"Can't you spare a poor widow a pence for a piece of bread?"
A young rich businessman is there staring at her. He doesn't say a word. He proceeds to toss a quarter her way and walk away. He doesn't look at her, just tosses a quarter and walks away. The widow is happy yet feels unsatisfied at the same time. She can get her daily bread, yet she wanted the businessman to see her face, to see her suffering. She can't explain why she has this feeling. Happy, yet sad, able to eat, yet wanting relationship, wanting someone to see her as a real person.
We are all like the poor widow and the rich businessman. We all have suffering that we wish we could share with other people, and we are all like the rich businessman who wants to act with compassion, but not step outside his comfort zone to do so. It is understandable that it is hard to see suffering in front of us and be overwhelmed with what to do. To actually see a person suffering immensely, causes us discomfort. Some people rationalize the suffering of the widow. She made bad choices, she's addicted to alcohol, she didn't use her money responsibly. Others have a response like the businessman, give some money but don't think about her plight in any way. Look away, keep going, don't do anything uncomfortable. Finally, some people act with compassion and engage the widow in a conversation and treat her like a person, not someone to be afraid of. Some may ask, why isn't the response of giving money enough, why do I have to actually pay attention to the widow as well. To not pay attention to the widow is to allow suffering to perpetuate without looking at the structural problems which cause suffering (O'Connell, Compassion: Loving Our Neighbor in an Age of Globalization).
When we look at structures that perpetuate suffering, we have to examines structures themselves, how people run structures, and our role in a structure. Structures are a facet of any community. Every community builds a structure in order to govern its life. Therefore, structures have bottom lines because every community has a reason for its existence. A bottom line can be something as simple as x community will make y good to sell for profit, or x community will have z religious tenets and uphold them. These bottom lines provide purpose for the community. Structures enforce this purpose and help provide unity in the community.
All people want unity with others. This unity is a desirable cause which every person should want. If people don't want unity with others, then I would check if something else is going on with the person. However, we can value unity with our community over and against love of neighbor and allowing others to find unity with others. Every community also has people, who may or may not agree with the bottom line. Every person also has situations which may help or hinder their ability to see the bottom line as the elite presents it. A strong community is able to have people who have diverse opinions, diverse situations, and different needs, and yet still have the different needs met. A weak community, in times of trial, falls toward the center and its bottom line, and loses track of the people in the community.
So, what are the symptoms of a weak community? Isolationism, defensive tendencies, and an excluding of other people are symptoms of a weak community. Sadly, these are only the symptoms, they are often not the root cause of the weakening of community. The root cause is often hidden in the institution or embedded in the greater structures that govern many institutions. The root cause can be anything that plagues a structure. Poor finances, lack of staff, anger at other institutions, scandal, etc. Sometimes, practical things go wrong with a strong community, such as these things, yet in the best communities there is transparency and communication about the problems going on in the community. Transparency allows for people to see legitimate problems and work together as elite and participant to make a solution which helps the whole community. A lack of transparency causes secrecy, distrust, anger, and finally the dissolution of community.
This lack of transparency is extremely important to examine in the breakdown of community, because it affects our compassion and social justice relations with others. When we can be open with ourselves, and when structures can be open, then love can radiate from the community to those who are outside it. Also, the people in the structure benefit from openness and communication to keep bridges of trust in troubling times. However, this must be an open offer to all in the community, as even the outsider in the community can provide a lot of insight as to why things are happening in the community, and can bring the truth to light if things are hidden. Real compassion is needed to engage people in the community, even if they do not fit the bottom line of the community. However, though real compassion is hard, we cannot let our idolatry keep people out who may have valuable insight to offer for the growth of the community.
Now let's tie the knots of compassion to what I've noted about authority above. In order to heal the systemic brokenness that causes the widow to suffer, we need to reflect on how systems are causing the widow to suffer. Most often, systems seek to keep people out, because it's uncomfortable to engage real suffering. Also, in keeping people out, the bottom line stays "pure", as "pure" as any communal intention can be. (Postmodernism presents with any full communal assent to every truth of a community, and psychology teaches us a lot about brainwashing and how habits and rituals can create this brainwashing.) Therefore, systems can create a distance between people in and out of the community. The brokenness of relationship only carries further when looking to the outsiders of the community.
So who is the poor widow whom we must have responsibility for? It's the person who's suffering from an administration that won't talk to them. It's the person struggling with homework and stressing over exams. It's the person crying in the corner because her parents just died in a tragic accident. It's you and me, at points in our lives, when suffering befalls us, just or unjust, and "when we all need somebody to lean on". Part of living in community with others, and being community for others, greater than our associated bonds, is seeing that real people suffer real drama, and compassion is needed to heal this suffering. Our structures and communities are only good as they allow us to live that real compassion for others. When our structures discourage us from loving our neighbor in a real way, then we have to examine what has gone wrong in community.
