Jesuit high schools or colleges in the United States alone.

Having attended a Jesuit high school, St. Ignatius High School in Cleveland, I have encountered the direct effects of St. Ignatius’s intentions for coming to know God in the world around me. I experienced, during my junior year in high school, the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius during a retreat. These intense and rigorous Exercises allowed me to delve into myself and find God’s presence all around me. A specific prayer I have come to personalize is named the Inner Room—a prayer where, in fact, a person imagines their own “room” and meets Jesus face-to-face there.

The paramount objective I took away from my Jesuit high school experience was living to be a Man for Others (a term coined in the 1970’s by Father General Fr. Pedro Arrupe, S.J.). I learned not to live for myself, but for God and others. Only by being a man for others would I become fully human. Only in this way can I live in the Spirit of Jesus Christ, who gave of himself for the salvation of the world, who was, above all, the Man for Others par excellence.

During his life, St. Ignatius of Loyola exemplified two main virtues. The first of these, obedience, is easily found in his persistent promulgation of faithfulness to the Catholic Church and the pope. His perpetual lesson was: "Sacrifice your own will and judgment to obedience. Whatever you do without the consent of your spiritual guide will be imputed to willfulness, not to virtue, though you were to exhaust your bodies by labors and austerities."

The second virtue, humility, pervades all of Ignatius’s prayers—for example in the Suscipe… “Take, Lord, and receive all my liberty, my memory, my understanding, and my entire will…” or in his Prayer for Generosity… “Lord, teach me to be generous. Teach me to serve you as you deserve. To give and not to count the cost…” Humility, the deprivation of pride, elevated St. Ignatius to such a beautiful model of faith. He is a saint of perseverance, a saint of hope, a saint of fiery passion for the Lord.

Take, O Lord, and receive my entire liberty, my memory, my understanding and my whole will. All that I am and all that I possess, You have given me: I surrender it all to You to be disposed of according to Your will. Give me only Your love and Your grace; with these I will be rich enough, and will desire nothing more.

– St. Ignatius of Loyola

Girls Tell Me I'm Funny: Jesus Tells Me to Love.

2010-10-30T00:11:00.003-04:00

I love to laugh. It's a passion of mine. I need to find something funny in nearly every circumstance, or else the situation gets dull, boring, or even slightly morose-- and we all know how great of an experience it is to droll our minds to death. I crack jokes-- even if they lack a storming punchline. I tell puns, so well that sometimes I get like butter-- on a roll! But most of the time I use ironic, situational humor-- "...As opposed to..." punchlines. When I applied to the seminary last winter, one of the questions asked me to "finish the sentence." Evidently, the psychological aspect of seminary application tried to delve into my personal beliefs, values, and ideologies. For instance, they asked me to finish "my dad ________" or "my mom ______" or "I secretly fear ________." The most memorable of all asked me to finish "girls _______." I humbly replied, "Girls tell me I'm funny." Believe me, I got a chuckle or two out of the psychologist when he read my answer.

There is power in humor. A well told joke can instantly change moods from low to high, moving a person from a state of depression to elation within seconds. It is nearly impossible for me to remain angry or disappointed when I hear a stomach-jiggling joke. And yet, sometimes I find myself laughing at some, well, jokes questionable in their moral standard. I do not think, however, it is improper for someone to dislike a joke. I do believe, however, that the moral standards that ought to be applied to evaluating jokes, puns, and humour insofar as not how much someone likes or dislikes a joke, but its effect upon their personal dignity.

G.K. Chesterton predicted, nearly a century ago, that, "If the modern world will not insist on having some sharp and definite moral law, capable of resisting the counter-attractions of art and humour, the modern world will simply be given over as a spoil to anybody who can manage to do a nasty thing in a nice way." It seldomly seems that contemporary comedians have a "clean" show. It seems as though comedians have found ways to use the f-word as every part of speech. I could not go one day in my high school without hearing a classmate utter a vulgar word. Maybe the world has been handed over as spoils? I hope not.

It used to be that vulgarity expressed extreme anger or outrageous displeasure. It used to be that it was social taboo to speak "cuss" or swear words. Men and women who blasphemed merited death in certain cultures. That, of course, is not the case these days. These days, popular songs such as "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" "You're Beautiful" "Empire State of Mind" "Not Afraid" "Love the Way You Lie" include vulgar, and easily remmovable improper language-- and yet remain popular and contemporary "classics", songs easily known by the mass public. Is this integrated vulgarity into pop society necessary? NO. Plainly, no. There is no excuse for vulgar or "dirty" language-- lest we reduce human beings to nothing more than animals farting out sounds from their mouths. Pop culture has integrated these thoughts of "acceptable language" to be equivalent in respect to a vulgar thought disguised by a popular icon.

There is an old saying, "Sow a thought, reap an action; sow an action; reap a habit; sow a habit, reap a character; sow a character reap a destiny." As popular culture sows the thought of introducing acceptable-vulgarity, it implicitly endorses anger. By endorsing anger, pop culture ought not be surprised at the multitude of violent crimes. Pop culture excuses the violent crimes through relative-subjectivism, or blames design or the environment. Rarely do individuals take remorseful and personal culpability directly related to their actions and intentions. That is the devil's lie-- we ought not be sorry for any wrong we commit-- we ought not feel bad, responsible, culpable, remorseful, or repentant. Content: that is his lie. Then what is the truth?

