The Muller

On Sacrifice

2010-07-23T16:57:00.000-07:00

My long awaited chicken post will be up tomorrow, as will the acclaimed video cooking series "Cooking With Turtle." However, until them, I offer another hiking thought.

Everyone knows that you have to sacrifice something sometimes. Whether it be free time so you can make the athletic team and win the girl, or your humanity, which happens when you commit crimes against the human person, pretty much anything you do will require you to accept the fact that you will not be able to do something else. Bilocating persons aside, you can’t do two things at once.

Hikers in general make several sacrifices. We sacrifice personal hygiene to gain solitude. We sacrifice fresh food to gain the ability to walk to said solitude. We sacrifice time in town to stop to smell the roses.

Distance hikers in particular make several sacrifices. The primary end of these sacrifices is toward the ability to hike ridiculous mileages with ease. They sacrifice eating as much as they would like to carry less weight and so to hike faster (this was one sacrifice I was unwilling to make). They sacrifice eating foods that taste good to hike faster. They sacrifice stopping to smell the roses to hike faster. They sacrifice down time (let’s call it solitude) to hike farther. This sacrificing is part of the game. Take it or leave it. Note that eventually one gets to the point that many of these sacrifices cease to be sacrifices. One adjusts rather quickly to not having fresh food. On the other hand, I didn’t particularly enjoy the feeling that stopping to take a picture required too much time. While others may not have felt so, I thought that that sacrifice wasn’t worth the end. And in life in general, isn’t it the case that we won’t sacrifice for something if the proverbial sacrifice recipient isn’t worth the sacrifice?

AT Retirement Essay

2010-07-09T08:31:00.000-07:00

Well, I’m back. Every so often the creative bug bites me, and I guess this is one of those “oftens”. Here follows the (heavily edited) Cliff notes version of the past few months of my life:

March 1 I began hiking the Appalachian Trail. I had assumed that this would present me with a great deal of quiet, meditative time during which I could discern what I should do in the future. While I can’t say how the hiking experience works for other people, I can say that this was not my experience. The outer silence of the world sans cell phone signal, running water, and radio was unable to penetrate my inner sanctum, which was overrun by “are we there yet,”, “stupid snow/lack of water/trail/rocks/anything,” and the worst of classic and contemporary rock music. Over time I imagine I’ll have some more posts on the subject of the trail, my experiences, what I learned, and the like, but I think it makes sense in this case to start with the end. I finished my hike in New York, 1380 miles from the start at Springer Mountain, but still 800 from Mt. Katahdin, the end of the AT. Given the fact that I have enough time between now and the end of the summer to finish hiking the trail, many people have asked me why I will not return to finish the trail. I’m afraid my explanation may not make perfect sense to you, dear reader, but I’ll give it a shot, just so I can explain what’s going on in my (circuitous, odd, deranged, insane, insert-your-adjective-of-choice) mind. Ultimately I think that what I’m trying to explain I wrote best in what is effectively the closing note in my trail logbook, but more on that later.

Many of the people I met on the trail have the wanderlust; they would, if financial circumstances allowed, make backpacking their jobs. In the words of one of my favorite Saturday Night Live digital shorts, that ain’t me. While my friends on the trail dreamed and spoke of summiting Katahdin and planning future hikes, I thought primarily of home. This difference in fundamental orientation had, to me at least, counterintuitive results. I was much less industrious, er, much less goal driven, than the vast majority of the other hikers – I probably hiked about as far per day as most of them on a full day, but I took my time and I liked my short days when the opportunities presented themselves. Everyone hiking a long distance on the AT, or any trail, must of necessity believe that, as the saying goes, the journey is the destination; if this weren’t the case they would drive to Maine instead of walking there. However, it doesn’t make sense to me that most other hikers took the idea of making backpacking their vocation to the point that they seemed to smell the metaphorical roses less frequently than I did. The predominant distance backpacking strategy of push, push, push seemed to misfit the philosophy that the act of hiking is the primary reason one hikes the AT, and that the ultimate “destination” isn’t the be all and end all of the trail. This observation ultimately has little to do with my decision that my hike has reached its end. However, I do find it interesting that my desire to be homeward bound didn’t match my lollygagging hiking style, and that most other distance hikers want to live in the woods, yet hike much more quickly. Please understand that I’m not in any way criticizing other hikers; one must hike his own hike, to use another backpacking saying. I know that all of the through hikers I encountered were greatly enjoying their trip, and I would be the last to argue that my way is the “right” way. It just seemed odd to me, just as the other hikers doubtless thought my goofing off when I wanted to get done as quickly as possible seemed odd.

During my time on the trail I learned a great deal, and I intend to expound upon these lessons in future times. I was educated in the lightweight and ultralightweight schools of backpacking, which enabled me to hike faster more easily and more enjoyably. I learned that one’s will is quite possibly the most precious thing one has, for a great variety of reasons, and that it must be conserved on a long distance hike if one is to get to his destination. Lastly, and most importantly, I think I saw a glimmer of the permanent human nature, that which we have all shared from Adam on. We are not so different from our ancestors, both recent and ancient. Believe it or not, you can live without electricity and running water. In fact, you won’t notice their absences after a while. You can get used to pooping in holes (which, in a random aside, is why I get infuriated when people say that our ancestors were stupid and we can ignore whatever they said because they didn’t know what we know. I had to poop in holes too, and I like to think that I’m still capable of intelligent thought; my fellow hole-poopers, Aristotle and Aquinas, agree with me on this.) One can be happy with very few things – food, water, and a place to sleep. Clearly human nature hasn’t changed. This observation is further bolstered by my real reason for finishing my hike early. I’m convinced that we each of us long for community with others, with God, and with the land. Man is not meant to be alone, and he also is not meant to be uprooted every day; I felt these truths acutely during my hike. When contemplating my return to the AT, I looked at finishing the last 800 miles as something that had to be done instead of something that I was blessed to get the chance to do, and I looked at it as all just leading up to Mt. Katahdin.

Here follows my final log entry (written on a piece of paper towel in my friends' new condo following some, uh, “home improvements” undertaken by myself and some other kindhearted people whose names I will not divulge at the moment.)

The AT convinced me I can be happy w/o the new, changing things-electricity, running water. It equally, or perhaps moreso, convinced me that I cannot be happy without those things that the human condition requires – for me at least – that seem to be universal: some form of rootedness, the sacraments – really some conduit for God’s grace – and some sort of community. (entry finished).

In short, when I considered returning to the trail I found myself wishing that the trail were already done, and that seems to me to be a poor attitude for any hiker, regardless of his philosophy. As I wouldn’t have been truly happy on the hike (which is a powerful argument against going in its own right), and thus would not be putting myself in the position to learn more about myself and everything else, I decided that my hike was finished and that it was time for the next part of my life to begin.

Despite its short length, I think that that entry was one of the best ones I wrote. It showed me that I got a lot out of this hike. It shows that the trail was, despite the difficulties I’ve already noted, a time of great grace and growth for me. It shows that I did in fact have fun over a lot of the trip, which may surprise some of you with the misfortune to hear my frequent complaints about the trail. With memories of good trail friends, good views, and good (ok, awful, but it kept me alive) food, I have finished my hike.

Godspeed to the 2010 northbounders!

Tim Tebow

2009-08-29T21:41:00.000-07:00

This post on Vox Nova stirs up the pot by suggesting that our hero Mr. Tim Tebow is anti Catholic. If you would tend to disagree with this analysis, it wouldn't be a bad idea to post a comment. You could tell the writer about how happy Mr. Tebow made you when UF won the national championship. You could say that he bought you an ice cream cone once. You could say that he walked your grandma across the street while she was clutching her rosary after daily Mass. You could say that, even though you've never met, you're sure that you are soul mates and that some happy day you will be married to him, when he will promptly convert to Catholicism. Come on people, I can't come up with all of these hypothetical and probably ficticious events. This combox is now devoted to fake things that Mr. Tebow has done for you. Real events will be (reluctantly) accepted as well.

A double shot of reviews

2009-08-08T17:36:00.001-07:00

The encyclical will have to wait yet again. Instead, I offer two reviews, one of a book I have just begun, and one of a movie that I am watching even as I type right now.

The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is the first of his major works I have ever read (not counting his Harvard speech.) I've only just begun it, but I was immediately caught by the opening pages. I was interested in his description of the arrests of people sent to the gulags. The Soviets elevated abduction and arrest into an art form. As he says,

Sometimes arrests even seem to be a game-there is so much superfluous imagination, so much well-fed energy, invested in them. After all, the victim would not resist anyway. Is it that the Security agents want to justify their employment and their numbers? After all, it would seem enough to send notices to all the rabbits [his term for the innocent abductees, most of whom accept their fate without resistance] marked for arrest, and they would show up obediently at the designated hour and minute at the iron gates of State Security with a bundle in their hands-ready to occupy a piece of floor in the cell for which they were intended.

