Article: Suffering

PETER KREEFT

There are three kinds of evil that I want to talk about: suffering, death and sin. What we fear most, most of the time, is suffering, then death, then sin – exactly the opposite of what it should be.

Well, from somebody who has not suffered very much, you're supposed to receive some wisdom about suffering. That's irony. Alright, let's just plunge in. There are three kinds of evil that I want to talk about: suffering, death and sin. What we fear most, most of the time, is suffering, then death, then sin – exactly the opposite of what it should be. But that's alright; I'll start with the problem of suffering.

To live is to suffer – that was Buddha's First Noble Truth, the truth that he thought was the most obvious and indisputable truth in life, the data on which any quasi-scientific theory of human life must be erected. Pain is the most obvious problem in the world. This is no less true today, for now that our civilisation has succeeded in conquering half of humanity's physical pains, by anesthetics and medical technology and boogie boards, it has also doubled humanity's spiritual pains: depression, despair, divorce (which is more painful than death), other betrayals, loneliness, emptiness, meaninglessness, the existential vacuum. Victor Frankl says, quoting Nietzsche, "A man can endure almost any how if only he has a why." The how is the circumstances, including the suffering. The why is a purpose and a meaning. This is not a theory; this is an observation. Frankl is a scientist. He observed this to be true in the laboratory of Auschwitz.

The corollary of this truth is that if we do not have a purpose and a meaning, then we cannot endure any suffering that's inconvenient. Our culture seems to have made the Faustian bargain of giving up a better why for a better how; giving up meaning for comfort. We've conquered the world of pain, but we've lost our soul, our meaning, our hope, our purpose. And that's why the physical pains that remain, though only half as bad in quantity compared to those of our ancestors, are twice as bad in quality, twice as unendurable, without the meaning to surround them.

The end result is that though the pains are less, we fear them and feel them more. It's like the difference between childbirth and abortion. To use a quantitative analogy for something that is not quantitative, the birth has a hundred pains, but a thousand transcendently meaningful joys. The abortion has only a dozen pains, but no joys.

Suppose we took back our bad bargain, like Sidney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities, embracing Christ-like martyrdom for his beloved Lucy, wisely exchanging the whole of his material goods, his hitherto meaningless life, for the pain of the guillotine and the pleasure of spiritual good, moral meaning, including the hope for heaven. That was such an excellent bargain that Carton said of it, "It is a far, far better thing that I do than ever I have done." Or like Jim Elliot, the missionary martyr of Ecuador, who realized the same truth when he said to those who called him a fool for risking his life to preach to the savage Aucas, "He is no fool to give up what he cannot long keep for what he cannot ever lose." Both Sidney Carton and Jim Elliot were echoing the wisdom of the man who said, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" Did any human being in all of human history ever utter a single more practical sentence than that one?

Yet, though spiritual pain is deeper than physical pain, physical pain can be very deep, and very troublesome. It's troublesomeness is not only physical; it dominates the spirit of everyone except those who are both the strongest and the sweetest of humanity. Pain is like a jealous tyrant with a whip, commanding all our attention at every moment, shouting, "Look at me; look at me". It's hard to meditate, or calculate, or compose music or poetry, or discover great new scientific breakthroughs, when you're being whipped or burned or cut all over your nervous system.

Now, there are two obvious solutions to physical pain: no and yes. No tries to abolish it, and this is quite natural and good. And the modern West is very successful in doing that. Yes tries to somehow accept pain, but change our inner attitude towards it. This is the answer of the ancient East, especially of Hinduism and Buddhism, and in the ancient West, of Stoicism, which is a kind of non-mystical Buddhism. The modern West prays, "Grant me the courage to change what can be changed," the ancient East prays, "Grant me the serenity to accept what cannot be changed," and both pray for the wisdom to know the difference.

We've abolished ninety percent of pain, and also abolished ninety percent of heroism and courage, which are no longer needed in the bubble.

But the modern West has not succeeded in conquering all pains by technology. Instead, it has created an artificial protective bubble that is empty of most of the physical pains of life that our pre-technological ancestors had to cope with. But we've found the bubble also empty of meaning, and thus spiritually painful. We've abolished ninety percent of pain, and also abolished ninety percent of heroism and courage, which are no longer needed in the bubble. Each decade, we get a little closer to Brave New World, that is, to the greatest pain of all, the pain of an absolutely meaningless life. To quote one of America's greatest philosophers, Yogi Berra – yes, we recognize wisdom even among the evil empire – "If this world was perfect, it wouldn't be." Right on. Brave New World, by the way, if you haven't read it, you must read; it's a prophecy.

If the West's problem is failure, I think the East's problem is success. For some people, at least, that is, for the spiritual athletes who practice Raja Yoga or Jnana Yoga, or the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path, pain is abolished, by abolishing its root, desire. When there are no desires left, there are no frustrations left. Hindu or Buddhist Yoga can indeed succeed in killing off the desires. The true Buddhist does overcome all pain, but also all pleasure. All fear, but also all hope. All hate, but also all love. All misery, but also all joy. This is a remarkable achievement. But is it worth the price of the abolition of half our human nature? It looks like spiritual euthanasia: killing the patient, the desires, to cure the disease, pain.

