Theology
Of Guns and Bishops
“Will I ever learn that there’ll be no peace, that the war won’t cease / Until He returns?” – Dylan, “When He Returns”
I’ve witnessed quite the flap in recent days over a statement from the USCCB, issued in November 2000’s “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.” Since the statement hit the mainstream through CNS, it has angered some, emboldened others, and has been more-or-less misapplied by fans and detractors alike. The phrase in question — a footnote, no less — reads:
However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions — i.e. police officers, military use — handguns should be eliminated from our society.”
In order to ascertain what drives this statement, we have to understand our obligation as a Christian people to work for peace. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called Sons of God” (Mt 5:9). Working toward the the elimination of all violence is a direct biblical mandate, and even when we make licit use of force, we do so in an effort to bring peace.
Notice, however, that the bishops believe handgun regulation is the desired goal “in the long run.” Through the promotion of a peaceful and just society, we should work towards that long-range goal in which individual members of society have no need of a handgun for defensive purposes.[1] We would all prefer to live in a society where defensive force — especially force which has the potential to be deadly — would never be necessary.
Yet clearly, we as a society have not reached this point, and this explains why the bishops do not call for a blanket ban on the individual possession of handguns. In fact, here is what they do recommend:
“As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer — especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner — and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”
Reasonable enough, and something every responsible handgun owner would advocate (even if there will always be squabbling over what constitutes “sensible regulation”).
One of the things we must always keep in mind when reading over social justice issues is the “already” and the “not yet” of the Christian reality. In a very real way, the victory of Christ has become manifest through the Church and the world. Christ has already come into the world, triumphing over sin and death; at the same time, however, this victory is only absolutely manifest when He returns. By working for peace, we simply usher in something Christ has already established in the eschaton.
Unfortunately, those who work for peace and justice often fall into the heresy of Pelagianism. This is the belief that we ourselves usher in the “not yet” portion of reality. A Pelagian would argue that ultimate peace will be established by humanity, that we have the “power” to finally destroy the effects of sin which remain in Christ’s wake.[2] The bishops rightly avoid this error by pointing towards the “not yet” reality of peace which — while we have a responsibility to usher in through our actions — can only be delivered in that final moment of Christ’s triumph. In essence, the Christian becomes like John the Baptist, preparing the way for the Lord; but it is not John the Baptist himself who reestablishes unity with God.
To conclude, then, I’m willing to go one further than the bishops. I say we have a responsibility to prepare the way for that day when even law enforcement and military have no need for handguns, by staying true to Christ’s message of peace, which will be fully realized by humanity when He returns.
———————-
[1] However, one can validly argue that a handgun is a moral neutral, and thus is not evil-in-itself. One must also acknowledge licit use through the hobby/sport of marksmanship, which in-itself contains no other aim but the development of good aim.
[2] Unarguably, every societal debacle in the history of the world has found its root in Pelagianism, where humanity claims to have established a utopia free from the negatives shackling previous/contemporary structures. Societies that fail to account for sin are doomed to die by it.
On the Liturgy of the Word
I’ve penned a brief article on the value of the Liturgy of the Word, which can be viewed over at Working to Beat Hell.
Fr. Robert Barron…
…saying, more or less, precisely what I was attempting to convey in my somewhat controversial post:
In light of this perspective, one can glean why a business-model exit interview would be unhelpful: leaving the Church isn’t akin to switching phone plans, nor should it ever be seen from a consumerist point-of-view.
All This Talk About the Pope and Condoms…
…makes me dislike the media a little less. But not much less, so keep reading.
In this instance, at least, it’s more like they don’t get the nuances of moral theology. They’re not pushing an agenda: they’re just ignorant. I can excuse them that, because moral theology is by far one of the more complex fields of study.
Kudos to Pope Benedict for approaching a teaching I’d be hesitant to speak publicly on. It’s gutsy, precisely for the reason we’re seeing today. I know exactly what he was getting at: we’d talked about it on multiple occasions at the seminary, regarding condom use in an already illicit situation (homosexual activity/fornication). The problem with saying such a thing publicly is that nobody understands the nuance of the theology, so of course they’ll run with it as the media has and say, “Aha! The Pope approves of condom use!”
No… no, not at all. What the Pope is saying is that condom use doesn’t make the act any more illicit than it already is, so sin doesn’t compound upon sin. And AIDS doesn’t exactly spread through monogamous relations with one’s spouse.