I contrast this great work of literature with a made for television movie that I saw on the syfy channel. I suppose the first indication that this movie would be terrible would be the changing of the abbreviation from "sci-fi" or "sci fi" or "scifi" or however else you want to spell it to "syfy." But that aside, the film is called Ice Spiders. Essentially, giant genetically engineered spiders escape from a laboratory somewhere in the Rockies during ski season. They escape to wreak havoc and consume unfortunate skiers until the doughty ski resort guide and the beautiful scientist manage to keep them at bay. The film contains the epic lines, "They accelerated the growth rate! Ends justify the means." Ultimately, it ends when the arrogant lead scientist who was responsible for the outbreak is consumed alive by the last unvanquished spider before a hail of lead ends its life. The acting, special effects, and dialogue were magnificent...ly bad. I highly recommend this movie to anyone above the age of 16.

Not your regularly scheduled programming

2009-08-07T08:26:00.001-07:00

I haven't gotten around to finishing haurietis aquam, so as of yet there is no sequel. I'm just passing on something that came to my mind yesterday.

When Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana (see a musical representation here) he took something free and made it something precious. We are the water He is turning. We might not want to be turned-I imagine the water didn't want to become wine. I imagine the water thought it was perfectly good water. I imagine having your molecular structure completely changed isn't always comfortable. But ultimately it worked out for the best for the water. We can learn something from the water in this narrative. It is an insight into God's mind-it shows that He wants us first and foremost, and that holding something back from Him won't work. In my life, I have the tendency to say, "Ok, Lord, I'm muddy water, make me clean. I am ridden with pests, make me pure. But please don't ask me to become wine." We can accept Mary's exhortation to "do whatever He tells you," trusting in His love. And ultimately we can accept this precursor to something much greater than turning water into wine. We can accept his promise of eternal union with Him, as He made clear in the Last Supper.

We're important!

2009-08-05T09:43:00.000-07:00

Good news friends. The White House is asking for comments upon the health care bill that is making its way through Congress (hat tip to Michael D. for the message). Now might be a good time to point out some minor (and by minor I mean major) flaws in the bill. You can see my comment below.

While I appreciate the President's work to promote an equitable health care system, I'm afraid that I fail to see the need for certain amendments to the bill. For instance, I'm disappointed that the Democratic Party went to the trouble to include federal funding for abortion in the health care bill that would otherwise had more bipartisan support. I was under the impression from the President's words at Notre Dame and the Vatican that he intends to lower the abortion rate. I was also under the impression, from his recent comments, that all people need to work together on this issue, to build common ground. So far, though, the President has worked to remove any and all common ground, moderate positions that have sprung up. This is the counter to his rhetoric of recent months.
As someone who intends to be less than wealthy for a long time due to an impecunious career, I don't imagine that I'll end up owing , and then paying, much money in taxes for a while. Knowing where some of my money could end up going, I'm okay with that.

In other, better news, Congressman Joseph Cao (a moderate Republican in a very liberal New Orleans district) has stated that he will vote against the health care bill (in its current form) for the aforementioned reasons, despite knowing that it will "probably be the death of my career."
(Hat tip to Creative Minority Report)

We'll get back to our regularly scheduled program tomorrow.

Haurietis Aquas part I.

2009-08-03T17:52:00.000-07:00

This will be the first part from my reading of Pope Pius XII's encyclical on devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. As I haven't finished it yet, I'm taking my favorite parts from the first half of the encyclical, hoping that you can read it sequentially. The entire encyclical is well written; it feels like a devotional writing.

One important part of the encyclical that I've had some trouble understanding is the repeated reference to "threefold love". They are (and I relied on fisheaters.com to figure this out), "His divine love, His burning love that fed his human will, and His sensible love that affects His interior life." My impression (from reading the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry on love) is that sensible love is love that is felt. It sounds like it's love that is emotionally, fervently held. If I'm wrong, please correct me. And now, on to the encyclical

6. Holy Writ declares that between divine charity, which must burn in the souls of Christians, and the Holy Spirit, Who is certainly Love Itself, there exists the closest bond, which clearly shows all of us, venerable brethren, the intimate nature of that worship which must be paid to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ. If we consider its special nature it is beyond question that this devotion is an act of religion of high order; it demands of us a complete and unreserved determination to devote and consecrate ourselves to the love of the divine Redeemer, Whose wounded Heart is its living token and symbol. It is equally clear, but at a higher level, that this same devotion provides us with a most powerful means of repaying the divine Lord by our own.
7. Indeed it follows that it is only under the impulse of love that the minds of men obey fully and perfectly the rule of the Supreme Being, since the influence of our love draws us close to the divine Will that it becomes as it were completely one with it, according to the saying, "He who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit."(6)

21. That all may understand more exactly the teachings which the selected texts of the Old and New Testament furnish concerning this devotion, they must clearly understand the reasons why the Church gives the highest form of worship to the Heart of the divine Redeemer. As you well know, venerable brethren, the reasons are two in number. The first, which applies also to the other sacred members of the Body of Jesus Christ, rests on that principle whereby we recognize that His Heart, the noblest part of human nature, is hypostatically united to the Person of the divine Word. Consequently, there must be paid to it that worship of adoration with which the Church honors the Person of the Incarnate Son of God Himself. We are dealing here with an article of faith, for it has been solemnly defined in the general Council of Ephesus and the second Council of Constantinople.(15)

22. The other reason which refers in a particular manner to the Heart of the divine Redeemer, and likewise demands in a special way that the highest form of worship be paid to it, arises from the fact that His Heart, more than all the other members of His body, is the natural sign and symbol of His boundless love for the human race. "There is in the Sacred Heart," as Our predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII, pointed out, "the symbol and express image of the infinite love of Jesus Christ which moves us to love in return."(16)

25. We do not wonder then, that Moses and the prophets, whom the Angelic Doctor rightly names the "elders" of the chosen people,(19) perceived clearly that the foundation of the whole Law lay on this commandment of love, and described all the circumstances and relationships which should exist between God and His people by metaphors drawn from the natural love of a father and his children, or a man and his wife, rather than from the harsh imagery derived from the supreme dominion of God or the obligation of subjecting ourselves in fear.

38. But in order that we really may be able, so far as it is permitted to mortal men, "to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth"(33) of the hidden love of the Incarnate Word for His heavenly Father and for men infected by the taint of sins, we must note well that His love was not entirely the spiritual love proper to God inasmuch as "God is a spirit."(34) Undoubtedly the love with which God loved our forefathers and the Hebrew people was of this nature. For this reason the expressions of human, intimate, and paternal love which we find in the Psalms, the writings of the prophets, and in the Canticle of Canticles are tokens and symbols of the true but entirely spiritual love with which God continued to sustain the human race. On the other hand, the love which breathes from the Gospel, from the letters of the Apostles and the pages of the Apocalypse, all of which portray the love of the Heart of Jesus Christ, expresses not only divine love but also human sentiments of love. All who profess themselves Catholics accept this without question.

40. Nothing, then, was wanting to the human nature which the Word of God united to Himself. Consequently He assumed it in no diminished way, in no different sense in what concerns the spiritual and the corporeal: that is, it was endowed with intellect and will and the other internal and external faculties of perception, and likewise with the desires and all the natural impulses of the senses. All this the Catholic Church teaches as solemnly defined and ratified by the Roman Pontiffs and the general councils. "Whole and entire in what is His own, whole and entire in what is ours."(37) "Perfect in His Godhead and likewise perfect in His humanity."(38) "Complete God is man, complete man is God."(39)

A Stupid Story and the Sacred Heart

2009-08-01T09:29:00.000-07:00

My previous roommates and I tended to behave somewhat less than, how shall we say, gentlemanly. In fact, by the end of our lease, wrestling and verbal jousting had become our primary means of entertainment. These matches, while never serious, quickly turned dirty. Couches were broken, doughnuts were crushed, and on several occasions computers were nearly rendered inoperable.

A few months ago a nice old lady from church gave me a medal of St. Augustine, and a chain with which to wear it, after Mass one day. I then attached a crucifix for which I never had a chain. All was well for about a week. Shortly thereafter, however, my roommate and I got in a bit of an altercation. Certain words were exchanged, certain jokes were made at the expense of certain mothers, and we decided in the interests of safety to take the match outside to the front lawn. Mind you the front lawn is not really a lawn as the grass is very sparse and the soil itself is far from flat. Imagine the Himalayan mountains made of sand instead of rock, shrunk to the size of a few inches, and with a few blades of grass making a doomed attempt to survive; that is a reasonable image of the lawn.

