Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

The Professor Who Knows Our Names

The Professor Who Knows Our Names | Brian Jones | Catholic World Report

A tribute to the man who is Schall

“Father Schall cares about where you’re from and how you’re doing. He doesn’t need to do that, but he does. The greatest professor I’ll ever have knows my name.”

— Victoria Edel, former student of Father James Schall

“What, in the end, does a professor most want his students to remember? Not himself but what is true and the search for it. Above all, he wants them to remember the Socratic foundations of our culture, that ‘it is never right to do wrong,’ that death is not the worst evil, that ultimately our lives are about eternal life, as Benedict XVI writes in his great encyclical on modernity, Spe Salvi. The university is a place where truth, all truth, can be spoken, ought to be spoken. Often it is not. It is imperative, as Schumacher said, that a student knows where to turn when it is not.”

— Father James V. Schall, SJ, “The Final Gladness,” December 7, 2012.

I once took a philosophy course in which, at the end of the semester, the professor told us a story about whether or not there was such a thing as a “stupid question.” He said that toward the close of a recent semester at a university in Bulgaria, a young and tepid student raised her hand and asked, “Professor, is there such a thing as a stupid question?” Hoping to relieve the young student of her fear and worry, he quickly shot back, “Of course not. If you have any questions in this class, I want you to come right out and ask them with no worry of rebuke or concern that your question is not worth asking.” The girl breathed a sigh of relief, and then proceeded to ask her question: “Professor, how come you don’t know any of our names?” The professor, with his smile turning to stone, simply responded, “I guess I was wrong: that is a stupid question.”

The point of my telling this story as the introduction for a tribute to Father James Schall will hopefully become apparent. To even attempt to write something in honor of such a man, who the Georgetown University student newspaper calls a “living legend,” will surely fall enormously short of the true pietas that we, as his students, owe to him. Last month, Father Schall gave his last public lecture at Georgetown University, a place that he has been able to call home for the last 34 years. Of course, Father Schall would be quick to remind us, along with Chesterton, that even at home, he still has a sense of being “homesick.” Even in the greatest of places, surrounded with the joy of family and friendship, this life nevertheless leaves us unsettled. We are still restless, since even the good things of this life are simply a prelude to what is to come, whereby the fulfillment of all our desires and pursuits will come to rest in Him who is our end. It is all the more poignant, then, that Father Schall titled his last lecture, “The Final Gladness.” And what precisely is this “final gladness”? Schall tells us that it will ultimately consist “in a meeting in which we, in friendship, at last find ourselves seeing God as we would have it, face-to-face.”

Schall has bequeathed to us a plethora of writings wherein he has explored practically every topic in human affairs.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Tardy Reflections on the Election

Tardy Reflections on the Election | James Kalb | Ecclesia et Civitas | Catholic World Report

The November 2012 elections revealed that the Republicans believe in nothing, while the Democrats believe in Nothing.

A great many things might have changed the results in November. Hurricane Sandy might have headed into the Atlantic instead of the Atlantic states. Or moods might have shifted, so that memes like “the war against women” might have flopped rather than flown.

Still, there’s no explaining away what happened, and the re-election of Barack Obama, a pure representative of the media-bureaucratic complex and the intolerant social leftism it stands for, must show something. He may have won because the Republicans failed to come up with an appealing candidate and message, and not because the majority was smitten with his social views, but that failure must show something as well.

Many people have the sense that the election revealed a basic change in American life. What it shows is the extent to which advanced liberalism has become our established faith. It’s the one our most influential authorities accept and rely on, and they feel called upon to import its principles into all aspects of life. That’s why abortion is the law of the land and voters aren’t allowed to say otherwise. The election returns showed that they have grown used to that situation, and no longer find it seriously objectionable.

If that’s what the election showed, then it had to do with fundamental tendencies. On that point, it revealed that the Republicans believe in nothing, while the Democrats believe in Nothing.

To believe in nothing is to have no beliefs except success. Individual Republicans may be decent public-spirited people, and they are likely to believe on some level in other things, the role of marriage as a distinct fundamental institution, for example. The point though is that for the national party such issues aren’t taken seriously. They function as campaign slogans for particular audiences. What’s taken seriously is American power abroad, economic success at home, and victory for Republicans. That’s what the party, as a party, believes in.

Power and success are not bad things. Power is the ability to achieve goals, and success is actually bringing them about. Both are good as a general rule, and politicians should favor them, but they’re not enough for a political outlook that makes sense. Something more is needed to tell us what to aim for and what to do with it when achieved. The Republicans have nothing that serves that purpose.

The Democrats do: they have Nothing.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

John Paul II’s “Triptych” of the Human Person

John Paul II’s “Triptych” of the Human Person | Charles Dern | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

An introduction to the first part of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

We have good news! The rich teaching of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body (TOB) is beginning to filter into seminaries, undergraduate theology courses, and into specialized seminars.  But despite this good news, many of today’s priests, deacons, and religious likely were educated before the insights from the TOB were integrated into various seminary and monastic programs.  Adding to this problem is that the TOB was originally delivered as a series of talks, with its style complicating and confounding what the late Pontiff was trying to communicate.  This problem is unfortunate (but not insurmountable) because his Theology of the Body is essentially a series of reflections on scripture passages, many of which appear in the regular Sunday reading cycles.  Given that most lay adults receive what precious little instruction they do through Sunday homilies, they may be missing out on some very profound insights that counteract utilitarian views of the person, and misunderstandings of marriage, that so pervade contemporary society.