Most of the recent studies out there put the failure rate of condoms at 15% in terms of disease prevention. The media is still stuck in the 90′s where I grew up, telling us to practice “safe sex” with a condom because it’d be the magic bullet which prevented AIDS transmission. So much for that.
My method — and the method espoused by Pope Benedict — works much better.
This article…
…sums up my point of view, exactly, IF
- …I had no Sacramental system.
- …I didn’t understand one of St. Paul’s major themes: the Church.
- …I had never touched the Patristics/early Church history.
- …I never asked by what authority the Bible was compiled in the first place.
- …I never asked how dogmatic principles were formed.
- …I had an ecclesiology where the “Church” is an entirely mystical body.
The article? “Why I Don’t Go to Church Anymore!”
This is what happens when Luther’s theology meets post-modernism. Worth a read, if for no other reason than to understand why the snake ends up devouring its own tail.
COINCIDENTALLY, my (second) favorite convert from Anglicanism posts this week: “Christianity Without Dogma…“
Stupid Headline, Stupid Thoughts
Via Mark Shea, this pearl of a headline: Brain unable to understand existence of God: expert
To which I automatically say, “Of course!”
But then the article starts, and I do a facepalm:
One of the world’s foremost neuroscientists is about to tell some of the world’s foremost theologians the bad news: God may exist, but the human brain is simply not capable of knowing that for sure.
Gorsh! O RLY?
Of course, “the world’s foremost theologians” have been saying the same thing.
For thousands of years.
It’s a simple logical deduction. The brain is matter, and that which is material cannot deduce the totality of that which is immaterial. And if we were able to pin down God in a lucid moment of “Aha! I understand the totality of God’s nature!” then what we would be describing is decidedly not an infinite, limitless being.
I’m willing to give neuroscientist Greg Northoff the benefit of the doubt; it sounds like he’s just explaining the limited potential of the brain in this matter.
To suggest that this is a revolutionary concept, or a triumphant moment of victory for science over theology, however, is a completely disingenuous move. As a matter of fact, score one for the theologians who had this covered ions ago.
For evidence, start with one of my favorite theologians. Start with Aristotle.
I have studied both neuroscience and theology; would that we could say the same about others who write on such things.
HIGHLY Recommended Viewing
Fr. Barron, more or less on the subject of “love”:
He hits on one of our mutual hobby horses, namely that “love” is not an emotion: it’s an act of the will.
Imagine how different the world would be, if we simply had rightly ordered love?
BONUS!:
This has no theological message. I just love Conan stuff.
Fr. Barron on Blasphemy
+10 to Fr. Barron for incorporating Dylan’s recent comments regarding irreverence in an interview for Christmas in the Heart.
My two cents: blasphemy in this day and age is boring. Any attempt to provoke prompts a huge yawn from yours truly.
Why I Love the New Encyclical: A Brief Look
More to say on this soon, but here are two major reasons I love Caritas in Veritate:
- It’s acidic to liberals because the Holy Father expresses love in relationship to objective truth, which “[enables] men and women to let go of their subjective opinions and impressions, [allowing] them to move beyond cultural and historical limitations and to come together in the assessment of the value and substance of things.” Insisting that love is something other than what “feels good” in this day and age is akin to punching a liberal in the face.
- It’s acidic to conservatives because the encyclical reminds us that God often demands more than what is rationally just. God’s love – his willing the good for all of humanity – is bigger than all of that.
Meanwhile, I’ve enjoyed watching the fur fly.
What Really Grinds My Gears: “Vows” vs. “Promises”
A couple times a week, I encounter stories which refer to a priest’s “vows.”
Fair enough. Except for the fact that most priests never take vows, and these stories almost always erroneously apply the term to a diocesan priest.
Diocesan priests make “promises,” not “vows.”
As this article sums up nicely:
As history unfolded, these [secular, or "diocesan"] priests lived out in the world with the people they were serving. The Latin word for “world” is “saeculum”, and there’s the derivation of the expression “secular priests”, those out in the world, ministering to God’s people. As the years passed, there were men and women who voluntarily decided to go apart from the world, taking the three vows of religion, namely, poverty, chastity and obedience.
