David Ancell / Sunday, March 16, 2003 / Comments(0)
A couple of weeks ago our new associate pastor taught the RCIA class on marriage. In so doing, he briefly expounded on the Church’s teaching (and by this I mean just that-the real teaching of the Church) on contraception. I think this is a wonderful start. Now, I hope to hear this on a Sunday pulpit. It will be difficult, but it would be better face the angry people than stand before God and have to explain why this teaching never came from the pulpit. Contraception is a sin that could result in loss of one’s soul. It ought not be ignored.
Anyway, this morning a friend of mine taught the moral issues class, and he brought the topic up again. He expounded on it in detail. People asked questions. I’m certain he had their attention. It never ceases to amaze me how people really want to know about the certain teachings and disciplines but how few people will teach them. This need not be so.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, March 15, 2003 / Comments(0)
I’ve mentioned this before, but after rereading my post I recall that I am annoyed as ever about ushers trying to seat a latecomer while the priest is praying. When this happens, the person being seated isn’t praying, the usher isn’t praying, and I can’t pray when someone is coming into my pew. This time of prayer is needed; so, if you are an usher, please refrain from seating people during the prayer. I won’t scoot over to seat anyone other than a pregnant woman until the prayer is over.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Saturday, March 15, 2003 / Comments(0)
I saw an advertisement (I believe it was for Campion College.) that said that “We teach you how to think; not what to think.” Indeed, our consumerist, utilitarian society doesn’t really value our minds. Much of our education is based on telling us what to think. The commercialism of our society is successful precisely because we are far more more used to learning what to think than how.
Ironically, the first time an impression about this was made on me was by a moral relativist who gave an ethics talk at the University of Tennessee School of Pharmacy. He told us that we hold our religious beliefs because “you’ve been taught.” He insisted that no one group could say they were right. Sadly, he fell into his own trap when he insisted that he was right in saying that no one was right. He insisted on telling people to think that no one could say they were right and that we couldn’t base our actions on the “beliefs of one group.”
If only I had known how to think at the time, I would have blown away that garbage. From there, I went on a study to show why we could know what was right. In the end, I learned that I need to learn how to think. I have gotten better at it, but I am going to continue working.
Back then, I thought philosophy classes were stupid. Now I wonder why my old high school now requires four years of math and science for college prep students but doesn’t even offer a philosophy course. I wonder why teachers were always telling us to think but few bothered to teach us how.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Friday, March 14, 2003 / Comments(0)
I’ve heard many times over about a theological speculation of why Satan and his legion decided not to serve God. I find this to be an awesome mystery given that angels don’t have anything that resembles our human weakness, didn’t have anyone outside of them to tempt them, and have a far better intellect and a far better understanding of what they are doing than we do when we sin.
The theory is that the angels refused to serve God when they were made aware of the Incarnation. They did not want to serve a God who was to become a lower creature. However, I see a major hole in that speculation:
Man fell when he was tempted by the serpent, a fallen angel. The Incarnation was part of God’s plan of redemption because of the fall. If having seen the Incarnation caused the angels to fall, then the cause of the fall was something that happened as a result of it. It seems that the angels, by working to protect man instead of tempting him, could have prevented the Incarnation and therefore prevented their difficulty with serving the Lord.
Of course, it is always possible that the Incarnation was destined to occur regardless of what happened. It could be that man did not need the temptation to fall but would have done so without it. In these cases, my problem no longer holds. I’d sure like to hear how the proponents of this theological speculation address these questions.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Thursday, March 13, 2003 / Comments(0)
I just got out of a book club at a friend’s house. Part of the discussion was grace. It was brought up that we cannot know for sure that we are in the state of sanctifying grace. It makes sense that it is a matter of trust in God.
However, I had one problem. How can one commit a mortal sin and not know it? How can one do something serious that requires sufficient reflection and full consent of the will without realizing what happened? The arguments that I heard were those of ignorance due to culpable negligence. I didn’t get much of a word in, but I couldn’t help but notice the number of times they talked about one choosing to not learn about something. If this is the case, then you actively chose it and therefore do know that you are culpable.
The other problem I have is the implication that someone could unwittingly go to Hell. What do you, my readers, think? Please comment. I’m interested in hearing what you think.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Comments(0)
I found a link to this article on the HMS blog thanks to Kevin Miller. Basically, a threesome is suing for the right to all be considered parents of a child.
Even if I were not a Christian, I would see a practical problem with this:
1. Babies are produced by a union with an egg and a sperm. Science will tell you that one man and one woman unite. How can a child have three parents?
2. By having everyone and their brother come and sue to have their “marriage” legally blessed, we will be faced with an endless series of court cases, consuming time that could be used for more important things. Even if we gave these relationships legal status, we would then be faced with an endless series of divorce cases in divorce courts because inevitably many of these “loving” relationships will break up.
3. A group of people might then decide to all get together and form a nationwide marriage chain until everyone in the whole country was married to everyone else. Why not?
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Wednesday, March 12, 2003 / Comments(0)
Time and time again we hear in homilies, meditations, and the like that going through the motions of religion is useless unless our “heart” is in it. Indeed, Scripture itself says the same thing. However, what do these people mean by “heart”?