John Paul II began his work for the Theology of the Body in the early 1970s as a book project when he was still Cardinal Karol Wojtyła. As an academic philosopher, Wojtyła concerned himself in particular with the philosophical question of what it means to be a human person.  In addition to a number of articles, Wojtyła published two books on this subject.  His earlier work, Love and Responsibility (1960), examines the nature of human love—and by implication, Divine Love—and concludes that love’s very essence includes both communion (gift of self to the other, such as occurs in the Trinity)—and creativity (an outpouring of something new from the communion, such as God’s outpouring of Love in creation). 1   In response to the dualistic vision of the person (separation of mind and body) spawned primarily by Rene Descartes, Wojtyła’s second book, The Acting Person (1969), argues that persons act as an integrated, unified being. 2

This article focuses on the first part of his Theology of the Body which, “takes a step back” as it were, and broadens the vision of humanity from not just this life (historical man), but to what God intended for man before the Fall (original man), as well as what God has in store for those who love Him (eschatological man).  The three reflections are likened to a “Triptych” or three-panel painting in which all three sections are required to see the whole picture.  This stands in contrast to the sciences that tend to analyze the person only in a single dimension (e.g., biology), and contemporary philosophies, that look at this life only (e.g., existentialism).  These approaches offer what John Paul II calls an “inadequate anthropology” of the human person.

Continue reading at www.HPRweb.com.

On Being Human In a Civilization of Forgetfulness

On Being Human In a Civilization of Forgetfulness | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Catholic World Report

The Pope understands that the wars of the world are still fought in the minds and hearts of men.

“The Church represents the memory of what it means to be human in the face of a civilization of forgetfulness, which knows only itself and its own criteria. Yet just as an individual without memory has lost his identity, so too a human race without memory would lose its identity.”

— Pope Benedict XVI, Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia, December 21, 2012.

“I would say that the Christian can afford to be supremely confident, yes, fundamentally certain that he can venture freely into the open sea of the truth, without having to fear for his Christian identity. To be sure, we do not possess the truth, the truth possesses us; Christ, who is the truth, has taken us by the hand, and we know that his hand is holding us securely on the path of our quest for knowledge.”

— Pope Benedict XVI, Christmas Greetings to the Roman Curia, December 21, 2012.

I.

Each year the Holy Father gives a significant lecture to the Roman Curia about the events of the previous year. In this year’s account, Benedict spent time recalling his trips to Mexico, Cuba, and Lebanon. In the course of a year, the modern popes probably see more important (and “unimportant”) people in the world than any other public figure. Their trips to various countries are usually major events in those countries. It is said that John Paul II was seen in person by more human beings than any man in history.

In introducing Pope Benedict, Cardinal Sodano recalled the liturgical antiphon: “Propre est jam Dominus, venite adoremus–The Lord is near, come let us adore Him.” The Child in the stable in Bethlehem, Benedict continues, “is God himself and has come so close as to become a man like us.” Benedict never hesitates to identify Christ as true God and true man. These very words—the “Child is God Himself”—defy and challenge the whole world by affirming its truth. 

Benedict made a most interesting remark about Cuba: “That country’s search for a proper balancing of the relationship between obligations and freedom cannot succeed without reference to the basic criteria that mankind has discovered through encounter with the God of Jesus Christ.” One presumes that, if that statement is true for Cuba, it will be true for other lands, including our own. Evidently, mankind has learned something about obligation and freedom from its dealing with the reality of Christ. Essentially it is that no freedom exists without corresponding obligation. Likewise, an obligation that is not freely accepted is more like determinism or coercion than free responsibility.

II.

To the Curia, Benedict devotes considerable discussion to two topics: the family and the meaning of dialogue. The meeting on families in Milan gave the Holy Father an opportunity to reflect on the nature of the family and the modern effort to eliminate it as the central institution of human life.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Social Justice According to Pius XI

Social Justice According to Pius XI | Thomas Storck | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

The term “social justice”… is the key term and concept of Catholic social teaching … with all the other aspects of the Church’s social doctrine—the principle of subsidiarity, the just wage or the right to private property—are related to, and rely, on the existence of social justice.

The term “social justice,” though common enough today, is little understood by most of those who use it—whether they consider themselves friends and practitioners of social justice, or they regard it as a suspect term of probably socialist origin.  But the term does have a precise meaning. That meaning and the significance of this concept of justice, were carefully explained by Pius XI, the pontiff who introduced it into the corpus of Catholic social teaching.  In many respects it is the key term and concept of Catholic social teaching. All the other aspects of the Church’s social doctrine—such as the principle of subsidiarity, the just wage or the right to private property—are related to social justice, and rely on the existence of social justice.  Pope Pius, who reigned from 1922 to 1939, introduced the term into Catholic teaching in his encyclical, Studiorum Ducem (1923). He later made extensive use of it in two important social encyclicals: Quadragesimo Anno (1931) and Divini Redemptoris (1937).  But, before taking a close look at the exact meaning of social justice, let us try to clear away some confusions over justice itself, especially as contrasted with charity.

To illustrate the frequent confusion about the meaning of social justice, and, indeed, about justice in general, one sometimes hears the activity of working in a soup kitchen cited as an example of social justice.  However laudable such work is, it is not a work of justice, social or otherwise, but rather one of charity.  Thus, the first distinction we must make is between “justice” and “charity.” What is justice then?  Thomas Aquinas takes as the settled definition of justice that of the Roman jurists. 1  According to them, justice is “a perpetual and constant will of giving to each one his right {jus}.” Plato had already referred to justice under similar terms in the Republic (331e), attributing the definition to Simonides, a poet who died ca. 468 B.C.  As we will see, there is more than one kind of justice, but common to all of them is this notion of rendering what is due, i.e., of what someone has a right to.  As Josef Pieper put it: “The hallmark of all…forms of justice is some kind of indebtedness….” 2 Charity, on the other hand, although it can be a duty binding on someone, and even a duty toward a particular person, differs from justice in that its “violation does not involve injury, in the technical sense, and does not call for restitution or punishment.” 3  Often, duties of charity are not directed towards anyone in particular.  For example, my duty of charity to give away a certain amount of my goods, while binding in conscience, does not oblige me to give to any particular person.  No one particular poor man ordinarily has a claim on my charity.