Any man or woman who makes the three vows is called a religious—a religious priest, sister or brother. This essentially is what makes a “religious” different from a “secular”. The secular priests never take the three vows of religion. They do make a promise to their bishop at ordination to obey him as their spiritual leader for a particular diocese, and they also make a promise to remain celibate—not to marry. It bears repeating, to say that diocesan priests do not take the three vows of religion—poverty, chastity and obedience. The promise of celibacy is not the same as the vow of chastity.
A former abbot primate of the Benedictine Order summed it up nicely one day in class, when he reminded us that a man or woman religious makes the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience for the good of him/herself, whereas a secular/diocesan priest makes promises for the good of the community in which he serves.
This is important, especially when discussing issues of sexual impropriety. For example, Fr. Cutie (of recent fame) broke no “vow”; as a diocesan priest, one promises to remain in the celibate state, never marrying. Technically speaking and in accordance with normative morality, however, the celibate state excludes any potential genital contact. But Cutie never directly violated his promise of celibacy (remembering that the term refers exclusively to marriage) – until he decided to leave the priesthood and marry his concubine.
Go, and grind my gears no more.
From the USCCB’s National Directory for Catechesis
While looking at the challenges to catechesis in the United States, a keen observation:
Pragmatism. Another mark of the culture of the United States is pragmatism. A strongly individualistic, philosophical utilitarianism permeates U.S. culture, showing itself in a preoccupation with practical knowledge rather than intellectual knowledge. Many people in the United States think readily in terms of personal or corporate utility but may be less inclined to think in the abstract. This practical reorientation makes U.S. culture open to a wide variety of new ideals and possibilities but susceptible to utilitarian purposes. An individualist consumer culture can encourage a selfishness expressed in the attitude “What’s in it for me?” (p. 24-5)
Of course, “What’s in it for me?” in our culture is primarily derived from the question, “What feels good?”
People rarely ask, “What is good?”
This is, consequently, why so many Americans – after having obtained a significant degree of wealth, pleasure, power, or honor – are miserable people.
The Anthropological Relationship to Nature
As irony would have it (in light of my previous lighthearted post), I began taking a seminar on Christian perspectives regarding ecology this week. It’s cross-denominational by students and presenters, so we have a number of churches and traditions involved.
One of the constantly recurring themes is that of dominion (Gen 1:28). Because the presenters have no contact with one another, we’ve heard this in three of four lectures, and it’s encouraging to note that varying traditions are in agreement regarding this passage.
The contention: Humankind’s dominion over nature as mandated by God reflects God’s dominion over humanity. And as God does not see us as beings to exploit, ignore, or enslave, neither does our dominion over nature allow us to exploit, ignore, or enslave. This notion of dominion is more or less consistent throughout the Scriptures.
Overall, it’s refreshing to see how Christianity represents a “middle way” in regard to ecology, as it does in so many other issues. Even though we maintain dominion, we have a responsibility toward stewardship. At the same time, however, we do have dominion. The two extremes – representing humanity as some kind of impediment to the natural world (as is the case with many environmentalists) versus the perspective that creation is ours for the taking, damn the torpedoes – find no place in the via media presented to us in recent days.
It’s been a busy week, but a fairly interesting one. I’ve officially started Spring break (albeit a day late), and am looking forward to Holy Week. Hope yours is a blessed one as well.
He is Exactly… Exactly… Exactly Correct.
Fr. Barron on the next generation of the “Catholic commentariat.” This explains to perfection why I make natural/systematic theology and philosophy my primary emphasis of study. This is the kind of stuff an educated, growingly skeptical generation needs.
This also explains why I have little interest in liturgical/internal Church battles. “Save the liturgy, Save the Church”? Meh. Tend to people’s intellects, and the liturgy will save itself.
The critical portion starts at 2:30.
Watch it.
In Defense of Univocity
Duns Scotus’ doctrine of univocity has been providing us with a lot of lunch table debate these days. Check out a defense of the doctrine (PDF), which may or may not serve as a good introduction to the problem.
As for me, I remain noncommital. I still need to read through Scotus (and his interlocutors) in the original. Still, this is interesting stuff for anyone who enjoys natural theology.
Dominican Disputation
Fr. Philip Neri Powell writes a very informative post explaining early Dominican disputation. If you’re at all familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa, the format will look relatively familiar.
To quote one “Master” of sorts: “An elegant weapon for a more civilized [intellectual] age.”