So who is the rich businessman? All of us, when we ignore our neighbor and perpetuate structural injustice which harms the good of those in the community and outside it.
And how do we heal this suffering? Love. Love of God, and love of neighbor. It's a risk we all have to take though, as our structures continually tell us to focus on ourselves. Our religion teaches us to focus on our selves and our own sin, our government tells us we have to work for a living and continues to create a system where more and more of our resources go toward sustenance. Our answers are not in what we see as structures in our age. Our answers come from God, and being loving, and being neighborly, and finding the good structures which aid the common good. Please God may we be able to find structures which help the common good, and encourage love of all people.
Aristocrates
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Saturday, May 21, 2011
It's Epistemology Time
Though the title sounds scary, it's really not. Today's blog post is asking about how we know what we know, and how this affects our bias toward knowledge. We're going to take a brief look at the two most modern thought processes and how they affect our knowing in the current world.
First, modern philosophy. Modern philosophy privileges ontology. There are two main schools of thought that occur in modern philosophy. Rationalism believes the mind is the source of reason, and as such the thinking mind is the most certain knowledge of our own and others' existence. (Notable rationalists include Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza). Their appeal to mind works with metaphysics to think about the transcendentals, (God, beauty, truth, etc). Rationalist philosophy seeks one specific way the world works. Everything is ordered because reason is ordered and feelings and sentiment are dismissed as processes which guide people away from transcendentals.
Empiricist philosophy is different in that it seeks to use experience as a system. However, it utilizes experience to build singular theories about the universe. Experience also has a limited definition, in that experience which is privileged does not include feelings, but mostly includes trial and error propositions. Empiricism values thought and differentiates it from feeling. A notable example of how experience is used is the problem Hume discusses about a cue hitting a pool ball which hits other pool balls. Hume says that without experimentation it is not certain that the cue ball will hit and cause the other pool balls to move. (This is in response to John Locke, who says that there is certain a priori knowledge that certain things that will always happen based on reason). These differences between rationalism and empiricism show the conversation in Enlightenment thought. Reason is differentiated from trial and error, and feelings/sentiment are eliminated from all thought so as to provide for objective reasonable analysis.
Postmodern philosophy takes this conversation seriously. It engages modern philosophy and examines metaphysics to look at being. However, postmodern philosophy questions transcendentals and the appeal to objective reason. Postmodern philosophy examines the self as interacting the world, affected by history, objects, and other people in living life. All parts of experience are examined: thinking, feeling, interacting. In examining interaction, absolutes are questioned as being conditioned by historical circumstances and people's feelings and biases which are not admitted in modern philosophy.
Why this examination matters? Our world functions in a heavily "modern" mindset. Many people believe there is one specific answer to all of life's questions, and our media outlets all have specific ideas on what they think is right. Our religions for the most part also function in this one way mentality, and use different strands of metaphysics to justify their claims. However, this also is a significant cause of conflict in our current world. Many people claim to have one answer, and when these communities come into conflict, they cause issues and harm the common good. These issues include polarization and judgment just to name a couple. The strength in the modern position is that its metaphysics is unitive. It unites all reality into a coherent whole.
Postmodern philosophy is something which challenges this notion of building community and seeks to eliminate metaphysics as something which is only a unitive thing. It dislikes metaphysics because of its tendency to focus on absolute transcendentals. The strength in the postmodern position is that it enables people to listen to the other. However, the deconstruction which occurs in postmodernism makes it unclear for some whether anything is true. Therefore, when postmodernism enters the discourse it's troubling for many because it is unclear whether anything is true. This knowledge threatens community building as we know as people who build community on ideology are questioned about their feelings and intention.
And what we need to learn from both perspectives? In the end, love is the centering force that guides all human life. Though love looks different for the different people we encounter, when we see and perceive the existence of others, we acknowledge their status as created like we are. I use these ideas to build a philosophy centered on love and compassion. Others think I would say too much to propose a postmodern ethic centered on love and charity, but that's part of the fun of discussion and discussing knowledge.
Aristocrates
First, modern philosophy. Modern philosophy privileges ontology. There are two main schools of thought that occur in modern philosophy. Rationalism believes the mind is the source of reason, and as such the thinking mind is the most certain knowledge of our own and others' existence. (Notable rationalists include Rene Descartes, Baruch Spinoza). Their appeal to mind works with metaphysics to think about the transcendentals, (God, beauty, truth, etc). Rationalist philosophy seeks one specific way the world works. Everything is ordered because reason is ordered and feelings and sentiment are dismissed as processes which guide people away from transcendentals.