Sometime in the heat of battle, before the finishing headlock but after the second or third tackle, the chain got pulled off. The clasp broke and, following the law of conservation of momentum, the crucifix and medal went who knows where. Eventually I was able to find the chain and crucifix; sadly the medal was permanently gone. Sheepish with the events of the evening, I resolved to never tell anyone about what happened and to hope that the nice lady never again asked me about the medal.

About a week ago after Mass she jokingly asked me if I'd managed to lose the medal yet. When she heard my explanation (after a few laughs) she told me she would find something else for me. A few days ago she gave me a medal of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, along with the instructions to look up the promises associated with it. This renewed awareness of the Sacred Heart has been a great grace for me. The constant reminder of His infinite love for me is a source of much consolation. Having a tendency towards the lukewarm, the "good enough", the "minimum daily requirement" approach to God's will, the Sacred Heart is a reminder of God's great love. As Pope Benedict XVI said in his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, " Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift." How can one love God if one doesn't first receive His love? This recognition has been a great reminder for me to trust in Him who is goodness when I am tempted to self pity or skepticism of His love. It's a reminder that He loves me and wishes for my happiness more than I do myself. His Sacred Heart still burns for us all even now, and this medal has been a great reminder for me.

I truly find the whole incident hilarious. I've learned that rough housing is spiritually beneficial, as well as being a fine aerobic exercise.

Next up: hopefully a reading of Haurietis Aquas (Pope Pius XII's encyclical on devotion to the Sacred Heart). A report on Caritas in veritate might not be far behind either.

The times, they are a changin'

2009-07-30T12:18:00.000-07:00

Well, a lot has changed since my last blog post. On the other hand, a lot has stayed the same.
There was a new papal encyclical. Some people didn't like it, as usual.
The government is somewhat less than competent and beneficial.
Several countries are in turmoil.
The economy's still in bad shape.
I have been working for one of my professors, reading, eating, wasting time with friends and the like (insofar as time spent with friends is wasted), actually wasting time, and enjoying my summer. As I have been slacking off in my blogging duties of late, I will begin with a simple subject, one which is near and dear to my heart: beer. As I possess neither the money nor the palate necessary to review fine wines, and as my appreciation for bourbon is still in its infancy, one must stick to what he knows. I hope readers expecting something more, well, elegant, will overlook my crass, bourgeois ways.
Shiner brewery has been around a lot longer than me. It too has changed somewhat over the past 100 years. There newest beer, the Commemorator, is a change for the better. It's a doppelbock, as the -ator implies, and is a malty, sweet beer as one would expect from that type of beer. Unfortunately, I drank or shared all of them with friends, so I no longer have any to drink during the review process. As I never had the most developed palate, I doubt it would be that helpful anyway. I remember it had a good mouthfeel and flavor. Doppelbocks are one of my favorite styles, and I think I like this one more than my previous favorite, the Ayinger Celebrator, and my new third place doppelbock, the Paulaner Salvator.
The bottom line: It's one of my favorite doppelbocks now. It has an excellent flavor, a good mouthfeel. It's not a light beer by any stretch, but then, it's not supposed to be. It has its niche in the beer world, and it fills it wonderfully.
Stay tuned for updates when I get around to buying another six pack of the stuff.

After a long break...

2009-04-11T15:22:00.000-07:00

I'm reporting that Catholic Eye Candy has a bunch of sweet, well, liturgical eye-candy for Catholics. It's great to see the beauty through which God speaks to us sometimes.

Invert the Question

2009-02-13T08:01:00.000-08:00

One of the strongest arguments against the existence of God is the presence of suffering in the world. The problem of evil hits a person viscerally, as it should. While I have heard several good answers to the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" I don't have an emotionally satisfying answer. All God has done-in the book of Job and in the person of Christ-is to suffer with us. Like all mysteries, this one cuts deep.

I'm more interested today in another mystery, however. Why do good things happen to bad people? Despite my selfish, proud, and cold tendencies (and that's by no means a comprehensive list) God has still blessed me with a good life, good friends, a loving family, the list could go on. The answer to this question is also a mystery-it is grace. Why is God so good to us? The answer to that question is love. Which happens to be the same answer to the first question. God answered the question, "Why do the innocent suffer?" with love, with Himself who is Love. Like a mother comforting a sick child, God doesn't tell us, "you're sick because within your body there are viruses that are attacking your self, so your temperature is rising to kill them." He simply tells us that He is here and that He loves us.

Discernment

2009-02-08T09:00:00.001-08:00

God has made us for a purpose. Thus, when God calls us to one choice or another this call is both from without us (the voice of God) and within us (our own selves call for fulfillment to be what He has made us for). In following our own desires we can fail to understand what God has written on our hearts. If we strive to serve Him, we will serve others as well, and we will do what the deepest part of ourselves yearns to do. If we strive to do what is best for ourselves and what we want to do, we will end up doing neither. As is common, my posting on this subject is an attempt to describe my understanding of truths that have been staring me in the face, namely: Seek ye first the kingdom of God. Thus I offer the following definition for the discernment of personal choices.

Discernment (n.) - 1. the art of understanding and following the heart of God, which coincides with the art of understanding and following the deepest part of our own hearts. 2. The art of knowing how to not tell a lie with one's body by understanding its true purpose.

Not having a great deal of experience in this subject I must add that this is a growing personal conviction about our shared human nature. This conviction has been strengthened through the personal testimony of good friends and has slowly worked its way into my self. I pray and hope God gives me the grace to bet my life on the truth of what He has revealed to you and me through the Bible, Tradition, and His workings in our hearts.

A doomed attempt at an intuitive anthropology

2009-02-07T10:45:00.000-08:00

I posted this thought on facebook. For those of you not on facebook, many people have been writing "25 facts" notes where the mention 25 things about them that the readers may or may not know.
As regards the blog, I have a few post ideas in my mind. Hopefully I'll be more productive in the future and some of these thoughts will come to light.

In the past week or so many people have been writing Facebook notes with 25 facts about themselves. I imagine the point is so that others may learn about the writer. Nota bene that I’m not criticizing writers of these notes. I realize that one can learn a lot about people after hearing 25 new things about them. One can even grow to know them better, not simply to know more about them. At the very least one can be amused or entertained for a few minutes with a particularly humorous list. I’m more interested in a different view of the same issue-the problem of man. Not having an anthropology background as a student, I’m going to rely upon my own intuition-as a person I believe I am as competent as anyone else to look at what it means to be man. I’m going to assume that certain things that I intuit and feel are characteristic of the universal human race and that I am not some strange non-human entity. Specifically, I assume that we are all feel, deep in our bones, the difficulty of fully knowing someone.

I will not be writing a 25 fact note. Man is a mystery; off the top of my head there are few things I can think of writing that would be worth hearing. Each man and woman is an utterance of God that cannot be replaced or fully understood by we mere mortals, and in being these utterances we share in this beautiful mystery of God. More beautiful than this unknown is its ultimate order and truth, which I suppose only God is able to fully know. I have walked this earth for 22 years. I have seen myself do good and do evil; to steal a thought from Walker Percy in Lost in the Cosmos, to be man is to know that one is capable of both great virtue and great evil. I have wet my bed as a baby and learned multivariable calculus as a university student. I have run; I have crawled. However, in the words of U2, I still haven’t found what I’m looking for. I am still in some way a mystery to myself. I am fully convinced that to know oneself one must know God-only He can show us the truth of ourselves and the world in general.I am a human being designed by God for some purpose; the old Baltimore Catechism says that man is created to love and serve God in this life that we might know and love Him in the next-an astonishing and joyful statement. However, this brings us right back to the mystery at the heart of man, for if I cannot understand the Creator of man, how can I understand His creation? Unfortunately, the Baltimore Catechism doesn’t continue with, “In the case of Kevin Jones, born in the late 20th century, he is to know and serve God by…” As I don’t fully know my purpose, I don’t feel any need to write the 25 facts; as I’ve said before, I don’t know which facts to pick or which people to tag in order to give a true picture of myself. Similar to a poem, man is a mystery; one may understand him with the core of the body without understanding him fully with the mind. By breaking apart a poem to analyze it one may get new insights, but he may also lose the entire point of the poem. This reliance on intuition is what interests me.

My one concern is that in this admission of my inability to know perfectly may become or appear to be the inability to know, which we all recognize as absurd. Truly man is born of mystery, and this truth is what makes him worth knowing. Ultimately, I choose to emphasize the great mystery of man over what we know, hopefully in a spirit of wonder and joy and not one of discouragement. I use the word “mystery” instead of “unknown” because mystery reflects the inherent truth and order at the root of this wondrous mystery. We all of us are looking at the mystery of what man is; I am looking at this mystery in a different way, but the point of interest and inquiry is the same: man.