I think, however, this is a misunderstanding. I must confess that the Buddhists that I have met have surprised me and impressed me with their peaceful alertness and spiritual aliveness. They certainly are not spiritually dead. But they have also surprised me with the inadequacy of their philosophy, their explanations. I must be as offensively honest with the East as I have been with the West, though, and protest that the freedom from pain is not worth the price. I will take the bitter with the sweet, thank you; the depth with the heights. Better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.

From the moment of our birth, human nature includes two incompatible elements – the presence of pain, and the demand for its absence. We all have pain, and we all hate pain. Buddha's First Noble Truth, and Freud's pleasure principle. What is pain? It is the disproportion between desire and satisfaction. In the words of England's richest philosopher, "I can't get no satisfaction." And "You can't always get what you want."

The modern secular West tries to get the satisfaction; the ancient mystical East tries to get rid of the desires. The West tries to conquer the pain; the East tries to conquer the fear of the pain. Our common problem is that our desires are greater than our satisfactions. The West tries to change that disequation by bringing satisfactions up to the level of desires – of course, this never works – while the East seeks the same end by the opposite means of bringing desires down to or even below the level of satisfaction. And this does work, but only for the practiced Yogan or enlightened Buddhist. East and West both give us roads for escaping the problem. They're opposite roads, but they both escape the disproportion between desire and satisfaction, which is the formula for pain, or suffering.

What is the Christian alternative? C. S. Lewis says in The Problem of Pain, "Christ came not to free us from our pains, but to transform them into his." That's the answer in one sentence. I'd like to try to unpack that answer. Christ does not try to solve the problem of pain; he changes it – into a mystery. He plunges us into suffering instead of out of it; plunges us into its essence, its meaning, transforms the meaning of suffering, and not just by teaching about it, but by doing it; by acting.

So his pain is also not the pain that the world gives. It's proactive; it's a weapon. The cross is a sword.

His way is the way into the deepest truth of suffering, instead of a way of escaping suffering, and escaping its deep truth, and this deep truth at the heart of suffering is that there is life there, like a mother's birth canal. Or like death, which is also a mother, and also a birth canal, and also suffering. In fact, all suffering is a little death, le petit mal. And death is the consummation of all our sufferings, all our losses, all our diminishments. You lose everything in death. This supreme loss becomes our supreme gain. And therefore, the little deaths, the little sufferings, participate in that.

But this is very weird; this is totally different. This is not ordinary life, or ordinary death, or ordinary suffering, or ordinary peace. He says, "My peace is not the peace that the world can give". So his pain is also not the pain that the world gives. It's proactive; it's a weapon. The cross is a sword. It even looks like a sword. Held at the hilt by the hand of heaven, and plunged in to the earth like a syringe, not to suck blood like Dracula, but to give it. It's an act of spiritual warfare, freely chosen. It's a victory. It forces open a door at the heart of pain, a door that leads to something even better than pleasure, and that's a new kind of life. Worldly pain goes nowhere, or only to death. The cross goes to heaven.

Christ doesn't give us this bloody road without first having travelled it himself. As T. S. Eliot says, "The wounded surgeon plies the steel." God's answer to our pain was not a philosophy, but a person. I like to see Christ as the tears of God. Instead of telling us why not to weep, he wept, and transformed human tears into divine tears. Christians believe that in Christ God shared our human nature, so that we could share his divine nature. And so he also shared our human pain, so that we could share his divine pain, so that our very pains could become divine. He suffered for us not to make our sufferings go away, but to make them enter him – to make them his own. He changed not the existence, but the essence, of suffering. Not the quantity, but the quality. The world, East or West, can change only one of the two contrary elements of suffering – desire or satisfaction, which are out of whack. Christ changes the whole essential meaning of suffering. That's why we can enter into it instead of escaping it – because it now has this new meaning. It is now redemptive; it is now the work of Christ.

In the Garden of Eden, before sin, there was no suffering, because there was no cause of suffering, and no need for suffering. Once we became alienated from God, we also became alienated from God's world, and from our own bodies. The alienation from the world is pain, and the alienation from our own bodies is death. What Christ did about this on the cross was to change the meaning of pain by removing its first cause, its ultimate cause – separation from God. The word for that in Christian theology is sin. Sin doesn't just mean no-no's. It's an ontological term. It's like divorce from God, the source of all good. And he removed this forever.

God's answer to our pain was not a philosophy, but a person. I like to see Christ as the tears of God. Instead of telling us why not to weep, he wept, and transformed human tears into divine tears.

The world, even at its best, can remove only pain's proximate causes, either the surplus of desire or the defect of satisfaction. And it can do that only temporarily. Christians believe that they can enter into this mystery of the cross not just mentally or subjectively or by imitation, but really, truly, ontologically, by incorporation – the word means, literally, embodying – into the body of Christ. Christianity is a very materialistic religion. That holy body that suffered and died on the cross, and suffers still in its members – that body is one and the same body in four places. It's on the cross, it's in heaven, it's in the Eucharist, and it's in the church in his members. When Paul was knocked off his high horse by the light from heaven, and he said, "Who are you?" and the voice said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting," he was doubly astounded. First, he didn't know that Jesus was divine. Second, he didn't know that Jesus was the members of his body whom he was persecuting.

