I will leave the political analyses of President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address to the more qualified. Yet something struck me when I listened to it:
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted – for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
- Is this the pronouncement of the final victory for meritocracy?? What if we turn the President’s statement around: If prosperity and freedom come from those who are risk-takers, doers, and maker of things, where does poverty and economic or social slavery come from?? Are the poor and out-casts of our society there because they have not worked hard or are lazy??
- Do our actions really establish who we are?? Is this the crowning glory of the scientific revolution?? Fact over being, action over ontology??
The above would explain the President’s attitude to the unborn – what have they done for society??
These are not my own but rather distilled from recent conversations and thoughts:
- Truth over vocation.
- The Catholic Church is bigger than any one experience of her.
I have spent the last three Saturday mornings taking our oldest daughter to her swimming lessons. I like watching the care and devotion of the teachers. I am always struck by the care the teachers take in explain the correct technique. The poor children do lap after lap correcting the position of their elbow, or the position of their hand upon entry into the water, etc. Experience has taught people that to go really fast in the pool requires much more than a collection of training drills or past philosophies of swimming. It requires the correct technique now.
Theology, to face the problems of today and tomorrow, must be much more than a systematizing and collection of datum. The task of theology is surely much broader than proof texting the official pronouncements of any particular denomination. Theology aims for the perfect technique – the perfect mindset. That technique will help us face the future with the help of the past but will fight the temptation of staying in the glory days of yesteryear. That technique will make us see the world from outside of ourselves – from God’s perspective – but will not ignore the blight and pain of the people around us. It will be grounded in God himself and not any idea or philosophy about him. It will not be afraid to ask the hard questions and explore them to their extreme but it will know when things have gone too far.
Theology, to be truly productive, must be more than a collection of information. Maybe technique does make perfect.
Yesterday, we had a relatively good sermon about Catholics and the government. The main theme was a Catholics responsibility towards government is trumped by a Catholics responsibility towards God.
Yet two (philosophical) points formed in my mind as I was listening:
- Can we still speak about the government as an external reality in a democracy??
- In a representational democracy (or an indirect democracy) am I not the government in the act of voting?? (Allow me to remind everyone that Australia is a constitutional monarchy.) Jesus’ point still stands but it needs to be adapted to a modern situation. Conversion includes a desire for a just society!
My point is that our vote counts! No more voting along party line but along issue lines!
- Is the government really interested in truth?? Or just in freedom??
- I think this is a central philosophical point. The recent debate in Victoria had little to do with truth but had a lot to do with freedom. Maybe naively we assume that people are interested in truth? I think the modern mind assumes that truth is the outcome of an act that has been undertaken freely.
That does not mean we adopt a modern world-view and assume truth is unimportant. But it means we need to evangelize people into the idea of truth being important in their life! We need to proclaim again that there are objective guiding principles to life.
I have been slow reading (more about that later) the opening couple of chapters (Habit and Task of Theology) of Aidan Nichols’ majestic work The Shape of Catholic Theology.
In the opening chapter Nichols examines the relationship between the fides quae (objective) and fides qua (subjective). He points out that the theologian is one who strikes a balance between the two: the theologian neither over-emphasizes nor under-values either. (Of course, the same could be said about any person who is in a relationship with God!) The theologian is one who is able to enter into God’s mystery in an intimate way and so communicate that inwardness of divine revelation to others(17).
It made me think: can we really ever have a fides quae without some form of magisterium?? The doctrine of justification by faith alone assumes the right object of my personal faith. My faith that a particular sporting team will eventually have a successful season has no immediate impact on my relationship with God however hard felt that faith might be. It is the object, in the above example, that is invalid. Yet who decides that the object is correct? Does not the very nature of an object require an external verification?
You all know I have a thing about adjectives that are used in general theological discussion. Today I stumbled upon the following from the United Episcopal Church of North America:
Biblically Sound, Sacramentally Orthodox, Apostolically Valid
I’ll admit that my brain has been on holidays but I have no clue what the above means. But I am completely bamboozled by the last one: Apostolically Valid. Is there another form of validity?? Someone care to explain??
Having spent last night at a Parent Information Session on the Laptop Program(me) that had a constant refrain – Computers make us want to learn more and make your kids smarter – I wonder if computers actually have made us smarter?!?!
Scene 1: Lutheran Baptism
We went to a Lutheran baptism this Sunday. (We went to the Vigil Mass on Saturday, in case you were wondering.) The service was very nice, especially the music. The sermon was (surprisingly) good. Alas, a little disembodied: is it really the Gospel of Jesus that challenges us or Jesus himself??
The liturgy was classical Western in shape and was done within the established rite of the Lutheran Church of Australia. The Baptismal Rite replaced the Penitential Rite at the start of the service – that is, it followed the Sign of the Cross – and included the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. These two were then omitted in the service – that is, there was no Creed after the Sermon, nor was the Lord’s Prayer said during the Eucharistic Liturgy.
Scene 2: Perpetual Rosary
Our parish had a Perpetual Rosary on the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary. For three hours before Mass, parishioners gathered before the Blessed Sacrament to pray for the defeat of the Abortion Law Reform Bill.
I admit that I have not spent that amount of time on my knees for many years. Our kids joined us for the last hour. The oldest three kneeled for the whole hour to say the Rosary. (No 2 is especially effected by it all!) I have not been that effected by a devotion for a while. (The last time was when I was exposed to the Divine Mercy Chaplet.) After it was all over I wanted it to start again.
The two could not be further apart. I admit that the first created a emotional response more to do with our particular past rather than any theological problems. But it did make me wonder: is repetition fundamentally wrong?? Our kids seems to enjoy and flourish in a daily routine that is largely based on repetition – they have the same breakfast, we say our prayers together in the evening, etc. No 4 is especially attached to routine and repetition.
One may quote Matthew 6:7 (KJV) in this connection: But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. To my simple reading (I am no Scripture scholar and I have not looked at the Greek) the end defines the act as wrong not vice versa. (And, just stating the obvious, I do not think any Catholic every things that the number of Rosaries makes the prayer worthy but rather the attitude.)
So I ask again: is repetition fundamentally wrong in a religious context??
Faith is a personal act – the free response of the human person to the initiative of God who reveals himself. But faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone.
You have not given yourself faith as you have not given yourself life. the believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others. Our love for Jesus and for our neighbour impels us to speak to others about our faith. Each believer is thus a link in the great chain of believers. I cannot believe without being carried by the faith of others, and by my faith I help support others in the faith.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 166.
From Ratzinger’s Faith: The Theology of Pope Benedict XVI by Tracey Rowland.
In addition to those who attack the whole notion of Tradition there are those who to some degree accept it but who do not allow it to develop organically. They want to cut off its validity at some particular point. Here he [Ratzinger] speaks of the problem of liberal and conservative archeologisms. For liberals it is often a case of no longer being satisfied with limiting Tradition to what can be dredged out of the Scriptures. They regard with suspicion everything that comes after St Paul. For traditionalists the cut-off is often the papacy of Pius X (1905-1914), or even the Council of Trent (1545-1563). (55)