I hope everyone planning on writing a “25 facts” note writes one; I’d love to get to know you all more. I’ve laughed with some of these notes, and I’ve been edified and inspired by others. For the reasons given, however, I won’t be writing one. Again, this is in no way a critique of “25 facts” note writing; it’s just a few thoughts I’ve had. God bless us all, and may we all become who He has made us to be.

Lord, what is man, that thou art made known to him? or the son of man, that thou makest account of him? Ps. 144:3

A defense of foppery

2008-11-29T18:41:00.000-08:00

The past few posts have all been rather frivolous and silly. In defense of my tendecy to silliness, a while ago I wrote this argument for the virtues of silliness. I hope St. Philip Neri wouldn't disagree. Hopefully more serious and reasoned posts will be forthcoming.

It has come to my attention that certain gentlemen among us (I use the term in its loosest possible sense as I have no reason to believe that said men are in fact landed) have been questioning the virtues of the fop movement. Be we dandies, macaroni, or fops proper, I believe that we can all agree that there are certain strengths of the fop lifestyle that are necessary in this day and age to promote a diversity in the truest meaning of the word. I am equally convinced that these positive attributes of the fop community can only improve the New Evangelization of Pope John Paul II. This essay is intended to put forth the case for foppery.
Prior to a defense of foppery we must each admit the dangers of its unchecked excesses. As one of us have said, "The opposite of a Christian isn't a devil worshiper, it's a fop." While we all strongly oppose this statement, and I'm sure right now you're all calling your manservants to fetch your rapiers and call your phaetons, I'd like to prevent any unnecessary duels-haven't they been condemned anyway? I must admit that our preference for no less than the finest Brooks Brothers suits, as well as our obsession with brightly colored wigs, can be interpreted as vanity. One must realize that the emphasis is in fact upon quality for the sake of quality, which I hope we can all agree upon in this age of consumerist, disposable drivel. A true fop will always look the same, whether preparing for the queen or merely resting for a few hours in his lodgings. Vanity has nothing to do with the true fop, as the true fop is always striving to be at his best regardless of who he is near.
With your permission, I will now proceed to the central purpose of this modest essay. Foppery makes everyone around in the nearby vicinity mildly uncomfortable for a mere second, followed by a sense of familiarity. If I may mention an observation I made earlier this evening, I believe that my point will be made. An incoming freshman walking around campus with her parents appeared uncomfortable. Doubtless this was due to the fact that one's parents are not, in fact, to use the tired, trite modern vernacular, "cool", and they will make you "uncool" merely by association. I am convinced that many people struggle with the fear of a lack of acceptance for being as they are. Gentlemen, the only way we can attack the culture of inauthenticity, to steal a concept from a certain Mr. Percy, is through our foppery. People are much more willing to be their true selves when they realize that appearing to be foolish is fine (of course we do not appear foolish in our velvet smoking jackets, but some people are unfortunate enough to lack our breeding and upbringing, and we shan't judge them for their perfectly innocent ignorance.) To use a quote Messr. Flores is fond of, one must be willing to be a fool. Since others view our peculiar habits as foolishness, our foppery will have the desired effects. As young ladies and gentlemen become comfortable around us, our work at building community shall only become easier.
In summary, gentlemen, foppery can combat the inauthentic and allow people to express the truth, although I am sure that none of us look forward to any type of combat, which would most certainly soil our white dress gloves. To borrow a phrase from our boorish, bourgeoisie culture, we may, nay, must, continue to "rock" the medial f. Let's fop it up, gentlemen.
I eagerly await any commentary upon these musings.

The Import of the Frivolous

2008-11-29T16:32:00.000-08:00

While leafing through my copy of the Summa, I happened upon the previously lost Quaterna Pars. I must admit that I found it very surprising-it's position is one familiar to me, seeing that it puts forth a view held by all orthodox Catholics. However, I wasn't aware that it was of concern at that time. It does look like Aquinas was truly prophetic on this issue. Unfortunately, the rest of Quaterna Pars was water damaged beyond reading ability (the whole Latin-English barrier didn't help all that much either), but I was able to decipher what he refers to as "the single most important truth of the ars culina."
Article 1: On the dunking or crumbling of the panis frumentae in aqua orcae. [n.b. I'm translating panis frumentae as "cornpone" as it appears to be the most accurate translation. I translate aqua orcae as what is referred to in the South as "potlikker," the liquid left in a pot after cooking. Again, I cannot emphasize enough that this reference surprised me as much as it does you. I hope that the rest of the article bears out my translation.]
Objection 1: It would seem that dunking the cornpone would be inappropriate to the nobility of the potlikker. For the cornpone that is dunked will absorb the potlikker, so the potlikker will be separated from itself.
Objection 2: Further, it is clear that dunking will result in uneven potlikker placement along the cornpone. The uneven potlikker distribution is a disorder, and that which promotes disorder is not right.
Objection 3: Further, if one does not crumble, then one will have to drink the remaining potlikker, which will result soiled clothing as the potlikker spills down the front of the gourmand in question.
Objection 4: As the Gossiper says, “Cornpone, so-called, that can be dunked is not genuine cornpone.”
On the contrary, the Statesman always firmly supported dunking the cornpone instead of crumbling.
I answer that, since crumbling results in a gooey mess that is not at all attractive to the senses, to dunk is clearly proper.
Reply to Objection 1: It is perfectly in keeping with potlikker's noble status to consume it slowly and to mix it with other foodstuffs, as it will ennoble the rest of one's meal.
Reply to Objection 2: The objector clearly does not know how to properly eat a cornpone. For the practice of "double dipping" whereby one's pone is dunked after each bite to ensure a full infusing of potlikker into the pone, is taken as a given step for all consumers of the cornpone.
Reply to Objection 3: One may consume more cornpone that he otherwise would to consume the last of the potlikker. In addition, the possibility of a regrettable event is not necessarily grounds for avoiding the necessary but not necessarily sufficient conditions for such an event. Else we would not be able to do anything for fear that we would inadvertently cause some calamity to occur. Lastly, a gourmand wears his potlikker with pride upon his shirt.
Reply to Objection 4: Dude, you pulled the Atlanta Constitution on me? Come on, don't waste my time. Since when have they been right? [n.b. This is one of the few cases when Aquinas has used what appears to be an ad hominem; because the objector is making the argument by setting himself up as the arbitrator of truth while the objector is known to be unreliable, however, this is a reasonable reply. This is also one of the rare cases where such anger is found in St. Thomas' writings in general. I have attempted to translate as "dude" what is in the summa written as "fra" which I can only assume to be a contraction of frater-brother.]
I found this to be so interesting and disconcerting because this explains Huey P. Long's well-known opinions on the subject. It happens to be the exact same argument St. Thomas Aquinas applied. As a very well educated man who read voraciously, he must have been familiar with the Summa-surely this is the simplest explanation of his vehement opposition to the crumbling of the cornpone. And lest we forget the import of this debate, one must remember that potlikker, as first understood by St. Thomas and later trumpeted by Mr. Long, is "the noblest dish the mind of man has yet conceived." As the intimate connection between the cornpone and the potlikker is apparent to all men of good will, we can see how there is clearly one right answer.

Man-gagement

2008-11-18T17:32:00.000-08:00

In the interests of levity I offer the following. Also on the menu-applying the rhetorical style of St. Thomas Aquinas to the issue of dunking vs. crumbling corn pone into pot liquor, an issue that greatly concerned.
Of time immemorial man has striven to show his love to the beloved. Lately this has taken the form of the engagement ring, a symbol of his soon-to-be undying love and commitment. And while man is willing to do anything for his love, a little recognition wouldn't hurt. I speak, of course, of the mangagement gift.
A mangagement present is, traditionally, a gift given by his fiancee of commensurate value to the engagement ring. In older, better times, it was often replaced by the dowry, although this was a gift from the future father-in-law to the groom, not from the fiancee. As the name implies, it must be of masculine form. Acceptable gifts include fine shotguns or rifles, large outdoor smoke rooms, or hunting camps. Less permanent items such as fine whiskey (one would hope bourbon) or fine cigars are also appropriate for such an august occasion.
It should be noted that asking for a mangagement present is verboten; a woman does not ask for an engagement ring. It should also be noted that the mangagement present should be given by the fiancee without prior counsel; if the mangagement present is inappropriate this is clear proof that the couple's future marriage was not properly discerned. Another clear proof that the marriage is not meant to be is the gifting of a manifestly unmanly gift. Fine cookware can be manly; doilies, table settings, and soup tureens, no matter how fine, cannot.
In the event of a gift of questionable manliness, the local man law tribunal must be called. Prominent men from the community, preferably those with beards who work with their hands, make up the tribunal-contact your city's chamber of commerce for more information. In the event that a higher power is needed due to an appeal, the universal man tribunal is called. Tim Tebow, Mr. T., and Chuck Norris generally don't take kindly to being interrupted to rule on the manliness of someone walking the line, so the author recommends you avoid the near certainty of death-Chuck Norris' tears may cure cancer, but his roundhouse kicks surely don't.
Clearly the mangagement present, while oft forgotten in our current cultural milieu, has a rich and varied source. From the gift of a lamb (fine food) in the middle east to a gift of land (think hunting lease) in medieval Europe to the modern day deep sea fishing boat mangagement present, vive la difference has been one everpresent characteristic of marriage-along with the whole procreative, permanent and other boring stuff. We could do well to recover this and similar traditions.

Yes We Can

2008-11-04T21:10:00.001-08:00

The question is, when it comes to several of the president-elect's policies, should we?
I submit that for some of his policies, no we should not. At any rate, let us all pray that God may guide President-Elect Obama to serve Him during his term.

Compassion-both Placed and Misplaced

2008-11-02T16:52:00.000-08:00

We frequently think of compassion as a feeling-specifically, a sentimental feeling. There's only one problem about this tendency-it misunderstands the actual meaning of compassion. If compassion is about my feeling bad for someone, then it wouldn't be compassionate to do something that would make others feel bad; truth would be divorced from love. On the other hand, it would be compassionate to make someone go away so I don't have to feel bad anymore.
Combining my first grade reading skill of sounding out words with my minimal knowledge of Latin, compassion means com - passion, or "suffering with." Thus, to take compassion on the ill does not mean to put them out of their misery. It means to suffer with them, as Mary suffered with Jesus. To be compassionate does not mean to not bring up important issues because feelings may be hurt. It means accepting that if something truly needs to be said, everyone-including the speaker-must be prepared to live with the (potentially awkward) consequences. The truth sometimes hurts. To be compassionate is to suffer with those who hear it, not to suffocate the truth. Ultimately, compassion is seeing others as the children of God, made in His image and likeness.

Odds and ends

2008-10-27T20:34:00.001-07:00

This just in: Toby Danna is blogging again. For those of you who don't know him, he's one of the
founders of the LSU Parousians, whcih has since spread to ULL and UF. Check it out.

Upcoming posts here: hopefully one applying syllogistic logic to life issues, and, whenever I get some time, a post on the issue of gnosticism and the Vatican II Council. And maybe something completely different during these times.

In the meantime, the Rosary Novena for the U.S. election has begun, so start trucking and don't stop till Tuesday.

Wall-E

2008-10-21T07:44:00.001-07:00

I saw this heartwarming Disney movie about a robot in a post apocalyptic world recently, and one scene in particular stood out. Wall-E has shelves upon shelves where he has sorted his possessions. He has a spot on one of his shelves for himself. It was interesting to me because it perfectly reflects our modern culture's view of the self. He saw himself as just another thing, not as a person. Our society does this to us with atheistic philosophies that argue for determinism, for a lack of free will. It also dehumanizes specific groups of people-the unborn come immediately to mind.
I really enjoyed Wall-E, especially for the hidden philosophical issue of the identity of self implicit in the movie.

In other news, the Diocese of St. Augustine's having a retreat titled, "Discover Your Identity." I can personally vouch that it's an amazing, Eucharist centered retreat, and I'll be going again this year. It's open for everyone within the ages of 21-39, so if you're interested drop me a line and I'll get you a sign up sheet. We've just seen that the Wall-E model of self identity doesn't work; the only possibility is a Christian understanding of identity and self.

More politics

2008-10-19T18:41:00.000-07:00

Archbishop Chaput lays the law down-yet again.

Not Omnipotent

2008-10-15T18:24:00.000-07:00

None of us are omnipotent. We all need to realize that we can't do everything. Thankfully, this is a good thing. It takes the pressure off of saving the world all ourselves so we can simply do God's will. We can let Him worry about saving the world.
A few "coincidences" have shown me this truth. One was a homily on almsgiving as part of the way to holiness, and a few discussions cemented these fundamental truths. One of the beauties of almsgiving is its effect on one's ego. I realize that I can't save the world. I realize that my money isn't my own-it belongs to God, just as everything does. If God desires a humble heart, a circumcised heart, then giving alms in good faith is one way to open ourselves to the graces of God. In almsgiving we recognize Christ's presence in others, and our obligation to serve Him; this knowledge that the world doesn't revolve around me can't help but promote humility and draw me closer to Him. Our money, talent, our heart, really is His.

We all agree on ESCR, we just don't realize it.

2008-10-05T13:20:00.001-07:00

Why are some people in favor of embryonic stem cell research and some opposed? There is only one answer which suffices to explain both stances.
People in favor of ESCR support it because the embryos are human. As such, we can learn about ourselves and possibly cure several serious diseases.
People opposing ESCR oppose it because the embryos are human. As such, we shouldn't destroy them.
The same applies to proponents of abortion or euthanasia. Simply replace "learn about ourselves" with "end their lives to avoid having to take care of them."
(Note that I don't say that the all of the women themselves or the people involved in euthanasia themselves are doing so out of convenience. Many of these people are acting out of fear and pain, and don't see that there are ways other than abortion or euthanasia-adoption and palliative care come to mind. They deserve our love and prayers. However, the supporters for these issues do often use the argument of convenience; the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade.)

Do whatever He tells you

2008-10-01T18:36:00.000-07:00

I can think of two good reasons to do whatever God tells you to, aside from Mary's excellent advice during the wedding at Cana.
1. God knows far more than we do. It's best to trust Him since He knows what he's doing. There is a very good utilitarian argument for accepting God's will-like entropy, we can't win the game against God. This is a recognition of the truth that we rely upon God completely.
2. God deserves our love; He gives without end. Not listening to Him isn't exactly the most loving move of all time. This is a recognition of God's boundless love.
It seems to me that by any rational decision process-through mere self-interest or through love- we should all be saints. I guess we'd better get on that. Love and truth demand it.

It's never easy

2008-09-27T16:06:00.000-07:00

Classes being what they are, my semester has been low on sleep and high on work. It has also been an opportunity for spiritual growth that I've elected to ignore. I think I can describe one of my classes as purgatorial. Instead of being grateful for this opportunity to unite my tiny suffering to Christ's I complain. Instead of accepting this purification (and I know I need it) I act like I've earned the right to comfort. I fail to grasp the fact that grace is sometimes painful. I can't grow closer to God unless I unite myself to Him; I can't unite myself to Him unless I am willing to conform myself to His plan for me. The problem is that His plan is aimed at my good instead of my comfort. It is good to make one's child eat his spinach even if the spinach isn't very tasty.
One of the most convincing arguments against the existence of God is the existence of suffering; it hits us hard that we suffer, especially that we sometimes suffer without an apparent reason. The amazing thing about free will is that we decide whether our suffering is meaningless. If we don't accept its meaning then the reason we've been given this cross isn't fulfilled, and we have more or less taken a meaningful suffering and made it meaningless. If we accept the suffering as God's will it then obviously has a huge meaning.
This is why sanctification is never easy. If Christ suffered, we will too. Grace brings peace, the peace of doing God's will, the peace of loving God and being loved by Him, but who said peace and love was easy?

The Sunny Side

2008-09-27T15:34:00.000-07:00

As an often disgruntled student I tend to look at the problems in this world. It's not very difficult to see these problems, and it is a necessary part of life. However, I think it would be more productive to look at the many blessings I've been given. I've been born into a loving family in the best city in the world. I attend a good college (recent losses to a football team that will remain nameless notwithstanding). I have good friends who have strengthened me immeasurably and have been far more open to the grace of God than I am. Most importantly, I am able to go to Mass frequently; I receive the Body of Christ and am brought to Christ's offering of Himself at Calvary despite and in atonement for my frequent sins and lukewarmness. I am allowed to confess my sins to Christ and receive His forgiveness and grace.
My classes are getting on my last nerve this semester, but I can't allow that to distract me from God's graces because by doing so I fail to live up to my current vocation as a student. Since God uses our vocation to draw us to Him and sanctify us, we shouldn't reject His gift of suffering and we shouldn't complain about it like a spoiled child at Christmas who doesn't get what he wants. When we can see so many problems with the world and the Church it is all the more important to recognize the graces God has showered upon us.

