Foundations and Poem

So lately I've been thinking about discernement (as is probably apparent to anyone who has read two or three entries on this blog) and how one determines the will of God. While I am still uncertain in many ways as to how to determine the will of God one thing is clear:

In hoc cognoscent omnes quia mei discipuli estis si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem.

This is John 13:35 in Latin (I just like other languages). It is where Jesus says that "they [the world] will know you are Christians by your love."

This means that Christianity is revealed by the fruits it produces. If you do not love, you are not, in essence, Christian. If we take this a step further we understand that God's relations to actions is revealed, at least partially, by the fruit that action revealed. This is to say that if a certain action causes you to start spending more time in adoration, it is probably a good thing (as long as your time spent is not some sort of counterbalance). Likewise, if your choice makes you spend less time in adoration, it is probably a bad thing (I will not say definitely, for there are few definites).

To clarify a little more, if your time is no longer spent with God because of a simple unability to spend the time (school, work, etc.) it is not inherently evil. But Mother Teresa said (and the other saints agree), in essence, "the more you do the more you must pray;" so when your activities take away from God time, it is probably bad.



The following is a poem I wrote over the weekend. It is a little long, but if you don't read it scroll down to the bottom of the page because there is a little more I'd like all those who read this blog to read.

To Pick and Choose

And sayeth the teacher
unto those, rapt in attention
captured by his words spun
in finery and confusion,
words of no rock dressed
in the arts of Rome
and played against the timeless light,
darkness wrapped in man’s frivolity,
those thoughts loosed by wild freedom
“My words speak fresh light
on ancient thoughts and brighten
their dust filled ways with
that all-cleaning river of science,
washing away archaic truths
and broken dogmas of the past.”
Nodding faces and renewed thoughts
greeted this earthly pronunciation
renouncing the foundation of the world
for the fickle reaches of philosophy
and the wild ends of belief.
“It is the mind of man which
empowers the open advancement of
man’s greatest achievement: that which
has slain the baseless roots of power.”
And so speaketh he against the words as new
as the foundation of the world
with words as ancient as
the young man’s destructive birth.
Threw he then the first stone
shattering the great edifices of glass,
raining colored sand about
the gloried forms on knees and stone
Those outside cheered this brave soul,
this mighty man against the machine,
for the strides he took in the name
of liberty from all form and reason,
but those beneath the glass took
notice not of this first heckler
for he was nothing new in the world
but a mad meander, the waves
from that ancient storm which touched
not the boat but rocked the sea.
And buffets he the world’s waters
tumbling man and thought against
that still strong barque and
wakes the sleeping master
who soon strives against the storm
and breaks flat the wild reaches
of ancient powers and reawakens
the eternal spring of theat long golden earth.


Many of us are currently discerning the priesthood, religious life, marriage, and profession, and I thought I'd help out. Starting tomorrow I am going to be praying a Novena (not sure which one yet) for a better understanding of God's will. This also applies to a major project I am considering undertaking (not the biggest I've ever thought of, that definitely goes to the fleet of star ships) and whether it is God's plan.

I'd like to invite all of you to pray along with me. I will be posting the prayers for each day here so that you can just log in and pray.

A Brief Introduction to the Formation of Protestant Denominations

After much study, I have compiled this work as an examination of how Protestant denominations determine dogma and doctrine. Where did the rather interesting ideas of absolute predestination (God chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell) or Dispensationalism (parts of the Bible are on valid at certain dispensations, or times) come from?

At first, one starts with the Catholic Church, it being the only Church from which to start. A reformer examines the Church and chooses that which does not belong. He picks out purgatory, the True Presence, and the Sacrament of Penance. He now has a Christian dogma with a couple very large holes in it, something that is not very presentable. So he shakes it around a little and the dogma settles. As it does, it of course looses its former shape and many given truths are either lost or no longer fit into the sheme and are thus disposed of.

Of course, this process is repeated with the reformers of the new church, and so on, each picking out what they don't like, shaking the truth, and scrying what settles. Occasionally, truths lost in a prior settling are rediscovered and reinserted, but someone later inevitable removes them again, creating a vicious cycle of re-creation, the invention of the thousand denominations, all born out a little settling of the Truth.

The Mass and Marriage

Today I was thinking about the Mass and came to the conclusion that it is, in many ways, like a marriage.

Beyond the obvious one that they're both sacraments, one big one stuck out: you spend your entire life getting to know it. That is to say, the Mass is so complicated, so layered, that you can discover something new about it everyday for the rest of your life. Likewise, you can (and probably will) discover something new about your spouse all the time. It is an encouraging thought that some wells will never run dry.