Is it your feelings? Should we say that if you are not jumping up and down like a little child about the prospect of going to Mass then you are not a good Christian? I find such a proposition to be nothing short of moronic. I would hope that my spiritual life would often be supported by my emotions. However, I know that the lack of strong feelings does not indicate a deficit in my spiritual life. If I don’t feel like doing something good but do it because I believe that God wants me to, this action is more, not less, meritorious. I did something especially for Our Lord rather than something that I was going to do anyway.
Some have taken the concept of “heart” to the extreme that they make such false statements as “It doesn’t matter what you wear to church; it’s what’s in your heart.” Well, if you can’t afford nice clothes, then this may be true. However, what can possibly be in the heart of someone who can’t be bothered to look halfway decent when going before the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? What is in the heart of someone who enters the church, does the flyswatter Sign of the Cross, the curtsy genuflection, and talks about their football game with the people around them right up until halfway through the opening hymn?
The heart is more than just feelings. The heart is one’s will, one’s choice. Our will must be directed towards the good, even if we don’t feel like it. If it is, then our heart is in it.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Tuesday, March 11, 2003 / Comments(0)
It seems that this article by Rod Dreher has been hot news on St. Blog’s. It has been all over the HMS blog (see this and this and this). There’s more than I could possibly find and link to.
I think the issue is far more complex than Dreher makes it sound. My reading of the article gives me the impression that Dreher thinks the Holy Father should just tour the United States with a bullhorn and yell “You’re fired!” at many bishops. I think that this would give them the easy way out. They need to stand out there and face what they’ve done.
The Holy Father has every right to expect the bishops to fix the mess they’ve caused. I think it’s safe to assume that child sexual abuse by clergy is unlikely to be successfully concealed in the Catholic Church for at least a decade, so there is no immediate danger. The dissident teaching that the bishops have allowed to spread have taken years to get where they are and will take many more years to go away. Simply removing the bishops won’t fix the problem. Suddenly changing everything will create confusion. My employer right now is changing our staffing, the phone system, the computers, the computer system, the system that makes shipping labels, and probably some other things I can’t remember. It is chaos where I am working, and this is just one corporation.
However, Mr. Dreher has the point. How far can we go with bishops who insist on not doing the job that they were ordained for? There comes a point where a bishop is incapacitated as a leader. I think we have a few bishops in office who are past that point, and I wonder why they are still in office. Granted, I don’t know how many were privately reprimanded, but public sin, if not corrected, calls for public action before the whole Church. Jesus himself said so.
I love the Church and will never leave her. However, I can’t understand why so many things have been allowed to go wrong. When will something be done? The Holy Father has great concern about this possible war and rightly so. I just hope (I presume no judgement.) that the current situation in the Church is as high of a priority for him.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Monday, March 10, 2003 / Comments(0)
I must admit to having an overly sensitive nonsense detector in my mind. I often suspect nonsense where there is little or none. Sometimes the concept that is being descibed is fine, but it is something that I have seen used and misused. One such concept is that of a “relationship.” Maybe I don’t like the term because people have used this to overpsychologize faith.
I know we all should develop a personal relationship with Our Lord. I’m not saying we shouldn’t. However, something about the word sounds so superficial to me. I think it is because of the way I’ve heard the concept used. I’ve sometimes said that the explicit need to turn from sin or to learn dogma is needed in the materials that we study in church groups. One response I hear is that it “isn’t about that” but rather it’s about developing a “relationship with God.” Several people will then agree.
However, I wonder what these people mean by our development of a relationship with God. Are they really trying to develop a union with God? If so, then don’t we need to know who he is. Who wants a “relationship” with someone who refuses to get to know us?
Furthermore, we have a real need to turn away from what offends another if we want a relationship. A man can give his wife flowers; cook for her; bring her presents; treat her like a queen. However, this won’t mean squat to most women I know if he is also on intimate terms with another woman. Likewise, if we are doing evil deeds, how can we really expect God to believe the sincerity of the good that we are supposedly trying to do? We can’t hold on to things incompatible with union with Our Lord while simultaneously trying to claim that union.
Further, a proper desire for Heaven and a proper fear of Hell are necessary, despite what some have told me. Heaven is a state of complete union with God; if we really love God, then doing things out of a desire for Heaven is nothing less than doing things out of love for God. Likewise, the chief punishment of Hell, per the catechism, is eternal separation from God. If we love God, we don’t want to be separated from him. We Christians are not altruists but people who are living in hopes of eternal life.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
David Ancell / Monday, March 10, 2003 / Comments(0)
I’ll have to save my big blogging for later this evening, but I wanted to give visitors who were already here yesterday a little taste for today. There are some statements that just make me go “Huh?,” and here is one of them:
“Sometimes we get so caught up in Christ in the Eucharist that we forget about Christ himself.”
The explanation was this:
“We get so caught up in the externals that we forget the deeper meaning.”
My response is:
“If you know a thing about the externals, you probably are caught up in the deeper meaning. A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace. Therefore, the external is important. Oh, and by the way, the Eucharist is Christ himself.”
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized