No Place to Call Home: The State of Catholic Young Adults in American Politics

This is one of the few political posts you will ever see me write, mostly because, as I will discuss later, I hate politics.  Why do I hate politics?

There is a movement among my generation of devoted Catholics to move towards the conservative and traditional aspects of the faith, perhaps in response to the (some would say) abusive implementations of Vatican II.  However, that's not the point of this post.  Rather, it is a platform for me to stage the conundrum my generation faces against the rising liberalism of the western world.

First, let me say this:  I am not educated in politics, I understand very little of it, and for the most part I'm relatively apathetic about it.  So if I say anything that objectively untrue, please feel free to logically and reasonably correct me with evidence.  However, if you care to spout partisan bias based off of something you hear from one of your catered news shows, please don't bother.

OK.  So why do I hate politics?  Quite simply, I view politics as a lose-lose situation.  The only reason I even vote is because its my obligation to do so as a responsible citizen and Catholic.  I hate doing it because there is NO mainstream political party or movement that correctly lines up with traditional Catholic views.  No matter who you vote for, the person you vote for will be against something in the Church.

I firmly believe that, from a Catholic (and hopefully mainstream Christian) perspective, we should be voting for "socially conservative--financially liberal" candidates.  This ensures that our culture is held accountable to live moral lives while providing for the poor and vulnerable.  It is the best balance between Social Justice and virtuous internal and family lives.  Now, "liberals", which fall mostly under the term "democrats" are obviously liberal on both axes, while "conservative" "republicans" are conservative (again obviously).  So the problem, in theory, is that we can either vote on fiscal matters and go democrat, or vote on social matters and go republican.  Still there are problems with this... many young Catholics have been brought up to think that voting democrat is near evil, and that democratic fiscal views are socialist, communist (yes there IS a difference), or at the very least want to take away what people earn.  Additionally, we've basically been told to "pro-life" (another term I loathe), and thus "socially" is the only way to vote.  The problem is, and let me try to be succinct in this, Republicans don't have a consistent pro-life platform either, and economic and educational status has at least a correlation with the likely-hood of getting an abortion.  Could the economy be at least a partial solution to reducing abortions?

This is the problem I, and I think a decent portion of my rational, un-brainwashed, catholic peers feel.  We have no political home.  And so, as a defense mechanism we either just don't care, or we try to rationalize why one party is better than the other.  Let me say this though: if there is ever a "pro-life" democrat (and mind you this includes: war, abortion, marriage, death penalty, euthanasia, etc.), they would most likely have my vote.

Let me just give a couple more reasons about why I hate politics (and excuse me for my rant).  I have seldom had a good discussion or experience with politics.  In fact, I find it to be one of the most irrational, stubborn, biased, and divisive topics I know.  Most people who claim to be from one party or another do it for one or two issues and don't actually know what they're party fully believes.  Political parties become more like a label and status symbol then they do for any platform for discussion about a better country.  If you can rationally think about what you believe, what you, the country, and the poor and vulnerable truly NEED, can get your head out of your butt, and take everything you hear from news channels with a grain of salt, and still say you're from one party or another, then more power to you.  However, if you think that being either republican or democrat makes you more or less American, please don't even bother discussing politics with me.

What Makes Love Work?

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about what makes Emily (my fiance') and mine's relationship so good.  Don't get me wrong, we definitely have our problems in our relationship, but there is a solidness and security there that I don't seem to see in many relationships, even some marriages.  Over the 15+ month's we've been dating we've seen good (and bad) relationships crumble or go through some serious tribulation.  We've had our problems too, the first 6 months was a constant struggle and there were times when we both thought about calling it off (her more often then me though ;-)).  Still, we're now at the point of planning the wedding, so we must be doing something right.  Now, I will be the first to admit that the primary reason we are together is through the grace of God.  It if wasn't for Him helping us through some difficult situations, and Him wanting us to be together, we would have broken up a while ago.  However, after thinking about it for a while I've come up with the 3 basic elements that makes our relationship one of the most solid I know.  I think any relationship that has these three, as well as God's help (which is the most essential), can be a good and secure relationship.

1) Commitment:  If you think love and relationships are supposed to be easy, I suggest you re-examine the state of marriage in this country.  Love, marriage, and relationships of all kinds will be the hardest things you do in your entire life.  This is why love is not about feeling, but about commitment.  Emily and I CHOOSE to be with each other no matter what.  Our confidence in this decision is held strong by our prayers and the numerous signs that God has given us to be together.  I'll admit, there are times when I just need my space from her, when we fight and get angry, or when our "feelings of closeness" aren't so present.  That doesn't matter, because we know we will whether any storm because we are each others' vocation.  Commitment must be the building block of any relationship, otherwise it will crumble.