As long as I'm talking about marriage (sort of) I am going to back track and make mention of another part of romance, or rather one's response to romance. We are, of course, to pray for our relationships, but too often it seems we spend our energy either praying on the one we are in or would like to be in (once again, my primary source is the masculine gender, and so this may or may not apply to you ladies). Instead, it seems to me, we should be offering prayer up for "My future wife/husband" (please select the correct gender to counterpart your own). This prayer takes away from the constant internal work of praying that "girl X" will start liking you and instead tells God "if girl X starts liking me I'll be happy but I'll be happier if my future wife is the one liking me" (of course, girl X may be the future wife in question, which would just compound the happiness).

Keep in my, God always has the best spouse for you in mind. It can't do any good to force the issue with the girl you think is cute when God has other ideas.

Romancing the Stone

Well, okay, so there's no stone. This is more about romance itself.

I've recently talked to a couple of friends about their romances (or lack there of) and have done a little thinking about it myself (as it is required to be married, and that seems the direction God is sending me, etc.) and have reached a conclusion of sorts.

I believe there are two positive ways a guy can go about romancing a lady: either he can ask her on a date and then be a wonderful man for her, or he can win her heart before he ever even hints at a date.

I have been unable to come up with anything better about the former and thus would like to talk on the latter. When a man goes through the effort to win a woman's heart before he even knows if she would consider dating him (and thus before he knows if he could actually win her heart) he is presenting a much more selfless love. He pours out his energy on her because he sees her value, not because he knows she is going to return his affection. She in turn gets to see that he is serious about her and she knows he is not going to be a flake in any relationship they have.

What do you guys think? Specifically, what do you ladies think? Is this a valid presentation of how a romance should go or did I miss something important?


And this is now officially my second longest blog on blogger with 46 entries (click on the view profile button to see the others).

The Three Converts

Earlier today I was thinking about converts to the Church and decided they generally fall into three categories: those who follow, those who wake, and those you strive. This three categories may also be applied to reverts, though they are generally of the thrid more than the first two.

Those Who Follow: These are the converts who enter the Church because their spouse, spouse to be, or rather important loved one is Catholic and either the loved one or the loved one's family desires the person to convert. They are generally characterized by a half-hearted interest in the Church, seeing it as little more than either a concession to their loved one or a way to get good with them. They are the most likely not to be seen at Mass.

Those who Wake: These converts, like Those Who Follow, begin their exploration/RCIA of the Church for reasons of love or kinship, but during their exploration they actually find the Church (mainly because they were actually looking). These are the ones who go to weekly Mass and see the Church as she truly is, wishing to be part of her.

Those Who Strive: These are the people who come into the Church because they see what she is independent of loved ones. They often begin their exploration because a friend/lover(in the most chaste way)/etc. is a strong Catholic, though just as many discover the Church through random means. Unlike Those Who Wake, when they finally decide to approach the Church they already know who she is and are willing to, if not convert, come very close. These are the people who attend daily Mass on a fairly regular basis and could be called the 'crazy converts.' Their faith is almost absurdly visible and they are the converts most noticed.

These are, of course, charactetures to a degree, but they are, in my experience, fairly accurate. There is a little blending of the groups, particularly between Wake and Strive, as those in the former can move into the power of the latter and some of the latter simply slide back, either from lack of will or lack of time (though in many cases those with lack of time tend to push themselves even farther into the 'absurd' category).

Nemo est plus gravis quam vita

When I planned this post yesterday I tried to come up with something to say about abortion that has not been said a thousand times before. It is difficult, because many of the important thoughts have long since been stated, restated, and stated again. There is, however, a new argument rising which must be countered.

A recent editorial was discussing the abortion issue and said something to the effect of "whether or not an unborn child [the author used fetus but I won't] has a right to life does not matter, for the child does not have a right to the mother's womb" (my emphasis). This steps in and attempts to undercut the primary pro-life argument, claiming that the mother has a right to remove a child from her womb just because the child is there.

This reveals the fundamental horror of the abortive mindset. This worldview subjegates life to everything and anything, from convenienve to cost. It does not value existence at all beyond the one who is thinking.

To counter this, America and the world must remember that nothing is more important than life (this post's title, albeit in English instead of Latin). There can be no abortion debate at all if everyone agrees life is of the utmost priority. Until then, we cannot win the abortion debate. Simple as that.

Further Reflections

I lot of different ideas and thoughts were bantered around last night (see previous post), but two struck me more severely and I would like to mention them here.

As we were talking about my conversion, Fr. Eric said something quite interesting: "There are Catholics and non-Catholics, but there are no non-Protestants." I think this shows two things: first, that the validity of the Church is recognized in our language, and second, that there is something inherent in the unity of the Catholic Church that does not exist in the 'unity' of the Protestant ones.