Empiricist philosophy is different in that it seeks to use experience as a system. However, it utilizes experience to build singular theories about the universe. Experience also has a limited definition, in that experience which is privileged does not include feelings, but mostly includes trial and error propositions. Empiricism values thought and differentiates it from feeling. A notable example of how experience is used is the problem Hume discusses about a cue hitting a pool ball which hits other pool balls. Hume says that without experimentation it is not certain that the cue ball will hit and cause the other pool balls to move. (This is in response to John Locke, who says that there is certain a priori knowledge that certain things that will always happen based on reason). These differences between rationalism and empiricism show the conversation in Enlightenment thought. Reason is differentiated from trial and error, and feelings/sentiment are eliminated from all thought so as to provide for objective reasonable analysis.
Postmodern philosophy takes this conversation seriously. It engages modern philosophy and examines metaphysics to look at being. However, postmodern philosophy questions transcendentals and the appeal to objective reason. Postmodern philosophy examines the self as interacting the world, affected by history, objects, and other people in living life. All parts of experience are examined: thinking, feeling, interacting. In examining interaction, absolutes are questioned as being conditioned by historical circumstances and people's feelings and biases which are not admitted in modern philosophy.
Why this examination matters? Our world functions in a heavily "modern" mindset. Many people believe there is one specific answer to all of life's questions, and our media outlets all have specific ideas on what they think is right. Our religions for the most part also function in this one way mentality, and use different strands of metaphysics to justify their claims. However, this also is a significant cause of conflict in our current world. Many people claim to have one answer, and when these communities come into conflict, they cause issues and harm the common good. These issues include polarization and judgment just to name a couple. The strength in the modern position is that its metaphysics is unitive. It unites all reality into a coherent whole.
Postmodern philosophy is something which challenges this notion of building community and seeks to eliminate metaphysics as something which is only a unitive thing. It dislikes metaphysics because of its tendency to focus on absolute transcendentals. The strength in the postmodern position is that it enables people to listen to the other. However, the deconstruction which occurs in postmodernism makes it unclear for some whether anything is true. Therefore, when postmodernism enters the discourse it's troubling for many because it is unclear whether anything is true. This knowledge threatens community building as we know as people who build community on ideology are questioned about their feelings and intention.
And what we need to learn from both perspectives? In the end, love is the centering force that guides all human life. Though love looks different for the different people we encounter, when we see and perceive the existence of others, we acknowledge their status as created like we are. I use these ideas to build a philosophy centered on love and compassion. Others think I would say too much to propose a postmodern ethic centered on love and charity, but that's part of the fun of discussion and discussing knowledge.
Aristocrates
Monday, May 2, 2011
On Forgiveness
A massive crowd gathers in front of a stadium. The royal guard has brought a prisoner to be tried before the magistrate. This is an exchange which occurs in the midst of this chaos.
"Why do you bring this peasant before me?"
"Magistrate Lionel, this man has been accused of causing mass terror among the people, perpetuating lies, and is responsible for a world of existential fear, and tens of thousands of deaths."
"Hmm...? This peasant caused all of this."
"Yes, Magistrate. With his fancy rhetoric, and his inciting of the public he leads lots of common people to assault our way of life. He also inspires people in other nations to instill fear among their people."
"So what would you have me do with this prisoner. And what say you prisoner, have you no words to defend yourself?"
The prisoner remains silent.
"So you have nothing to say. These people accuse you of great and hideous crime and crisis of humanity. I have the ability to end your life or save it."
As this questioning is going on, the prisoner is sniped by a vigilante and runs away. The crowds rejoice at the death of this man who caused so much terror to the public. The magistrate is stunned as he was confused by the silence of this individual, and the whole process.
As one man dies, millions rejoice, because of the pain and suffering he inflicted on the whole world. There are two conflicting needs which need to be met. People have a legitimate need for justice for the fears which this person inflicted. Existential discomfort in any means is a hard thing to deal with (and I mean this to be an inclusive term, dealing with all sorts of sin and general awkwardness in interactions which occurs in relating). Some people inflict physical terror on others, others a psychological fear and harm people's mental safety. Either way, people want retribution for their suffering. There is also a need to engage why people are creating existential fear, and to realize that all people are capable of inflicting existential fear on others and as such we need forgiveness for ourselves and others.