The Pro-life Presidency Post (P3)

2008-09-14T09:52:00.000-07:00

With the election being what it is, and after several conversations with numerous friends of mine, I think it is time for one more random guy to weigh in on the whole presidential election.
In the 1860s the most important issue in the presidential election, from a perspective of justice at least, was the slavery issue. As a writer from a southern state who values conservative principles of local government, even to the extent of supporting the state's right to secede, I realize that the supporters of those values at that time were wrong on the single most important issue of the time-slavery. In the 1950s and 1960s the single most important justice issue facing the U.S. was the concern over civil rights for African Americans. Walker Percy, who lived through this time, recognized the value of states' rights. He also recognized that the states did not have the right to mistreat and dehumanize African Americans as they did. While many of the people opposing the civil rights movement are attractive to me on other issues (support of states' rights) their opposition to the single most important issue in the race would not have allowed me to vote for them, were I alive in that age.
The most important issue of this presidential election, as it has been since the 1970s and 80s, is abortion, and, increasingly, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research. I have many concerns over other issues. However, these very important and very legitimate concerns can't take precedence over the primary issue of this election-the fact that some candidates are promoting the killing of the innocent.
Many people approach elections based upon the seamless garment of life philosophy of the Catholic Church. This approach holds that the life issues are all interconnected; we cannot be concerned about only some of the issues. This approach makes perfect sense to me at least. The worker who's being underpaid is being victimized and the law should rise to his protection. However, many of these issues can be dealt with in many different ways-a conservative approach of putting the onus on the states to promote a living wage may be more successful than an approach of using the federal government's power. Then again, it might not. The seamless garment of life, of course, depends upon the bedrock principles of life-that unjust killing be illegal and proscribed by the government.
In this election, unfortunately, we are faced with the fact that the two major parties are unacceptable on this issue. The Republican party nominee appears to be lukewarm on the issue of abortion and is rabidly pro-ESCR. I frankly don't know if he would nominate a Supreme Court Justice who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The Democratic nominee is rabidly pro abortion as well as being for ESCR. I do know that he would nominate an unacceptable justice. (As an aside, I know that overturning Roe v. Wade alone isn't a sufficient step to respect life, but it is a necessary one.) I don't know if it's prudent to vote for the less bad candidate or if it is prudent to vote third party. After all, promoting the killing of embryos for scientific knowledge and the "greater good" is about as low as you can go. I am convinced, however, that short of a moral certainty that McCain will lead us into the next World War, we cannot vote for Obama. There simply is no issue that is proportionate to that of abortion. Unless I knew that a pro civil rights candidate in the 1960's was going to lead the nation into war with the USSR, I would be failing in my Christian duty to love the weak and downtrodden
Or, to be humorous and concise, Mr. Randy Newman's opinions on short people mean that, regardless of his support of issues near and dear to my heart, he will not receive my vote, even as an ironic write-in.

Mofro and Gumbo

2008-08-23T22:06:00.000-07:00

My favorite new(ish) band is from the north Florida country, yet somehow they manage to combine the awesomeness of soul, funk, southern rock, blues, and just about anything else one would want in a band. They've come up with another way to take my money-free listen here. I really can't make any connection between this band and truth with a capital T, but I've been reading a little Josef Pieper lately, so I think I've given myself a shot.

Pieper, a well known Catholic Thomist philosopher, argues that philosophy is only philosophy if it is unfettered in its search for the truth. The moment one begins to utilitarianize philosophy he stops philosophizing. Philsophy, like poetry and love, is concerned with the wondrous, instead of the usable; it looks and sees instead of attempting to control and use. Echoing his statement on philosophy is his statement on love, which serves to back up his statement on philosophy. The moment one loves someone else to gain something he fails to love. This applies to some scientists as well; those who want to understand the world fit into the mode of the philosopher as well.

A friend and I have carried Pieper's logic-possibly past the breaking point-to make a similar argument for the art of cooking. In its purest form, cooking is a journey whose path eclipses the importance of the objective of providing sustenance. The journey never ends for a devoted cook, just as the search for knowledge doesn't end for anyone open to seeing the truth. As a poet can see the world more fully and be who God calls him to be through his poetry, as a worshipper is drawn above the physical concerns of health to a love of God, so is the cook who acts with wonder as a child does.

I'm going to equate Mofro with poetry in this case, since J.J. Grey and company appear to have a true love of the music. I've already argued that cooking can fit into this category of a love of the wondrous. Thus, Mofro and gumbo fit into Pieper's philosophy of wonder rather well. I haven't read the rest of the book, so I don't know where he's going with this, but it seems important, so I guess gumbo and Mofro are both a big deal.

There but by the Grace of God go I

2008-08-21T23:36:00.001-07:00

We humans require the grace of God to merely exist in this world-we are not our own causes of existence. We also require the grace of God to do good. What happens when we ignore that grace? What happens when we refuse to use the minds God gives us to serve Him and to love our neighbors? What happens when the world, with its wondrous technology and 24-7 entertainment, dulls our minds, removes any semblance of patience, and steals away any free time we might have? What happens when toxic pseudo-philosophies convince us that we decide morality, that we are gods? The title of this post is a bit ironic, since we can see that this world hasn't accepted the graces of God. The question still remains, however: where do we go? What happens when we don't accept that grace?

Abortion happens. The desecration of Christ's own Body, God Himself on His cross again, happens. Massive wars happen. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the Holocaust happen. The impoverishment and treatment of people as means of production happens. A million and one "small" things, like families being ripped apart, happen.

We humans have been resistant to this grace since the Fall; this past century seemed to be the most resistant. Pope Leo XIII seemed to think so. The problem is that, having done this to our culture, we will suffer. Conversion is a painful business. As Tertullian said, the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. If Christ the Son of God suffered we can't expect to avoid it; we must welcome it and embrace it as our Lord embraced His cross.

Conceivable or Imaginable?

2008-08-19T19:15:00.000-07:00

Frank Sheed, in discussing the Holy Trinity, differentiates between our ability to imagine and our ability to conceive of something in order to discuss the Trinity. It is impossible for us to imagine several people acting from the same nature (the nature can be very, very roughly defined as the "platform" on which one can act. I have a human nature, so there are some things I can do and some I can't. I realize this is possibly the most oversimplified, poorly explained definition of the term, but I hope it works for what I'm trying to say.) This goes against all of our prior experiences of people and nature having an exclusive, one entity to one person relationship. However, we can conceive that it is possible that several Persons may be "one in Being" as the Nicene Creed puts it; we can recognize that this is not impossible or logically unsound.

We can imagine things that we cannot conceive of. I can imagine a perpetual motion machine quite easily; however, one can't truly conceive of the idea of the perpetual motion machine because we realize it to be impossible, this side of the laws of entropy at least. I can obviously imagine something I can conceive of; this is the most common occurrence.

Sheed makes the distinction between conceiving of an idea and imagining something to shed some light upon the Trinity, God's tremendous revelation of Himself. I've got a much more humble objective. As an American living in the U.S. since abortion has been legal, I cannot imagine a U.S. free of abortion. Many of my friends will agree with this sentiment. However, they will use this lack of imagination to argue that in the current election, the issue of abortion is irrelevant. Using our God-given ability to conceive of the truth, regardless of whether it is a truth that we can imagine, we can conceive of a world without abortion, where people recognize Christ in the least of us. We can conceive of a world where women get the health care that they deserve. We know that God desires a world where we recognize our fellow human beings for what they are-fellow sons created in the image and likeness of God. It is up to us to have faith in God's will for us, whatever it is, to be open to the virtue of hope when we see the world, and to love others as we love ourselves.

By arguing for a proper understanding of the words conceivable and imaginable, Sheed strengthens the mind of his reader, and the reader can then use this great gift of God better. Our reason, illuminated by Divine Revelation, urges us to carry on the good fight when the spirit of the age counsels surrender. It urges us to use our minds to see the great mystery of the Trinity even more fully. And it urges us to take heart when there appears to be no hope.

The Best Lines in all of Literature

2008-08-17T22:31:00.000-07:00

I may not have mentioned Walker Percy many times on this blog yet, but it is not due to his lack of influence on me. I've found all of his writing to be insightful, clear, and concise. The occasional truly hilarious passage (such as this one on the virtues of bourbon), combined with a prominent tone of the crotchety old man who still holds out hope for the people in the world, only serve to sweeten the pot.

William Faulkner's writing may be insightful, but nobody mistakes it for clear and concise. He is also capable of moments of hilarity. His thoughts on his works, contrary to a popular interpretation as pessimism, shows a similar hope. Both writers combat the fatalistic world view that our choices do not matter. Both refuse to give up hope that individual men can choose the right. In some way they echo what Aragorn says in Tolkien's masterpiece, "I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day! An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the Age of Men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand!"I owe a great deal to these men. Their thoughts speak for themselves.