2) Communication: This is another obvious relational pillar that people, quite frankly, tend to suck at.  Communication must be open, honest, respectful, and consistent.  I worry when some couples tell me that they never fight... fighting is what healthy couples do! IF they do it in the right way.  When you have a problem it is important to tell your partner about it so that both your needs can be met.  However, do it at an appropriate time.  When discussing or arguing, don't use negative tactics such as name calling, score keeping, or generalizing.  You can find tips on these all over the net, so if you have problems with healthy arguing, I suggest you look up some advice, or get a hold of me and I'll help you.  Some couples are afraid to talk about problems because they are afraid that a fight could get ugly and end the relationship, or they just don't like confrontation.  Well, this is where the commitment comes in--if you know a fight won't break you up, then you can have it and still feel secure.  I could go on and on with this paragraph, but because you can find this info everywhere, I'll cut it off here.

3) Intimacy: This is the element that everyone thinks they do great at but know one really knows how and thus people end up in unloving marriages.  Put simply, intimacy is a mutual feeling of love between two partners.   Yes, this is the FEELING part.  However, its not just about sex! Sex can be without intimacy if you are using the other person, and a lack of at least occasional intimacy can break any committed bond.  You must show and communicate your feelings of love for each other.  This is tricky, since each person speaks a different love language.  In other words, each person expresses and receives love in a different way.  If you feel you are not receiving love you cannot give love.  It's a very delicate circle, but someone has to start it.  Gary Chapman writes a great book on this called The 5 Love Languages--check it out if you or your partner are feeling unloved, or if you just want to learn how to love better.  The movie "Fireproof" also has some very good examples of this principle.

Every relationship has it's weaknesses, struggles, and strengths.  It's primarily through the Grace of God that relationships work out, and some, quite frankly shouldn't last.  I don't have all the answers, but for some reason my relationship has lasted, and will continue to last, and I believe it is for these three reasons.  Please, if you are in a relationship that is struggling, examine which area(s) need work and talk about it as a couple.  If you have good friends or parents who have beautiful relationships, ask them for advice and help as well.  Good relationships don't flower in a dark closet, they are meant to be shared and thrive in a Garden of Relationships.  Cheesy I know, but its true.  A private relationship is a dead one.

Happy Loving

Whether "Cliques" are Opposed to Christian Charity

I think this is an especially relative question... should devout Christians belong to a group, in an exclusive nature, and decline interaction with "lesser" or non-believers?  This question is raised constantly in Christian circles, especially among teens and young adults, and on college campuses.  Should we ignore those who could lead us to sin or who aren't as holy as we... or should we invite all manner of sinners into our midst in an attempt for conversion?  What's more Charitable?  Most would say that exclusiveness is not loving, and that would should welcome every type of person into our groups to best love them.  Let's examine the question further.

For the purpose of this post, the definition of clique will be, an exclusive group of people with shared interests who spend time together.

Now let me say this first, group-forming and cliques are part of the psyche from the human condition.  Because we have an innate need to belong, we naturally form groups to fulfill that need, and thus we form "out-groups" to distinguish what we "are not".  However, just because we have a disposition to something does not mean its automatically alright.

Now for the issue at hand--as Christians, can we form exclusive groups and still be charitable?  Well first, lets look at what Charity is.  

Another word for Charity is love, we know that God is love, and that Jesus told us to not only love God with all our being, but also to love our neighbors as ourselves.  Aquinas states that love is "benevolence", or willing the good of the other person.  Basically this means that to love another person we must want them to be with God, to love ourselves we must wish to get to heaven, and to love God we must want to do his will.

Now we know we must love God with all our being, so it is him that we should love first and foremost.  We then must love ourselves, and then others, for we cannot give what we do not have, and so to be charitable to others we must abide in charity to ourselves.  This, above all, means avoiding sin, for it is in sin that we are separated from God and reject His Charity.  In avoiding sin, we must also be careful not to allow others to lead us to sin, but also must not condone or support the sinful lives of others.  If we are to love our neighbor, we must be his keeper.