The character of justice is easiest to see in the fundamental type of justice, commutative justice.

Continue reading at www.HPRweb.com.

Pope's year-end address to curia: "Whoever defends God is defending man."

by Carl E. Olson on the CWR blog

If you've not read the entire address, you'll want to. Below is the section about family, marriage, and gender, a passage causing some hand-wringing among those who apparently haven't figured out that (gasp!) the Pope and the Catholic Church does and always will support and defend marriage as a life-long bond between a man and a woman. The Telegraph, for example, has the headline, "Pope says future of mankind at stake over gay marriage", and the subhead: "Pope Benedict XVI has weighed in on a heated debate over gay marriage, criticising new concepts of the traditional family and warning that mankind itself was at stake."

Of course, the Holy Father never mentions "gay marriage", or even the word "marriage", for his criticisms are aimed at something deeper and broader than the frivilous narcissism and flawed understanding of equality found throughout the "gay marriage" movement. They are focused on what might be called a secularist form of neo-gnosticism, which seeks to remake human nature according to the destructive whims and passions of the age. "Man and woman as created realities, as the nature of the human being, no longer exist," Benedict XVI says about this anti-human approach, "Man calls his nature into question. From now on he is merely spirit and will. The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be." 

The attacks on marriage throughout the West are serious and significant, but are one big battle in an even bigger war, which is ultimately about God himself, as the Pope makes clear.

Continue reading...

A Rational Basis for Marriage between One Man and One Woman

A Rational Basis for Marriage between One Man and One Woman | Bill Maguire | Catholic World Report

Same-sex marriage not only undermines real marriage, it redefines the human person.

It is imperative for Catholics to develop rational arguments to defend the institution of marriage in the public square. We live in a pluralistic society and, therefore, what we accept as revelation is not necessarily accepted by others. However, an argument grounded in right reason—without explicit recourse to revelation—is in principle comprehensible to all persons of good will.

As we consider the current debate over marriage, it would be a mistake to underestimate the pedagogical function of the law and how a fundamental change in marriage law will result in a fundamental change in our understanding of the human person. What is at stake in the push to redefine marriage to include same-sex partners is not only the radical redefinition of marriage—but, also and necessarily, the radical redefinition of the human person and the entire range of relationships that constitute our basic experience as persons: male and female; husband and wife; mother and father; son and daughter; brother and sister.

Same-Sex Marriage Renders the Public Recognition of Marriage Unnecessary

Marriage between one man and one woman is recognized as a public institution, with its attendant benefits and responsibilities, precisely because it serves the common good. Marriage offers the State its most necessary common good: bringing children into the world and raising them in a family that includes the love of their mother and father. The State needs people (citizens) in order to flourish: no people = no State. Under the principle of subsidiarity, the common good is better served when mothers and fathers raise their children, not the State.

Extending marriage to same-sex partners, will redefine marriage in such a way that marriage will no longer be understood to have a direct relationship to the procreation and education of children.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

Christopher Kaczor on myths about the Church, Galileo, the abuse scandals, contraception, more

Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, has a lengthy and wide-ranging interview with Dr. Christopher Kaczor, author of The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction about Catholicism, recently published by Ignatius Press. Some excerpts:

KJL: In your new book, you explain that “Catholics aren’t anti science, anti-woman, the Aryan nation.” Defensive much?

KACZOR: I think a good defense and a good offense are necessary to make progress towards the truth. Unfortunately, there are many people who believe that the Church is against women or against science. In The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church, I challenge the most common myths, the ones that many secular people and inactive Catholics, among others, believe. If many people thought that Catholics were members of the Aryan nation, I would have included a treatment of this as well. Relatively few people believe Catholicism is racist, if only because the majority of Catholics in the world are people of color.

KJL: “Christianity is properly measured not by its great sinners but by its great saints” you write, “for it is the saints who have lived out the Gospel message, not the great sinners.” Isn’t that conveniently counting people there?

KACZOR: Not really. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of a medication in clinical trial? Would you look at how the medication worked for those who took it as directed or would you look at how it worked for people who skipped doses or didn’t take the medication at all? G. K. Chesterton was onto something, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

KJL: Do you actually defend the Catholic Church’s treatment of Galileo?

KACZOR: No and yes. No, I don’t defend the Catholic Church’s treatment of Galileo insofar as the ecclesial judicial authorities in the trial of Galileo made serious mistakes. The authorities wrongly condemned heliocentricism which was, at that time, a proposed but as yet unproven view. However, this error — and other errors of a disciplinary and judicial nature — were not a formal part of Catholic teaching. Then, as now, Church officials can and do make errors, unfortunately sometimes serious errors, in terms of discipline and order within the Church community. But yes, I do defend the Church insofar as the Galileo case was only partially based on scientific disputes but had much to do with conflicts of personality, politics, and theology of the time. In many people’s minds, the condemnation of Galileo has become a Catholic condemnation of science. In fact, at issue was not chiefly the scientific views of Galileo (which were held by many Catholics of the time, including the Catholic cleric Copernicus and Jesuit priests in good standing), but more centrally whether Galileo broke agreements he had made about in what manner to teach his views and that Galileo insisted on changing the dominant interpretations of scripture at the time. Both Galileo himself (who remained a faithful Catholic his whole life) and those involved in his trial such as St. Robert Bellarmine agreed that there can never be a true conflict between science and faith. Apparent but not real conflicts can arise through a mistaken interpretation of faith (as was made by those who condemned Galileo), a misunderstanding of science (e.g. that science requires atheism), or both. It is a myth — albeit a persistent myth — that the Church opposes science. ...