So, having taken note of what is commonly called the crisis of the Church, let me make a final personal observation: that if one judged only from the media, the national press, or network news, one would conclude that the Church is washed up, hopelessly divided politically, the Holy Father hopelessly behind the times. Yet one goes to Mass on any ordinary Sunday and there they are, the Catholic people, more than ever, at five, six, seven Masses a day. And there is the priest still, thank God, holding aloft the body of Christ. And let the Holy Father, this marvelous man, appear anywhere and there occurs all over the world a tumult not of despair and division but of rejoicing and hope, and not merely among Catholics.
Walker Percy

And since because within this sheet of paper you now hold the best of the old South which is dead, and the words you read were written upon it with the best (each box said, the very best) of the new North which has conquered and which therefore, whether it likes it or not, will have to survive, I now believe that you and I are, strangely enough, doomed to live.
William Faulkner

Percy's piece is the conclusion of an address to graduating seminarians. Faulkner's is the proposal of a world weary Confederate soldier to his beau following their capture of a Union supply train. Any joy or strength or recognition of the truth one receives from their works comes from their willingness to look at the true condition in which the world is. Percy argues that a work's uplifting nature is built upon the truth of his writing; thus, he doesn't shy away from the world's failings. To paraphrase Flannery O'Connor, show me 50 women looking for an uplifting story, and I'll show you a womens' book club. These two writers look at the world the way it is, and we recognize what they see, and from this unwillingness to lie joy can flow. These writers affirm (or confirm) our experiences, thus showing that we are not as alone as we thought. And, like love and truth, literature also must adhere to the truth.

Gratuity Not Included

2008-08-15T20:41:00.000-07:00

I think that all people who are willing to look at this world honestly recognize, in a certain way, the fact that they don't have to be in this world. We all realize that the world would continue on if we weren't here; the world doesn't depend upon us for its existence. With this comes the realization that we have free will, the ability to choose. This also differentiates us from every other animal we have contacted. Our self awareness, combined with our gratuity to the world, can result in on of two possibilities.

The person can recognize that he is free to see the world for what it is, free to live. He can react with joy that God has given him this life. He can respond to this grace the only sane way, with gratitude.

Alternately, he can react with anger that he does not have to be here. He can rage impotently against the world, against his God, against himself. See Walker Percy: "The present age...is possessed by a sense of dislocation, a loss of personal identity...It is the most scientifically advanced, savage, democratic, inhuman, sentimental, murderous century in human history."

The only way out of this dilemma is to reject the starting assumption; if we don't exist or are necessary to the existence of the world, we don't have a problem. If we don't exist in the way that we perceive our existence, as being distinct from the rest of the world, we can become hindu. This isn't an option for most of us, however. The belief that individuality is an illusion, as Peter Kreeft puts it, is something that goes against the air we breath as inheritors of western civilization, and, ultimately, the Jewish understanding of the world. We can believe that we are necessary for the world to be, which would make the holder of this view both his own idol and an idolater. This is truly insane as well as completely dehumanizing-what could be worse than to worship that which you know is not God?

I think that the recognition of this basic truth, which I have had trouble naming, can be grasped by most people. It points right at the truth western civilization has held for as long as it has existed, and this truth comes from Christianity. Thus, our own nature points to God's truth.

The Subtitle

2008-08-14T22:49:00.001-07:00

"Quid est veritas", or "what is truth?" in Latin, reflects perfectly the spirit of relativism that permeates today's society. This quote, which Pontius Pilate uttered on his way to condemning Jesus Christ our Lord to death to prevent an uprising, shows the age of sin. Sin is never new, never alive; there are new saints who show God's love in different ways, but there is no new sin, only old sins recycled. The idea that there is no truth has been hit upon before this age; however, since it doesn't have the power to strengthen us (try rallying the troops by saying "Well, the other side's just as right as we are-it doesn't really matter,") it has never been a cornerstone of a society.

The subtitle reflects my thoughts on this worldview. It seems painfully obvious to me that there is truth; try telling a little kid that the sky is red. The fact is we all recognize truth, and, to a certain extent, moral truth. One argument against God's existence even relies upon this truth. It holds that since evil exists in this world, and a good God wouldn't allow evil, He cannot exist. Leaving aside the answer to the question (free will), this objection, which is probably the strongest argument possible for atheism, disproves relativism once again. If moral truth isn't truth, then the objection doesn't stand; if the death of innocents isn't really bad, there is no evil to speak of, so the argument collapses. Naturally, relativists can't be relativistic about relativism-that must be gospel truth. The subtitle comes from my thoughts that it seems like they just need to be slapped in the face to wake up. I hope we all recognize that I'm not literally advocating slapping moral relativists around. I'm simply trying to get across my surprise that they refuse to accept what we cannot live without. And that's why I'll give them quid est veritas if they ask for it.

Stupid Lyrics for a song

2008-08-12T22:09:00.000-07:00

I was listening to a Christian radio station today and I heard something that epitomizes this world's misunderstanding of what a church is. The song mentioned the fact that Christ died dirty, bleeding, and scarred. It then went on to say that He wouldn't be comfortable with the "stained glass crowd" at his church and would prefer to be among other people who the song implies are more authentic. This statement makes me very uncomfortable for a few reasons. For starters, who's to say that regular churchgoers would refuse to look at Jesus as he was? In my experience, I've been closer to Jesus when I've been more involved with the "stained glass crowd." I've found that the majority of Christians I know who take their faith seriously end drawing me closer to Christ, as we would expect of His Church.

And that brings me to the meat and potatoes of this problem. It's easy to forget that the Church is the Body of Christ. It's easy to look at our fellow churchgoers with their flaws and forget to love them. But how can we love Him who we cannot see if we can't love those we can? It's easy to see the problems in the Church-low Mass attendance, a priest shortage, an unwillingness to accept Church teaching on the male priesthood, contraception, and abortion. And at times it may be tempting to break apart from this Church-Jesus doesn't want His people to live lukewarm lives, as I've tended to do. He doesn't want His people to fall for new, me-first, faux "philosophy." However, the answer to this problem isn't to divorce ourselves from His Body. That must make the pain so much worse for Him. The answer is to remember that unity really is important, that His Church is in some way His Body, and that apart from Him we can do nothing. The answer is to pray for others that they may see the truth. The answer is to talk to others so that love and truth may hold together, for separately they will fail.

Ultimately, I'd respond to the songwriter by saying that we do see Christ beaten, suffering, and dirty. Most Catholic churches have crucifixes to remind us of this truth. We are given the chance to receive Him in His entirety, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. But we must remember that this gift, which is a personal gift to each of us, is also a gift to His Church. And we don't choose who Christ calls.

We don't get to choose whether to accept the Church after we accept Jesus. He made that choice for us by making the Church His Body. We do get to choose to accept His call to serve Him-some by preaching the truth, others by the corporal works of mercy, and others in different ways. It is our duty to accept this call.

Update: the song is "My Jesus" by Todd Agnew. A tip of the hat to Jon Knox at Testimony to Truth for the (very timely) research and legwork for this post.

The Muller Reviews: Willie Mae's Scotch House

2008-08-09T11:29:00.001-07:00

As an appreciation of the beautiful is something I strive to cultivate in myself, food and restaurant reviews are, in my opinion, entirely germane to whatever it is I mull over.

Now that there is some semblance of a metaphysical grounding, on to the food!

Willie Mae's Scotch House, a famed fried chicken joint in the Treme neighborhood of New Orleans, is widely considered to have the best fried chicken known to man. No less an authority than the James Beard Foundation awarded the 2005 America's Classics Award, given to restaurants catering in outstanding regional fare. As the south is known for its fried chicken, I think it's safe to assume that this restaurant has the best fried chicken in the south, and, therefore, the world. At least, that's the claim. This restaurant is also known for absurdly long waits-averaging about an hour to get your food.

The family showed up around 11:30 for lunch. We were promptly seated, and drinks arrived shortly thereafter. Then the wait began. Apparently the electricity went out, taking the fryer with it, so we waited about an hour before the food arrived. It became apparent that once one table was served, the kitchen was working fairly efficiently. The food was, for the most part, good. Willie Mae's fried chicken is brined to stay moist, and it is the moistest chicken I've ever had with such a crispy skin. The skin was a little too salty for my taste, but the rest of the family thought it was about right. De gustibus non est disputandum, they say, but I generally prefer a bit more seasoning and a bit less salt on my chicken. The red beans and rice, on the other hand, were under seasoned by any objective measurement. The cornbread is listed as a dessert and is the creamiest I've ever had-it was the high point of the meal. The restaurant has a solid sweet tea. Lunch runs ten bucks for a chicken platter with a side, two bucks for a tea, and fifty cents for the cornbread.