Further, each person as a varying degree of strength in God, some are strong and others are week, and each person has particular areas of sin that we fall into habitually.  If we are expected to help others we must be strong and not fall into sin ourselves, and thus if a person is going to lead you to sin, how can you help them? Yes, Jesus ate with sinners, but in his perfection he need not worry about falling into the sinful acts of those he fell around, nor did he partake in sinful acts as a means for their conversion.

So here it is... it is from this knowledge that I conclude that certain Christian Cliques are not actually (inherently) contrary to Christian Charity, but rather may help to guard it.  Sadly there are some people who, for our own well being, we just shouldn't associate with.  If someone will lead you to sin, away from God and His charity, you will no be able love them fully while living in that sin, and so to preserve the love for yourself and the love of God, you can "love them from a distance" ie, pray for their conversion and happiness.  But the will of God and your purity must come first.

Now, some people are strong in faith or have a particular resistance to certain vices.  If this is the case than you should prudently discern if you are called to evangelize to a group or person in that they may be converted.  You should only do this if you are strong enough to resist this sin.

Finally, Cliques can be misused.  When used as a means of judgment or self-edification they not only hinder charity on all three accounts, but damage the charity of others as they grow contempt for the Church.  If an individual is in need of guidance and fellowship, and your "clique" is solid enough to encourage them in that way without falling itself, the charitable thing to do is to invite them into your group.

Consider the groups you are part of, why you are part of them, and if they are exclusive to the detriment or support of Christian Charity.

Reflections on the Historical Jesus

Recently, I was asked a question about my thoughts on the "Historical Jesus"... ie searching for those words and acts that Christ ACTUALLY said and did.  I'll admit that, at the time the question was asked, I had had very little exposure to what the Historical Jesus actually was.  Basically, I lumped every analysis of the "Real Christ" as falling under John Dominic Crossan's "Quest for the Historical Jesus" and the subsequent "Jesus Seminar".  For the record, even after brief subsequent study on the historical Jesus, I still think the work of Crossan and the Jesus seminar is inspired by Satan... but more on that later.

For my Eucharist class I was required to read an article (The Eucharist at the Last Supper: Did it really happen? Theology Digest 42:4, Winter 1995) by Roman Catholic Historical Jesus scholar John Meier. I'll admit, Meier has begun to change my view on Historical Jesus, and has shown me the value the paradigm has in answering certain theological questions and gaining a deeper understanding and love for the person of Christ and Sacred Scripture.

Meier starts off by saying that, while his book A Marginal Jew is often "yoked" with the Jesus seminar, he nevertheless disagrees with Crossan on key issues of Catholicism, for instance... whether or not the Last Supper actually happened.  Meier also points out the value of knowing the historical Jesus in reaction to fundamentalist's literal readings.

Without giving away the whole article, or just quoting applicable one-liners from Meier, I'll just give you my general assessment:

Theology is faith seeking understanding, and faith is also rooted in the intellect, which requires some element of reason to truly assent to God.  It is for this reason that the Church has always upheld faith AND reason as essential to true belief in God.  While different believers are responsible for various levels of understanding concerning faith, it is important for theologians, teachers, and priests to have a deep wisdom and understanding of theological knowledge in order to defend the Truth and help uphold the faith of others.

The Historical Jesus, and historical criticism in general, when applied correctly, in respect to tradition, right reason and intent, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can be a wonderful tool and paradigm in gaining a deeper understanding of the Gospel and the doctrines of our faith.  It is for example, in learning the formula that Christ used during the last supper we can begin to see, as Meier says that,

"...what the hallowed bread and wine first of all mediate or communicate is not a static thing but a dynamic reality, the whole saving event of Jesus' death and ultimate vindication" (350).

It is through such study that we begin to see our doctrines in new and beautiful ways, as they were handed to us by Christ himself.

However, this paradigm is not for everyone, for those who are not firm in their faith, sound of reason, or guided by the Holy Spirit, may fall into serious and grave error such as that of the Jesus Seminar who has concluded that, "Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead.^[3][4][5] Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.^[3][4][5]"   I'll let you figure out exactly that is not in accord with the core of Christian belief.

So, when we aim to de-mythologize and legalize the words of Christ, we can fall into serious error.  But for those of us who approach this aspect of historical criticism with the intent of greater understanding and in respect to already established doctrines of the Church, we can come to a deeper faith.

So my brethren, happy (and appropriate) "Questing".

Divine Mercy, Divine Justice

I want to reflect briefly on the Gospel reading for today.  You can read it here, or just open your Bible to Mathew 18:21-35.