This body of Christ that died on the cross is the body of Christ that ascended into heaven, and is also the body of Christ that we receive in the Eucharist; it's one thing. And that's also the body of Christ that we call the church, into which we are incorporated or embodied by faith and baptism. He's the one head of the one body; he doesn't have more than one body, any more than the church has more than one head. That would make Christ a monster. Christ marries a bride, not a harem. He's not even a Muslim with four brides; he has one. And he's certainly not a monster with one body and more than one head. That's polytheism. So the total Christ, head and body, is neither polysomatic nor polycephalic. But that's some advanced theology. Let's go back into basic, practical stuff.

Read part 1 of this talk here.
Read part 2 of this talk here.
Read part 3 of this talk here.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Peter Kreeft. "The Dark Side." transcribed from talk given for Socrates in the City (May 4, 2005).

This talk based on ideas contained in Peter Kreeft's book Making Sense Out of Suffering.

This article is reprinted with permission from Peter Kreeft.

The Greek philosopher Socrates famously said that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Taking this as a starting point, Eric Metaxas thought it would be valuable to create a forum that might encourage busy and successful professionals in thinking about the bigger questions in life. Thus Socrates In The City: Conversations on the Examined Life was born.

Every month or so Socrates In The City sponsors an event in which people can begin a dialogue on "Life, God, and other small topics" by hearing a notable thinker and writer. These events are meant to be both thought-provoking and entertaining, because nowhere is it written that finding answers to life's biggest questions shouldn't be exciting and even, perhaps, fun.

THE AUTHOR

Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College. He is an alumnus of Calvin College (AB 1959) and Fordham University (MA 1961, Ph.D., 1965). He taught at Villanova University from 1962-1965, and has been at Boston College since 1965.

He is the author of numerous books (over forty and counting) including: The Snakebite Letters,The Philosophy of Jesus, The Journey: A Spiritual Roadmap for Modern Pilgrims, Prayer: The Great Conversation: Straight Answers to Tough Questions About Prayer, How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis, Love Is Stronger Than Death, Philosophy 101 by Socrates: An Introduction to Philosophy Via Plato's Apology, A Pocket Guide to the Meaning of Life, and Before I Go: Letters to Our Children About What Really Matters. Peter Kreeft in on the Advisory Board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2011 Peter Kreeft

Wednesday Liturgy: Breviary and the New Missal Translation

ROME, OCT. 18, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: As you know, the English translation of the Roman Missal, third edition, soon to be the norm, has new translations for the texts of the collect (opening prayer) for use at Mass. What will be their status for use at the Liturgy of the Hours, once the third-edition translation is the norm for Mass? Is it (a) forbidden, or (b) mandatory, or (c) permitted, but not mandatory, to use these new translations for the Liturgy of the Hours? Permitting their use seems advantageous, in that these improved translations would improve the celebration of the office and show its unity with the Eucharist. However, mandating their use would seem burdensome, since breviaries are not printed with these texts. Yet the text for the Liturgy of the Hours has its own ecclesiastical approval; this would suggest that use of the current (older) translation be continued. -- B.K., Oakland, California

A: Although there are no precise official norms regarding this, I would say that the most probable possibility would be our reader's third option: "permitted, but not mandatory."

In general, the closing prayer of the Liturgy of the Hours at morning and evening prayer is the same as the Mass collect. This is not an absolute rule as, for example, a priest can celebrate a votive Mass or an optional memorial and pray the office of the day. When All Souls' Day falls on a Sunday the office follows the Sunday even though the Mass is of the Commemoration. However, all closing prayers used in the office are also found in the missal.

Since we are dealing with two alternative translations of the same prayer, both of which have received official approval, I see no difficulty in using the new translation if one so wishes. As yet, there is no booklet containing only the new collects. Even if there were one, it could prove somewhat awkward for recitation of the Divine Office. For these reasons it would not be mandatory until the eventual publication of an updated breviary.

Indeed, it is to be hoped that, having finished the missal, the English-language authorities begin to undertake the gargantuan task of preparing a new version of the Liturgy of the Hours. The current edition for English speakers outside of the United States hails from the 1970s and is missing all the additions to the liturgical calendar, such as the new saints.

A single text for the entire English-speaking world would also be most useful in these times of constant travel.

Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Marian Prayers Before the Blessed Sacrament

ROME, OCT. 18, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

In the wake of our column of Oct. 4, a reader wrote: "I understand that praying the rosary during the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament is perfectly fine. But can we pray the rosary with the leader before the altar of the Virgin on the side, while the Blessed Sacrament is exposed in the central altar?"

There are no official rules to cover such a situation, probably because it never occurred to anybody that this would arise.

I would say that liturgical logic would avoid this arrangement. By remaining at the side altar, the leader would inevitably draw attention away from the Blessed Sacrament. This would be unfortunate, since the act of adoration of Christ's divine presence always holds precedence over the act of veneration toward an image of his Blessed Mother.

This is no lack of respect toward Mary, as she is most honored and most pleased whenever her Son is adored.

At the same time, there is no contradiction in adoring the Son while simultaneously venerating the Mother if an image is present in the vicinity of the Blessed Sacrament exposed, especially if the rosary takes place on a Marian feast.

