http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1239
What, liberals claim a mandate of self-evidence for their doctrines? Noooo.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Sunday, November 09, 2008
"Pious scholars are rare."
--Blaise Paschal
A reader commented on my blog,
But, wouldn't you know, thanks to your question I came across something deeply insightful. I Googled "Pious scholars are rare" to make sure I remembered the quote correctly, and found a link a page in this book. It is Making Sense of it All by Thomas V. Morris, published in 1992.
Dave [who asked the question], there's stuff in this book that might be good for both of us to read and to reflect on.
A reader commented on my blog,
I've discovered your blog only recently and to be honest, am not really sure how I got here. I don't know if you take questions but I was wondering about what you've been saying about your prayer life. I'm studying theology at the moment and in the classroom can be fired up by God, learning, drawing closer to Him, and then I get home and struggle to kneel beside my bed, let alone to pray. Do you think that it's somehow of God...? Is it just a discipline, a habit we need to force our body into...? How to change...?If I knew the solution, or even where to begin, then instead of blogging I would have published three books about that subject by now. Prayer is a huge benefit when it comes. But the same "not-garden-variety-bad-work-habits" that interfere with my official duties also cripple my efforts in things like daily prayer and exercise.
But, wouldn't you know, thanks to your question I came across something deeply insightful. I Googled "Pious scholars are rare" to make sure I remembered the quote correctly, and found a link a page in this book. It is Making Sense of it All by Thomas V. Morris, published in 1992.
Dave [who asked the question], there's stuff in this book that might be good for both of us to read and to reflect on.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
On "Grand Narratives"
Postmodernism is a standpoint of universal skepticism against "metanarratives" or "grand narratives"--universalizing stories that purport to encompass and illuminate every non-universal story throughout time and geography. Of course, it takes very little cleverness to see the "metanarrative" inside of postmodernism itself. Yet there is still value in the postmodernist point. If nothing else, we now have a language about "metanarratives", so that even if we cannot help but to create and live by one or another metanarrative, we can now, at least, more clearly see them for what they are, ask questions that were not asked before, and ascertain the relative value, the ultimacy, the adequacy, and the truth of metanarratives.
Of course, it is impossible to step "outside of" all metanarratives and so look at them like so many billiard balls on a table. The ones to proclaim that they have done so are still captive of a naivette that needs a healthy dose of postmodernism before they can become helpful dialogue partners. No claim, no matter how loudly, to "reason", to "common sense", to "logic" can yet presume to hold all of the cards, to know all the outcomes, to determine all points of view with a cold, exposing light. Yes, a person may be a general of his own metanarrative, and so will easily win followers who were already captivated by the same. But general and soldiers alike may, without a certain openness and a certain prodding, be imprisoned by a small metanarrative and never see the light of a narrative which is more meta than their own.
And that's the key. We might regard "metanarratives" as being like billiard balls on a table, equally insufficient, equally worthy of skepticism. But through some mystery of understanding, we can see the table as meta to the balls; the pub as meta to the table(s); the district as meta to the pub(s). And perhaps we are unable to arrive at a metanarrative which is actually ultimate--for we always arrive at the same point, namely, that there is something meta to our meta-izing; and there may be something meta even to that.
From this juncture we can go in (at least) two directions. First we may ask what is common to minds such that they, in common with one-another, can recognize common relationships of "meta"--like, for example, the popular postmodernist project itself, by which many people have come to see skepticism as meta to the various available metanarratives. That is the speculative road. Second, we may ask: by what process does the mind change, perhaps not to a belief contradicting a previous belief, but toward a narrative which is more meta than a previous narrative? Or how can a mind be deceived, and so be confused into believing a less meta narrative to be the more? As if a billiards player were to become more consumed by the glimmer of a single ball than the game, or by the game than by the pub and the relationships that constitute the possibility of the game? A question we will discover on the way is: what is the relationship between a metanarrative and its subordinate narratives? This is the practical road.
Both roads are ultimately necessary. The first road needs to be followed if we are to fortify the project against radical skepticism and relativism. Radical relativism is a popular cognitive option in the face of superficially irreconcilable differences of opinion; yet it appears to be falsified by the phenomenon of shared understandings--even if these understandings are never 100%universal. One might argue that shared understandings can be explained away by a theory of memes that treats beliefs as independent, self-reproducing organisms with no link to a yet-elusive "objectivity". Yet this theory presupposes (rather than observes) the origin of shared understandings. It seems to be falsified by the immanent phenomenon of non-constructed otherness. The postmodernist may argue that there is no such thing as non-constructed otherness--for all otherness, even if it is "natural", is reconstructed in our minds by language. But this is a mistake. There is no non-constructed understanding. But even if we accept that language structures all understanding, this presupposes that there is an other to be structured.
The second road--the concrete road--is perhaps the more interesting of the two, because here we can begin to survey the history of ideas, not as an infinite series of discrete units of belief, but as vast collectives, associations, and above all, as hierarchies of metanarratives and subnarratives.
I will not lie--I labor under a metanarrative myself. It is subnarrative to my Catholic faith, and it goes something like this: Very early in human history, the seeds of two primordial metanarratives and grown and sprouted "children", and philosophy has ever since been a dialogue, or a battle, between subnarratives variously pledging their alleigance to one or the other unspoken, implicit, metanarrative. It sounds almost Manichean, I admit, but this is the thread I would like to follow to its conclusion.
Of course, it is impossible to step "outside of" all metanarratives and so look at them like so many billiard balls on a table. The ones to proclaim that they have done so are still captive of a naivette that needs a healthy dose of postmodernism before they can become helpful dialogue partners. No claim, no matter how loudly, to "reason", to "common sense", to "logic" can yet presume to hold all of the cards, to know all the outcomes, to determine all points of view with a cold, exposing light. Yes, a person may be a general of his own metanarrative, and so will easily win followers who were already captivated by the same. But general and soldiers alike may, without a certain openness and a certain prodding, be imprisoned by a small metanarrative and never see the light of a narrative which is more meta than their own.
And that's the key. We might regard "metanarratives" as being like billiard balls on a table, equally insufficient, equally worthy of skepticism. But through some mystery of understanding, we can see the table as meta to the balls; the pub as meta to the table(s); the district as meta to the pub(s). And perhaps we are unable to arrive at a metanarrative which is actually ultimate--for we always arrive at the same point, namely, that there is something meta to our meta-izing; and there may be something meta even to that.
From this juncture we can go in (at least) two directions. First we may ask what is common to minds such that they, in common with one-another, can recognize common relationships of "meta"--like, for example, the popular postmodernist project itself, by which many people have come to see skepticism as meta to the various available metanarratives. That is the speculative road. Second, we may ask: by what process does the mind change, perhaps not to a belief contradicting a previous belief, but toward a narrative which is more meta than a previous narrative? Or how can a mind be deceived, and so be confused into believing a less meta narrative to be the more? As if a billiards player were to become more consumed by the glimmer of a single ball than the game, or by the game than by the pub and the relationships that constitute the possibility of the game? A question we will discover on the way is: what is the relationship between a metanarrative and its subordinate narratives? This is the practical road.
Both roads are ultimately necessary. The first road needs to be followed if we are to fortify the project against radical skepticism and relativism. Radical relativism is a popular cognitive option in the face of superficially irreconcilable differences of opinion; yet it appears to be falsified by the phenomenon of shared understandings--even if these understandings are never 100%universal. One might argue that shared understandings can be explained away by a theory of memes that treats beliefs as independent, self-reproducing organisms with no link to a yet-elusive "objectivity". Yet this theory presupposes (rather than observes) the origin of shared understandings. It seems to be falsified by the immanent phenomenon of non-constructed otherness. The postmodernist may argue that there is no such thing as non-constructed otherness--for all otherness, even if it is "natural", is reconstructed in our minds by language. But this is a mistake. There is no non-constructed understanding. But even if we accept that language structures all understanding, this presupposes that there is an other to be structured.
The second road--the concrete road--is perhaps the more interesting of the two, because here we can begin to survey the history of ideas, not as an infinite series of discrete units of belief, but as vast collectives, associations, and above all, as hierarchies of metanarratives and subnarratives.
I will not lie--I labor under a metanarrative myself. It is subnarrative to my Catholic faith, and it goes something like this: Very early in human history, the seeds of two primordial metanarratives and grown and sprouted "children", and philosophy has ever since been a dialogue, or a battle, between subnarratives variously pledging their alleigance to one or the other unspoken, implicit, metanarrative. It sounds almost Manichean, I admit, but this is the thread I would like to follow to its conclusion.
Friday, October 31, 2008
More discernment! (Updated)
I had another monastery-related thought today and it exploded into a massive entangled web in my mind. Let's see if we can't sort this out.
One dimension of monastic life that has always been attractive to me is the element of "smallness" that is included with it. I recall seeing in the St. Meinrad bookstore a volume by the title, "A Boring Life," which I cannot seem to find on Amazon or on the Web for some reason (we joked at the time that Br. Thomas must have authored it). But the key is that, while I always wanted to share that divine encounter of my young experiences with more people, that did not translate vocationally into me becoming a public figure.
Even as a teacher, I falter at governing a classroom of 26 students; and I am the Incarnation of Awkward at the much vaunted "Teacher's Talent Show" (at which I have signed on to attempt to sing Sinatra). I never cared to see my name, face, or person reach the consciousness of more than my circle of friends. Whatever I have to share with the world, it isn't my persona; like Paul, I guess, I am a little man behind big words. The more I think about it, the more I realize that I would hate to be a church's "pastor". What a horrendously "famous" person!
I do enjoy two things. I enjoy working with people on a small-scale level. And I enjoy sharing thoughts in writing with large anonymous audiences. I enjoy feedback, but not accolades; I love seeing the fruits of my work; not necessarily awards or recognition. I like compliments and validation; I hate public praise.
There was a time not so long ago when I was told that all of this was a symptom of a low self-esteem. Now I can stand as an adult and say: that's ridiculous. It is true that I needed to learn to be liked. Over the last couple of years I have been proven wrong in my hypothesis that no person would would actively seek my company. No, people do. But it is also not the case that, therefore, I am cut out to be a public figure.
This is an area in which I have fooled myself since high school. Since the 11th grade I built up a persona of being a very public, charismatic person--someone made for speaking before large crowds, persuading audiences, giving impassioned speeches and so forth. I staked no small part of my identity on this notion, that I had a preacher in me, and that God was calling me to be a "light to the nations," just so.
The problem is twofold. First, while yes, I do feel energized by an audience and it gives me a new excitement about the material, it is still a draining experience. To be a teacher--to guide students through an experience that they will ponder and integrate--requires not short bursts of excitement, but a meticulous program of activities and assessments. This is not the place to profess a string of insights that excite me. This is a demanding, one-man educational machine; a self-contained, self-sufficient society; incorporating discipline, management, governance, recording, facilities maintenance; and after all is said and done, a meticulous program of activities and assessments. I am not as responsible as this. I am no king, governor, or lord. I disclaim all pretenses to being a pastor, to having this kind of authority. Take it away, I beg you! I hope never to be in this situation again, even while I understand how it is sometimes unavoidable. I would much rather be the beneficiary, or low-level servant of this network than its master.
Let me say: When I left the seminary, I was relieved to be back in the pews and no longer in the sanctuary. Now as a teacher I find myself in a "sanctuary" of another sort--and all I want now is to get out from this position of height and authority. I am no pastor of souls! I am no magister!
The second problem is that I do not have your "garden variety" bad work habits. For as long as I can remember I have had a murderous perfectionism that, far from enabling me to live perfectly, instead fills me with dread at the thought of doing the simplest, easiest things. "Now, it can't be as bad as all that. Everybody procrastinates; it's normal. All you need is a day off." You Do Not Understand. I am not able to function normally without help. I am an escapist. There is no such thing as "just one drink" for an alcoholic, and there is no such thing as a "little escape" for me. The more momentous the task, or the more inner voices saying "you should, you should, you should," the more sensitive the trigger.
I realize that this is an issue that I cannot ignore. In the short term--as long as I cannot take the heat--the solution is to get out of the kitchen. I function best when I am put to work at low-level and routine responsibilities. I take pride in doing quality work in areas that are necessary but not high-profile. I long to disappear behind the scenes and work for the good of many, without the pressure to fundamentally change any person's life (at least in a direct way).
Wherever I am called, I believed I am called to smallness. I do not believe that would change, even if I were pressed to take on leadership--such as in a family, or in a classroom. It would not change even if I conquered the anxieties that burden my efforts. I hope it would not change, even if I had a name on a published book--though I can understand one reason authors choose pen names.
I do not want to be told that my desire to disappear into anonymity is disordered; I do not want to be told that, no, I am wrong, I am destined for "great things".
A couple of commenters have told me that they are reminded of St. Therese of Lisieux. I am not sure that I can be fairly compared to her. For one thing, St. Therese's smallness was based on a life of prayer that was fervent even before she entered the community. My prayer flags like an old flashlight. I don't know that humility is the root of my desire for smallness, so much as a desire for relief from the pains of public life, or a kind of fatalistic despair at the efforts of the average work day. World-weariness is not humility.
But perhaps I am weary because I am truly not where I belong. I do not "jibe" here; there is friction; there are blisters that have developed from jamming someone of my disposition into a niche he was not built for. There might come a time when I am ready for heavy and difficult responsibility, but perhaps my preparation for such a time is now being stunted by noise and confusion. Perhaps I need to incubate--to rest, but not to be lazy; to find peace, but not sedation; to find quiet, but not sleep.
Where is God in all of this? Unmoving, unchanging, forever calling, knowing me more than I know myself, patiently waiting my arrival to the life he has prepared. That I have only mentioned him now is both a testament to the dearth of prayer in my life, and also to my confidence that he is always there and always works regardless of whether he is explicitly invoked. But if Jesus Christ called me by name, and led me to a path whose sufferings and consolations were the instruments to save my soul, what would that path look like?
The path is not a separate thing than the search for it; it does not begin for me at the age of 27 or 29, but I have been on it already for some time. Perhaps the trajectory of my path so far is a part of the message--just as Christ took fishermen and made them fishers of men. So what am I now, that will be continuous with Christ's call?
One dimension of monastic life that has always been attractive to me is the element of "smallness" that is included with it. I recall seeing in the St. Meinrad bookstore a volume by the title, "A Boring Life," which I cannot seem to find on Amazon or on the Web for some reason (we joked at the time that Br. Thomas must have authored it). But the key is that, while I always wanted to share that divine encounter of my young experiences with more people, that did not translate vocationally into me becoming a public figure.