KJL: Why do you end with the abuse scandals?

KACZOR: The abuse scandals are extremely important and often misunderstood, so I wanted to end the book on the topic. Many people mistakenly believe that celibacy causes pedophilia or that Catholic priests are more likely to sexually abuse children than other kinds of people. In The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church, I provide a great deal of evidence that these beliefs are false. ....

KJL: “The point of contraception is to make sure that there is not a complete union between the two.” Aren’t you making a bigger deal of this than it is?

KACZOR: Erotic love — by its very nature — is a drive towards deeper unity with the beloved, and children are a wonderful manifestation of the unity between husband and wife. Each child unifies the husband and wife with each other in a physical sense. Every one of us is a living manifestation of the union of our mother and father, half of our DNA from each. This unity, like erotic love itself, is exclusively bringing together one man and one woman. No other woman is the mother of his child; no other man is the father of her child. As long as the child lives, they are unified in their offspring. This unity is characteristically not limited to the physical. Normally, a unity of will and affection also arises between the mother and father. They both love their child, both want what’s best for that child, both delight in the child’s good fortune, and mourn the child’s misfortunes. Even in the case of divorce, very often the parents still share a united will to help their child and will put away their differences and become united again at important events in the child’s life, like graduations and weddings.

Ideally, the unity of the parents includes running a household and raising the child together. They work together, as mother and father, to provide for the child’s many needs. Their unity which began as a unified sexual act continues over the years as a unity of shared activity ordered to the education and raising of the child.

Children therefore help parents realize the goals of erotic love — to be together, unified physically, psychologically, socially, and emotionally. Each child unifies these two people together, and no one else, in a unity that is lasting and exclusive. Children are a good of marriage that unites the husband and wife in a way that realizes the aspirations of erotic love.

The use of contraception acts against the unity sought by erotic love. A couple only uses contraception when one does not want to a child to unite them. Although their bodies are partially unified, the point of contraception is to make sure that there is not a complete unity between husband and wife. Contraception, through various means, seeks to make sure that part of him (sperm) does not unite with part of her (egg). Contraception also involves, against the goals of erotic love, the acceptance of the whole person. Part of the person, the potential to become a father or a mother, the fertility of one or both parties, is intentionally rejected, at least for the time being. If this analysis is correct, then contraception does not serve the same goals as erotic love.

Read the entire interview on Lopez's blog at Patheos.com. • For more about The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church, visit the book's website.

Gender: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?

Gender: What Is It and Why Does It Matter? | Maria Fedoryka, Ph.D. | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

We Americans face a state of affairs relating to marriage and family … (where we) must now attempt to show why the divinely-instituted laws of marriage and family are binding not only for Christians, but hold true for everyone.

The aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity. (One is unable to notice something—because it is always before one’s eyes.) The real foundations of his inquiry do not strike a person at all….And this means: we fail to be struck by what, once seen, is most striking and most powerful. 1

Ludwig Wittgenstein’s words here apply to the man-woman difference: in the reality of marriage in its entirely self-evident and foundational character, as well as in its absolute centrality to human existence. Not long ago, the idea of having to explain them would have seemed absurd to most. 2 This distinction between man and woman, the magnificent reality of romantic and spousal love, the permanent and devoted union of marriage for which this love yearns, and its happy “overflow” into the creation of a family, has so deeply structured our understanding of the world, and the human person, that it would never have occurred to us to think about the “why” behind them.

We Americans face a state of affairs relating to marriage and family that has forced us to “(lose) the innocence of taking man and woman for granted.” 3 We must now attempt to show why the divinely-instituted laws of marriage and family—which, until recently, was taken by all simply as a given—are binding not only for Christians, but hold true for everyone. There is, however, a certain difficulty in the task, since the “invention” of man and woman, and of marriage, are precisely that: an invention proceeding, as it were, from God’s creative imagination. That is, they cannot, in a mathematical sense, be shown to be necessary. A different system would have been possible—as indeed, some created, rational beings have no gender (angels), and do not enter into marriage. But, that God has invented the reality of marriage in no way implies that it is arbitrary or meaningless.  On the contrary, there is a deep intelligibility underlying the division of humanity into two genders, and marriage as the unique union possible only between a man and a woman.

Some preliminary reflections on the nature and meaning of gender, generally speaking, are offered here as possible a groundwork for further considerations on the Church’s teaching on marriage as founded on the union of man and woman. For only if we understand the metaphysical constitution of masculinity and femininity, and their centrality to the being of man and woman, will we be able to defend marriage against the current onslaught that would all but destroy it.

The creation of the human person as male and female is the most central feature of the visible world. It is also at the very center of God’s plan for humanity. This plan originates within the being of God himself, and it is where we must begin if we are to discover the meaning of gender.

Gender and Its Primary Significance 4
For all the impressive knowledge of God to which pre-Christian philosophy attained, God reveals, in the New Testament, what was completely unimaginable for the Greeks: that God is love. Not only that God loves, which would have been absurd enough; but that God is love. How can this be? How can a being be love?

Continue reading at www.HPRweb.com.

St. Thomas Aquinas on the Prayer of Christ....

...  as Manifest in the Prayers of the Mass | Dawn Eden | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

The Angelic Doctor’s overarching concern in treating of Christ’s prayer is to show that Jesus’ primary purpose in praying was to draw us to imitate him.

St. Thomas Aquinas begins his exposition on prayer in the Summa theologiae by explaining that prayer is not an act of the ap

petitive power, but is rather an act of reason. 1 Yet, later in the Summa, in his question concerning the prayer of Christ, he asks whether Jesus’ prayer was the expression of His sensuous impulse.   2 Why does he raise an issue that he has seemingly already settled?