Article: Ten Traits of a Great Teacher

THERESA A. THOMAS

We’ve all had good teachers and bad ones. What makes us scurry quickly from the latter and flock to the former? I believe it is just a few characteristics or traits that just about anybody can develop.

Socrates was one. Plato too. So was John Taylor Gatto of New York City. And so was dear Mrs. Corey in rural Indiana who ushered 32 second grade students happily through phonics and arithmetic for many years. The greatest of all was Jesus Himself. I'm talking about great teachers of course. They inspired their students, whether those students were formally enrolled in a class they taught or were simply those who crossed their paths.

We've all had good teachers and bad ones. What makes us scurry quickly from the latter and flock to the former? I believe it is just a few characteristics or traits that just about anybody can develop. And surprisingly, these traits have nothing to do with academic credentials, intellect or measurable knowledge. What's more, it's not just classroom teachers who find success and the ability to relate to others when they develop these traits. Parents, coaches, employees, in short, anyone who needs to convey information to another can benefit from developing these qualities. If a person can develop just a few of these he can become a Great Teacher. If someone can develop them all, there is no telling who or what that person can inspire.

1. Great Teachers Are Humble.

Great teachers speak simply. They don't need to impress with their knowledge. They are comfortable with what they know and eager to learn what they do not. They do not puff. As the tongue twisting adage goes, "He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool." Great teachers are modest about their knowledge. Or as succinctly put by Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:2, "If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know."

If a Great Teacher is asked a question to which he does not know the answer, he promises to find out, and then does. He knows he is not the only one able to facilitate learning. He is grateful for the opportunity to help just one person gain knowledge. Great Teachers want their students to learn, even to surpass them in knowledge. Great Teachers are never arrogant.

2. Great Teachers Are Patient

What is patience? It is the bearing of misfortune, difficulty, and annoyances without complaining, losing one's temper or showing irritation. Great Teachers are patient with their students, no matter how many mistakes the student makes or how many times the teacher needs to explain. The wonderful thing about practicing patience is that it benefits the one practicing it as much or more as the one it is practiced upon. Being patient is indicative of self restraint and discipline and demonstrates a quality in a teacher that will likely be emulated in the student.

But patience greatly benefits the student too. When I think of tremendous patience I think of the Great Teacher Anne Sullivan teaching Helen Keller. Helen was unruly, disobedient and very closed to learning when Anne was hired to teach her. Through gentleness, perseverance – indeed patience – Anne provided an environment that coaxed Helen to reach her potential. Helen not only learned but exceeded all expectations.

Consider Helen Keller's words, "The most important day I remember in all my life (emphasis mine) is the one on which my teacher, Anne Mansfield Sullivan, came to me." What gratitude in a special student patience has wrought, and what learning! It is unlikely that most people will often encounter students as difficult as Helen Keller. But all will do well to remember the trait which brought about such great learning and accomplishment in Anne Sullivan's young student – the quality of patience!

3. Great Teachers Are Kind and Show Respect.

Great teachers recognize the value and worth of each person. They try to understand their student and his perspective. They have empathy. They try to 'get into' the other fellow's shoes and 'walk a few miles'. Great Teachers esteem their students as valuable, even if they are much different than themselves, less educated or in a lower position. They recognize that they too were once in the place of apprentice. Bad teachers demand respect. Great teachers treat their students with respect and thus earn the respect of them as well.

4. Great Teachers Have Enthusiasm for Their Subject Matter.

Great teachers enjoy talking about what they teach. Whether they have one year or ten years experience, great teachers show eagerness and excitement when they approach their topics. They speak with enthusiasm, even wonder. They may have been teaching 7th grade math for 35 years, or have been working in accounting since 1975 but they approach imparting their knowledge with the same fervor as when they first began when they are trying to help someone else along.

5. Great Teachers Show Not Tell.

Great teachers may explain a concept but they demonstrate it too. They look for ways to bring examples in the classroom, board room, studio or basketball court. When they are not able to bring in examples they draw pictures or diagrams. They think of other creative ways to express knowledge and aid in their students' understanding.

6. Great Teachers Learn from Their Students.

Great Teachers know they do not know everything. Part of what makes them great teachers is that they too are willing to learn. They are not threatened by a student's thoughtful question or outstanding aptitude. They do not take it personally when a student asks 'why', wants more information or challenges a fact. They know that real learning occurs when people question, think and make a subject their own. They know they are encouraging learning for a lifetime, not just for a semester grade, one athletic event or one company presentation. Great Teachers are life-long learners themselves. They gain knowledge and wisdom from those they teach.

7. Great Teachers Are Positive; Great Teachers Smile

Great Teachers believe in themselves. They believe in others. They look for the best in both and their attitude reflects it. They are positive, not negative. Great Teachers also smile.

Mr. Harekrushna Behera, Unchahar, a teacher and personal tutor wrote in Teacher, Do You Smile? "(A) smile is the expression of love. It's the magnet, which pulls all towards it…Everybody wants a smile… A teacher touches the heart of a student through the magnetic touch of smile. (A) smile creates confidence …(and learning) happens only when students start liking…the teacher. .."

Smiling offers many benefits. It makes one look more attractive. It can alter one's mood. Scientists speculate it can relieve stress and possibly boost the immune system. But one really good reason for a teacher to smile is that it is contagious and conveys a message of personal bonding and encouragement. This facilitates just the right learning environment for most people. This is why Great Teachers smile.