Even as a teacher, I falter at governing a classroom of 26 students; and I am the Incarnation of Awkward at the much vaunted "Teacher's Talent Show" (at which I have signed on to attempt to sing Sinatra). I never cared to see my name, face, or person reach the consciousness of more than my circle of friends. Whatever I have to share with the world, it isn't my persona; like Paul, I guess, I am a little man behind big words. The more I think about it, the more I realize that I would hate to be a church's "pastor". What a horrendously "famous" person!
I do enjoy two things. I enjoy working with people on a small-scale level. And I enjoy sharing thoughts in writing with large anonymous audiences. I enjoy feedback, but not accolades; I love seeing the fruits of my work; not necessarily awards or recognition. I like compliments and validation; I hate public praise.
There was a time not so long ago when I was told that all of this was a symptom of a low self-esteem. Now I can stand as an adult and say: that's ridiculous. It is true that I needed to learn to be liked. Over the last couple of years I have been proven wrong in my hypothesis that no person would would actively seek my company. No, people do. But it is also not the case that, therefore, I am cut out to be a public figure.
This is an area in which I have fooled myself since high school. Since the 11th grade I built up a persona of being a very public, charismatic person--someone made for speaking before large crowds, persuading audiences, giving impassioned speeches and so forth. I staked no small part of my identity on this notion, that I had a preacher in me, and that God was calling me to be a "light to the nations," just so.
The problem is twofold. First, while yes, I do feel energized by an audience and it gives me a new excitement about the material, it is still a draining experience. To be a teacher--to guide students through an experience that they will ponder and integrate--requires not short bursts of excitement, but a meticulous program of activities and assessments. This is not the place to profess a string of insights that excite me. This is a demanding, one-man educational machine; a self-contained, self-sufficient society; incorporating discipline, management, governance, recording, facilities maintenance; and after all is said and done, a meticulous program of activities and assessments. I am not as responsible as this. I am no king, governor, or lord. I disclaim all pretenses to being a pastor, to having this kind of authority. Take it away, I beg you! I hope never to be in this situation again, even while I understand how it is sometimes unavoidable. I would much rather be the beneficiary, or low-level servant of this network than its master.
Let me say: When I left the seminary, I was relieved to be back in the pews and no longer in the sanctuary. Now as a teacher I find myself in a "sanctuary" of another sort--and all I want now is to get out from this position of height and authority. I am no pastor of souls! I am no magister!
The second problem is that I do not have your "garden variety" bad work habits. For as long as I can remember I have had a murderous perfectionism that, far from enabling me to live perfectly, instead fills me with dread at the thought of doing the simplest, easiest things. "Now, it can't be as bad as all that. Everybody procrastinates; it's normal. All you need is a day off." You Do Not Understand. I am not able to function normally without help. I am an escapist. There is no such thing as "just one drink" for an alcoholic, and there is no such thing as a "little escape" for me. The more momentous the task, or the more inner voices saying "you should, you should, you should," the more sensitive the trigger.
I realize that this is an issue that I cannot ignore. In the short term--as long as I cannot take the heat--the solution is to get out of the kitchen. I function best when I am put to work at low-level and routine responsibilities. I take pride in doing quality work in areas that are necessary but not high-profile. I long to disappear behind the scenes and work for the good of many, without the pressure to fundamentally change any person's life (at least in a direct way).
Wherever I am called, I believed I am called to smallness. I do not believe that would change, even if I were pressed to take on leadership--such as in a family, or in a classroom. It would not change even if I conquered the anxieties that burden my efforts. I hope it would not change, even if I had a name on a published book--though I can understand one reason authors choose pen names.
I do not want to be told that my desire to disappear into anonymity is disordered; I do not want to be told that, no, I am wrong, I am destined for "great things".
A couple of commenters have told me that they are reminded of St. Therese of Lisieux. I am not sure that I can be fairly compared to her. For one thing, St. Therese's smallness was based on a life of prayer that was fervent even before she entered the community. My prayer flags like an old flashlight. I don't know that humility is the root of my desire for smallness, so much as a desire for relief from the pains of public life, or a kind of fatalistic despair at the efforts of the average work day. World-weariness is not humility.
But perhaps I am weary because I am truly not where I belong. I do not "jibe" here; there is friction; there are blisters that have developed from jamming someone of my disposition into a niche he was not built for. There might come a time when I am ready for heavy and difficult responsibility, but perhaps my preparation for such a time is now being stunted by noise and confusion. Perhaps I need to incubate--to rest, but not to be lazy; to find peace, but not sedation; to find quiet, but not sleep.
Where is God in all of this? Unmoving, unchanging, forever calling, knowing me more than I know myself, patiently waiting my arrival to the life he has prepared. That I have only mentioned him now is both a testament to the dearth of prayer in my life, and also to my confidence that he is always there and always works regardless of whether he is explicitly invoked. But if Jesus Christ called me by name, and led me to a path whose sufferings and consolations were the instruments to save my soul, what would that path look like?
The path is not a separate thing than the search for it; it does not begin for me at the age of 27 or 29, but I have been on it already for some time. Perhaps the trajectory of my path so far is a part of the message--just as Christ took fishermen and made them fishers of men. So what am I now, that will be continuous with Christ's call?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Continuing discernment
My thanks to Brother Thomas for his prayerful and insightful comment on my last discernment entry. At the end, he wrote,
Was I naive? There was some immaturity there perhaps. Emotions are a powerful thing to a sheltered teenager. But I do believe that there was something authentic in that wide-eyed surrender that I felt. I was not aware of the realities of the Catholic parish as I wrote those words. That is the missing piece. My vocation was not born out of a connection to any parish church as a community. I disliked youth groups. I was not part of any volunteer programs apart from teaching Catechism. I was attending daily Mass for a time, but I never felt the slightest urge to serve at the altar.
I have sometimes said that my main attraction to the priesthood was intellectual--I believed that I could study the mysteries of God to my heart's content. Yet this, too, is inaccurate. What I loved about "church" and "Catholicism"--what drove me to tears--was not just the depth of the tradition. The studies gave me assurance that my feelings were grounded in a firm bedrock. But it was something else, it was the sense of the church as a refuge. I loved the church--and here I speak of the building--as I loved my mother. I loved the empty church as a place where I could be alone with my God who intimately knew me and who I could trust with my life.
[I should have seen the signs when more than one priest in the diocese poured scorn on this sort of religious experience, calling it "protestant".]
I loved the warmth of the morning daily Mass in the small chapel with its perfunctory homilies and room full of people two generations my senior. I loved going to Confession and hearing a deep, old, tender voice in a small, dark room, assuring me that God is the author of history and that untold beauty awaits us all whether we can see it now or not.
In these experiences, threaded together, I discovered a God that wanted nothing more than to embrace his beloved children, each individually and all together, and relieve them from spiritual suffering even while they endured the pain of living in a broken world.
I found a sort of personal salvation, and so I believed that the priesthood was the logical conclusion. What better position was there to share this intimate joy in God with as many people as possible?
The greatest mistake the Diocese made in taking me on--a mistake that I encouraged--was in not recognizing how out of touch I was with the true meaning and function of the parish, at least as it is today. I have zero interest in the parish as a public, ordered society. Parish councils, education programs, plant management, social functions, clubs, fundraisers--public, public, public. I have an allergy to the public.
And so I am, prima facie, disqualified to be a parish priest. The parish priest is not only, or primarily, the custodian of the God's intimate embrace of the discouraged soul. The priest is a community organizer. The priest must drift from function to function, through all sacharine falsehoods of public decorum, without any relief and without any human being with whom he can be himself.
The liturgy is a different thing altogether. The sacramental presence of Jesus Christ makes all the difference. The liturgy is both public and private, both intimate and ultimate. My vision of liturgy is determined by my vision of a God that reaches out to embrace each of us individually and together at once; a God that meets us in the inner room of the soul even while he calls us together to love one-another.
The Church does not exist prior to the initiative of God; and when it does exist it does not thereby obliterate the individual in favor of a "parish" with a "culture"; but rather it fulfills and brightens the individuality of the members, makes them glow with a pre-ordained, but delightfully different beauty given by God. Thus the liturgy is precisely the only public function which is neither sentimentally individualistic nor politely, superficially public.
But I am as unfit for diocesan priesthood as an amputee for tennis. It does not matter if he can run fast, he has no arms (maybe he is better suited to another sport). My experience of faith has always been lopsidedly personal and intimate, having no respect for the gatherings of near-strangers for purposes of mutual distraction or collective esteem-building. I am not, like Barack Obama, a community organizer. Community be damned. Who are you, what is your story, where do you hurt?
It feels funny writing that my experience of faith is "personal". I am usually the one saying I lack a personal relationship with God. But what I mean by a "personal" experience of faith is not that I feel like God is my invisible buddy, with whom I often chat about the frustrations of Tetris. Rather, my faith is personal because it thrives on persons, flesh and blood, each one a sacrament of God. Profound encounters with the human soul--something that never happens during "social functions"--are my impetus to pray. Some people need chant. Some people need statues. Some people need colorful windows. I need talk. Hold the weather and sports, please.
Thus, it is no surprise that I was happy in the seminary. There were problems, problems that I struggle with even now as a lay Catholic, and which will follow me wherever I am called. But living and studying within a community of men, men with a singular purpose, men who were each individually themselves as well as soldiers of Christ, I found the fulfillment of what I hoped for as a teenager. The seminary is, in a certain way, deceptive. It is a community of intimate friendships that prepares men for a life without any. This is hyperbole, yes, but there is truth in it.
To return again to the question,
Don't we all know what we really want, and that this deep desire is God's Spirit groaning within us?I believe that I do. However, caution ever remains at my side. Ten years ago, in tears, I wrote that I wanted to be a priest. On retreats to the seminary, before I signed up for the program, I experienced intense emotion as I wrote spiritual journals. Yes, my Lord and my God--I wrote--I will be your servant. I place myself entirely in your hands. Do with me whatever you wish. This is where I belong--I wrote, referring to the seminary--this is a path to happiness that you have laid out for me.
Was I naive? There was some immaturity there perhaps. Emotions are a powerful thing to a sheltered teenager. But I do believe that there was something authentic in that wide-eyed surrender that I felt. I was not aware of the realities of the Catholic parish as I wrote those words. That is the missing piece. My vocation was not born out of a connection to any parish church as a community. I disliked youth groups. I was not part of any volunteer programs apart from teaching Catechism. I was attending daily Mass for a time, but I never felt the slightest urge to serve at the altar.
I have sometimes said that my main attraction to the priesthood was intellectual--I believed that I could study the mysteries of God to my heart's content. Yet this, too, is inaccurate. What I loved about "church" and "Catholicism"--what drove me to tears--was not just the depth of the tradition. The studies gave me assurance that my feelings were grounded in a firm bedrock. But it was something else, it was the sense of the church as a refuge. I loved the church--and here I speak of the building--as I loved my mother. I loved the empty church as a place where I could be alone with my God who intimately knew me and who I could trust with my life.
[I should have seen the signs when more than one priest in the diocese poured scorn on this sort of religious experience, calling it "protestant".]
I loved the warmth of the morning daily Mass in the small chapel with its perfunctory homilies and room full of people two generations my senior. I loved going to Confession and hearing a deep, old, tender voice in a small, dark room, assuring me that God is the author of history and that untold beauty awaits us all whether we can see it now or not.
In these experiences, threaded together, I discovered a God that wanted nothing more than to embrace his beloved children, each individually and all together, and relieve them from spiritual suffering even while they endured the pain of living in a broken world.
I found a sort of personal salvation, and so I believed that the priesthood was the logical conclusion. What better position was there to share this intimate joy in God with as many people as possible?
The greatest mistake the Diocese made in taking me on--a mistake that I encouraged--was in not recognizing how out of touch I was with the true meaning and function of the parish, at least as it is today. I have zero interest in the parish as a public, ordered society. Parish councils, education programs, plant management, social functions, clubs, fundraisers--public, public, public. I have an allergy to the public.
And so I am, prima facie, disqualified to be a parish priest. The parish priest is not only, or primarily, the custodian of the God's intimate embrace of the discouraged soul. The priest is a community organizer. The priest must drift from function to function, through all sacharine falsehoods of public decorum, without any relief and without any human being with whom he can be himself.
The liturgy is a different thing altogether. The sacramental presence of Jesus Christ makes all the difference. The liturgy is both public and private, both intimate and ultimate. My vision of liturgy is determined by my vision of a God that reaches out to embrace each of us individually and together at once; a God that meets us in the inner room of the soul even while he calls us together to love one-another.
The Church does not exist prior to the initiative of God; and when it does exist it does not thereby obliterate the individual in favor of a "parish" with a "culture"; but rather it fulfills and brightens the individuality of the members, makes them glow with a pre-ordained, but delightfully different beauty given by God. Thus the liturgy is precisely the only public function which is neither sentimentally individualistic nor politely, superficially public.
But I am as unfit for diocesan priesthood as an amputee for tennis. It does not matter if he can run fast, he has no arms (maybe he is better suited to another sport). My experience of faith has always been lopsidedly personal and intimate, having no respect for the gatherings of near-strangers for purposes of mutual distraction or collective esteem-building. I am not, like Barack Obama, a community organizer. Community be damned. Who are you, what is your story, where do you hurt?
It feels funny writing that my experience of faith is "personal". I am usually the one saying I lack a personal relationship with God. But what I mean by a "personal" experience of faith is not that I feel like God is my invisible buddy, with whom I often chat about the frustrations of Tetris. Rather, my faith is personal because it thrives on persons, flesh and blood, each one a sacrament of God. Profound encounters with the human soul--something that never happens during "social functions"--are my impetus to pray. Some people need chant. Some people need statues. Some people need colorful windows. I need talk. Hold the weather and sports, please.
Thus, it is no surprise that I was happy in the seminary. There were problems, problems that I struggle with even now as a lay Catholic, and which will follow me wherever I am called. But living and studying within a community of men, men with a singular purpose, men who were each individually themselves as well as soldiers of Christ, I found the fulfillment of what I hoped for as a teenager. The seminary is, in a certain way, deceptive. It is a community of intimate friendships that prepares men for a life without any. This is hyperbole, yes, but there is truth in it.
To return again to the question,
Don't we all know what we really want, and that this deep desire is God's Spirit groaning within us?Perhaps I do know.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
More on the monastery
As we slide quickly past October into November, I see ahead of me another visit to St. Meinrad Archabbey--another year, another week with the monks and with other discerners, and another look at where I have been, and where I am going.