One possible answer is that revisiting the relationship between prayer and the sensitive appetite, enables Aquinas to discuss how the liturgy brings the ecclesia orans into greater conformity with the crucified Savior. This becomes clear when one examines how certain prayers of the Roman Missal manifest one of the things Thomas says Christ’s prayer is intended to teach us: “that it is permissible for a man to entertain an instinctive affection for something which God does not will. 3

Putting on Christ through putting on his desires
The Angelic Doctor’s overarching concern in treating of Christ’s prayer is to show that Jesus’ primary purpose in praying was to draw us to imitate him: “As God, Christ could accomplish all that he desired, but not as man. … Yet, even though in his one person, he was God as well as man, he wished to offer prayer to the Father. It was not that he, as a person, lacked any power; he did this for our instruction.” 4 Thomas then enumerates two things Jesus sought to teach us by this means: “He wished firstly to reveal to us that he was from the Father. So, we find him saying: ‘Because of the people who stand about, have I said it’—namely the vocal prayer—’that they may believe that Thou hast sent me.’” … Secondly, he wished to offer us an example. 5

It is in keeping with this notion of Christ’s offering us an example that Aquinas enters into the question of whether Jesus’ prayer was the expression of his sensuous impulse. St. Thomas initially answers that—following what has already been said about prayer emanating from the reason—Christ’s prayer could not be the expression of his sensuality, “since his sensuality was of the same nature and species in Christ as in us.” 6

Having repeated his earlier teaching, Thomas then considers the question from a different angle, observing that we may be said to pray according to the sensuality when our prayer lays before God what is in our appetite of sensuality; and in this sense Christ prayed with his sensuality inasmuch as his prayer expressed the desire of his sensuality, as if it were the advocate of the sensuality.” 7

Continue reading at www.HPRweb.com.

An Undemocratic Future?

An Undemocratic Future? | James Kalb | Catholic World Report

A review of After Tocqueville by Chilton Williamson

Democracy means “rule by the people,” but today that seems an increasingly distant ideal. We live in a diverse country of 310 million people with a government responsible for a huge range of domestic and foreign concerns. Even full-time professionals have trouble keeping track of what’s going on. In such a situation, how can ordinary people exercise much control over public affairs?

But if democracy can’t really be rule by the people, at least not under present conditions, what is it? Nobody seems to know, and if someone does no one else agrees with him. With that problem in mind, Chilton Williamson has written a book that explores at length the ambiguities, contradictions, and doubtful prospects of whatever it is that we call democracy.

After Tocqueville: The Promise and Failure of Democracy (ISI, 2012) is extraordinarily wide-ranging. It starts with a long bicycle tour of France by a young British historian, which leads to a discussion of whether the centralized and officially egalitarian France of today is freer or more democratic than the loosely and locally organized France that existed before the Revolution. The author then spends the rest of the book exploring the vicissitudes of the democratic cause, the movements, institutions, and meanings associated with it, and current conditions that make its future success doubtful.

In the course of his explorations Williamson touches on a huge variety of thinkers who have held quite divergent views on the nature, value, and prospects of popular rule. He focuses especially on Alexis de Tocqueville, the great prophet and analyst of democracy in America. Tocqueville was a French nobleman who was truly at home only with other aristocrats. He nonetheless saw America as a sign of the inevitable triumph of democracy throughout the West, and was public-spirited and cosmopolitan enough to recognize that the new order would have certain advantages.

Tocqueville was concerned to secure the advantages of democracy and minimize its dangers, but his confidence in its approaching triumph was not matched by confidence it would endure.

Continue reading on the CWR site.

Live Web Event with Dale Ahlquist, November 14th

UPDATE (Nov. 12, 2012): The original post had an incorrect link for the Live Stream; that has been corrected.

EVENT: Author Dale Ahlquist, President of the American Chesterton Society, will host a live Web event to discuss and field questions about his new book, The Complete Thinker: The Marvelous Mind of G.K. Chesterton.

WHEN: 8 p.m. ET on Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2012.

WHERE: Online at www.LiveStream.com/IgnatiusPress. RSVPs encouraged.

FORMAT: Ahlquist will open with general comments about the book and his reasons for writing it, then will take questions from participants through the website, Facebook and Twitter.

ABOUT THE BOOK:

• Why do people consider Chesterton a “complete thinker?”
• What sets Chesterton apart from other writers of his generation?
• How is it that he was able to write about so many different things?
• What are the valid criticisms of Chesterton’s body of work?

Ahlquist leads readers on a tour of Chesterton’s works – and thoughts. He masterfully combines Chesterton’s works with his own analysis to show how and why Chesterton was, indeed, THE COMPLETE THINKER.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dale Ahlquist is the president and co-founder of the American Chesterton Society, and co-founder of the Chesterton Academy – a high school in Minneapolis, Minn. He also serves as chairman of the annual G. K. Chesterton Conference at the University of St. Thomas (St. Paul, Minn.). He is perhaps best known for creating and hosting the EWTN television series:  “G. K. Chesterton:  The Apostle of Common Sense.”  The first episodes aired in 2000-2001. Ahlquist is one of the most respected Chesterton scholars in the world. His other books on the beloved 20^th-century Catholic literary giant include Common Sense 101: Lesson from G.K. Chesterton (Ignatius Press); G.K. Chesterton: The Apostle of Common Sense- a bestseller (Ignatius Press); Lepanto (Ignatius Press); and In Defense of Sanctity: The Best Essays of G.K. Chesterton.

For more information, to request a review copy of The Complete Thinker or schedule an interview with Dale Ahlquist, please contact Kelly Kracht (651-470-3854 or KKracht@MaximusMG.com) or Kevin Wandra (678-990-9032 or KWandra@MaximusMG.com) of The Maximus Group.