First, the need for justice is something that all people have. Anyone who has been wronged, suffered betrayal, or had someone else cause existential fear to them wants justice for the suffering that was inflicted. Even if the person is thankful for the experience later, there is still a desire for justice in response to the discomfort people experience. Retribution is a part of justice, hence the Old Testament witness of "an eye for an eye" (Exodus). This desire in the Old Testament is merciful as it limits the amount of retribution which can be attributed to any particular individual. The case sample above presents a slightly different scenario though. Justice is only seen as accomplished when one person dies for the sake of a world of people's existential fears and sufferings. Justice is unbalanced as one person is the source of blame for all people's fears. However, there is a lack in thinking about justice. Since people fail and do many things to cause existential discomfort, justice can only go so far to meet people's needs. Returning an eye for an eye creates a cycle of hatred which never ceases, as someone is always wronging and wronged. Our search for justice is an existential need, but real justice goes unfulfilled when we focus on retribution as it never is complete.
Therefore, we need another step. We have to engage the other in understanding why people do the actions they do, and this may be something that happens explicitly (dialogue) or through symbol (crime profiling). For example, why does the prisoner in the intro story perform certain actions which cause existential fear for others that leads to his death? The prisoner doesn't give an answer in the story, as he is certain it will not change his fate. However, some people in acting leave symbols as to why they are doing certain actions. These symbols can come in different forms, (this is particularly important in examining crime scenes as the way a scene is left often tells the motives of the person who committed the crime). (For more, see shows like Criminal Minds or read some books on criminal profiling.)
Now, we cannot excuse the creation of existential fear when it becomes a sin against another person. Even if we know the reasons behind these sins, this does not justify immoral action. However, the understanding of the other enables us to examine ourselves in times when we sin. When we sin and when conversion comes, we want to be reintegrated into the community. We must attempt solidarity with the other, because if we have this experience, then it is reasonable that others can have this experience. To integrate people back into the community, after any fault, we need forgiveness.
Forgiveness does not mean we forget the faults of the other. Forgiveness means we try to meet the other where they are at, understand how and why they have hurt us, and figure out the best means of being/restoring relationship. This looks different for every situation. However, we cannot say that death is ever justifiable for forgiveness, as death ends the possibility of a relationship and conversion for the other. The death of the prisoner is a lamentable loss as well because every person has some means of teaching the entire world and with the death of the other, we lose the ability to learn from the other. Forgiveness, then requires meeting the other person where they are at, and restoring dignity and community to the person who has gone away. Forgiveness is not easy, as it requires pulling back our immediate response to meet our retributive need for justice, and seeking to meet the needs of the other. Our attempt must be to bring the other back into the whole community, and in dialoguing with the other, we might learn ways in which we need forgiveness for how we hurt others. Admitting our own wrongs is a great way to enable forgiveness as it creates an openness to love others, because we admit our imperfections, and place ourselves as we are. Also, by admitting our wrongs, we go to building a better future, because in admitting our wrongs, we can listen to others in their difficulty, before they get to a point where they sin against others. (Some of the existential doubts and fears can not be dealt with in the same way, as that is a shock about human difference, which is another topic for another day.)
Aristocrates
"Why do you bring this peasant before me?"
"Magistrate Lionel, this man has been accused of causing mass terror among the people, perpetuating lies, and is responsible for a world of existential fear, and tens of thousands of deaths."
"Hmm...? This peasant caused all of this."
"Yes, Magistrate. With his fancy rhetoric, and his inciting of the public he leads lots of common people to assault our way of life. He also inspires people in other nations to instill fear among their people."
"So what would you have me do with this prisoner. And what say you prisoner, have you no words to defend yourself?"
The prisoner remains silent.
"So you have nothing to say. These people accuse you of great and hideous crime and crisis of humanity. I have the ability to end your life or save it."
As this questioning is going on, the prisoner is sniped by a vigilante and runs away. The crowds rejoice at the death of this man who caused so much terror to the public. The magistrate is stunned as he was confused by the silence of this individual, and the whole process.
As one man dies, millions rejoice, because of the pain and suffering he inflicted on the whole world. There are two conflicting needs which need to be met. People have a legitimate need for justice for the fears which this person inflicted. Existential discomfort in any means is a hard thing to deal with (and I mean this to be an inclusive term, dealing with all sorts of sin and general awkwardness in interactions which occurs in relating). Some people inflict physical terror on others, others a psychological fear and harm people's mental safety. Either way, people want retribution for their suffering. There is also a need to engage why people are creating existential fear, and to realize that all people are capable of inflicting existential fear on others and as such we need forgiveness for ourselves and others.