In December of 2006, I made my first "Monastic Observance" retreat at St. Meinrad. I was a clinically depressed diocesan seminarian in the middle of a dreary internship, engulfed by the triple-isolation of "Made in China" sentimentality of the American Catholic parish, of being a conservative celibate Christian freak in a secular individualized society, and of layers upon layers of insecurity, inversion, bitterness and escapism--not to mention intellectual pride and emotional immaturity.
St. Meinrad glowed like heaven itself. I can scarcely say more, except that I was at least mature enough to know that it would be foolish to make that reckless switch.
In December of 2007, I returned to St. Meinrad surrounded by a different world. In the span of a year, I had quit the seminary; had a three-month relationship with a single mother; been hired as a high school theology teacher; moved to the city; acquired my first ever apartment, credit card, and cat; and even though I was working unhealthy hours and felt more alone than ever, I had an indomitable optimism.
St. Meinrad then seemed more distant. Though still, as always, a place of welcome and peace, the sacrifices demanded by the monastic call seemed steeper than before. I had only just begun to live life. Even on a teacher's wage, the basic secular comforts loomed large in my mind, not least of which because they were the only comforts I had.
Now I stand in a new position. I am teaching again this year and I have pushed hard to make myself a valuable member of this community. The process that began last year continues to unfold, and I am mostly accomodated to the identity of a college-educated lay Catholic professional rather than a liminal clergyman. As my footholds become steadier, I am slowly reaching out and building an identity around my faith--which, incidentally, is not easy in a large, secularized city. I owe the lion's share of my maturing to Katlin, who I met in April and who has been my strongest link to reality ever since. As I once again learn to be comfortable in my own skin in a new world (as happened in Illinois, and as happened in Belgium, and as happened in California, and as happened in high school), I am able to start looking at where I am relative to where I ultimately want to be, without as much fear that I am being strung along by fears.
I never ultimately wanted to be a high school teacher, and frankly I still do not. In this work I get wrapped up in caring about my students--all of them. I love them. I want them to be successful and happy. But I've known the happiness that only faith can offer, and so I struggle to drag these students beyond the "spirit of the age", which is powerfully dragging them into a cynical, amoral adulthood where everything is gray. There is a stark difference between the peers I knew as a high schooler and the students in my care. The passion for renewing society and creating a just social order--what I was formed in--is now so cold and damp, replaced by a tepid individualism. The rebellion itself is so passive that it doesn't even provide the fuel for sustained striving that often leads to a profound conversion. The Holy Spirit shows through the glowing embers, but the landscape seems already burnt out at the age of 17. The spectre of discouragement hovers.
But I am not discouraged, and the long view tells me that there are good things happening here, and that good things are happening in my own life. I will be 27 in two months, no longer at the very beginning of life, and perhaps on the cusp of finally answering God's call, once I can discover what it is.
The problem is that I remain deadlocked between marriage and monastery. I have already eliminated two possible vocations definitively--the diocesan priesthood and lay single life. It is not good for me to be alone. This means that I choose to relinquish the vast license I now have to spend my time as I wish. So be it--I am not a good steward of time. But who do I give my time to?
Whenever I mention the monastery to Katlin, she tells me to be careful--yes, I know that I would probably be happy in the monastery, but it is a known happiness. I do not yet know the happiness that married love may bring. It is unknown. And I should not choose one happiness over the other, simply because it is familiar. That would be to shrink from the challenge of maturing that I have pursued since leaving seminary. I have been a serial dater since then as well, the fruit of which has been disappointment. Even if I fell in love, how well-suited am I to be a leader, a caretaker of a family?
The answer is prayer, that bugbear of mine. I have always trusted that God will not lead me astray, and so far he has not. But though I feel a divine hand protecting me in a long period of discernment, that hand does not beckon with clarity. The things I love and need most, and the gifts that I offer, seem equally present down either path--loving companionship, permanence and stability, growth in God, a chance to transform the world (beginning at home).
In December of 2006, I made my first "Monastic Observance" retreat at St. Meinrad. I was a clinically depressed diocesan seminarian in the middle of a dreary internship, engulfed by the triple-isolation of "Made in China" sentimentality of the American Catholic parish, of being a conservative celibate Christian freak in a secular individualized society, and of layers upon layers of insecurity, inversion, bitterness and escapism--not to mention intellectual pride and emotional immaturity.
St. Meinrad glowed like heaven itself. I can scarcely say more, except that I was at least mature enough to know that it would be foolish to make that reckless switch.
In December of 2007, I returned to St. Meinrad surrounded by a different world. In the span of a year, I had quit the seminary; had a three-month relationship with a single mother; been hired as a high school theology teacher; moved to the city; acquired my first ever apartment, credit card, and cat; and even though I was working unhealthy hours and felt more alone than ever, I had an indomitable optimism.
St. Meinrad then seemed more distant. Though still, as always, a place of welcome and peace, the sacrifices demanded by the monastic call seemed steeper than before. I had only just begun to live life. Even on a teacher's wage, the basic secular comforts loomed large in my mind, not least of which because they were the only comforts I had.
Now I stand in a new position. I am teaching again this year and I have pushed hard to make myself a valuable member of this community. The process that began last year continues to unfold, and I am mostly accomodated to the identity of a college-educated lay Catholic professional rather than a liminal clergyman. As my footholds become steadier, I am slowly reaching out and building an identity around my faith--which, incidentally, is not easy in a large, secularized city. I owe the lion's share of my maturing to Katlin, who I met in April and who has been my strongest link to reality ever since. As I once again learn to be comfortable in my own skin in a new world (as happened in Illinois, and as happened in Belgium, and as happened in California, and as happened in high school), I am able to start looking at where I am relative to where I ultimately want to be, without as much fear that I am being strung along by fears.
I never ultimately wanted to be a high school teacher, and frankly I still do not. In this work I get wrapped up in caring about my students--all of them. I love them. I want them to be successful and happy. But I've known the happiness that only faith can offer, and so I struggle to drag these students beyond the "spirit of the age", which is powerfully dragging them into a cynical, amoral adulthood where everything is gray. There is a stark difference between the peers I knew as a high schooler and the students in my care. The passion for renewing society and creating a just social order--what I was formed in--is now so cold and damp, replaced by a tepid individualism. The rebellion itself is so passive that it doesn't even provide the fuel for sustained striving that often leads to a profound conversion. The Holy Spirit shows through the glowing embers, but the landscape seems already burnt out at the age of 17. The spectre of discouragement hovers.
But I am not discouraged, and the long view tells me that there are good things happening here, and that good things are happening in my own life. I will be 27 in two months, no longer at the very beginning of life, and perhaps on the cusp of finally answering God's call, once I can discover what it is.
The problem is that I remain deadlocked between marriage and monastery. I have already eliminated two possible vocations definitively--the diocesan priesthood and lay single life. It is not good for me to be alone. This means that I choose to relinquish the vast license I now have to spend my time as I wish. So be it--I am not a good steward of time. But who do I give my time to?
Whenever I mention the monastery to Katlin, she tells me to be careful--yes, I know that I would probably be happy in the monastery, but it is a known happiness. I do not yet know the happiness that married love may bring. It is unknown. And I should not choose one happiness over the other, simply because it is familiar. That would be to shrink from the challenge of maturing that I have pursued since leaving seminary. I have been a serial dater since then as well, the fruit of which has been disappointment. Even if I fell in love, how well-suited am I to be a leader, a caretaker of a family?
The answer is prayer, that bugbear of mine. I have always trusted that God will not lead me astray, and so far he has not. But though I feel a divine hand protecting me in a long period of discernment, that hand does not beckon with clarity. The things I love and need most, and the gifts that I offer, seem equally present down either path--loving companionship, permanence and stability, growth in God, a chance to transform the world (beginning at home).
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Two brief notes:
1.Could there be growth in heaven?
I believe so.
Growth does not necessarily imply that anything is (grievously) lacking in the saved soul. That is to say, if a soul enjoys the beatific vision, it lacks nothing of what it ought to have; but this does not mean that it cannot grow even holier, even closer to God. Some might say that this logically implies that some souls are "worse off" than others, and this would imply that there is evil in heaven. But in the equation of the Union between the Infinite and the finite, the finite are by definition infinitely "lacking"--yet it is a "lacking" which is itself glorified, for Christ himself glorifies finitude. The difference between the infinite God and the finite saints glorifies God, so also does the continual--infinite!--progress of the Heavenly Liturgy toward God glorify God. Thus I believe that Heaven is not a static, but is rather a "progressive" place.
2. On drawing lines.
The intellect cannot but help to draw lines, to distinguish, and this is no less true in the domain of human action. The moral line is neither wholly straight nor is it fuzzy or indeterminate. Beginning with the law of God and progressing through considerations of virtues, circumstances, and codifications, we find that the justice or injustice of "lines" has nothing to do with whether a line is "man-made" (for such "lines," as are found in canon and civil law, are prudentially necessary, even if they are sometimes artificially strict) or whether a line withholds reaction to an imperfect behavior (for human beings are often unready for, and would be harmed by, immediately imposed perfection). The justice of a "rule" lies solely and simply in whether it can be demonstrated, within its prudential context, to serve human dignity in its immediate state and ultimate goal.
I believe so.
Growth does not necessarily imply that anything is (grievously) lacking in the saved soul. That is to say, if a soul enjoys the beatific vision, it lacks nothing of what it ought to have; but this does not mean that it cannot grow even holier, even closer to God. Some might say that this logically implies that some souls are "worse off" than others, and this would imply that there is evil in heaven. But in the equation of the Union between the Infinite and the finite, the finite are by definition infinitely "lacking"--yet it is a "lacking" which is itself glorified, for Christ himself glorifies finitude. The difference between the infinite God and the finite saints glorifies God, so also does the continual--infinite!--progress of the Heavenly Liturgy toward God glorify God. Thus I believe that Heaven is not a static, but is rather a "progressive" place.
2. On drawing lines.
The intellect cannot but help to draw lines, to distinguish, and this is no less true in the domain of human action. The moral line is neither wholly straight nor is it fuzzy or indeterminate. Beginning with the law of God and progressing through considerations of virtues, circumstances, and codifications, we find that the justice or injustice of "lines" has nothing to do with whether a line is "man-made" (for such "lines," as are found in canon and civil law, are prudentially necessary, even if they are sometimes artificially strict) or whether a line withholds reaction to an imperfect behavior (for human beings are often unready for, and would be harmed by, immediately imposed perfection). The justice of a "rule" lies solely and simply in whether it can be demonstrated, within its prudential context, to serve human dignity in its immediate state and ultimate goal.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
On gay marriage
The conservative position on gay marriage is difficult is because it would deny to homosexual couples a public recognition of the equal stature of their union to an analogous union between mixed sexes, thus making them unhappy. Specifically, they would understandably feel marginalized, segregated, invisible, and rejected. Also, there is the implied denial of intangible (and sometimes tangible) goods connected with the status of marriage: legitimation, a sense of permanence and officiality, stability, community support, and a foundation upon which to build a legacy via [in this case adopted] children.
These are genuine goods, and the public order I would vote for would deny them to gay couples. I do not want that. I do not want gay couples to be unhappy and marginalized. To me it is a biproduct of the situation we find ourselves in--a situation in which losses will be suffered no matter what the outcome.
Conservatives suffer a disadvantage having to articulate what is, admittedly, an abstract grievance in a culture dominated by the demand for self-determination.
I will try to do so, and I may fail to persuade, but I hope this is illuminating nevertheless.
The social contract owes its existence not exclusively or even primarily to the combined wills of atomistic individuals. The social contract's allegiance is, above all, to inalienable human dignity (the source of human rights)--a dignity not given, defined, or created by the government. This dignity is recognized as already present and inherent in humans as humans, as long as humans have existed, and so it is revered--yet it is also vulnerable, and thus needs guarding. It is key to our historic understanding of government that neither kings nor majority rule are the last word; all government is subservient to human dignity, rooted in human nature, and denying nothing to anyone what belongs to each in accord with his or her humanness. They key is, what is "humanness"?
Today we conceive of "human dignity" and "human rights" in strictly individualistic terms; but if our notion of humanity is so atomistic, it is simply flat wrong. There is no humanness--there are no humans--apart from the defining structures out of which our childhoods arose. And it is not a stretch to say that the only such structure that enjoys a perennial default status (for no reason of our own machination) is the biological family. It is one thing to say that someone's dignity maintains even when, in particular cases, one arises from alternative situations ('families' in an analogous sense). It is another to deny the brute ever-presence, across time and the globe, of a reality which is so powerfully constitutive of collective human existence. To delete from public recognition, not only the brute "biology" of our individual origins, but also the consequent bonds which ideally become a child's welcome committee to the world, is to publicly, officially declare a new, different conception of human nature.
"Family" is now a household of voluntarily cohabiting individuals. Blood has no role, privilege, or status. The complete severing of the law from reality in this case represents, to me, a troubling precedent.
The pre-existing reality of families (biologically begotten) is prior to the state both in chronology and in inviolability. The state exists because of that entity, not the other way around; the state did not "invent" or "define" the fact that human beings cluster into mutually fostering bonds of spouse and spawn. It was created by them for their sake. The state does not serve citizens as atomistic individuals in every aspect of life; it serves families--both the biological and the analogous kind. But the point is that even those "analogous families" are analogous to something, which is not itself an analogy, but the real thing: blood family. It is the mold and the model for all such households. Watch me repeat myself here: it was not given, defined, or created by the government. It is recognized as already present and inherent in humans as humans, as long as humans have existed, and so it is revered--yet it is also vulnerable, and thus guarded. But in this case, it has only become vulnerable in the last thirty years.
For social conservatives there is a close connection between the public privilege granted to heterosexual marriage (the biological linchpin of family) and to the same human dignity that is the source of inalienable rights. Both are rooted in the official, state-enshrined understanding of what "humanness" is. If you can change what that word means, you can make radical alterations to the way government understand, and treats, people. It's like changing the multiplier on a computer's processor: tiny little modification, big consequences (and like an overclocked computer, the negative consequences may not be evident for some time).
The conservative position, when not blatantly bigoted or blindly religious, ultimately demands that government remember its subordination to realities that pre-existed it and have not, in their essence, changed--nor will they. This is not a debate about whether Bob and Fred can live happily ever after (they can). This is a debate about the foundation and rights of government. Democrats wish to place government over family as its creator and author (so that it can "re-author" this reality). Republicans demand that government know its place--that it not attempt to use its powers to alter that which it was built to serve.