First, I want to look at the exchange between Jesus and the Apostle Peter.  Peter, asking the Lord how many times he should forgive his neighbor, suggests an answer to his own question--7 times.  Now, Peter thought he was pretty hot stuff here, because according to Jewish law you only had to forgive your neighbor 3 times before seeking justice.  Not only did Peter double that number, but he added one--clearly he went above and beyond the requirements of the Law.  However, Jesus responds that he must forgive his neighbor 77 times.  In Bible-speak that basically translates to an "inconceivable amount".  No Jew of their time would ever have fathomed forgiving a neighbor that many times.  This is the incredible challenge that Christ gives us, to forgive unceasingly.  God does this as well, although he also deal out Divine Justice as well... but only per our choice.

The second half of the Gospel is the parable Christ tells to illustrate the need for human forgiveness, the gift of Divine mercy, and manifestation of Divine Justice.  Interpreting from the allegorical sense, the Master in the parable is God, who despite us being unworthy and completely unable to pay our debt to him, forgave us our debts and allows us to live with him.  Because God has forgiven us, we must also forgive our brethren.  When we are "trespassed against", we must show mercy and forgive those have hurt us.  Why? Because when we fail to live in the light and example of God's mercy, we are choosing rather to live in His justice--and what is the justice of non-forgiving? Being unforgiven.  This is what results in Hell (or in the case of the parable, torture).

I think it especially providential that these readings occurred on the 10th anniversary of Sept. 11.  I'm going to go out on a limb here and say--God wants us to forgive the men who did this and who continue to do such things.  Should we wish Hell on these men, and on Osama Bin Laden?  No, for that is not love.  Instead we should forgive them, choose to move on and not let it control our lives, and even radically pray for their conversion and entrance into heaven.  It's a hard message to hear, many wounds are still open or never actually healed properly, but I urge you, if you want to receive God's mercy you must give mercy yourself... and if you can do it with Sept 11, you can pretty much do it with anything.

May you find love and mercy in your heart.

On "Heaven is for Real"

When I was working Totus Tuus this summer, teaching Catechism and immersed in Catholic culture, I heard about a fad that was sweeping through the faithful.  The book Heaven is for Real is a "true" story about a 4 year old boy who, while undergoing emergency surgery for a ruptured appendix, visited heaven.  The book was written a number of years later by his father, a Wesleyan Pastor at a relatively small rural Nevada church. Throughout the second half of the book, Pastor Todd, through humorous and inspiring anecdotes, explains some of the things his son saw in heaven.

Here's the thing--this book IS spiritually inspiring, above all its a testimony of strength, perseverance, and hope through suffering.

The book would also qualify as personal revelation which has not been approved and even if it has been we can choose not believe:

“Throughout the ages, there have been so-called ‘private’ revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept ‘revelations’ that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such ‘revelations’” (CCC # 67).

However, I don't believe that this simple little book will ever be approved by Church.  Why?  Because 1) the source is not credible... the visions were by a young boy who hardly even knows how to communicate what he saw, and then were written down, many years later, by his Protestant father who could have interpreted his son's words in ways that fit his belief.

Secondly, some things are directly against Catholic doctrine or dogma, specifically that the young boy says that Jesus told him those in Hell will not have resurrected bodies--a notion which contradicts centuries of Catholic doctrine ("For an hour is coming in which all those in their tombs shall hear His voice and come forth. Those who have done right shall rise to live; the evildoers shall rise to be damned" (Jn 5:28-29)).

To my Catholic brethren--it is OK to read this book, it has some emotionally and spiritually moving sections that, for the right person, could enrich their spiritual life.  However, to all who read this I must urge prudence and deliberation in choosing which elements of the revelation to believe.  Educate yourself before reading this, disregard the parts that are contrary to established Catholic teaching, and, if by chance you are prone to being led astray, just stay away from the book.  There are other books you can read for the same effect that are more solid.

If You're Happy and Don't Know Why?

I'm (slowly) reading a book right now called Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships.  It's really excellent and basically details how our emotions and relationships effect us physically and vice versa.

Did you know that by smiling you can actually make yourself happy, and not only that, but when other people see you smile, they are more primed to smile themselves.  It's the same with being crabby, sad, or angry.  Our emotions REALLY are contagious.  It's something called mirror neurons.  We're made to imitate one another to build report and intimacy.

This book is somewhat dense, but still easy to read, and I would suggest it for anyone who is interested in such things.

So my challenge to all of you is to think about how your emotions are effecting other people, and try to smile as often as possible.  And this is coming from a crabby guy ;-)