Accepting Help From All Sources

For John, BLUF:  the "Trump is a science denier" theme has led some to misunderstand the role of faith and prayer in people battling the Coronavirus.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

GOVERNOR CUOMO AND GOD'S NONCOMPETITIVE TRANSCENDENCE

Here is the sub-headline:

In a word, God is not one more instance of the genus "being," one thing, however exalted, among others;  instead, he is the self-explaining source of existence as such, that great font of being in and through which all finite things subsist and act.

From The Pilot, by Bishop Robert Barron, 22 April 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

Last week, Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, made a rather interesting theological observation.  Commenting on the progress that his state has made in fighting the coronavirus and praising the concrete efforts of medical personnel and ordinary citizens, he said, "The number is down because we brought the number down. God did not do that.  Faith did not do that."  I won't waste a lot of time exploring the hubris of that remark, which should be obvious to anyone.  I might recommend, out of pastoral concern, that the governor read the first part of Genesis chapter eleven.

What I will do instead is explain the basic intellectual confusion that undergirds Cuomo's assertion, one that, I fear, is shared even by many believers. The condition for the possibility of the governor's declaration is the assumption that God is one competitive cause among many, one actor jostling for position and time upon the stage with a coterie of other actors.  On this reading, God does certain things -- usually of a rather spectacular nature -- and creaturely causes do other things, usually more mundane.  Thus, we can clearly parcel out responsibility and credit -- some to God and some to finite agents.  But this account is deeply unbiblical and alien to the Catholic theological tradition.

To understand the scriptural sense of the play between divine and human causality, it is helpful to consult the cycle of stories dealing with King David in first and second Samuel.  What strikes the attentive reader is that nothing obviously "supernatural" takes place in these accounts.  Practically everything that happens to David could be adequately accounted for on psychological, historical, military, or political grounds.  However, throughout the narrative, God's activity and involvement are assumed, for the author takes for granted the principle that the true God works not typically in an interruptive way but precisely through a congeries of secondary causes.  Mind you, it is not the case that some explanations of David's story are political or psychological and some properly theological; rather, everything is, at once, natural and supernatural -- precisely because God's causality is operating noncompetitively, on a qualitatively different level than creaturely causality.  If you want a one-liner summary of this distinctively biblical perspective, you could not do better than this, from the prophet Isaiah:  "O Lord, it is you who have accomplished all that we have done" (Isa. 26:12).

Since it is obvious that Governor Cuomo is a pretty smart person, I would like to think that he was talking as he was for political reasons.  However, to distort who God is, or to deny his existence is not a smart move, politically or theologically  I wish the Governor a speedy recovery from this solipsism.

While the Governor's move to reinforce one side of his constituency may be smart, he is alienating another part.  Worse, he has daily to appeal to one source of help that might be useful when science is not getting a grip on the problem.  Casually dismissing help is unhelpful.

Regards  —  Cliff

Caring for the Less Fortunate

For John, BLUF:  I want to turn the homeless into tax payers, but there is support needed along the path, and jobs.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

A THREAT TO OUR DECENCY

From The Boston Pilot, Father Ron Rolheiser, 15 November 2017.

Here is the key teaching paragraph:

St. Augustine teaches that we can never be morally neutral, either we are growing in virtue or falling into vice.  We never have the luxury of simply being in some neutral, holding state.  There's no moral neutrality.  Either we are growing in virtue or sliding into virtue's opposite.  That's true for all of life.  A thing is either growing or it's regressing.

That general comment then leads to a specific comment:

So too with our attitude towards justice and the poor:  Either we are actively reaching out to the poor and being more drawn into concern for them or we are unconsciously hardening our hearts against them and unknowingly sliding into attitudes that trivialize their issues and distance ourselves from them.  If we are not actively advocating for justice and the poor, it is inevitable that at a point we will, with completely sincere hearts, downplay the issues of poverty, racism, inequality, and injustice.

Which brings us to Ms Diane Waddell and the Living Waters location behind St Ann's downtown Lowell.  Ms Waddell moved her operation down town a few years back, when she needed a new place for her operation and St Ann's helped out.  Concerns were raised about the operation Tuesday last in the City Council Meeting by Councilor Bill Samaras and Councilor Jim Leary and Councilor Jim Milinazzo and Councilor John Leahy and Councilor Corey Belanger.

You can watch that City Council meeting via LTC.  It is the 14 November 2017 Meeting and the issue runs from about 1:03:30 to 1:13:00.

One of the things to keep in mind is that the Federales shut down the Bridgewell Drop In Center earlier this year.  Thus the additional people on the street during the daytime.

Regards  —  Cliff

Anyone can be Ethical—Perhaps Not All Are Saved

For John, BLUF:  Christianity isn't about being good, it is about being saved.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Boston Pilot had this spiritual essay by Father Robert Barron, and asked us to share it on social media, which I take to include Blogs.  The title is Why Having a Heart of Gold is Not What Christianity is About.  The date of the essay is Saturday, 31 January 2015.