One final, final point. There is something lost in the translation when conservatives wield signs saying "Protect marriage." People imagine that they are saying, "Protect marriage from gay people" (Hence Ron Zimmerman's great song about those who are trying to "protect marriage from people who want to get married." No. The "Protect marriage" slogan isn't about protecting marriage from gay people. It's about protecting marriage from the government--and as is most often the case, the judiciary branch.
These are genuine goods, and the public order I would vote for would deny them to gay couples. I do not want that. I do not want gay couples to be unhappy and marginalized. To me it is a biproduct of the situation we find ourselves in--a situation in which losses will be suffered no matter what the outcome.
Conservatives suffer a disadvantage having to articulate what is, admittedly, an abstract grievance in a culture dominated by the demand for self-determination.
I will try to do so, and I may fail to persuade, but I hope this is illuminating nevertheless.
The social contract owes its existence not exclusively or even primarily to the combined wills of atomistic individuals. The social contract's allegiance is, above all, to inalienable human dignity (the source of human rights)--a dignity not given, defined, or created by the government. This dignity is recognized as already present and inherent in humans as humans, as long as humans have existed, and so it is revered--yet it is also vulnerable, and thus needs guarding. It is key to our historic understanding of government that neither kings nor majority rule are the last word; all government is subservient to human dignity, rooted in human nature, and denying nothing to anyone what belongs to each in accord with his or her humanness. They key is, what is "humanness"?
Today we conceive of "human dignity" and "human rights" in strictly individualistic terms; but if our notion of humanity is so atomistic, it is simply flat wrong. There is no humanness--there are no humans--apart from the defining structures out of which our childhoods arose. And it is not a stretch to say that the only such structure that enjoys a perennial default status (for no reason of our own machination) is the biological family. It is one thing to say that someone's dignity maintains even when, in particular cases, one arises from alternative situations ('families' in an analogous sense). It is another to deny the brute ever-presence, across time and the globe, of a reality which is so powerfully constitutive of collective human existence. To delete from public recognition, not only the brute "biology" of our individual origins, but also the consequent bonds which ideally become a child's welcome committee to the world, is to publicly, officially declare a new, different conception of human nature.
"Family" is now a household of voluntarily cohabiting individuals. Blood has no role, privilege, or status. The complete severing of the law from reality in this case represents, to me, a troubling precedent.
The pre-existing reality of families (biologically begotten) is prior to the state both in chronology and in inviolability. The state exists because of that entity, not the other way around; the state did not "invent" or "define" the fact that human beings cluster into mutually fostering bonds of spouse and spawn. It was created by them for their sake. The state does not serve citizens as atomistic individuals in every aspect of life; it serves families--both the biological and the analogous kind. But the point is that even those "analogous families" are analogous to something, which is not itself an analogy, but the real thing: blood family. It is the mold and the model for all such households. Watch me repeat myself here: it was not given, defined, or created by the government. It is recognized as already present and inherent in humans as humans, as long as humans have existed, and so it is revered--yet it is also vulnerable, and thus guarded. But in this case, it has only become vulnerable in the last thirty years.
For social conservatives there is a close connection between the public privilege granted to heterosexual marriage (the biological linchpin of family) and to the same human dignity that is the source of inalienable rights. Both are rooted in the official, state-enshrined understanding of what "humanness" is. If you can change what that word means, you can make radical alterations to the way government understand, and treats, people. It's like changing the multiplier on a computer's processor: tiny little modification, big consequences (and like an overclocked computer, the negative consequences may not be evident for some time).
The conservative position, when not blatantly bigoted or blindly religious, ultimately demands that government remember its subordination to realities that pre-existed it and have not, in their essence, changed--nor will they. This is not a debate about whether Bob and Fred can live happily ever after (they can). This is a debate about the foundation and rights of government. Democrats wish to place government over family as its creator and author (so that it can "re-author" this reality). Republicans demand that government know its place--that it not attempt to use its powers to alter that which it was built to serve.
One final, final point. There is something lost in the translation when conservatives wield signs saying "Protect marriage." People imagine that they are saying, "Protect marriage from gay people" (Hence Ron Zimmerman's great song about those who are trying to "protect marriage from people who want to get married." No. The "Protect marriage" slogan isn't about protecting marriage from gay people. It's about protecting marriage from the government--and as is most often the case, the judiciary branch.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Monday, October 06, 2008
Adaption of "Batter my Heart"
The director of my parish's RCIA program asked me to provide us with today's opening prayer. I wanted to share the "Holy Sonnet XVI" of John Donne, aka "Batter my Heart". However, I discovered that the language of the poem is a little difficult, so I took some creative liberties and adapted it. First, the original:
Now, my version:
Batter my heart, three person'd God; for You
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn and make me new.
I, like an usurped town, to another due,
Labour to admit You, but Oh, to no end,
Reason your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weak or untrue,
Yet dearly I love You, and would be loved fain,
But am betrothed unto your enemy:
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to You, imprison me, for I
Except You enthral me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except You ravish me.
Now, my version:
Do break me down, my triune God; for You
are too polite; too gently offer help;
So I may stand and walk, destroy my self,
With force do crack, blow, burn, and make me new.
My soul is occupied long past her due,
She longs for you, her guest, but to no end,
Your soldier, reason, her protection lends,
But reason, weak and captive, proves untrue.
Yet dearly do I love you, not in vain,
But am betrothed unto your enemy;
Divorce, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to You, imprison me, for I
Unless enslaved by You, shall ne’er be free,
Nor ever chaste, except You ravish me.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
On Surrender
The focal point my lesson on Baptism is that it is the new Christian's total surrender; and thus that Christianity is fundamentally a faith of surrender. In RCIA Monday evening, I encountered some examples of just that. But some of the things people said modified my understanding.
It's a cheap aphorism to tell someone to "Let go, and let God," as if it was acceptable to let one's obligations slide. The surrender demanded by Jesus was never a "giving up" with respect to our daily responsibilities. The "rest" offered by Jesus was never an invitation to sloth. I confess to feeling a little disappointed by this realization. Is Jesus' promise of rest not then empty? We are exhausted. To offer us rest and then to comission us to take up the cross seems a terrible bait-and-switch.
Faith informs me that Jesus' promise of rest is not empty; in fact, it is a promise that satisfies more completely and permanently than a summer vacation of sleep and leisure. All we have to do is look again at the Gospels. What Jesus demanded, and the only thing he ever asked, was for people to trust in him. It was that trust, that opening up to the Incarnate Word, that sparked incredible works among the people. Thus the Lord gives food to those he loves while they sleep.
To trust in Jesus Christ--a free response equally available to saint and sinner--means that one acknowledges God's power as real. Thus the rest he offers is real; it is more real than the rest of leisure. To understand this, we need to distinguish between two kinds of human effort: the effort of exertion, and the effort of will. Without grace, overexertion attacks the will. If we permit the will to become subject to nature, and entropy drags us down. With grace, the will is lifted up on supernatural columns, and it is held high without any effort on our part. No amount of exertion, nor suffering, nor "death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
And so, the "rest" that Jesus offers, the "easy yoke", is not a worldly kind of leisure or relaxation. In fact it is the opposite. By lifting the will up above the exhaust of nature, the grace of God leaves one feeling rested and new even through the extremes of human action and suffering.
It's a cheap aphorism to tell someone to "Let go, and let God," as if it was acceptable to let one's obligations slide. The surrender demanded by Jesus was never a "giving up" with respect to our daily responsibilities. The "rest" offered by Jesus was never an invitation to sloth. I confess to feeling a little disappointed by this realization. Is Jesus' promise of rest not then empty? We are exhausted. To offer us rest and then to comission us to take up the cross seems a terrible bait-and-switch.
Faith informs me that Jesus' promise of rest is not empty; in fact, it is a promise that satisfies more completely and permanently than a summer vacation of sleep and leisure. All we have to do is look again at the Gospels. What Jesus demanded, and the only thing he ever asked, was for people to trust in him. It was that trust, that opening up to the Incarnate Word, that sparked incredible works among the people. Thus the Lord gives food to those he loves while they sleep.
To trust in Jesus Christ--a free response equally available to saint and sinner--means that one acknowledges God's power as real. Thus the rest he offers is real; it is more real than the rest of leisure. To understand this, we need to distinguish between two kinds of human effort: the effort of exertion, and the effort of will. Without grace, overexertion attacks the will. If we permit the will to become subject to nature, and entropy drags us down. With grace, the will is lifted up on supernatural columns, and it is held high without any effort on our part. No amount of exertion, nor suffering, nor "death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
And so, the "rest" that Jesus offers, the "easy yoke", is not a worldly kind of leisure or relaxation. In fact it is the opposite. By lifting the will up above the exhaust of nature, the grace of God leaves one feeling rested and new even through the extremes of human action and suffering.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
On life's great loves
Two points of reference here, both of them odd. The first is a line from the Whoopi Goldberg character "Guinan" from Star Trek: love doesn't feel the same twice. To have loved and lost, and then to love again, sometimes is difficult to recognize because it feels different. Second is my friend Katlin's experience of life's "great loves", which rise to the surface of her memory of relationships as the ones that most deeply changed her.
In my life I can probably point to three great loves, if by that we're referring to specific women. But a relationship to a life, a community, or a place can sometimes be just as significant, and this would boost my number to five. The imprint of these relationships have left me intensely changed.
But none of them have yet lasted very long or have led to that comfortable feeling of familiar intimacy--the feeling described by Katlin as the "half-bored kiss". Certainly, the excitement of new attachments and new relationships is a thrill; but some of us have been searching for so long that the "thrills" have only become stressful--and exhausting. It is at this moment that one's attention turns away from excitement, towards a sober, abiding peace in the company of another.
There is no such thing as a relationship without drama; how can we expect there to be no turmoil between two souls when we cannot even calm the storms inside of us alone? But an intimacy between souls can be a source of peace. Katlin tells me that it became tradition at one point for the new groom to build an extension to his father's home. A spiritually intimate relationship is like building an extension inside of oneself for the soul to roam. It is allowing one's own interiority to be the host for another soul; to receive a guest. When a relationship has grown so deep that two people feel as two souls in the same interior home (irrespective of literal living conditions), there is a wonderful new experience of freedom.
But the vast majority of people we encounter at random do not inspire us to run and get the tools to start building that extension. They are scared; we are scared; and the insecurities and neuroses create any number of frictions; or else an intangible quality warns me (or her) away; or else the interpersonal exchange is as dry as sand, but with even less salt.
Sometimes, sometimes, however, someone comes along and changes everything. Someone with the warmth and welcome of a monastery; the openness and transparency of a child; the maturity and grace of a professor; and through it all the quiet feeling that she is happy to see you.
There is human love, and there is the divine grace of caritas. The two are utterly different, pouring from two vastly different fonts. Recent experience makes me ask whether there is a third. It is a fusion of a the two. It is a human love, and therefore a feeling, but it lacks the excitement of corrupt concupiscence. It points beyond simple friendship; it is open to exclusivity and romantic transcendence; but it is attended by the subtle, gentle promptings of a divine approval. Those promptings that do not rush, shame, or manipulate; they fill the heart with a new energy for goodness and self-improvement. This love hints at what the next stage of life may hold; it has "calling" as its sober and serenely smiling attendant.
I am intimidated and frightened, doubtful and skeptical. The life of a serial dater is a life filled with hope-disappointment-hope-disappointment-hope-disappointment. Each time, a woman possesses a quality which makes her stand out: here, a charmingly brash honesty; there, a kind heart; over there, a similar personality; next, a steady and successful carreer; then, a shared suffering; now, a shared religious faith--each one to fall aside as my disqualifiers grow more keen. Every hope now is a cautious hope, even if a new hope is filled with promise and novelty.
But can I say it? This hope seems different. So different that its difference is different. There is something here that tugs at me, as though a future happy self reached out to me saying, "Don't let this one get away!"
Future encounters will tell.
In my life I can probably point to three great loves, if by that we're referring to specific women. But a relationship to a life, a community, or a place can sometimes be just as significant, and this would boost my number to five. The imprint of these relationships have left me intensely changed.
But none of them have yet lasted very long or have led to that comfortable feeling of familiar intimacy--the feeling described by Katlin as the "half-bored kiss". Certainly, the excitement of new attachments and new relationships is a thrill; but some of us have been searching for so long that the "thrills" have only become stressful--and exhausting. It is at this moment that one's attention turns away from excitement, towards a sober, abiding peace in the company of another.
There is no such thing as a relationship without drama; how can we expect there to be no turmoil between two souls when we cannot even calm the storms inside of us alone? But an intimacy between souls can be a source of peace. Katlin tells me that it became tradition at one point for the new groom to build an extension to his father's home. A spiritually intimate relationship is like building an extension inside of oneself for the soul to roam. It is allowing one's own interiority to be the host for another soul; to receive a guest. When a relationship has grown so deep that two people feel as two souls in the same interior home (irrespective of literal living conditions), there is a wonderful new experience of freedom.
But the vast majority of people we encounter at random do not inspire us to run and get the tools to start building that extension. They are scared; we are scared; and the insecurities and neuroses create any number of frictions; or else an intangible quality warns me (or her) away; or else the interpersonal exchange is as dry as sand, but with even less salt.
Sometimes, sometimes, however, someone comes along and changes everything. Someone with the warmth and welcome of a monastery; the openness and transparency of a child; the maturity and grace of a professor; and through it all the quiet feeling that she is happy to see you.
There is human love, and there is the divine grace of caritas. The two are utterly different, pouring from two vastly different fonts. Recent experience makes me ask whether there is a third. It is a fusion of a the two. It is a human love, and therefore a feeling, but it lacks the excitement of corrupt concupiscence. It points beyond simple friendship; it is open to exclusivity and romantic transcendence; but it is attended by the subtle, gentle promptings of a divine approval. Those promptings that do not rush, shame, or manipulate; they fill the heart with a new energy for goodness and self-improvement. This love hints at what the next stage of life may hold; it has "calling" as its sober and serenely smiling attendant.
I am intimidated and frightened, doubtful and skeptical. The life of a serial dater is a life filled with hope-disappointment-hope-disappointment-hope-disappointment. Each time, a woman possesses a quality which makes her stand out: here, a charmingly brash honesty; there, a kind heart; over there, a similar personality; next, a steady and successful carreer; then, a shared suffering; now, a shared religious faith--each one to fall aside as my disqualifiers grow more keen. Every hope now is a cautious hope, even if a new hope is filled with promise and novelty.