A watershed election. A Weimar election?

by Fr. James V. Schall, S.J. | Catholic World Report

The 2012 presidential election will be analyzed to death. Then, it will be commented on for years or decades to come. Before the election, we heard various hypotheses about its import: “The year 2012 will see the last ‘free’ election.” It will reveal a deeply divided people, divided over the most fundamental issues of right and wrong. It is a “Weimar Election.” That was the vote of the Germans in the 1930s about who would rule the country. They did not read the party leader carefully or watch what he did. “The majority in the country is not ‘white’ but ‘brown.’” They dance to a different tune. “No real unified Catholic vote exists.” Some even think that Robert Hugh Benson’s 1907 novel, The Lord of the World, describes what next to expect.

The notion that some things, especially the important ones, should not fall within the jurisdiction of the state is no longer to be taken for granted. The state, with its main duties, the taking care of everyone, defines what is important from now on. One might say that our people coldly looked the Leviathan in its eyes. They did not flinch as he brought them into his body. These are dramatic observations, no doubt. We now wait to see what happens next. We have established who is in power. We will not pass this way again.

And in establishing who is to rule us, we reveal our own souls. The liberty to do whatever we want that Aristotle spoke of while describing democracies is now firmly rooted among us. No real opposition will be tolerated. Liberty means doing what state demands.

Generally speaking, we prefer a political system, the result of which is that either candidate could rule reasonably well. The vital principals of the regime would remain intact, even with disagreement. In Australia, a citizen has to pay a fine if he does not vote. This is a dubious law. It is much better to give a citizen the freedom to vote or not to vote. After all, when it comes to the crunch, a mandatory voting law doubtfully fares better than a less rigid one. A democracy can in theory produce a wiser ruler than other systems. But in practice it can do the opposite even if everyone votes freely with no worry about being fined.

This election was not an elections between two candidates whose vision of reality is the same or even reconcilable. The election was about whether a “new” idea of the state would replace the basic principles of the Founding of the country. Most of the directions of this “new” state—its nature and roots—were already described by Plato and Aristotle, but they knew them as disorders. The moral and political tendencies were visible in the first term for everyone to see. Now there is little reason to think such policies will not be carried out. The courts and the House may still be something of a counter balance, as well as the relative autonomy of the individual states. We can expect any new Supreme Court justice will be appointed by the same ideology that won the election. No one will ask if there are standards and principles that stand behind all government, including democratic ones.

We may need to be preparing for more direct persecution for religious doctrines and prudential norms.

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

Maritain, Christianity, and Democracy

From a Thomistica.net interview with Dr. Raymond Dennehy about two recently re-issued works of Jacques Maritain’s political philosophy, Christianity and Democracy: The Rights of Man and The Natural Law (Ignatius Press; the book is also available as as electronic book download):

Thomistica.net: When were Christianity and Democracy and The Rights of Man and the Natural Law originally published?

Dr. Dennehy: Both works were published in French in New York by Editions de la Maison Francaise, Les Droits de l’ Homme et la Loi Naturelle in 1942 and Christianisme et Democratie in 1943.

Thomistica.net: Could you tell us something about the context of these books? Why did Maritain write them? How do they relate to his other work, including his other work in political theory?

Dr. Dennehy: When the outbreak of World War II made it impossible for Maritain and his wife to return to France from his lecture tour in Canada and the United States, he continued to support his countrymen by working with the Free French in New York City. Through radio addresses and publications, he called the attention of Americans to the condition of the French people, appealing for food and money for French relief. Throughout the war, Maritain also worked with the New School in New York City, producing works of a more philosophical and scholarly nature on the subjects of democracy, totalitarianism, and human rights, such as Les Droits de l ‘Homme et la Loi Naturelle; miniature editions of Christianisme et Democratie were dropped by British Royal Air Force planes over occupied France in 1944.

One way that these works relate to other of Maritain’s works is that the theme of the relation between philosophy and faith constitutes an idee fixe in his writings. Consider, for example, his Integral Humanism, the chapter in his Man and the State entitled “The Democratic Charter,” Scholasticism and Politics, and An Essay on Christian Philosophy. Maritain was convinced that the ideals of modern democracy are Christian in origin and that the values of Christianity energize its institutions. (See my foreword in the Ignatius Press edition of Christianity and Democracy and The Rights of Man and the Natural Law for an account of how Maritain sees the relation between faith and speculative philosophy and faith and practical philosophy and thus for what he understands the term “Christian philosophy” to mean.)

None of which diminishes Maritain’s personal drama in reconciling faith and reason. Despairing of ever finding truth (their teachers at the Sorbonne were skeptics and materialists), Maritain and his wife, Raissa, entered into a suicide pact: if they could not find meaning in materialism within one year, they would kill themselves.

Read the entire interview. The second part of the interview is also available on the Thomistica.net site.

• Jacques Maritain on "Four Characteristics of a Society of Free Men", from Christianity and Democracy: The Rights of Man and The Natural Law.
• Jacques Maritain on the "the liquidation of the modern world", from the same work.

The Pastoral Mandate, Politicians and Religious Liberty

The Pastoral Mandate, Politicians and Religious Liberty | Joe Tremblay | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Is this threat to religious liberty a political problem, or is it a pastoral problem?

On January 19th, 2011, EWTN’s The World Over with Raymond Arroyo aired an interview with New York’s Archbishop Timothy Dolan. To his credit, Raymond Arroyo represented the concerns of many Catholics by asking the Archbishop about his pastoral position on discipline as it pertained to New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo. As most viewers know, Cuomo had long been an unapologetic advocate of abortion rights. In June of 2011, however, he took his public dissent from Catholic teaching to yet another level. The governor signed a bill making same-sex marriage legal in the state of New York. Cuomo, mind you, is a highly visible public figure who calls himself a “Catholic” and one who attends Mass from time to time. Accordingly, Raymond Arroyo asked where the governor of New York stood in relation to the Church to which he professed allegiance. Archbishop Dolan answered by saying that the talks between him and Cuomo are on-going, maintaining: “Our job is to invite people in and try to patiently change hearts—and not be throwing people out” (New York Daily News June 17th 2011).  I think it is fair to say that many U.S. bishops, especially in several of the archdioceses in the United States, concur with Archbishop Dolan on this form of dialogue.