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me," articulates Jesus Christ. Jesus is the truth. How do we come to know truth? Through and by Him. Through prayer, adoration, the sacraments, and recognizing Christ's presence in each other-- "When two or more are gathered in My name, I am there." This is not a laughing matter. It is UNTIL you accept Christ in your life that you consciously or unconsciously desire Him. We all have a Jesus-sized hole in our human design.

As we laugh, let us remember-- if Jesus would be for "this joke", then I can be for it; if Jesus would be against "this joke", then I should be against it. Essentially the cheesy grade-school "WWJD." But it works. Plainly and simply. It requires a change of heart, change of lifestyle, change of language -- all metanoia. The tingle of a funny bone can never triumph the value of the heart, lest the value of our hearts decrease to zero. Remember, Jesus tells us to, "Love the Lord God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love our neighbor as ourself." That's our punchline--a punchline of love.

Be A Dad: A Thoughtful Critique of Fr. Larry Richard's Article Relating Fatherhood to Family

2010-10-29T02:07:00.000-04:00

“You are going to die! … Isn’t that a nice thought?”[1] begins Fr. Larry Richards. Death motivates even the most stubborn and stagnant-hearted individuals. But in this case, Richards manipulates the deepest fear of the human race, death, as a catalyst for living out Christian fatherhood. The ultimatum of death’s reality, Richards implicitly articulates, should direct our attitude of life. With that in mind, a Christian father ought to especially live out Jesus’ command of love—Love one another as I have loved you. Love is the key that opens the lock to a faithful, wholesome, and life-giving marriage.

Many men, however, fear the vulnerability which true love precipitates. Vulnerability comes from the Latin vulnero literally meaning “to wound.” Loving leaves room for hurt, pain, and intimate suffering—all of which are the inevitable “wounds.” But as Richards says, “You will never in your life regret that you told your wife…that you love [her] – never.”[2] In the end, reflecting on life, there will never be a thought of “I should not have loved.” We find that, interestingly enough, God tells us 365 times in Sacred Scripture, “Do not Be Afraid.” So then, how do we, as men, conquer this seemingly inherent fear to be intimate and vulnerable with others? Through love for God. We must be vulnerable with the Lord before we can be vulnerable with our wife.

Loving and knowing God is not the same as knowing about Him. Memorizing Aquinas’ Cosmological Proofs or getting an “A” in this Christian Marriage class will not automatically reserve a spot for anyone in God’s Kingdom in heaven. We come to know God through spending time with God, just as how we come to know anyone in an intimate way. We must, as Fr. Larry Richards puts it, “Keep spending time with God until… you know God…”[3] God calls us, however, to a special relationship with Him—one that demands an intimacy unequivocally unrelated to any other human relationship. He is to be our Abba—our daddy—and we are to be His children. He is from Whom our model of Christian fatherhood should originate.

Just as how Our Father loves wholly and unconditionally, so too ought we to love our wife and children. As it says in Ephesians, “Wives, be submissive to your husbands… Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church” – this demand upon the husband requires a Christo-centric heart committed to agape—the Greek understanding of unconditional love. Fr. Larry Richards says, “Every day [you] need to be more concerned about [the other]. That is what marriage is about!”[4] The term sacrifice comes from the Latin sacra meaning “holy or sacred.” So literally by sacrificing oneself for the other, a husband imparts holiness upon his wife and himself and vice versa. This is the beauty of a Christian Marriage—seeing Jesus Christ in your spouse.[5] The husband, however, has a specific and distinct role in the family dynamic.

The husband, comments Fr. Larry Richards, is to be the “spiritual leader” of the family.[6] As the spiritual leader, he is explicitly called to lay down his life for his family. And yet, Richards calls men of this age “spiritual wimps” [7] for not daily carrying their cross in the light of Jesus Christ—the Man for Others par excellence. They are to lead through prayer, by coming to know the Lord in an intimate relationship and guiding their family closer towards Christ. They are to lead by sacrifice, making holy their families by giving of themselves unconditionally. They are to lead by humility, by realizing the vast importance concerning their duty to love and serve their family. They are to lead by example, living a life worthy of being admired—even Richards admits, “Men, your kids…will want to become just like you.” [8]

Simplicity assumes men fully understand holiness. Holiness, however, is not sprinkling incense, lighting candles, charismatically speaking in tongues, nor having grace-filled visions. Holiness comes from the Hebrew word qadosh meaning “to be set apart or distinct.” As men, we must pray distinctly, lead distinctly, and love distinctly—best accomplished through faithfulness to wife, children, and God. Lacking in holiness comes at a grave cost. Richards mentions, “If we [men] are not holy ourselves, then our families will not be holy”[9]—how true! To live in a family devoted to living an unadulterated, wholesome Christian Marriage will set apart the family from the rest of the world. We must, especially in this day in age, be Christ to the world. That is true holiness.

“You are going to die…isn’t that a nice thought?”[10] Yet, that implicitly states we, as men, have life left to live. We hold in the palm of our hand the greatest gift the Lord could give us—the ability to love Him—and we best love Him by loving others with the gifts He has given. He has blessed us with the opportunity to lead a family by gracing us with evident holiness, unreserved sacrifice, humble leadership, and tender prayer. There is a holy, distinct confidence that the Lord of the universe has given us a powerful mission—Love one another as I have loved you—and that is the “catchphrase” of Christian Marriage. As Fr. Larry Richards guarantees, “[Love] will change your family. [Love] will change the world.”[11]

[1] Page 1

[2] Page 1

[3] Page 2

[4] Page 2

[5] Page 2

[6] Page 3

[7] Page 3

[8] Page 3

[9] Page 3

[10] Page 1

[11] Page 1