But can I say it? This hope seems different. So different that its difference is different. There is something here that tugs at me, as though a future happy self reached out to me saying, "Don't let this one get away!"
Future encounters will tell.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The ideal gadget
Ever since the "netbook craze" (beginning with the Eee last year), affordable ultraportable laptops have descended to a price level much lower, in fact, than were the Pocket PCs I was obsessed with (the tombstone of my Windows CE obsession reads: "2000-2005. What was I thinking?").
I've written technology blog entries before, discussing the fallacy of the "do it all" gadget, but as I continue to look for a possible Christmas technology purchase, I reflect again on how technology could make certain tasks easier, more enjoyable, and more efficient. In a more recent post I had my sights on the Gigabyte m912. However, early reviews have dissuaded me: its 1GB of RAM isn't enough to drive Vista comfortably; the version of Vista it comes with lacks tablet functionality; and Intel has just shipped a dual-core version of the same processor it carries, which itself is pretty weak.
When Gigabyte or another company releases a similar machine with the dual-core Atom processor, 2GB of RAM, Vista Home Premium, and perhaps a bigger battery, I'll take it.
But let's get a little speculative now.
My philosophy of computing is that where human activities have different priorities, they need to be embodied in different devices. Thus, for example, it is incorrect to try and integrate a cell phone with a full computer. Mobile phones need to be light, convenient, simple, inexpensive, and unobtrusive. Computers need to be powerful, capacious, and have excellent human interfaces. A no-compromise solution is a multiple-device solution, and there is no way around that.
However, a multi-device solution does not necessarily mean having multiple centers of data storage. No matter how good of software you use, it will be a struggle to keep all of the software synchronized on all of them, all of the time.
People already get around this by having large USB keys that they carry around with them. The more responsible among those regularly copy the contents of said keys onto the computers.
My thought is that two bodies of technology should be separated: on the one hand, the inputs and outputs of a computer, and on the other, the data storage, processor, GPU, etc. that make up the computer itself (including the batter for portable devices). The former can be any size or shape; the latter should be as portable as possible.
The UMPC device category is ostensibly an attempt at this sort of arrangement. However, it has a terrible flaw: such devices are encumbered by UI hardware that is woefully inadequate. By trying to turn card-deck sized computers into self-sufficient PCs, companies have been forced to compromise on absolutely essential features. I am sorry: serious work cannot be accomplished on an OQO. The combination of a touchscreen, battery, thumb-keyboard, speaker, and every IO port possible ramps the price up on such machines so as to make a cost-benefit analysis very dreary.
In my opinion, a portable computer should be a combination of CPU, GPU, storage, wireless technology, and other integrated devices, but have only a single, high-bandwith port. It would have no display, no UI, and no battery. A brick, in other words. That brick would also hold the OS of the user's choice, loaded with plug-and-play drivers for various inputs and displaytechnologies. Such a device could be terrifically portable and inexpensive, relative to today's UMPCs and ultraportable laptops. This would also improve options for more capable processors and discrete graphics.
A battery could be integrated, perhaps, so that the brick could maintain periodic 3G connections to a online backup server. But otherwise, the brick would be a card-deck size machine with a single port.
Then you could have every kind of computer under the sun, each an empty shell with a single port. Desktops, laptops, ultraportables, and tablet PCs. Note that I do not include "UMPC"--I believe that this category of computer needs to die. The smallest computer usable for real mobile productivity is "netbook" sized, with at least a 9" screen.
Not every brick would be powerful enough to drive every kind of display satisfactorily; but every "shell" workstation would accept every brick. You could buy a "gaming PC" brick or an affordable "workstation" brick. Eiter brick would work in a desktop or a laptop "shell", but the "gaming PC" brick might kill the batteries in the laptop shell very quickly relative to the cheap brick.
I know this isn't an original idea.
Edit: Ha!
I've written technology blog entries before, discussing the fallacy of the "do it all" gadget, but as I continue to look for a possible Christmas technology purchase, I reflect again on how technology could make certain tasks easier, more enjoyable, and more efficient. In a more recent post I had my sights on the Gigabyte m912. However, early reviews have dissuaded me: its 1GB of RAM isn't enough to drive Vista comfortably; the version of Vista it comes with lacks tablet functionality; and Intel has just shipped a dual-core version of the same processor it carries, which itself is pretty weak.
When Gigabyte or another company releases a similar machine with the dual-core Atom processor, 2GB of RAM, Vista Home Premium, and perhaps a bigger battery, I'll take it.
But let's get a little speculative now.
My philosophy of computing is that where human activities have different priorities, they need to be embodied in different devices. Thus, for example, it is incorrect to try and integrate a cell phone with a full computer. Mobile phones need to be light, convenient, simple, inexpensive, and unobtrusive. Computers need to be powerful, capacious, and have excellent human interfaces. A no-compromise solution is a multiple-device solution, and there is no way around that.
However, a multi-device solution does not necessarily mean having multiple centers of data storage. No matter how good of software you use, it will be a struggle to keep all of the software synchronized on all of them, all of the time.
People already get around this by having large USB keys that they carry around with them. The more responsible among those regularly copy the contents of said keys onto the computers.
My thought is that two bodies of technology should be separated: on the one hand, the inputs and outputs of a computer, and on the other, the data storage, processor, GPU, etc. that make up the computer itself (including the batter for portable devices). The former can be any size or shape; the latter should be as portable as possible.
The UMPC device category is ostensibly an attempt at this sort of arrangement. However, it has a terrible flaw: such devices are encumbered by UI hardware that is woefully inadequate. By trying to turn card-deck sized computers into self-sufficient PCs, companies have been forced to compromise on absolutely essential features. I am sorry: serious work cannot be accomplished on an OQO. The combination of a touchscreen, battery, thumb-keyboard, speaker, and every IO port possible ramps the price up on such machines so as to make a cost-benefit analysis very dreary.
In my opinion, a portable computer should be a combination of CPU, GPU, storage, wireless technology, and other integrated devices, but have only a single, high-bandwith port. It would have no display, no UI, and no battery. A brick, in other words. That brick would also hold the OS of the user's choice, loaded with plug-and-play drivers for various inputs and displaytechnologies. Such a device could be terrifically portable and inexpensive, relative to today's UMPCs and ultraportable laptops. This would also improve options for more capable processors and discrete graphics.
A battery could be integrated, perhaps, so that the brick could maintain periodic 3G connections to a online backup server. But otherwise, the brick would be a card-deck size machine with a single port.
Then you could have every kind of computer under the sun, each an empty shell with a single port. Desktops, laptops, ultraportables, and tablet PCs. Note that I do not include "UMPC"--I believe that this category of computer needs to die. The smallest computer usable for real mobile productivity is "netbook" sized, with at least a 9" screen.
Not every brick would be powerful enough to drive every kind of display satisfactorily; but every "shell" workstation would accept every brick. You could buy a "gaming PC" brick or an affordable "workstation" brick. Eiter brick would work in a desktop or a laptop "shell", but the "gaming PC" brick might kill the batteries in the laptop shell very quickly relative to the cheap brick.
I know this isn't an original idea.
Edit: Ha!
Friday, September 19, 2008
Creating Ourselves
As a philosophy student at the University of Louvain, I learned a great deal about secular existentialism and what it represented in terms of the history of ideas: as Sarte put it, the logical consequence of atheism--the final taking of our individual destinies into our individual hands; the ultimate removal of all traces of the en soi, of all "givens" in life, so that all that is left is the Will. The Will then becomes like a mathematical point, a singularity of self-identity, empty of content, around which the isolated, atomistic individual creates himself, as if every soul were a hacked game of "Sim City" where every player had infinite money.
It is this existentialism which, I believe, is at the heart of movements pushing for human cloning, genetic engineering, and yes, gay marriage. It is also at the heart of the transgendered movement. To treat something that is older and larger than ourselves, something that belongs to the order of nature itself, as if it were always a human invention that, anyway, we can do better, is exactly the self-divinization that I denounced when I created the Internet moniker, "NotSelfCreated."
And that is what irritates me most about the increasing number of developments like this one. The hailed interpreters of the law--the law, which ought to be a source of stability in any nation, not the source of change--are wittlessly rewriting creation itself. That a manufactured gender should be legally, officially interpreted as being on an identical level as the gender arising from the unaided processes of creation is both the ultimate hubris and a deception that will not be without consequences (as Jeff Goldblum's character said in "Jurassic Park", "Nature always finds a way"). If judges had the least bit of philosophical awareness, they would understand that a surgically altered man-into-woman is far more analagous to someone covered in tattoos, or with an amputation addiction, than a bona fide woman. And while the first two would certainly be grounds for legally sanctioned discrimination, the judges have chosen to drink the Cool-Aid of modern existentialism, and effectively legislate from the bench that gender is a human technology.
To end with another quote from the same character from the same film: "The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me. "
It is this existentialism which, I believe, is at the heart of movements pushing for human cloning, genetic engineering, and yes, gay marriage. It is also at the heart of the transgendered movement. To treat something that is older and larger than ourselves, something that belongs to the order of nature itself, as if it were always a human invention that, anyway, we can do better, is exactly the self-divinization that I denounced when I created the Internet moniker, "NotSelfCreated."
And that is what irritates me most about the increasing number of developments like this one. The hailed interpreters of the law--the law, which ought to be a source of stability in any nation, not the source of change--are wittlessly rewriting creation itself. That a manufactured gender should be legally, officially interpreted as being on an identical level as the gender arising from the unaided processes of creation is both the ultimate hubris and a deception that will not be without consequences (as Jeff Goldblum's character said in "Jurassic Park", "Nature always finds a way"). If judges had the least bit of philosophical awareness, they would understand that a surgically altered man-into-woman is far more analagous to someone covered in tattoos, or with an amputation addiction, than a bona fide woman. And while the first two would certainly be grounds for legally sanctioned discrimination, the judges have chosen to drink the Cool-Aid of modern existentialism, and effectively legislate from the bench that gender is a human technology.
To end with another quote from the same character from the same film: "The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me. "
Monday, September 15, 2008
On meekness
Once in the seminary I debated with another seminarian about whether the imitation of Christ legimitated a "tough love" approach to being a pastor. He said that he preferred to imitate the meekness of Christ.
At the time, I was caught up in a conservativism that reveled in the angry moments of Jesus Christ--which, to be fair, are not few. Thus, hearing my friend say that he preferred the meekness of Christ left a bad taste in my mouth. Internally, I criticized him for "sentimentalizing" the Gospel, for "cherry-picking" a "nicety-nice" Jesus out of the Gospel, which I believed was a predominantly rough-and-tumble endurance test of pained and bloody charity.
EDIT: You know what? This article says it all better than I ever could.
At the time, I was caught up in a conservativism that reveled in the angry moments of Jesus Christ--which, to be fair, are not few. Thus, hearing my friend say that he preferred the meekness of Christ left a bad taste in my mouth. Internally, I criticized him for "sentimentalizing" the Gospel, for "cherry-picking" a "nicety-nice" Jesus out of the Gospel, which I believed was a predominantly rough-and-tumble endurance test of pained and bloody charity.
EDIT: You know what? This article says it all better than I ever could.
"Jesus is Magic"? Not quite.
Reference is to Sarah Silverman.
Little known fact:
By Christian reckoning, none of Jesus' miracles--not even the raising of Lazarus or his own Resurrection--are privy to him alone as the only-begotton Son of God, the Incarnate Word, or the Messiah. Even in his working of signs, Jesus' humanity is uncompromised. It is simply a humanity which is already immersed in the Beatific Vision. Every action, miracle, and wisdom of Jesus Christ is available to us, the adopted sons and daughters and God, through the grace of faith.
There is one exception and one alone: only Christ can say "I AM"--only he can speak "with authority" in interpreting and teaching the Law, because he is literally its Author.
Jesus is Magic? In the sense that Sarah Silverman is speaking, not quite. By my understanding, it is technically incorrect to speak of the signs Christ performed as if they were his alone to perform.
Little known fact:
By Christian reckoning, none of Jesus' miracles--not even the raising of Lazarus or his own Resurrection--are privy to him alone as the only-begotton Son of God, the Incarnate Word, or the Messiah. Even in his working of signs, Jesus' humanity is uncompromised. It is simply a humanity which is already immersed in the Beatific Vision. Every action, miracle, and wisdom of Jesus Christ is available to us, the adopted sons and daughters and God, through the grace of faith.
There is one exception and one alone: only Christ can say "I AM"--only he can speak "with authority" in interpreting and teaching the Law, because he is literally its Author.
Jesus is Magic? In the sense that Sarah Silverman is speaking, not quite. By my understanding, it is technically incorrect to speak of the signs Christ performed as if they were his alone to perform.
Essential Questions and Understandings: The Incarnation
Why study the Incarnation? So what?
- The Incarnation is among the doctrines that makes Christianity unique among the religions of the world. While many religions have gods that manifest themselves among human beings, only in Christianity does God himself, without reservation, lives a life that is utterly and completely human, without reservation. Jesus Christ is not a “Hercules” figure.
- For Christians, the Incarnation is the condition of possibility of the fulfillment of all human desire. By placing himself in our hands, God allows us to return to his own hands. In the doctrine of the Incarnation is buried the one hope to a happiness that will not fade away.
What makes the study of the Incarnation universal?
- Even though the Incarnation makes Christianity unique, the longings and hopes embodied in this teaching can be found in every community and in every individual. This is the longing for community with the absolute, for the final intimate embrace with the eternal, for a release from suffering, death, and evil (others’ and our own).
- God becomes a single man in a particular year in a particular culture with a particular story, personality, name, family, and face. It is exactly for this reason that the promises he made are extended to the whole human race, which is as much a collective of particular individuals. It is exactly in our differences and uniqueness that we share a common human destiny.
What is the moral of the story (of the Incarnation)?
- There is a struggle. It is the struggle between our hopelessness and God’s ever-advancing, consoling outreach. God tramples down millennia of despair to crack the concrete prison we have built for ourselves, and he grabs his beloved Humanity by its bloody roots, proving again and again that our meager resistance is no match for his love. The real moral of the story is a call to surrender, to lay down the burden of fighting a battle we cannot win, a battle against our one and only ally.
- The Incarnation is a tale of the dramatic lengths God will go to return a lost and cold, tattered and broken creature to himself. It is not a story about God’s distant “compassion”, a mere “being with” so that our misery can have some company on its way to the grave; nor is it a “superhero” story in which we are passive damsels limply carried aloft by a masked being foreign and strange to us. Fundamentally it is a struggle that spans the cosmos and rages on in the human soul—the battle between meager self-servitude and meek surrender to divine life and power.
What larger concept, issue, or problem underlies the Incarnation?
- At bottom, it is a dialogue between the Infinite God and his finite creation. The problem is believing the impossible: that somehow a single part of God’s creation can contain not only the whole creation, but God’s infinite self. It is as if, breaking against the shore, a single wave contained—was—the entire ocean.
What couldn’t we do if we didn’t understand the Incarnation?
- If we misunderstand the Incarnation—if we indulge in any of the Christological heresies—we ultimately cut ourselves off from God. Or rather, we cut ourselves off from anything more than a partial, temporary, finite and thus unsatisfactory encounter with the divine.
Apart from the Incarnation (orthodoxly understood) our sufferings and trials are bereft of any lasting redemption. For example, if we are Apollinarians, then Jesus lacked a human soul and therefore did not truly live a human life. His example then becomes hollow, his sacrifice mere pageantry, and his death not a true death. The story of Jesus becomes a story of God showing us a greatness that is, in the end, beyond us; even though he points the way, it lies beyond a chasm and merely taunts us. If we are Arians, on the other hand, Jesus perhaps truly died, but he is himself a creature of God—a supreme angel perhaps, the first creature, but a creature nevertheless and therefore finite. If the Son is a finite creature than his death is doubly futile. First, like in Apollinarianism, he is not truly human; but second and more importantly, he is not truly God, and therefore has no more access or community with the Infinite than we ourselves do. The Incarnation is the only source for unlimited mediation between the finite Creation and the infinite God.
How is the Incarnation used and applied in the larger world?
- It is first of all applied sacramentally in those Christian faiths with a sacramental dimension. It is in the sacraments, especially in the Eucharist, that “God partakes of our humanity so that we might partake of his divinity”.
- It is fulfilled in the unfolding of the Kingdom of Heaven into ordinary life, where the grace of charity from the sacraments manifests in choices emulating God’s self-emptying love.
What is a real-world insight about the Incarnation?
- Love is a choice and love is a skill. Love that emulates the Incarnation does not require amorous feelings to fuel its action; it requires only God’s grace and our responding charity.
- Real-world Christian love is always a “pay it forward” movement. One cannot give unless one has received; but once one receives, the gift burns forever.
What is the value of studying the Incarnation?
- Knowing about and understanding the Incarnation gives one the understanding necessary to appreciate and respond to the gift of the Christian mysteries.It also gives one a supreme model of “kinetic” love to follow and to guide one’s life.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Christian Growth Unit 4 Lesson Planning
First let's look at the Diocese's official standards. Which ones will I be accomplishing with this unit?
Now let's see what kinds of stuff my textbooks talk about:
First, we need to divide the material into their three priorities: (1) Big Ideas and Core Tasks; (2) Important to Know and Do; and (3) Worth Being Familiar With
(1) Big Ideas and Core Tasks
Big Ideas:
(2) Important to Know and Do
(1) Worth Being Familiar With
Now, I need to remind myself about the characteristics of Understandings and Essential Questions:
Let's construct two pairs of matching topical and overarching questions related to this unit:
Topical: Overarching:
Topical: Overarching:
YES.
Understandings.
In the case of Understandings, it will be especially important to tie these to the "Big Ideas": symbolic communication, ritual, sacramental awareness, dual sense of sacrament, grace, sacred time
As with my "essential questions", I can synthesize these basically into two "Huge Ideas": the first dealing with human action and communication that is deliberately meaningful, and the second dealing with the presence and movement of God within that action. Let's take those two and extract some understandings that we can pick from.
Why study ritual? So what? - Ritual is as old as human kind, from which we infer that something in human nature craves ritual. Ritual seems to be a very basic and universal way that humankind communicates with reality, both seen and unseen. No other human phenomenon--not entertainment, labor, or even sex--has commanded quite the depth, seriousness, and profundity as ritual--except when these things have been integrated with it.
What larger concept, issue, or problem underlies ritual? - Ritual is deeply ingrained in our nature, but in our alienation and our modernity, we have lost touch with the skills and habits of ritual people. Specifically, our perception has become literal, and it has become more and more difficult to see with poetic and spiritual eyes.
What couldn't we do if we didn't understand ritual? - Besides completely missing the point of the Mass and being unable to participate in it mindfully, if we do not educate ourselves about ritual, our understanding of human beings will be very incomplete. More to the point, if we do not develop skills in perceiving and acting through symbol and ritual, we ourselves will be incomplete--our view and our understanding will be truncated, bare, and literalistic.
blah blah blah. I have to watch the clock here, so I'm going to skip the rest of this and get straight to the point. Some things I need to keep in mind:
An Understanding is: (note that there is an 'or' between each of these)
An important inference, drawn from the experience of experts, stated as a specific and useful generalization.
A transferable, big idea having enduring value beyond a specific topic.
An abstract, counterintuitive, and easily misunderstood idea.
Best acquired by "uncovering" (i.e., it must be developed inductively, coconstructed by learners) and "doing" the subject (i.e., using the ideas in realistic settings and with real-world problems.
A summary of important strategic principles in skill areas.
Also...
It has endured over time and across cultures because it has proven so important and useful.
It should endure in the mind of the student because it will help the student make sense of the content and it will enable transfer of the key ideas.
Two matched pairs of understandings:
Topical: A sacramental awareness consists of symbolic communication and a spiritual openness to God's presence in the ordinary. Overarching: Ritual is a basic way that we collectively communicate with reality, both seen and unseen.
Topical: The traditional forms of Catholic worship serve as mutual communications in the relationship between the Church and the Lord; this is the source of their power. Overarching: Our choices in prayer are relevant to God insofar as they manifest our will (or lack thereof) to holy love.
GOOD. I spent a lot of time on that. Moving on.
Assessments:
IF the desired result is for learners to...
UNDERSTAND that:
A sacramental awareness consists of symbolic communication and a spiritual openness to God's presence in the ordinary.
Ritual is a basic way that we collectively communicate with reality, both seen and unseen.
The traditional forms of Catholic worship serve as mutual communications in the relationship between the Church and the Lord; this is the source of their power.
Our choices in prayer are relevant to God insofar as they manifest our will (or lack thereof) to holy love.
And thoughtfully consider the QUESTIONS:
Why does the Catholic Church use ritual as a means of transmitting the goods offered by Jesus?
What difference does it make in life whether one operates with a symbolic awareness or a purely literal awareness?
What role do time and rubrics play in the Catholic sacramental vision?
Does God care about how or when we pray?
Then, you need evidence of the student's ability to...
EXPLAIN
Sacramental awareness
Grace
INTERPRET
Student-designed symbols
Natural objects and phenomena for theological meaning
APPLY, BY
Designing a meaningful opening ritual
Interpreting actions and gestures of ancient ritual
SEE FROM THE POINTS OF VIEW OF
Faithful Catholics in locales where sacramental awareness is still strong
EMPATHIZE WITH
Those for whom ritual--a Rosary, a prayer--has become their last grasp on life's meaning.
REFLECT ON
One's own level of "sacramental awareness".
What messages God may be trying to communicate that have gone unheard.
So the assessments need to require something like...
PRINCIPLES OF CATHOLICISM
- demonstrate a basic knowledge of the divisions of the Nicene Creed.
- demonstrate a familiarity with Mary and her role in salvation history.
- demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the connection between Christian faith and prayer and the service of others.
Now let's see what kinds of stuff my textbooks talk about:
- Doctrine of the Incarnation - definition and relational significance
- Grace and sin
- Heresies and councils
- Jesus' Annunciation, Nativity, childhood
- Mary, Immaculate Conception, Magnificat
- Baptism in the Jordan; John the Baptist
- Temptations in the desert; beginning of preaching
- Twelve Apostles
- Proclaiming the Kingdom - themes of the Kingdom
- Beatitudes
- Peoples' response to Jesus
- The New Commandment(s)
Now let's speculate on possible student misunderstandings:
- The usual misunderstandings about the Incarnation--Jesus as being not quite human; half-man half-god; not suffering or it being "easy" for Jesus to do what he did because he was God;
- Non-understanding of Grace--not in their vocabulary
- The Immaculate Conception = Jesus' conception
- The Commandment to love = "liking" everybody--sentimentalized idea of love
- Importance of money to life. Money = happiness
First, we need to divide the material into their three priorities: (1) Big Ideas and Core Tasks; (2) Important to Know and Do; and (3) Worth Being Familiar With
(1) Big Ideas and Core Tasks
Big Ideas:
- Sin and Grace;
- The Incarnation;
- Mary the Mother of God;
- Jesus' beginnings;
- The Messiahship of Christ
- Kingdom of God;
Core tasks:
- Engage in acts of "Incarnational" love
- Identify temptations
- critique of worldly values vis-a-vis the Kingdom/beatitudes
(Understandings are below)
(2) Important to Know and Do
- Essential terms: incarnation, parable, grace, Original Sin, Nativity, Abba, Messiah, heresy, Nicene Creed, Immaculate Conception, Apostle, Beatitudes
- Places: Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galillee
(1) Worth Being Familiar With
- Early Councils in the Church
- Names of the Apostles
- The Beatitudes; Luke's version
Now, I need to remind myself about the characteristics of Understandings and Essential Questions:
Essential Questions:
- Cause genuine and relevant inquiry into the Big Ideas and core content.
- Provoke deep thought, lively discussion, sustained inquiry, and new understanding as well as more questions.
- Require students to consider alternatives, weigh evidence, support their ideas, and justify their answers.
- Stimulate vital, ongoing rethinking of big ideas, assumptions, prior lessons.
- Spark meaningful connections with prior learning and personal experiences.
- Naturally recur, creating opportunities for transfer to other situations and subjects.
Also, EQs have the following types:
- Topical vs. Overarching
- Open vs. Guiding
Let's construct two pairs of matching topical and overarching questions related to this unit:
Topical: Overarching:
Topical: Overarching:
YES.
Understandings.
In the case of Understandings, it will be especially important to tie these to the "Big Ideas": symbolic communication, ritual, sacramental awareness, dual sense of sacrament, grace, sacred time
As with my "essential questions", I can synthesize these basically into two "Huge Ideas": the first dealing with human action and communication that is deliberately meaningful, and the second dealing with the presence and movement of God within that action. Let's take those two and extract some understandings that we can pick from.
Why study ritual? So what? - Ritual is as old as human kind, from which we infer that something in human nature craves ritual. Ritual seems to be a very basic and universal way that humankind communicates with reality, both seen and unseen. No other human phenomenon--not entertainment, labor, or even sex--has commanded quite the depth, seriousness, and profundity as ritual--except when these things have been integrated with it.
What larger concept, issue, or problem underlies ritual? - Ritual is deeply ingrained in our nature, but in our alienation and our modernity, we have lost touch with the skills and habits of ritual people. Specifically, our perception has become literal, and it has become more and more difficult to see with poetic and spiritual eyes.
What couldn't we do if we didn't understand ritual? - Besides completely missing the point of the Mass and being unable to participate in it mindfully, if we do not educate ourselves about ritual, our understanding of human beings will be very incomplete. More to the point, if we do not develop skills in perceiving and acting through symbol and ritual, we ourselves will be incomplete--our view and our understanding will be truncated, bare, and literalistic.
blah blah blah. I have to watch the clock here, so I'm going to skip the rest of this and get straight to the point. Some things I need to keep in mind:
An Understanding is: (note that there is an 'or' between each of these)
An important inference, drawn from the experience of experts, stated as a specific and useful generalization.
A transferable, big idea having enduring value beyond a specific topic.
An abstract, counterintuitive, and easily misunderstood idea.
Best acquired by "uncovering" (i.e., it must be developed inductively, coconstructed by learners) and "doing" the subject (i.e., using the ideas in realistic settings and with real-world problems.
A summary of important strategic principles in skill areas.
Also...
It has endured over time and across cultures because it has proven so important and useful.
It should endure in the mind of the student because it will help the student make sense of the content and it will enable transfer of the key ideas.
Two matched pairs of understandings:
Topical: A sacramental awareness consists of symbolic communication and a spiritual openness to God's presence in the ordinary. Overarching: Ritual is a basic way that we collectively communicate with reality, both seen and unseen.
Topical: The traditional forms of Catholic worship serve as mutual communications in the relationship between the Church and the Lord; this is the source of their power. Overarching: Our choices in prayer are relevant to God insofar as they manifest our will (or lack thereof) to holy love.
GOOD. I spent a lot of time on that. Moving on.
Assessments:
IF the desired result is for learners to...
UNDERSTAND that:
A sacramental awareness consists of symbolic communication and a spiritual openness to God's presence in the ordinary.
Ritual is a basic way that we collectively communicate with reality, both seen and unseen.
The traditional forms of Catholic worship serve as mutual communications in the relationship between the Church and the Lord; this is the source of their power.
Our choices in prayer are relevant to God insofar as they manifest our will (or lack thereof) to holy love.
And thoughtfully consider the QUESTIONS:
Why does the Catholic Church use ritual as a means of transmitting the goods offered by Jesus?
What difference does it make in life whether one operates with a symbolic awareness or a purely literal awareness?
What role do time and rubrics play in the Catholic sacramental vision?
Does God care about how or when we pray?
Then, you need evidence of the student's ability to...
EXPLAIN
Sacramental awareness
Grace
INTERPRET
Student-designed symbols
Natural objects and phenomena for theological meaning
APPLY, BY
Designing a meaningful opening ritual
Interpreting actions and gestures of ancient ritual
SEE FROM THE POINTS OF VIEW OF
Faithful Catholics in locales where sacramental awareness is still strong
EMPATHIZE WITH
Those for whom ritual--a Rosary, a prayer--has become their last grasp on life's meaning.
REFLECT ON
One's own level of "sacramental awareness".
What messages God may be trying to communicate that have gone unheard.
So the assessments need to require something like...
Friday, September 12, 2008
Disconcerting
OK, so here is Time's Palin and Troopergate primer.
I won't lie; that's a pretty disheartening story. You expect leaders to struggle occasionally with separating official duty and personal matters. But if the substance of this article is accurate, the Republican VP pick has crossed some ugly lines.
I'm a Republican on issues of domestic law that are important to me. I believe the nation should secure the identity of marriage from those who would seek to rip it away from its roots in childbirth and blood-related family. And we need to protect the lives of American human beings regardless of whether they are physically located inside of a woman's womb, inside a maximum security prison, or inside a geriatric ward.
But corruption in government leaders poisons the promises they make. At this stage I have to ask myself whether the integrity of both names on the Republican ticket has been irrevocably tarnished.
I won't lie; that's a pretty disheartening story. You expect leaders to struggle occasionally with separating official duty and personal matters. But if the substance of this article is accurate, the Republican VP pick has crossed some ugly lines.
I'm a Republican on issues of domestic law that are important to me. I believe the nation should secure the identity of marriage from those who would seek to rip it away from its roots in childbirth and blood-related family. And we need to protect the lives of American human beings regardless of whether they are physically located inside of a woman's womb, inside a maximum security prison, or inside a geriatric ward.
But corruption in government leaders poisons the promises they make. At this stage I have to ask myself whether the integrity of both names on the Republican ticket has been irrevocably tarnished.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
A new discovery!
I learned from my most admired professors of liturgy and preaching that the Mass, and in particular preaching, is not primarily meant to be didactic. The church ought not to be treated like a classroom.
What I have learned from the Understanding by Design program, and from recent experience, is that the classroom itself ought not to be treated like a classroom.
Who knew?
What I have learned from the Understanding by Design program, and from recent experience, is that the classroom itself ought not to be treated like a classroom.
Who knew?
Thursday, September 04, 2008
A much better "What McCain needs to say" article.
This little attempt by Glenn Beck to do McCain's thinking for him, I thought, was actually really good. It was a little intellectual and tepid for an RNC speech, but I thought it summarized the Republican platform excellently, and provided a foreign policy edge to the domestic policy-heavy speech of Palin.
I'm not crazy about the idea that Palin might someday be asked to lead the country by herself. But neither did I like the thought of McCain ruling solo, considering how silent he is on domestic issues. Republicans are doing the right thing by stressing her and McCain's mutual complimentariness. I'm not nearly as confident in either one alone, as I am in the two of them together.
I'm not crazy about the idea that Palin might someday be asked to lead the country by herself. But neither did I like the thought of McCain ruling solo, considering how silent he is on domestic issues. Republicans are doing the right thing by stressing her and McCain's mutual complimentariness. I'm not nearly as confident in either one alone, as I am in the two of them together.
Google Chrome
I tried Google Chrome last night. I love it. Except for one deal-breaker: the zooming functionality. IE7 got it right, and then Firefox 3 got it right--both browsers scale the whole page, including graphics and flash elements at an almost perfect ratio. Chrome does not scale graphics.
Working with multiple open windows and a 1080p display at home, this is a critical feature. When Chrome gets zooming right, I'll switch to Chrome.
Working with multiple open windows and a 1080p display at home, this is a critical feature. When Chrome gets zooming right, I'll switch to Chrome.
Watching Palin's speech...
It might be telling that hers is the only speech that I'll bother to watch from the national conventions. Generally, I liked it. One line that bugged the heck out of me:
"As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, you can be certain that John McCain is the same man."
ORLY?
I almost would have preferred that she just let that issue remain obscure. Yes, she pointed out Obama's elitist remarks, which is good. But AFAIK, between the two men, McCain has more video footage of double-speak.
"As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, you can be certain that John McCain is the same man."
ORLY?
I almost would have preferred that she just let that issue remain obscure. Yes, she pointed out Obama's elitist remarks, which is good. But AFAIK, between the two men, McCain has more video footage of double-speak.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Sacraments Planning, Unit 2: The Catholic Sacramental Vision
Overall I would call Unit 1 a success, but there were problems, biggest of which is that I never had a quiz as a measure of basic knowledge. And that wound up being an issue later on.
This time I'm more aware of how the system works. Let's see if we can't whip something up.
The title of the unit is "The Catholic Sacramental Vision", and the general idea is to give students a grounding understanding of what a sacrament is that will assist them in grasping particular sacraments later in the course.
A look at standards and content: The first thing we'll do is collect material from standards and textbooks that will all be broken down into Big Ideas, Essential Questions, and Understandings.
First let's look at the Diocese's official standards. Which ones will I be accomplishing with this unit?
This time I'm more aware of how the system works. Let's see if we can't whip something up.
The title of the unit is "The Catholic Sacramental Vision", and the general idea is to give students a grounding understanding of what a sacrament is that will assist them in grasping particular sacraments later in the course.
A look at standards and content: The first thing we'll do is collect material from standards and textbooks that will all be broken down into Big Ideas, Essential Questions, and Understandings.
First let's look at the Diocese's official standards. Which ones will I be accomplishing with this unit?
- demonstrate an understanding of concepts underlying the Catholic sacramental life and its relationship to lived grace, ritual, prayer, and service.
- describe the relationship between Jesus, the Church, and the seven sacraments.
explain the meaning of the Mystery of the Incarnation, Paschal Mystery, Pentecost, Church as the Body of Christ, and their effect on the development of the seven sacraments. - identify major developments in the history of the sacraments.
- explain what realities of human life are celebrated by each of the sacraments.
- identify the major symbols used in each of the sacraments and the key aspects of ritualizing these sacraments.
- explain Eucharist as the source and summit of Christian lifestyle.
- examine and explain the liturgical year as an expression of the sacramental life of the Church.
I bolded the areas that are appropriate to this topic. Notice that I left the issue of "service" out. Originally I planned to devote an entire unit to this topic. However, I now see that it fits particularly well in the unit about the Eucharist as the "Source and Summit" of Christian life--hence also the source and summit of service.
Now let's look at my expanded version:
- The Catholic Sacramental Vision
- Investigate different ways in which the desire for God manifests in every person.
- Explain the distinctive nature of Christian prayer and its vitality to human life.
- Differentiate between “chronos” and “kairos” and assess attitudes towards time using these distinctions; identify liturgical time as “kairos”.
- Examine the origins of the words “sacrament” and “mystery” and trace their development toward referring to the seven sacraments.
- Categorize signs, symbols, and sacraments based on the notion of sacrament as a sign that makes present what it signifies.
- Differentiate between private prayer, communal devotion, liturgy, sacramental, and sacrament.
- Recite the definition of a sacrament from CCC #1131.
- Outline the four-fold pattern of all liturgical prayer.
- Differentiate the seven sacraments from the broader category of human ritual.
- Explain grace and locate where grace is operative within Christian prayer and the sacraments; leitourgia
- Compose a diagram of the roots of the seven sacraments, especially in the words and actions of Jesus.
Now let's see what kinds of stuff my textbooks talk about:
Stoutzenberger:
- Sacramental awareness: sense of the sacred; dullness to the sacred and its causes--busyness, suffering, ignorance. The cure: taking a closer look.
- Grace: God's loving presence in the world
- Ways of communication -> body language -> God's body language (all the hints of God in everyday life--'sacrament' in a little sense -> friendship as a sacrament of God's love.
- Listening and responding = sacramental skills
- Symbols - in-depth explanation. Symbol vs. Sign (plural vs. singular meanings; symbols are natural; symbols are deeper); Cultural vs. universal symbols. Literal vs. symbolic thinking; Symbols as the "language of faith"; sacraments as symbols
- Rituals as symbols in action. Practical vs. symbolic action; sacramental rituals combine these. Ritual vs. routine. Ritual as play. Characteristics: meaningful movements/gestures; repetition; symbols; connection to important past events; significant words; active participation. Sacrifice. Ritual vs. magic.
- sacraments are the "especially priviledged moments in which Christ communicates his grace through certain words and actions"
- Prayer - all kinds. Prayer roots us and then uproots us.
- The Church as a Sacrament of unity
- Definition of a sacrament
Patricia Morrison Driedger:
- Signs vs. symbols
- Christ as the primary celebrant of the liturgy
- Liturgy as an anticipation of heaven (play); souls in heaven in liturgical communion with the Trinity and each other.
- Common vs. ministerial priesthood
- Why you go to Mass vs. not
- God is outside of time but he enters into time so that we might know him
- Annual Christian feasts, esp. Easter, the first.
- In the liturgical year, the Church unfolds the Paschal mystery--pillars
- Sunday, Lord's day, 8th day of the week, 1st day of creation, 1st day of new creatino
- unform liturgy unites people
- liturgy of the hours: praise offers in the midst of life
- liturgy not tied to any one place
- liturgical objects
Very different emphases here. In my case, time is of the essence. I will not be able to cover everything. I bolded stuff that I would especially like to communicate.
Now let's speculate on possible student misunderstandings about the sacraments:
- The main difference between a "good" and a "bad" Mass is how it makes you feel, during and afterward.
- The primary purpose of the sacraments is to teach people good behavior.
- Rituals are meaningless repititions for the sake fostering conformity.
- God doesn't care about how or when we pray.
- God doesn't normally speak to us.
- Symbols are nice for poetry, but in the real world, ordinary speaking is all that we need.
Good. I think that covers it. Now let's gather this mess into a unit.
First, we need to divide the material into their three priorities: (1) Big Ideas and Core Tasks; (2) Important to Know and Do; and (3) Worth Being Familiar With
(1) Big Ideas and Core Tasks
Big Ideas: symbolic communication, ritual, sacramental awareness, dual sense of sacrament, grace, sacred time
Core tasks:
- Communicate using symbols; interpret created and natural symbols; interpret nature along theological lines.
- Design meaningful and purposeful ritual.
- Reflect on the meaning and the movement of Grace in a particular Mass.
(Understandings are below)
(2) Important to Know and Do
- Essential terms: sign, symbol, sacrament/Sacrament, ritual, grace, kyros.
- The difference and interrelation between sign and symbol.
- The distinction and interrelation between practical and symbolic in ritual.
- Observe and recall specific words and actions at Mass.
(1) Worth Being Familiar With
- Word origins and meanings: sacrament, sacrifice, mystery, liturgy.
- Active participation as a central concern of liturgical reforms in the 1960s.
- Forms of prayer, their advantages; Prayer as rooting-then-uprooting us.
Now, I need to remind myself about the characteristics of Understandings and Essential Questions:
Essential Questions:
- Cause genuine and relevant inquiry into the Big Ideas and core content.
- Provoke deep thought, lively discussion, sustained inquiry, and new understanding as well as more questions.
- Require students to consider alternatives, weigh evidence, support their ideas, and justify their answers.
- Stimulate vital, ongoing rethinking of big ideas, assumptions, prior lessons.
- Spark meaningful connections with prior learning and personal experiences.
- Naturally recur, creating opportunities for transfer to other situations and subjects.
Also, EQs have the following types:
- Topical vs. Overarching
- Open vs. Guiding
Let's construct two pairs of matching topical and overarching questions related to this unit:
- Topical: Why does the Catholic Church use ritual as a means of transmitting the goods offered by Jesus? Overarching: What difference does it make in life whether one operates with a symbolic awareness or a purely literal awareness?
- Topical: What role does time play in the Catholic sacramental vision? Overarching: Does God care about how or when we pray?
YES.
Understandings.
In the case of Understandings, it will be especially important to tie these to the "Big Ideas": symbolic communication, ritual, sacramental awareness, dual sense of sacrament, grace, sacred time
As with my "essential questions", I can synthesize these basically into two "Huge Ideas": the first dealing with human action and communication that is deliberately meaningful, and the second dealing with the presence and movement of God within that action. Let's take those two and extract some understandings that we can pick from.
Why study ritual? So what? - Ritual is as old as human kind, from which we infer that something in human nature craves ritual. Ritual seems to be a very basic and universal way that humankind communicates with reality, both seen and unseen. No other human phenomenon--not entertainment, labor, or even sex--has commanded quite the depth, seriousness, and profundity as ritual--except when these things have been integrated with it.
What larger concept, issue, or problem underlies ritual? - Ritual is deeply ingrained in our nature, but in our alienation and our modernity, we have lost touch with the skills and habits of ritual people. Specifically, our perception has become literal, and it has become more and more difficult to see with poetic and spiritual eyes.
What couldn't we do if we didn't understand ritual? - Besides completely missing the point of the Mass and being unable to participate in it mindfully, if we do not educate ourselves about ritual, our understanding of human beings will be very incomplete. More to the point, if we do not develop skills in perceiving and acting through symbol and ritual, we ourselves will be incomplete--our view and our understanding will be truncated, bare, and literalistic.
blah blah blah. I have to watch the clock here, so I'm going to skip the rest of this and get straight to the point. Some things I need to keep in mind:
An Understanding is: (note that there is an 'or' between each of these)
- An important inference, drawn from the experience of experts, stated as a specific and useful generalization.
- A transferable, big idea having enduring value beyond a specific topic.
- An abstract, counterintuitive, and easily misunderstood idea.
- Best acquired by "uncovering" (i.e., it must be developed inductively, coconstructed by learners) and "doing" the subject (i.e., using the ideas in realistic settings and with real-world problems.
- A summary of important strategic principles in skill areas.
Also...
- It has endured over time and across cultures because it has proven so important and useful.
- It should endure in the mind of the student because it will help the student make sense of the content and it will enable transfer of the key ideas.
Two matched pairs of understandings:
- Topical: A sacramental awareness consists of symbolic communication and a spiritual openness to God's presence in the ordinary. Overarching: Ritual is a basic way that we collectively communicate with reality, both seen and unseen.
- Topical: The traditional forms of Catholic worship serve as mutual communications in the relationship between the Church and the Lord; this is the source of their power. Overarching: Our choices in prayer are relevant to God insofar as they manifest our will (or lack thereof) to holy love.
GOOD. I spent a lot of time on that. Moving on.
Assessments:
IF the desired result is for learners to...
UNDERSTAND that:
- A sacramental awareness consists of symbolic communication and a spiritual openness to God's presence in the ordinary.
- Ritual is a basic way that we collectively communicate with reality, both seen and unseen.
- The traditional forms of Catholic worship serve as mutual communications in the relationship between the Church and the Lord; this is the source of their power.
- Our choices in prayer are relevant to God insofar as they manifest our will (or lack thereof) to holy love.
And thoughtfully consider the QUESTIONS:
- Why does the Catholic Church use ritual as a means of transmitting the goods offered by Jesus?
- What difference does it make in life whether one operates with a symbolic awareness or a purely literal awareness?
- What role do time and rubrics play in the Catholic sacramental vision?
- Does God care about how or when we pray?
Then, you need evidence of the student's ability to...
EXPLAIN
- Sacramental awareness
- Grace
INTERPRET
- Student-designed symbols
- Natural objects and phenomena for theological meaning
APPLY, BY
- Designing a meaningful opening ritual
- Interpreting actions and gestures of ancient ritual
SEE FROM THE POINTS OF VIEW OF
- Faithful Catholics in locales where sacramental awareness is still strong
EMPATHIZE WITH
- Those for whom ritual--a Rosary, a prayer--has become their last grasp on life's meaning.
REFLECT ON
- One's own level of "sacramental awareness".
- What messages God may be trying to communicate that have gone unheard.
So the assessments need to require something like...
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Moar political ballyhooing
This will be a close race, and an interesting one. The drama leading up to november is picking up with one major event after another. Both parties are split--the dems by Hillary, the reps by McCain's moderation on certain issues. Both parties have charismatic and likable personalities at their helms (unlike 2004, which had two candidates I would pay money not to share a drink with). And there is a lot at stake.
I just read an article titled, 5 things McCain needs to succeed. It listed some pretty commonsense stuff.
Here's my take: The Democrats' biggest weakness is that they're liberals, and, well, people don't like liberals. I know that sounds like a dumb thing to say, but have you looked at footage from the democratic national convention? Look, I agree with the dems on most of their issues, but I never saw such a collection of bitter, snide, self-important old people whose jokes were universally unfunny. Really, the dems all seem "old" to me, older than McCain, because McCain can make me laugh, and they cannot. But worst of all, the Democrats still imagine that their only constituency, and the only people they need to address, are pure, secularist liberals. Conservatives and republicans have never made that mistake.
So here are 5 things Obama needs to succeed:
1. SHOW people are smart he actually is--and stop insulting our intelligence--by talking directly to the issues instead of just giving "inspirational" speeches empty of content. Forgive me, but youth and glowing white teeth do nothing for me. Talk about your platform. Don't tell me everything's going to change. Say what will change, and for pete's sake don't cloak it in stump-speech. Be the anti-politician for once; give me some straight-talk express. Because right now, the dems are trying to write straight in crooked lines. There's only one guy I know who can do that, and it isn't Obama.
2. Reach out to conservatives in the party. I hate to break it to Obama but the United States is a conservative country. OK, so you're not going to criminalize abortion. Fine, nobody expected you to. Are you going to do anything to decrease the number of abortions? 'Cuz dems do not have a good record of this. Or maybe you think abortion is just the greatest thing since HotPockets? And other issues, too. Stop acting as if all Democrats were pure democrats. And by extension, silencing, disenfranchising, and punishing your loyal dissidents. Biden was a step in the right direction. Now let's see some more.
3. Don't be so gay. I remember back in 2000, candidates were asked about the homosexual marriage debate, and Gore fumbled on the answer. He would not flat-out say that he favored gay marriage. You know what? You should learn something from him. Don't assume that just because the media is blaring YAY GAY MARRIAGE that American culture has changed substantially on this issue since 2000. Go ahead and allow it, fine, that's your platform. But the gay marriage issue is similar to the abortion issue: the more visible it is, the more you will alienate voters.
4. Don't be so STIFF. I mean seriously, the greatest irony of modern politics is that the party of gay marriage, abortion on demand, pacifists, feminists, and pot smokers is so bloody boring and rigid. Yeah I've seen Roy Zimmerman's videos. He's funny. But he's also really uncomfortable in a rigid, desperate kind of way. All of your lines are meticulously scripted and planned. STOP THAT. All right, so maybe you have a candidate who doesn't look like a Mr. Ed or speak like Charlie Brown's teacher. If Obama is a Bently an McCain is a beat up old Jeep, I'll take McCain every time. Don't be fooled into thinking that this is only about image. Your image betrays you. The party of "let me do what I want" needs to stop acting like the party of "do as we tell you or else".
5. Finally, when all of that is done, remind people of how bad Bush is. Don't tell us, show us. Give us substance; don't just assume that we all remember how much we hate Bush. Because you know what? If you rest on your laurels and let McCain have his way, he will successfully make American forget how bad Bush was. You cannot ride the wave of anti-Bush sentiment, you have to create that wave. Don't forget that prior to 2007 Bush presided over a pretty good economy--but that Clinton presided over a better one. We don't much remember how good things were with Clinton--that's your job, and I haven't seen enough of it.
I just read an article titled, 5 things McCain needs to succeed. It listed some pretty commonsense stuff.
Here's my take: The Democrats' biggest weakness is that they're liberals, and, well, people don't like liberals. I know that sounds like a dumb thing to say, but have you looked at footage from the democratic national convention? Look, I agree with the dems on most of their issues, but I never saw such a collection of bitter, snide, self-important old people whose jokes were universally unfunny. Really, the dems all seem "old" to me, older than McCain, because McCain can make me laugh, and they cannot. But worst of all, the Democrats still imagine that their only constituency, and the only people they need to address, are pure, secularist liberals. Conservatives and republicans have never made that mistake.
So here are 5 things Obama needs to succeed:
1. SHOW people are smart he actually is--and stop insulting our intelligence--by talking directly to the issues instead of just giving "inspirational" speeches empty of content. Forgive me, but youth and glowing white teeth do nothing for me. Talk about your platform. Don't tell me everything's going to change. Say what will change, and for pete's sake don't cloak it in stump-speech. Be the anti-politician for once; give me some straight-talk express. Because right now, the dems are trying to write straight in crooked lines. There's only one guy I know who can do that, and it isn't Obama.
2. Reach out to conservatives in the party. I hate to break it to Obama but the United States is a conservative country. OK, so you're not going to criminalize abortion. Fine, nobody expected you to. Are you going to do anything to decrease the number of abortions? 'Cuz dems do not have a good record of this. Or maybe you think abortion is just the greatest thing since HotPockets? And other issues, too. Stop acting as if all Democrats were pure democrats. And by extension, silencing, disenfranchising, and punishing your loyal dissidents. Biden was a step in the right direction. Now let's see some more.
3. Don't be so gay. I remember back in 2000, candidates were asked about the homosexual marriage debate, and Gore fumbled on the answer. He would not flat-out say that he favored gay marriage. You know what? You should learn something from him. Don't assume that just because the media is blaring YAY GAY MARRIAGE that American culture has changed substantially on this issue since 2000. Go ahead and allow it, fine, that's your platform. But the gay marriage issue is similar to the abortion issue: the more visible it is, the more you will alienate voters.
4. Don't be so STIFF. I mean seriously, the greatest irony of modern politics is that the party of gay marriage, abortion on demand, pacifists, feminists, and pot smokers is so bloody boring and rigid. Yeah I've seen Roy Zimmerman's videos. He's funny. But he's also really uncomfortable in a rigid, desperate kind of way. All of your lines are meticulously scripted and planned. STOP THAT. All right, so maybe you have a candidate who doesn't look like a Mr. Ed or speak like Charlie Brown's teacher. If Obama is a Bently an McCain is a beat up old Jeep, I'll take McCain every time. Don't be fooled into thinking that this is only about image. Your image betrays you. The party of "let me do what I want" needs to stop acting like the party of "do as we tell you or else".
5. Finally, when all of that is done, remind people of how bad Bush is. Don't tell us, show us. Give us substance; don't just assume that we all remember how much we hate Bush. Because you know what? If you rest on your laurels and let McCain have his way, he will successfully make American forget how bad Bush was. You cannot ride the wave of anti-Bush sentiment, you have to create that wave. Don't forget that prior to 2007 Bush presided over a pretty good economy--but that Clinton presided over a better one. We don't much remember how good things were with Clinton--that's your job, and I haven't seen enough of it.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Technological concupiscence returns!
So, ever since I built my sub-$500 "gaming rig"--which has been simply awesome, by the way--my Asus Eee 701 "netbook" has been collecting dust in my bedroom for months. Some reasons for this:
- I'm not sure if it's a problem with the SSD, but the Eee seems to be having issues with file permissions in Ubuntu.
- A display issue with my Westinghouse HDTV prevents it from correctly displaying 1080p resolutions from VGA cables. DVI works fine, but there is no DVI port on the Eee.
- With high resolution external monitors, the Eee's display is pretty choppy. But I've been too spoiled by a 1080 display to settle for its dinky 800x480 native resolution, which can't even display a modern website without horizontal scrolling.
- I used to do a lot of Web surfing and lightweight gaming in my bed, but I haven't done so in a long time. In fact, I haven't been doing much PC gaming at all; I've been getting my fix from my dusty old PS2.
- I also used like going to the local coffeebar and hanging out there, which I also haven't done lately.
- The screen is big enough to be useful.
- It has an ExpressCard slot, which I hope would become home to this Asus "XG Station" gadget. That would solve my external monitor issues quite nicely.
- With a wireless access point in my classroom, I could take attendance without going back to my desk; I could also remote into GIMP on the desktop there and write onto an projected screen.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Obama and abortion
Two links of note:
This article from the Washington Post,
and this article from Politico.
I'll give him this. He doesn't tick me off as much as liberal Catholic politicians like Guliani and Kerry, even though he's more extreme than both of them. At least he's consistant. This is a man who regards protectable life to begin, not only at birth, but sometime after biological birth. Pragmatic to the end, Obama regards the State accountable only to individuals who have been born, and perhaps driven home from the hospital.
A line from his political review is chilling: "Expanded access to prenatal education and heath care facilities will far more likely serve the very real state interest in preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."
To this pro-lifer, the words "preventing increasing numbers of children from being born" stands out in stark relief. And I am not relieved.
This article from the Washington Post,
and this article from Politico.
I'll give him this. He doesn't tick me off as much as liberal Catholic politicians like Guliani and Kerry, even though he's more extreme than both of them. At least he's consistant. This is a man who regards protectable life to begin, not only at birth, but sometime after biological birth. Pragmatic to the end, Obama regards the State accountable only to individuals who have been born, and perhaps driven home from the hospital.
A line from his political review is chilling: "Expanded access to prenatal education and heath care facilities will far more likely serve the very real state interest in preventing increasing numbers of children from being born in to lives of pain and despair."
To this pro-lifer, the words "preventing increasing numbers of children from being born" stands out in stark relief. And I am not relieved.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Catholic Morality and Gay Sex
The Catholic Church's position—one with ties both to revelation and moral reason—is that same-sex sexual activity is an intrinsic moral evil.
Of course, the Church recognizes that where there is compulsion, there is not sin. This moral doctrine is prior to all considerations of guilt or culpability. An active homosexual may be said to be totally innocent of "mortal sin" or even "venial sin" given certain circumstances.
Whether an individual is guilty of sins committed is something we cannot know--God alone is fully aware of the drama of grace and freedom inside a soul. Thus to judge is to sin. But whether an action (in the abstract) is a sin, and thus whether it ought to be avoided, tolerated or prevented--this can be known.
Towards that end, I quote a former professor of mine, Fr. Ed Oakes, S.J.:
Among secularists, gay activists, liberal politicians, and the like, it is taken for granted that homosexual urgings are “natural,” in the sense of being innate (the word nature comes from the Latin natus, “to be born” as, in fact, does the word innate); and since the urges are natural in that sense (or so goes the claim), what’s wrong with satisfying them? For the Catholic Church, however, nature always carries a teleological implication, and since the sex organs are also called reproductive organs, it represents an abuse of their function to make use of them in ways that violate their reproductive purposes.
To go a little deeper, here is a paraphrase of the argument presented by Persona Humana (1975), and in the case of the last bullet, the "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" (1985):
- The right treatment of human beings depends on knowing correctly what human beings are (and their dignity), how they work and the purpose of their life.
- Certain things about human beings never change; thus reason can show that certain right treatment of human beings also never changes.
- Sexual morality is one of those kinds of right treatment that doesn't change, because it is based in the natural order of sex.
- To treat sex right, make sure your choices do justice to sex's natural end.
- A direct quote is appropriate: "To choose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent."
Yet in the case of sexual morality, there is more at stake than doing something simply because “Mother Nature said so.”
For Catholic morality, there is an inherent bond between sex and what sex produces: human beings, and family. After all, the latter two did not spring magically into being without the former. Their dignity is fundamentally shaped—and at times defaced—by the manner in which sex is treated. Sex has a telos, an appointed destiny, which when sabotaged robs the act of its original (originating) meaning. Within sex resides a power that is as awesome as it is terrifying: the power to make a person. The dignity of a thing is rooted in its origin; and so we abuse, pervert, or cheapen sex at our own peril.
Nor are families invulnerable; consider the adage, “blood is thicker than water”. The very power of family, its binding force, resides in the honor of shared, real blood. Yes, the bonds of friendship, adoptee, step-brother and step-sister can be de facto stronger than those of physical blood ties. But blood and sex remain the definitive origin of family’s powerful meaning, a meaning that it retains when applied to permanent bonds outside blood. If family is redefined so as to erase or diminish its biological origin, all that is left of “family” is any association of semi-permanent cohabitators--which is to say, nothing at all. That is the logical consequence now present in states that legalize gay marriage or mandate adoption to same-sex couples. Blood is no longer thicker than water; blood is not recognized at all; our relationships are all water.
Thus, for me, no system of morality, besides that of the Catholic Church, appears to do justice to the ineffable mysteries of life's beginning.
Perhaps I should pose a challenge to thoughtful opponents. If you seek to persuade, get to the heart of the issue. Is the Church wrong to believe that sex has a telos, an original aim that issues from its very nature? Does nothing have an original, natural aim? Is natural law illegitimate? Is the Church wrong to believe that sex has an inherent connection to life's most important realities--to life and to family--and that its mistreatment decays the value of those things? Is the Church wrong to link sexual licentiousness with a decay of civilization? Is the Church wrong to seek to do something about that?
"But Mr. Zimmerman," I hear students saying, "morality is subjective." This is the nuclear missile of value disputes. However, the one who utters it never actually believes it. Nothing is as offensive to these folks as when the Church tries to stand in the way of the wish-fulfillment of well-meaning homosexual couples. The implication is that there is something objectively immoral about the Church's behavior. So why do we get to be absolutists on one issue but we must be relativists on another? That looks like a double-standard.
Ultimately, the old "subjective" chestnut is accurately translated: "your morality is subjective". Claims made in favor of public sexual morality are locked away in the closet of dubious and disputable ideas. People disagree with them, therefore they are disagreeable. The very fact that some reject sexual morality becomes itself evidence against sexual morality.
Am I the only one who smells the zeitgeist in this line of reasoning? All that I ask is that contenders in the coliseum of culture be willing to clash swords with the Church instead of darting into holes and trap doors. Do not respond to a duel by playing hide-and-go-seek. Catholic morality throws its hat into the ring. Are you going to connect a punch, or swing at shadows and declare victory?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)