Religious Liberty
The next day, January 20th, the Catholic News Agency reported that “the Department of Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the administration would not expand a religious exemption for employers who object to its ‘preventative services’ mandate.” In other words, the Obama administration made it known that they would mandate that, against their will, Catholic agencies must provide abortifacients, contraception, sterilization, etc., in their health care coverage. In fact, these Catholic agencies have until August of 2013 to comply with the federal health care mandate. Archbishop Dolan did not mince words when he told the press what he thought of it. He said: “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.” In fact, a day earlier the Holy Father weighed in with these sobering words: “No one who looks at these issues realistically can ignore the genuine difficulties which the Church encounters at the present moment.” Indeed, Pope Benedict’s “Dictatorship of Relativism” is on the march in America.

Asking Important Questions
The question then becomes: Is this threat to religious liberty a political problem, or is it a pastoral problem?

Continue reading at www.HPRweb.com.

As empathy dies and narcissism thrives, will culture survive?

I know it's shocking and unexpected, but the evidence—both data-driven and anecdotal—indicates that people increasingly care less about others and more about themselves.

In fact, in a survey that has so far tested 14,000 volunteers, Sara Konrath and her team at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research has found that college students' self-reported empathy levels (as measured by the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, a standardized questionnaire containing such items as "I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me" and "I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision") have been in steady decline over the past three decades—since the inauguration of the scale, in fact, back in 1979. A particularly pronounced slump has been observed over the past 10 years. "College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago," Konrath reports.

More worrisome still, according to Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego State University, is that, during this same period, students' self-reported narcissism levels have shot through the roof. "Many people see the current group of college students, sometimes called 'Generation Me,' " Konrath continues, "as one of the most self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident, and individualistic in recent history."

That is from Kevin Dutton's article, "Psychopathy's Double Edge" (ht: C.F.), published in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Dutton writes, "Precisely why this downturn in social values has come about is not entirely clear. A complex concatenation of environment, role models, and education is, as usual, under suspicion." He then goes on to point to new studies of the brain, neural pathways, and such. Interesting. And I'm quite sympathetic to the argument that new technologies, the drop in literacy levels, and social upheaval are major factors in the demise of empathy and the steady growth of "self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident, and individualistic" attitudes and behaviors.

But, in the end, it won't suffice.

Continue reading on the CWR blog.

Loopers, Life, and Love

Loopers, Life, and Love | Carl E. Olson | Catholic World Report

The movie “Looper” has time traveling and assassins, but also philosophical and moral depth.

Two weekends ago, I went to the movie theater for the fourth time this year, which means I've already doubled my in-the-cineplex movie intake over last year. I certainly like movies, but have, in recent years, spent more time following various television series, which have the advantage of being able to unfold (or unravel, in some sad cases) over the course of several years. That said, certain premises capture my attention, and the set-up for "Looper" is one of those: a time travel flick with a dose or two of philosophical musing and inference mixed in among the obligatory explosions, killing, tussles, chases, and special effects.

(Warning: Major Spoilers Ahead! Repeat: Major Spoilers Ahead!)

First, the downside: "Looper", the third film by talented writer and director Rian Craig Johnson, is quite violent and occasionally vulgar, and sometimes in a way that is simply gratuitous. This is unfortunate, as the gore and language (and one scene with nudity) sometimes detract and distract from a movie that is propulsive, gripping, and, as it builds to a gripping conclusion, quite poignant. It succeeds as both an "action flick" and a morality play of sorts, even if the latter only emerges through a series of intermittent, but hardly random, instances of reflective dialogue borne along by exceptional cinematic storytelling. "Looper" has its share of carnage, but it is rarely crude; in fact, I think it can be plausibly argued that the intense violence is intended to inform and set in relief the deeper moral form of the film.

Of course, I'm also the same moviegoer who thought (and still thinks) that "Kill Bill, Part Two" is a (gasp!) pro-life movie, whether or not Quentin Tarantino intended such a thing. So, take it with a grain of salt. Or with an entire salt lick, if you wish. Still, I am quite happy to present my argument for "Looper" as a morality play with some worthwhile things to say—or, better, reveal in cinematic fashion—about free will, authentic love, the power of motherhood (and fatherhood, for that matter), and the nature of evil.

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.

G. K. Chesterton, a model for joyful evangelization

From a recent Catholic News Agency piece about Dale Ahlquist's new book, The Complete Thinker: The Marvelous Mind of G.K. Chesterton:

The author of a new book on G.K. Chesterton says the 20th-century author and Catholic convert is a model for joyful evangelization who can help unify the fractured modern worldview.

“Chesterton is the model evangelist,” American Chesterton Society President Dale Ahlquist told CNA Oct. 18. He had a way to connect with “virtually any kind of audience.”

“He never lets his charity contradict his truth. He always puts them together,” Ahlquist said.

“That’s one of the great weaknesses of our world: you have some people who care only about truth and doctrine, others who care only about charity and pity, and they don’t let the two combine with each other. Chesterton always combines the two.”

Ahlquist’s new book, “The Complete Thinker: The Marvelous Mind of G.K. Chesterton,” was released this October (Ignatius Press, $17.95).

Chesterton lived from 1874 to 1936. Under the influence of his wife Frances, he became a devout Anglican Christian. He converted to Catholicism in 1922.

He wrote literary essays, novels, poetry, plays, philosophical works and Christian apologetics. His short stories include the Father Brown mystery series. He enjoys a reputation as a witty writer with a love of finding truth in apparent paradox. He influenced the thinking of many converts and writers.