Most, if not all, Protestants will argue that the unity of Christ's Church is only in a spiritual sense, that there is not supposed (or at least does not need) to be a visible body. Yet in even their daily language they make no attempt to present the Church as one invisible body. If one truly believed that the present state of unity was proper to the Church, the phrase non-Protestant would be just as meaningful as non-Christian or non-Catholic, yet before last night I had never heard it used.

The second thing is probably the more profound and more painful (in that it reflects the more visceral pain of man). As we were talking about the call to vocation and how people have responded to it he said "You can ruin your vocation." He did not mean just that if we refused to listen to God we could miss our vocation but we could, in a single action, ruin any real chance we had at our vocation, namely through getting someone pregnant.

Unless both parties are willing to give the child up for adoption, pregnancy essentially forces marriage were God may have desired a celibate life. Father even mentioned one person he had heard of who was very strongly interested in the possibility of the priesthood before he got someone (I'm assuming a girlfriend, but I don't know) pregnant and now they are married and he probably ruined his vocation.

This is, for me, probably the most powerful statement against sexual immorality. It is often too easy to fall into the "I'll do this and go to confession later" mindset, but with pregnancy there is no going back. The sin can be forgiven, but a new life has been brought into existence, a life that will never be gone. Sex creates a powerful effect, like dominoes, and has far reaching effects that we may never know. This act then not only destroys the proper application of sexuality, but can destroy the wondrous life God had planned for someone, forcing them to live through a vocation they were never called to.

Vocation Information

I tried to make the title rhyme, but it's really only a half rhyme.

I had dinner this evening with Fr. Eric Gilbaugh, one of the diosceses priests in charge of vocations. We talked for a couple of hours and he summed it up as follows: that I was "responsibly open" to the priesthood but was not being called to the priesthood.

I spent about twenty minutes trying to figure out exactly how this changes things. In the end, there are two differences: I am not going to be actively looking at seminary (this may change if God decides to call me) and am I not going to let worries about the priesthood get involved in a realtionship (not that I'm involved in a relationship at the moment, but since it seems God is calling me to marriage that is going to happen at some point. It's a sort-of prerequisite).

All in all, this means little change except peace of mind. It's nice getting to talk to someone for a while about something and having them agree, quite independently, with the conclusion you thought you reached earlier.

So this officially closes my posts on vocation unless something major comes up.

Pax Christi

Trust

Yesterday I learned that I friend had lied to me in some major ways. I used to be very close to this person and for a long time thought that there was no one I would trust more. This was not, however, the first lie, thought it might have been the biggest and it really hurt. I thought at a certain point being lied to stops hurting, but I have not reached that point. All I could do for a while was pray Hail Marys and sing the "Ubi Charitas" (it know it with a very elegiac melody which fit my mood while the words were encouraging to bring me from the funk).

O God, let my heart break for sin
And not just that which I let in
But that which from others go
The burden all have come to know.

Let my soul and being cry out
Beyond all the specter of doubt
To mourn and strongly weep
That all souls your trusting keep.

And may my wound long endure
So that I in time would be sure
That sin is death and darkest doom
That fades all flower and ruins bloom.

May they learn, who in sin but die
And die again in the unfather’s lie,
To come up and die now with you
Who is but light and death most true.


I believe one of the worst things we can do is lie to each other. While the big lies are painful and quickly destroy a friendship from the inside out, the small lies are often more damaging in the broad scope. I have suffered both, and while it were the big lies that killed friendships, the small lies have made my life the most difficult.

One of my closest friends for a couple of years had problems with small lies. They were simple things, not doing something which was promised, or telling two versions of the same story to make everyone happy, and I hardly noticed them. Only later, after talking with my mom about it, did I realize how often I was lied to and how used to it I was. It reached the point where I could not trust anything I was told by this person and had to call to validate whether or not something was actually going to happen. This then translated into further friendships. I still have a tendency to assume people I meet will not be trustworthy in the little things and I expect them to fail to uphold their obligations.

So often we miss the power of the small things. When Christ told us he who is trustworthy in the little things will be given bigger, this is in many ways what he was referring to. If you cannot tell the truth in little things, then no one will look to you in the big things and you will have no effect on the world. When all else falls to pieces, do not lie, and it can be rebuilt.

The Sacrament of Reconciliation

The Sacrament of Penance is one of the most maligned of the seven gifts God gave his Church. It is the secret Sacrament, held behind closed doors where the words spoken are never released. But what is it, beyond the confession of sins? So often people fail to see that there is far more to this sacrament.

First off, the Sacrament of Penance is the little fire, the small flame next to purgatory's inferno. It cleanses not all the penealty of sin, but some, and the penitent steps forth from the confessional a little lighter. Purgatory is that last gate, the final hall which removes all impurities and confessions is its preperation. In fact, we might go so far as to call confession the Sacrament of the End Things. It involves a revelation of all sin, a purging of that sin, a purification, and an admitance into the friendship of God. Where as the End Things this encompasses all of ones existence, the Sacrament of Penance only reaches as far back as its last occurence, in essence.

The little fire of Penance is just as purifying as purgatory's, only on a smaller scale, little by little burning away the dross that clutters our souls, testing the metal beneath. Reconciliation is a taste of purgatory, a little example of the ultimate purifing force and ones acceptance of the Sacrament parallels ones acceptance of purgatory. If you frequent confession, it is likely you will endure purgatory; but if you hide from confession, going only when necessary (the precept for once a year) then it is likely you will avoid purgatory. Unfortunately, the only effective way to do that is to enter the unquenching fire.

I have come, in recent months, to gain a great appreciation for confession. It is not, as many people claim, a place of guilt, but rather a place to let the loose the guilt. Reconciliation is just that, the reconciling of man, not just to God, but to his fellow men. It is in confession that I loose my hold on sin and God looses sin's hold on me. The beautiful thing about this sacrament is that there is nothing, beyond one's self, that can hold a Catholic back from confession. No demands but contrition are placed upon the penitent and all the joys of heaven are waiting on just the other side.

On 'Reflections while Walking in a Protestant Library'

When I wrote my first reflection, I was intending it to be the only one. The more I thought about it, however, the more stuff I came up with. There was a sixth reflection which I can't remember now. Que triste.

Seeing as Christ, Hear us (my current project on the Litany of the Sacred Heart) is going nowhere I think I'm going to try and transform these reflections into a full length work. The goal is to examine, in primarily philosophical ways, the relation between the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches and how that works its way into culture, particularly in America.

The United States is the only nation that has been Protestant (at least in name) for its existence. Other nations have been officially Protestant, but all have either started out as Catholic or had no real Protestant majority. The United States is therefore largely unique and to understand how she plays in the world one needs to understand her relation with the other Christian nations.

My scope my grow or shrink from this prospectus, but I primarily intend to expand each of my entries into a full chapter and create any new chapters that I see necessary as I go.

The Fifth Reflection from a Protestant Church Library

or The Fictional God

So called 'Christian Fiction' is an almost purely Protestant phenomenon. While it is true many devout Catholics have written works of fiction (J.R.R. Tolkien, Flannery O'Connor, G.K. Chesterton, etc.) the stories these people write are never classified as 'Christian Fiction.' On the flip side, it is the rare devout Protestant who writes a work of fiction which is not, for the most part, explicitly Christian. Almost half the books within the Protestant Library were works of Christian Fiction, with maybe a half dozen fiction works that were not implicitly Christian. Why thi dichotomy?

Christian Fiction is, essentially, works of fiction which are overtly about God and how faith in him helps people solve their problems. Sometimes this will manifest itself as nothing more than a romance novel where one member of the couple has to get right with God before their relationship works, or it might go so far as to make supernatural conflicts between God and the Devil to be the center of the work. Sometimes if the work is particularly good it will be picked up by a mainstream publisher, but usually they are restricted to Christian publishing companies.

Because Protestantism has rejected anything outside of the Bible, their foundational worldview must be based on their interpretation of that single book. As such, what they can know as true is very limited, shrinking in turn their worldview. They have very little true philosophy and a limited understanding of the Church in the world. Protestants know the Church is in the world, but they feel to see the deep connections the world must have to the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

Because of this, Protestants can only really relate to the world via the visible faith of people. Churches, in the Protestant sense, come and go, but Sola Fida remains. As the churches fade out, their world view fades away, and the only part that endures is that which is fairly explicit within the Bible. Thus Protestant fiction must be about that which endures and the only way to present that is through explicitly Christian characters. Even most Protestant written works of the Fantastic involve an essentially Christian God transposed to another world.

The Catholic idea of the world, on the other hand, involves a philosophical belief that, what ever happens, their is a certain foundation to the world which never changes, a core philosphy if you will. Because of this, Flannery O'Connor could write dozens of stories and novels that are very Catholic and yet almost never mention God or his Church. The characters within her world, their responses to their situations, and the situations themselves reveal the Catholic understanding of the world.

Likewise, J.R.R. Tolkien makes almost no reference to religion throughout the entire Lord of the Rings, yet he claims the work is "fundamentally religions and Catholic." It is not the presence of God which makes it Catholic, but the presence of the world God made, obeying the natural and supernatural laws he placed in it. Tolkien refered to history as "a long defeat," understanding that our world, just like Middle-Earth, will not improve despite the victories we win, but will eventually be remade in the new heaven and new earth.

Catholic fiction, because of its understanding of the world, is not forced to present itself in the guise of being simply 'Christian.' It is a univiersal fiction, capable of speaking to people of all creeds, understanding that there is more to the world than dreamed of in Protestant philosophies.