8. Great Teachers Engage their Students.

Great Teachers know that knowledge is not like a liquid to be poured into one's mind. Obtaining knowledge and understanding is an active not passive process. Great Teachers stimulate creativity. They are excellent communicators. They tell stories. They listen. They maintain eye contact. They don't just lecture or throw facts at their pupils. Great Teachers engage their students.

9. Great Teachers Have High Expectations.

Great Teachers don't believe that learning is only for a select few. They are not elitist. They understand that God's gift of knowledge and understanding is for everyone. They recognize that while not everyone has outstanding aptitude in music, or art or golf or math or financial statement preparing, that nearly everyone can learn and usually achieve much more than they originally imagine they can.

Great teachers help their students see that they are capable. They never 'dumb down' a course but do look for ways to make complex material easier to understand out of courtesy towards their students. Great Teachers are realistic in their expectations, but also know that expectations are often set too low for most people.

Norman Vincent Peale said "We tend to get what we expect." Lady Bird Johnson once said, "Children are apt to live up to what you believe of them." I would add that other people do too. Great Teachers expect a lot from their students. And because they are great in so many other ways, they usually get it.

10. Great Teachers Provide a Warm Environment and Allow Their Students to Make Mistakes.

Great Teachers realize that mistakes often precede great learning. Thomas Edison once said of his many failed attempts to prove something, "I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is another step forward." Great teachers understand this too.

Against the backdrop of a supportive environment, Great Teachers encourage risk taking and accept errors. The Great Teacher Coach encourages the young athlete to take the shot. Who knows if he might make it? The Great Music Teacher lets the young pianist try a harder piece that he aspires to learn. Perhaps the teacher's initial assessments are wrong and he is capable. The Great Parent Teacher is probably the most important teacher of all. He allows his children to make choices and live with the consequences. He knows that experience often provides more memorable lessons than lectures ever could.

Great teachers do not say things like, "You're not really cut out for this." "This is not your thing." They realize that students soon learn their own limitations and do not put false ceilings up for them.

Most importantly, the teachings of Jesus, the Great Teacher, elicit an important fact that all should remember: Knowledge is nothing without its companion, wisdom, and wisdom comes from God.

Finally, an article about Great Teachers would be remiss in not mentioning a few points about greatest of all teachers, Jesus Christ. Look how He taught:

• Jesus, the ultimate Great Teacher, gave everyone a chance. Think of the tax collectors and prostitutes. Surely there is hope for those who some perceive as the least able or willing of students.
  
  
• Jesus spoke the Truth in humility and straightforwardness. Surely all students deserve to be spoken to in the same way.
  
  
• Jesus taught by example. Example is the most powerful teaching tool of all.
  
  
• Jesus told stories with lessons. We call them parables.
  
  
• Jesus said "Let the children come to Me." He made time for the youngest people.

Most importantly, the teachings of Jesus, the Great Teacher, elicit an important fact that all should remember: Knowledge is nothing without its companion, wisdom, and wisdom comes from God.

To be a Great Teacher, then, one can work to develop the ten traits listed above. As the capstone to this, it is good to emulate Jesus Himself, the Greatest Teacher, and to remember "I can do all things in Him (Christ) who strengthens me." (Philippians 4:13)

Following these guidelines, anyone in a position to help others learn in business, school, athletics or any other category in the "real" world can, with some focused attention, develop the necessary traits to be a Great Teacher.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Theresa A. Thomas. "Ten Traits of a Great Teacher." The Integrated Catholic Life (October 11, 2011).

Reprinted with permission of the author and The Integrated Catholic Life.

The goal of The Integrated Catholic Life is to provide original content to help visitors integrate faith, family and work.

THE AUTHOR

Theresa A. Thomas is a happy Catholic, wife to David, and home-schooling mother of nine children, ages five to 22. She is a columnist ("Everyday Catholic") for Today's Catholicnewspaper, and occasional freelance writer and speaker. She was a story contributor toAmazing Grace for Mothers, Amazing Grace for Fathers, Amazing Grace for Families (Ascension Press) and is currently collaborating with Patti Maguire Armstrong on "Stories for the Homeschool Heart", to be published by Bezalel Books in July, 2010. Theresa grew up the oldest of 13 children in the Midwest, and graduated magna cum laude from Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame, IN with a BA in English. She has been home schooling since 1996. Catholic education and curriculum, fitness, healthy living, saints, homemaking, reading, and assisting her husband and children reach their goals are Theresa's primary interests. She enjoys helping her husband raise chickens and grow organic vegetables…and kids.

Copyright © 2011 The Integrated Catholic Life

Article: Ring around the collar

JENNIFER GRAHAM

Out here in the real world, priests and nuns still command respect.

Forbes Magazine didn't get the memo in time for its "best and worst jobs of 2011'' edition, but apparently the Catholic priesthood has tumbled to the level of roustabout, lumberjack, and meter reader in its appeal to young men.