“He wrote about everything,” Ahlquist said. “He has this amazing, wide reach.”

Ahlquist said his new book is intended to help get the reader “inside of Chesterton’s head.” He aims to help people “think in a consistent way” across disciplines and modes of life.

“The modern world, Chesterton points out, has become one wild divorce court where everything has been separated from everything else,” he explained.

“We have separated the arts from the sciences and the humanities from the sciences. We have separated religion from politics and religion from economics. We expect all these things to operate in their own watertight compartments, and yet we don’t see how anything fits together anymore.”

Read the entire piece. Also see the recent CWR interview with Ahlquist: "G. K. Chesterton, the Complete Thinker". Also see, on Ignatius Insight:

G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) Author Page | Ignatius Insight

• Articles By and About G. K. Chesterton
• Ignatius Press Books about G. K. Chesterton
• Books by G. K. Chesterton

New: "The Complete Thinker: The Marvelous Mind of G.K. Chesterton"

Now available from Ignatius Press:

The Complete Thinker: The Marvelous Mind of G.K. Chesterton

by Dale Ahlquist

What does it mean to be a "complete thinker"? It means being able to take on a wide variety of ideas and disciplines and put them all together in a way that they work together. It means thinking like G.K. Chesterton.

The English author G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936) was one of the most prolific and well-known writers of his time, and one of the most widely quoted in our own. For newspapers and magazines, he wrote social commentary, literary criticism, and poetry with poignancy and wit. Creator of the beloved detective Father Brown, Chesterton also wrote novels and short stories.

"Thinking", wrote Chesterton, "means connecting things." His ideas are not only connected to each other, they are also connected to us, showing that the thought of Chesterton is timeless. In a world of increasing specialization, Chesterton connects us to the big picture by helping us see how the many and varied elements within our experience fit together. He sheds light on almost every subject and opens doors from one thing to another with dazzling clarity.

Drawing on literally hundreds of references from Chesterton's vast writings, Dale Ahlquist conducts a symphony, with Chesterton playing all the instruments in perfect harmony.

Chesterton's thoughts on almost everything-from east to west, from old to new, from politics to economics, from Shakespeare to Dickens-are woven together to create an illuminating whole.

Dale Ahlquist is president of the American Chesterton Society. Through his long running television series, The Apostle of Common Sense, as well as his books and lectures, he has helped bring about a great renewed interest in the works of G.K. Chesterton for contemporary readers. He has authored and contributed to several books on Chesterton, including Common Sense 101: Lessons from G.K. Chesterton, G.K. Chesterton: The Apostle of Common Sense, and In Defense of Sanity: The Best Essays of G.K. Chesterton. 

"To write a book about Chesterton is a bold act since GKC's books render most commentary superfluous. But Dale Ahlquist has not only had the courage to make the attempt; he has the wit, the learning, and the grace to make his book worthwhile reading alongside the works of the master himself."
- Robert Royal, Faith & Reason Institute

"Dale Ahlquist is well known for his championing of the thought and writings of the great English writer and apologist G. K. Chesterton. In this book he has distilled years of reading and studying the writings of his hero. It will surely attract many new readers to Chesterton. Ahlquist himself has all the zeal of the convert and he will make many new converts with this trenchant study."
-Ian Ker, Author, G. K. Chesterton: A Biography

"Dale Ahlquist is a delightful student of Chesterton who has learned well from the Master. He combines Chesterton's amazing gift for being funny and profound, showing how everything from pork to pyrotechnics bears witness to the Maker of All in the great symphony of creation and redemption. Pure reading pleasure!"
- Mark P. Shea, Author, The Heart of Catholic Prayer

Read a recent Catholic World Report interview with Dale Ahlquist about his new book:

G.K. Chesterton, the Complete Thinker

G.K. Chesterton, the Complete Thinker | An Interview with Dale Ahlquist | Catholic World Report

The author of The Complete Thinker: The Marvelous Mind of G.K. Chesterton discusses relativism, good thinking, bad thinking, global economics, and more.

Dale Ahlquist is president of the American Chesterton Society. Through his popular television series, The Apostle of Common Sense, as well as his many books and lectures, he has helped foster a renewed interest in the works of G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936), the prolific English essayist, novelist, poet, apologist, pundit, critic, and commentator. Ahlquist has authored and contributed to several books on Chesterton, including Common Sense 101: Lessons from G.K. Chesterton, G.K. Chesterton: The Apostle of Common Sense, and In Defense of Sanity: The Best Essays of G.K. Chesterton. He recently spoke with Catholic World Report about his new book, released today by Ignatius Press, The Complete Thinker: The Marvelous Mind of G. K. Chesterton.

CWR: In the introduction to your latest book, you write of Chesterton: “In an age of relativism, he speaks in absolutes.” Although relativism has made its reputation in the late 20th century, isn’t it true that Chesterton dealt with many forms of it in his own time?

Dale Ahlquist: In Chesterton’s third novel, The Ball and the Cross, published in 1909, he stages a debate between a monk named Michael and a professor named Lucifer. Even the symbolically challenged should figure out who they represent. At one point in the debate, Lucifer attempts to parry one of Michael’s points with the comment, “Of course, everything is relative…” So you see how long ago Chesterton is already aware of this argument forming, and he puts the argument into the mouth of the devil. Just as Chesterton warned that the popularization of Darwin would lead to a belief in mindless progressivism in politics, he warned early on that the popularization of Einstein would lead to an acceptance of relativism in philosophy.

CWR: You state, “Chesterton’s great accomplishment is that in addition to writing about everything, he puts it all together. He is a complete thinker.” How, in light of Chesterton’s writings, does one go about being a complete thinker?

Continue reading at www.CatholicWorldReport.com.