Willie Mae's is a good, solid neighborhood joint with excellent fried chicken. If I lived in the neighborhood I'd probably value it more. However, as I can conceive of better fried chicken, I can't call it the best fried chicken in the world. It's a nice place, but I can't call it a must-see. If you're in the neighborhood, though, you might as well check it out.

Smoking (but not in the boys' room)

2008-08-08T21:53:00.000-07:00

In the absence of seriousness, hilarity ensues.
After wrestling with a few post ideas, I realized that I had no thoughts that I consider developed enough to warrant a post. Luckily, this gentleman did.
Theology of Pipe Smoking 1
Theology of Pipe Smoking 2

As a man who enjoys a good smoke and a bit of whimsy, I'm convinced that we can all learn from this gentleman's ruminations. There's nothing wrong with an appreciation of the world and God's gifts, even if said appreciation is shown in an absurd manner. Remember-gnosticism was condemned by the Church from the get-go.

Divorcing Truth from Love

2008-08-07T10:12:00.001-07:00

"Love" without truth is sentimentality.
"Truth" without love is brutality.

I've noticed that I have a tendency to separate truth from love in conversation.

One problem of this age is the redefining of love from an act of the will, or a choice, to a feeling. I can't really subject my feelings to truth; if I could I would never have to do something I didn't feel like doing. Last time I checked, though, I don't like cutting the grass or paying my rent, but that feeling doesn't prevent me from doing them. Since we can decide to do things because they are right, we can clearly submit our will to truth. And since love is an act of the will, it follows that love is submitted to truth; love not submitted to truth then isn't true love. Thus, when I fail to say something that someone needs to hear, I may act out of many emotions, but I don't act out of love.

Without love, however, truth is brought down to something less than it is. It becomes the recitation of facts. It results in the willingness to impose an ideology upon others without regard to their well being. It results in taking a specific issue such as concern for the poor or the respect of women past all reason and ignoring all other truths, thus becoming less than truth. Yes, it's true that people are being paid unjust wages, but we must remember to love others, including those who are doing the paying. Yes, it's true that women were treated as second class citizens for much of American history, but we can't use that truth as an excuse, a tool, to justify killing the unborn. Without love we get the Soviet Union and Roe V. Wade. Even worse, with a completely false "truth" we run into the Holocaust, where people swallow some B.S. hook, like, and sinker. By loving this "truth"-choosing to act according to it-the world commits terrible atrocity.

There's no real middle ground here- as is the case with the humanity and divinity of Christ. You have to embrace both-He is both fully human and fully divine. We must have both love and truth.

Saint Francis was entraced with the love of God and our chance to further know that love in heaven. He recognized God's truth far more than most of us do. Saint Thomas Aquinas was entranced with the truth God gives and will further reveal in heaven. He recognized God's boundless love far more than most of us do.

In the lives of the saints truth and love are held together.

Are You Devout ?

2008-08-06T10:59:00.000-07:00

New rule:
In order to call yourself a devout Catholic (or for that matter, a devout member of any religion), the following criteria must be met:
1. You must accept all Church teachings-no exceptions. So, if you're a devout Catholic who supports abortion...
2. You must strive to live by said teachings. So, if you're a devout Catholic who agrees that abortion results in the death of a human being, but you refuse to live by that teaching to prevent the death of innocents...
3. You must put Christ and the Church at the center of your life. So, if you're a devout Catholic who values the Church because it agrees with public policy X and not vice versa...
4. You must be willing to take heat for your beliefs. So, if you're a devout Catholic who isn't willing to witness to your acceptance of the Church...
5. You must not call yourself devout. So, if you're a devout Catholic who calls himself devout...
This post is driven by my concern that those the media refers to as "devout" do not necessarily hold what the Church teaches to be true. I'm not gonna offer citations because I don't think it necessary and it's a bit inconvenient. My concern with this issue is that it attacks the truth and appears to me to promote a form of relativism. If I can be "devout" without following the Church, then I can scandalize others into believing that the truth doesn't really matter. And let's face facts: it makes no sense to be Catholic if you don't accept the truth the Church teaches. Of course, the fact that a person doesn't accept the Church's teaching doesn't give me the right to impugn his motives or make judgments on his soul, since said right doesn't exist. It doesn't excuse me from exercising true love of that person or allow me to affect a "holier-than-thou" atmosphere. It also doesn't, however, excuse the media and/or person from claiming to be more Catholic than the Magisterium and the Pope. Everyone knows you have to be schismatic to claim that.
Postscript: Thus begins the "If I were King..." periodic mullings.

The Beautiful, Redux

2008-08-05T08:29:00.001-07:00

I'm not going to claim that I fully think out what follows everytime I eat; I'm usually in too much of a hurry to do so. However, I'm convinced it's true whether I remember or not.
If recognizing the beautiful is in fact important, then the aesthetics we surround ourselves with are, at the very least, not irrelevant, as they can remind us of our Creator. Ultimately this appreciation of the world stems from the Incarnation, and is thoroughly Christian. Even, especially, the most abstentious monk appreciates the value of the world. And this truth that the world is good should be recognized and embraced; Chesterton argued that in the darkest of the dark ages this truth alone kept Europe alive and free.
This provides a metaphysical grounding for your and my love of good food, drink, music, and architecture. However, the consequences of this line of thought go further than simply eating good food. The substance of the following argument is taken from Wendell Berry, even though I don't remember him using the word Incarnation at all in his thoughts on this subject.
The Incarnation anchors us to this world and requires us to recognize its goodness. We can appreciate this goodness more by accepting the goodness of the part of the world closest to us. This is a good reason to grow some of your own food. You can see humankind's reliance on the world and appreciate what we are blessed enough to receive. As someone who hated working in the family plot (and I had to do very little work) I understood a bit of what is done to bring food to the table. As a fisherman and occasional hunter, the opportunity to catch our own game prevents me from looking at a pork chop as just a pork chop; issues such as the quality of life of the animal I am consuming become more important. Farmers markets promote a similar truth. On the other hand, when I walk into a store, buy some over preservatived "food" that was made one thousand miles away on a factory farm and picked by underpaid, and, I would argue, exploited immigrant workers, my food is promoting a different "truth." It promotes the falsehood that this world doesn't matter, that people don't matter, and that what I eat magically appears on my plate.
If we don't recognize the value and importance of this world how can we recognize the infinitely higher value and importance of the world we cannot see? This is why I love recipes I consider local. This is why I love my local music and architecture, as well as authentic Florida food. And this is why I REFUSE to eat Chinese crawfish as long as LA crawfish is available.
LA crawfish taste better anyway.

The Good, the True, and the Beautiful

2008-08-04T10:06:00.001-07:00

Unlike the spaghetti western starring Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Eli Wallach, the world isn't divided into the good, the bad, and the ugly. Many thinkers, however, have argued for a three-fold way for us to know God, which is where Clint comes in. They argue that by knowing the good, the true, and the beautiful, we will be drawn to knowing God and seeing Him more fully. By divorcing ourselves from either of these three we make this more difficult.
We see the good in the lives of the saints and, most importantly, Christ. We see the truth in what He and His Church have revealed. We see the beautiful in the liturgy, Gregorian Chant and polyphony, and the world in general.
I tend to see the beautiful as icing on the metaphorical cake. That is, if one knows the truth but isn't open to the good, he can easily be a bad man-even the devil quotes scripture. If one is open to the good but doesn't know the truth, he can be led astray all too easily. If one doesn't look like a supermodel, who cares? The problem with this way of thinking is that the good, the true, and the beautiful, in this way of thinking, are not so much what we strive to be as how we can look at the world. I think they draw our minds to the eternal-they don't change. We may understand more of the truth, but we all agree that the truth doesn't change if we want it to. How can one strive to be truly good if good always changes? One doesn't recognize beauty if it's purely subjective and changeable-one defines it.
I think you can argue that this time tends to ignore beauty. How often do you look at a little flower or a great tree and recognize its beauty? I know I tend to ignore beauty. In fact, I think this inability to recognize beauty leads to lust. Nude sculptures, which examines the beauty of the human body, don't excite lust. And once again, this shows how ignoring the beautiful is the choice of a fool, or, more specifically, all too often me.
The good, the true, and the beautiful are legs of a stool. When we ignore one we do so at our own peril. When we welcome all we allow God to draw us closer to Him, so that He may conform us to them, and ultimately to Him.

So it begins

2008-08-04T09:51:00.000-07:00

Several intelligent people whom I know and trust suggested that I start keeping a journal. While this is obviously not a journal, I am hoping that it will help me to mull over what I see, experience, and think about in the world, as well as the age-old truths. As the bedrock truths are both easy to forget and impossible to exhaust, I imagine I'll have plenty of mulling to do. I hope ya'll will have some wisdom to offer because, like a philosophical tick, I survive (read: learn) by sucking the blood (read: knowledge) of others.