I learned this yesterday from a media mailing list called "Help a Reporter Out,'' where reporters and publicists go to scratch each other's itches. There, among searches for overweight teen girls in DC and experts on the pros and cons of gift cards, was this: "Documentary-style show seeks young men who are thinking of, or have decided, to become a priest in the Catholic faith. Where it used to bring honor, now it carries negativity. Parents, are you thinking, 'Where did I go wrong? Why did he choose the priesthood?' Friends, are you thinking, 'He used to be so fun and cool. . . I can't hang out with him now?' Whatever your thoughts, we'd like to hear them.''

The query was entitled: "OMG! My son/friend/brother wants to become a priest!'' The woman who posted it said she works for a major television network. I don't know Marie Malyszek, but I bet two things: first, that she doesn't know any priests, and second, that she doesn't go to church.

Even here in Boston, the epicenter of the priest sex-abuse scandal, reasonable people don't blame the priesthood for the sins of a few. This makes as much sense as putting out a query that says "OMG! My son/friend/brother wants to get married! Where did I go wrong?'' because Newt Gingrich exists.

Out here in the real world, priests and nuns still command respect. If you doubt it, follow one around for a few hours, and watch how people respond to the collar and the veil. Hands are offered, doors are held, meal tabs are covered, just as for servicemen and women in uniform.

My own Metrowest parish is led by two handsome young men, one of whom is a part-time chaplain for firefighters, the other who is deaf and an avid cyclist. My kids think they're rock stars. Fun and cool? They've got it covered. But even their older, less fun-and-cool colleagues retain their honor.

Here's the truth: People like priests, even now. They may make jokes in rough company, they may never imagine such a life for themselves, but they retain the old sensibility that the priesthood is a profession that matters, that to spend one's life in service to mortals, and the Immortal, is more worthwhile than being, say, a software engineer. (The No. 1 job in 2011,Forbes magazine said.)

Even here in Boston, the epicenter of the priest sex-abuse scandal, reasonable people don't blame the priesthood for the sins of a few.

The reporter imagines a stain, a ring around the collar. But hers is the imagining of one schooled without faith. OMG? The phrase is not even allowed in most homes I know in which God, not major television networks, is the source and summit of a family's values.

As for me, if one of my two sons felt a call to the priesthood, my first reaction, I confess, would be to wail. But I would wail, not, "What have I done wrong?'' Rather, "But what about my grandchildren?''

Other than that, I'd be thinking: Wow, my fun and cool son, a priest! I must have done something right.

Author's note:

Too late for inclusion, I saw a Zenit story on a new book by Monsignor Stephen Rossetti that says Catholic priests are happier than the general population. Msgr. Rossetti, an associate dean at The Catholic University of America, surveyed 2,500 priests and found 92 percent of them happy in their work. This is especially remarkable since over 50% of Americans report being unhappy with their jobs.

The Monsignor's survey finds support in a recent National Opinion Research Center's scientific poll of 27,000 Americans, which found that in general clergy were the most satisfied and happiest of all Americans.

The bottom line: Most people like priests, most priests like their jobs; everyone's happy, it seems, but for this reporter. Msgr. Rossetti's book, Why Priests Are Happy, was published by Ave Maria Press. Here's the link to the Zenit story on it.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Jennifer Nicholson Graham. "Ring around the collar." Boston Globe (October 14, 2011).

Excerpted by permission of the author, Jennifer Nicholson Graham.

THE AUTHOR

Jennifer Nicholson Graham is a writer and editor based in Boston, MA. Formerly a religion columnist for Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service, she is a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal and The Boston Globe Magazine. Ms. Graham's essays have been published in magazines such as Runner's World, Parents, Newsweek and Family Circle. Her website isJennifergraham.com.

Copyright © 2011 Jennifer Nicholson Graham

Article: A Note on the False Dichotomy between Head and Heart

DEACON DOUGLAS MCMANAMAN

No matter how we look at it, the counsel to "follow your heart, not your head" is a confused and absurd proposition that is entirely unworkable.

Most students who have been introduced to Philosophy will have come across the typical self-refuting character of the claim "There is no truth". If "there is no truth" then the claim that "there is no truth" itself cannot be true. Once students see an obvious self-contradiction like this, they often try to discover more self-refuting propositions.

It is not long, for example, before they see that the claim at the root of Scientism is a self-refuting starting point: "The only valid knowledge worthy of the name is that which is derived from and verified through empirical investigation". This claim was not derived from, nor can it be verified through, empirical investigation. It is self-refuting.

A favourite of mine was handed to me by an atheist friend who despises philosophy, but loves mathematics: "Without the predictive precision of mathematics, any claim to truth is illusory. If you cannot express your knowledge in mathematical form, you may know something; you may have the beginnings of knowledge, but your knowledge is inevitably of a rudimentary and incomplete form." Nicely said, but what he claims to know here must be illusory, for it was not, nor can it be, expressed in mathematical form.

Another self-refuting proposition is the well known dictum: "Follow your heart, not your head". It is self-refuting because the counsel that one ought to follow the heart, not the head, is a counsel of the head, not the heart. It is the intellect (head) that understands that one ought not to follow one's understanding, but one's heart. And so the exhortation to follow the heart, not the head, is contradictory on a practical level. One is following one's head in counselling others to follow their hearts. Moreover, one is appealing to their heads in order to persuade them of the benefits of following their hearts over their heads.

If one were to be consistent, one would have to say nothing, because in communicating the counsel one is communicating an idea that comes from the head (mind) and enters into the head (mind) of the listener. The injunction to "Follow your heart, not your head" is clearly self-refuting.