This idea of the difference between being good, being ethical, and being saved is sometimes lost on both Christians.  And for some the idea of being saved is either selfish or irrelevant.  But the distinction is, for Christians, and perhaps other People of the Book, important.

Regards  —  Cliff

 

WHY HAVING A HEART OF GOLD IS NOT WHAT CHRISTIANITY IS ABOUT

Though I could quarrel with a number of elements within this construal of things, I would actually gladly concede the major point that it is altogether possible for atheists and agnostics to be morally good.

Many atheists and agnostics today insistently argue that it is altogether possible for non-believers in God to be morally upright.  They resent the implication that the denial of God will lead inevitably to complete ethical relativism or nihilism.  And they are quick to point out examples of non-religious people who are models of kindness, compassion, justice, etc.  In point of fact, a recent article has proposed that non-believers are actually, on average, more morally praiseworthy than religious people.  In this context, I recall Christopher Hitchens remark that, all things considered, he would be more frightened of a group of people coming from a religious meeting than a group coming from a rock concert or home from a night on the town.  God knows (pun intended) that during the last twenty years we've seen plenty of evidence from around the world of the godly behaving very badly indeed.

Though I could quarrel with a number of elements within this construal of things, I would actually gladly concede the major point that it is altogether possible for atheists and agnostics to be morally good.  The classical Greek and Roman formulators of the theory of the virtues were certainly not believers in the Biblical God, and many of their neo-pagan successors today do indeed exhibit fine moral qualities.  What I should like to do, however, is to use this controversy as a springboard to make a larger point, namely that Christianity is not primarily about ethics, about "being a nice person" or, to use Flannery O'Connor's wry formula, "having a heart of gold."  The moment Christians grant that Christianity's ultimate purpose is to make us ethically better people, they cannot convincingly defend against the insinuation that, if some other system makes human beings just as good or better, Christianity has lost its raison d'être.

Much of the confusion on this score can be traced to the influence of Immanuel Kant, especially his seminal text Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone.  Like so many of his Enlightenment era confreres, Kant was impatient with the claims of the revealed religions.  He saw them as unverifiable and finally irrational assertions that could be defended, not through reason, but only through violence.  Do you see how much of the "New Atheism" of the post-September 11th era is conditioned by a similar suspicion? Accordingly, he argued that, at its best, religion is not about dogma or doctrine or liturgy but about ethics.  In the measure that the Scriptures, prayer, and belief make one morally good, they are admissible, but in the measure that they lead to moral corruption, they should be dispensed with.  As religious people mature, Kant felt, they would naturally let those relatively extrinsic practices and convictions fall to the side and would embrace the ethical core of their belief systems.  Kant's army of disciples today include such figures as John Shelby Spong, John Dominic Crossan, James Carroll, Bart Ehrman, and the late Marcus Borg, all of whom think that Christianity ought to be de-supernaturalized and re-presented as essentially a program of inclusion and social justice.

The problem with this Kantianism both old and new is that it runs dramatically counter to the witness of the first Christians, who were concerned, above all, not with an ethical program but with the explosive emergence of a new world.  The letters of St. Paul, which are the earliest Christian texts we have, are particularly instructive on this score. One can find "ethics" in the writings of Paul, but one would be hard pressed indeed to say that the principal theme of Romans, Galatians, Philippians, or first and second Corinthians is the laying out of a moral vision. The central motif of all of those letters is in fact Jesus Christ risen from the dead.  For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus is the sign that the world as we know it--a world marked by death and the fear of death--is evanescing and that a new order of things is emerging.  This is why he tells the Corinthians "the time is running out" and "the world in its present form is passing away;" this is why he tells the Philippians that everything he once held to be of central importance he now considers as so much rubbish; this is why he tells the Romans that they are not justified by their own moral achievements but through the grace of Jesus Christ; and this is why he tells the Galatians that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the "new creation."  The new creation is shorthand for the overturning of the old world and the emergence of a new order through the resurrection of Jesus, the "first fruits of those who have fallen asleep."

The inaugural speech of Jesus, as reported in the Gospel of Mark, commences with the announcement of the kingdom of God and then the exhortation to "repent and believe the good news."  We tend automatically to interpret repentance as a summons to moral conversion, but the Greek word that Mark employs is metanoiete, which means literally, "go beyond the mind you have."  On Mark's telling, Jesus is urging his listeners to change their way of thinking so as to see the new world that is coming into existence.  It is indeed the case that Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, and agnostics can all be "good people." In terms of what we privilege today, they can all be tolerant, inclusive, and just.  But only Christians witness to an earthquake that has shaken the foundations of the world and turned every expectation upside down.  A key to the new evangelization is the rediscovery of this revolutionary message.

 

Crossing Over Into Campground

For John, BLUF:  Few words, but a lot of meaning.

---

Here is Mr Paul Robeson singing Deep River in the 1940 movie Proud Valley.