What does it mean to "follow the heart"? Does it mean "follow your feelings"? Or, does it mean "follow what you love"?

Since most of us readily understand that feelings can be very misleading, let's begin with the latter: "Follow what you truly love". A problem arises, however, if a person genuinely loves "truth". In that case, to counsel such a person to follow his heart is to counsel him to follow his head, which perceives the truth. Since his heart is fixed on the truth, and it is the truth that he loves to follow, "follow your heart" means follow the truth.

If one believes that truth is a Person, namely the Person of Christ, then for such a person to follow his heart is for him to follow Christ, who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. So, in the end, follow your heart means "love Christ and follow him". But the head has been telling such a person precisely that all along. The counsel to follow your heart is thus superfluous.

A further problem arises when we are dealing not with a person who loves truth, but with a person who loves himself more than he loves truth. To counsel such a person to follow his heart is to counsel him to follow no one other than himself. In that case, "Follow your heart" means "Don't follow Christ, but be your own god".

So if we have three such people in a room (one who loves truth, another who loves himself above all things, and another who loves evil), the counsel to "follow your heart" will mean three different and contradictory things.

A more serious problem arises when we are dealing with a person who loves evil. To counsel such a person to follow his heart is to counsel him to follow the dictates arising from his own malice. In this case, our suggestion to such a person is no different than the suggestions he receives from the Evil One, who always suggests a malicious and destructive course of action. In other words, Satan also counsels certain others to follow their hearts.

So if we have three such people in a room (one who loves truth, another who loves himself above all things, and another who loves evil), the counsel to "follow your heart" will mean three different and contradictory things, and our words would only engender conflict and confusion – if all were to act on such counsel.

If "follow your heart" means "follow what you really believe is right", then we are counselling others to follow their own heads and not listen to the counsel of others who may have a different suggestion. But that is also self-refuting on a practical level. We are counselling another not to receive the counsel of others, sort of like saying: "Listen to me when I tell you not to listen to others".

No matter how we look at it, the counsel to "follow your heart, not your head" is a confused and absurd proposition that is entirely unworkable.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Deacon Douglas McManaman. "A Note on the False Dichotomy between Head and Heart." CERC(October 17, 2011).

Printed with permission of Deacon Douglas McManaman.

THE AUTHOR

Doug McManaman is a Deacon and a Religion and Philosophy teacher at Father Michael McGivney Catholic Academy in Markham, Ontario, Canada. He is the past president of the Canadian Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. He maintains the following web site for his students: A Catholic Philosophy and Theology Resource Page. He studied Philosophy at St. Jerome's College in Waterloo, and Theology at the University of Montreal. Deacon McManaman is on the advisory board of the Catholic Education Resource Center.

Copyright © 2011 Douglas McManaman

Wednesday Liturgy: Marian Prayers Before the Blessed Sacrament

ROME, OCT. 4, 2011 (Zenit.org (http://www.zenit.org)).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: In a number of countries we pray the rosary and the litany of the saints with the Blessed Sacrament exposed. When we believe Jesus Christ, who is fully alive, is present in the Blessed Sacrament, is it right to pray the rosary or a litany in which we address our prayers to Mary? When Christ is present before us, why should we take a roundabout way through Mary to Jesus, instead of praying directly to Jesus himself? I would be very grateful to hear from you because I am quite disturbed when this happens in my church. I love the Blessed Mother and pray to her, but sometimes I feel that we give more importance to her than to Jesus. -- T.N., Manathavady, India

A: This is a question that often arises and which we have addressed on other occasions, most extensively a year ago on Oct. 26, 2010 ().

In synthesis, we referred to a Jan. 15, 1997, response to a doubt from the Congregation for Divine Worship (Prot no. 2287/96/L), which clarified that it is permitted to publicly pray the rosary before the Blessed Sacrament exposed. The aforementioned document also covers the motivations behind this practice.

We could add that there is no contradiction in praying the rosary before the Blessed Sacrament. Although the rosary is ostensibly a Marian prayer, it is also deeply centered on Christ through the contemplation of the mysteries. Indeed it is significant that among the "luminous mysteries" introduced by Blessed John Paul II is precisely the institution of the Eucharist.

It is sometimes forgotten that the rosary's vocal elements, such as the repetition of the Hail Mary, are above all geared toward helping the soul to enter into the contemplation of the mystery. The mysteries themselves are largely salient episodes in the Savior's life with a few also touching on Mary's role in the plan of salvation.

Therefore, genuinely praying the rosary in any circumstance should always bring us closer to Christ and will never give more importance to Mary than to him. If that were to happen, then it would mean that we have still to learn how to pray it as the Church, and indeed the Blessed Mother herself, desire it to be prayed.

Article: A 'No' to a 'No' is a 'Yes'

FATHER ROBERT BARRON

One of the commonest complaints against Catholicism is that it is the religion of "no," especially in regard to the sexual dimension of life.

As the rest of the culture is moving in a progressively more permissive direction, the church seems to represent a crabbed, puritanical negativity toward sexuality. I think it is important, first, to make a distinction between two modalities of "no." On the one hand, there is "no" pure and simple – a denial, a negation of something good. When a jealous person sees someone else's success, he will say "no" to it, out of resentment. When a racist perceives the object of his irrational hatred, he will say "no" to him and try to undermine him.

But on the other hand, there is a "no" which is in service of a "yes," since it represents a "no" to a "no;" it is a double negative that constitutes a positive. Any golf swing coach worth his salt will say "no" much more than he says "yes," precisely because there are a thousand ways to swing a club poorly, but really only one way to swing it properly. So when he says "no," he is negating a series of negatives, trying to move his student onto the narrow path of the right swing. I would suggest that the many "no's" that the church says to imperfect forms of sexual behavior are of this second type.

Now what, according to the mind of the church, is the correct or proper expression of sexuality? In order to provide an adequate answer, it would be wise to consult a curious passage in the 12th chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans. The Apostle to the Gentiles writes: "Think of God's mercy…and worship him…in a way that is worthy of thinking beings, by offering your living bodies as a holy sacrifice, truly pleasing to God" (Rom. 12: 1). Sacrifice, of course, was central to ancient Israelite religion. A Jew would bring an unblemished animal to the Temple in Jerusalem and would then, through the mediation of a priest, offer it to God as a token of gratitude, worship, or penance. In doing so, he would align himself to God, bringing his mind, his will, his very body into right relationship with the Lord. Any pious Israelite would know that Yahweh, the Creator of the universe, had no need of these burnt offerings, unlike the gods of other nations who seemed to require them. But that faithful Jew also knew that he needed sacrifice, since it brought him into deeper communion with the God who loved him, making him like the God whom he worshipped.

Now in Jesus Christ, the face of the true God appeared, precisely as a face of love: "God is love and anyone who lives in love lives in God, and God lives in him" (1 John 4:16). To sacrifice to God, therefore, is to become conformed to the love that God is; it is to become love. Paul is telling the Romans (and us) to turn our bodies – our whole selves – into an act of worship of the true God, which is simply another way of saying that we should allow every aspect of our lives to become radical love. Now we can understand the great "yes" of the church in regard to sexuality. Sex is meant to be completely attuned to love, which is to say, to self-gift. Sex is designed to be a vehicle by which the good of the other is sought and attained. When sex devolves into something less than an expression of love, the church resolutely and loudly says "no!"

Does that mean that the church should dial down its ideals? Absolutely not. Its "no's" are so strong, because its "yes" is so ringing.

And so it says "no," obviously, to rape, to sexual abuse, to the sexual manipulation of another. But it also says "no" to sexual expression outside of the context of that mutual and radical self-gift that we call marriage. It says "no," furthermore, to a deliberate and conscious frustration of the procreative dimension of sex. In all of these "no's," the church is fundamentally saying "yes" to sex as a path of love. I realize that many balk at this, arguing that while rape and sexual violence should always be condemned, other forms of sexual expression should be left to the discretion of the individual.

But would we settle for this kind of leniency and mediocrity in any other area of life that we take seriously? For example, someone dedicated to having an excellent golf swing will, of course, accepts correction of his most egregious faults, but he will expect his teacher to press forward, righting relatively minor errors, fine-tuning his swing until he reaches real proficiency. I imagine that he would want his teacher to hold up the example, not of a middle-level, weekend golfer, not even of a star on the junior tour, but of Rory McIlroy and Fred Couples and Jack Nicklaus. The one thing he would not want his coach to say is, "well, now that you've overcome the major problems, just swing any way you want."

So the church, which desires to bring human sexuality into full conformity with the love that God is, corrects us, cajoles us, objects to us, encourages us, holds up to us high ideals, and invites us continually into the high and challenging adventure of sexual virtue. Do we often fail? Sure – just as we usually fail to hit the golf ball excellently. Does that mean that the church should dial down its ideals? Absolutely not. Its "no's" are so strong, because its "yes" is so ringing.

---

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Father Robert Barron, "A 'No' to a 'No' is a 'Yes'." Word on Fire (August, 2011).

Reprinted with permission of Father Robert Barron.

Father Barron's brilliant new video series "Catholicism" is described by George Weigel here: "This is the most important media project in the history of the Catholic Church in America. A stimulating and compelling exploration of the spiritual, moral, and intellectual riches of the Catholic world."

For information go here.

THE AUTHOR

Father Robert Barron is the founder of Word On Fire and is an acclaimed author, theologian and speaker. He is the Francis Cardinal George Professor of Faith and Culture at Mundelein Seminary near Chicago. Fr. Barron is also the creator and host of the groundbreaking, ten-part documentary series called CATHOLICISM (www.CatholismProject.org). Word On Fire (www.WordOnFire.org) programs reach millions of people and have been broadcast on WGN America, EWTN, Relevant Radio and the popular Word on Fire YouTube Channel. Fr. Barron is the author of, And Now I See: A Theology of Transformation, Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master, Heaven in Stone and Glass: Experiencing the Spirituality of the Great Cathedrals, Eucharist (Catholic Spirituality for Adults), Priority of Christ, The: Toward a Postliberal Catholicism, and Word on File: Proclaiming the Power of Christ.

Father Barron uses his YouTube channel to reach out to people and bring valuable lessons of faith alive by pointing out things that can be learned by watching popular characters of movies and television shows.

Copyright © 2011 Father Robert Barron