Here are the words:

Deep River,
My home is over Jordan.
Deep River, Lord.
I want to cross over into campground.

Deep River.
My home is over Jordan.
Deep River, Lord,
I want to cross over into campground.

Oh, don't you want to go,
To the Gospel feast;
That Promised Land,
Where all is peace?

Oh, deep River, Lord,
I want to cross over into campground.

A great hymn for Sunday morning.

Regards  —  Cliff

Your Neighbor as Yourself

For John, BLUF:  Love God, Love your neighbor as yourself.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Gospel for today, the 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time, is from Matthew 22:34-40

When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees,
they gathered together, and one of them,
a scholar of the law tested him by asking,
"Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?"
He said to him,
"You shall love the Lord, your God,
with all your heart,
with all your soul,
and with all your mind.
This is the greatest and the first commandment.
The second is like it:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

That is a little tricky.  If you don't love yourself you are not going to be very loving toward your neighbor.  So, our spiritual journey needs to include learning how to accept, and reform, oneself.  Not always easy.  But necessary.  A humble acceptance.

Regards  —  Cliff

You Shall Not...

For John, BLUF:  Remember that once your family were aliens here in Lowell.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

This is the 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time and today's First Reading is from Exodus 22:20-26

Thus says the LORD:
"You shall not molest or oppress an alien,
for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt.
You shall not wrong any widow or orphan.
If ever you wrong them and they cry out to me,
I will surely hear their cry.
My wrath will flare up, and I will kill you with the sword;
then your own wives will be widows, and your children orphans.

"If you lend money to one of your poor neighbors among my people,
you shall not act like an extortioner toward him
by demanding interest from him.
If you take your neighbor's cloak as a pledge,
you shall return it to him before sunset;
for this cloak of his is the only covering he has for his body.
What else has he to sleep in?
If he cries out to me, I will hear him; for I am compassionate."

"You shall not molest or oppress an alien,
for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt."

How does that speak to us, today?

The molesting part seems strait forward.  I take it to be in terms of abusing them in some way.  They should be safe in mind and body.  That makes good sense to me.

But, what about oppressing an alien?  I think that means no sweat shops.  No taking advantage of aliens in the economic arena.  No gray [or black] economy where they are hidden and exploited.

I don't think it means that we can't ship them back to from whence they came.  I think that means we can't abuse them in the process.  It must be fair and legal.  But, if they are here, and not here seeking legitimate refugee status, then helping them to return home makes sense.

In sum, illegal aliens are to be treated as human beings, and awarded all Constitutional guarantees while here, but may be returned home, unless we see that they have a legitimate refugee status.

I would add that illegal immigrants should not be favored over those who came here in a legal manner.  The legal immigrant followed the rules, pays his or her taxes, pays the fees, and maybe even their lawyer, and this should not be disrespected by favoring illegal immigrants in terms of citizenship.

Regards  —  Cliff

Following the Saints

For John, BLUF:  People shouldn't assume that everyone who is for the downtrodden is a Democrat.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

I am a day late and a dollar short here, Dorothy Day having passed on 32 years ago this last 29th of November.  The New Yorker had the hint for me, but I just got around to it.  The magazine brought up the action for the Canonization of Dorothy Day.  My late Mother would be thrilled.

The article is a bit snarky about Dorothy Day compared to the Saints of old, but I don't see it.  Remember the line from future Leo Joseph Cardinal Suenens when a young seminarian disclosed he was against the Church.  The response was "My son, we are all against the Church."

Someone once asked me how I could be a Republican and read The Catholic Worker, the paper founded by Dorothy Day and fellow activist Peter Maurin as part of the Catholic Worker movement.  I think it is straight forward.  I am concerned about the issues The New Yorker article raises as life issues, including "hunger, homelessness, racism, immigration, capital punishment, war and more."  If Writer Virginia Cannon looks at the life and works of Dorothy Day it would seem to follow the insights expressed by Pope Leo XIII in the Encyclical Rerum Novarum.  Dorothy Day and I might not be taking exactly the same path, but we are both trying to follow the same insights.  (Here is the full text) of the Encyclical.  Incidentally, Dorothy Day tended to be a limited government kind of person.  I like that.

Interestingly enough, the Economist who influenced Pope Leo XIII, Giuseppe Toniolo, is also being considered for Sainthood.  Here is a short article in National Catholic Reporter, by Mr John L Allen, Jr.

ROME — Giuseppe Toniolo, a renowned late 19th and early 20th century lay Italian economist and political theorist, was beatified on Sunday in Rome’s Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, the final step before a formal declaration of sainthood.  Among other claims to fame, Toniolo is now the first economist ever beatified by the Catholic church.

To sum up, I would say that as a Republican I align with Dorothy Day on a lot of issues, and on some I don't.  That may put me in opposition to some in my party, but that is fine with me.  Politics should be about debating the issues and finding effective solutions, within the context of one's principles.

Regards  —  Cliff