First, the need for justice is something that all people have. Anyone who has been wronged, suffered betrayal, or had someone else cause existential fear to them wants justice for the suffering that was inflicted. Even if the person is thankful for the experience later, there is still a desire for justice in response to the discomfort people experience. Retribution is a part of justice, hence the Old Testament witness of "an eye for an eye" (Exodus). This desire in the Old Testament is merciful as it limits the amount of retribution which can be attributed to any particular individual. The case sample above presents a slightly different scenario though. Justice is only seen as accomplished when one person dies for the sake of a world of people's existential fears and sufferings. Justice is unbalanced as one person is the source of blame for all people's fears. However, there is a lack in thinking about justice. Since people fail and do many things to cause existential discomfort, justice can only go so far to meet people's needs. Returning an eye for an eye creates a cycle of hatred which never ceases, as someone is always wronging and wronged. Our search for justice is an existential need, but real justice goes unfulfilled when we focus on retribution as it never is complete.
Therefore, we need another step. We have to engage the other in understanding why people do the actions they do, and this may be something that happens explicitly (dialogue) or through symbol (crime profiling). For example, why does the prisoner in the intro story perform certain actions which cause existential fear for others that leads to his death? The prisoner doesn't give an answer in the story, as he is certain it will not change his fate. However, some people in acting leave symbols as to why they are doing certain actions. These symbols can come in different forms, (this is particularly important in examining crime scenes as the way a scene is left often tells the motives of the person who committed the crime). (For more, see shows like Criminal Minds or read some books on criminal profiling.)
Now, we cannot excuse the creation of existential fear when it becomes a sin against another person. Even if we know the reasons behind these sins, this does not justify immoral action. However, the understanding of the other enables us to examine ourselves in times when we sin. When we sin and when conversion comes, we want to be reintegrated into the community. We must attempt solidarity with the other, because if we have this experience, then it is reasonable that others can have this experience. To integrate people back into the community, after any fault, we need forgiveness.
Forgiveness does not mean we forget the faults of the other. Forgiveness means we try to meet the other where they are at, understand how and why they have hurt us, and figure out the best means of being/restoring relationship. This looks different for every situation. However, we cannot say that death is ever justifiable for forgiveness, as death ends the possibility of a relationship and conversion for the other. The death of the prisoner is a lamentable loss as well because every person has some means of teaching the entire world and with the death of the other, we lose the ability to learn from the other. Forgiveness, then requires meeting the other person where they are at, and restoring dignity and community to the person who has gone away. Forgiveness is not easy, as it requires pulling back our immediate response to meet our retributive need for justice, and seeking to meet the needs of the other. Our attempt must be to bring the other back into the whole community, and in dialoguing with the other, we might learn ways in which we need forgiveness for how we hurt others. Admitting our own wrongs is a great way to enable forgiveness as it creates an openness to love others, because we admit our imperfections, and place ourselves as we are. Also, by admitting our wrongs, we go to building a better future, because in admitting our wrongs, we can listen to others in their difficulty, before they get to a point where they sin against others. (Some of the existential doubts and fears can not be dealt with in the same way, as that is a shock about human difference, which is another topic for another day.)
Aristocrates
Sunday, May 1, 2011
JPII's Beatification
Hello Readers,
For those of you expecting NFL Draft analysis, we're taking a postponement for a day to examine the beatification of JPII. This is a major issue in thinking about symbolism of the Church, and its future philosophy so NFL Draft coverage will continue later this week. Also, I want to write about this issue as JPII's philosophy has done a lot to get me where I'm at in my current track of studying theology. So in homage to someone who would probably want a good challenge, here we go.
In thinking about beatification, we must think about the symbolism we are sending in proclaiming the holiness of a certain individual. We must think about a person's thoughts, actions, and dispositions very carefully before coming to a clear decision about beatifying a certain individual. Of course, an in-depth study is not possible in the confines of this blog, so I'm going to give a brief summary of the pros and cons of beatification and give some reflection at the end.
Pros:
JPII stood up to a lot of people in defense of the faith. This fact cannot be denied. He celebrated Mass in a country where communism was trying to snuff out the Church. His masses on rafts in the woods, or in the Soviet city which was built to have a city without God, testify to this great defiance. Personal authenticity is something I always encourage and his life is a testament to his belief in his faith; regardless of whether one agrees with him or not.
JPII went to the people. In an office that before his reign as pope was seen as isolating, namely Popes didn't do much travel or have a whole lot of exposure, he left the Vatican. Pope John Paul II traveled the world, even in failing health. If we're talking about the Church as the People of God in line with Vatican II, then this extraordinary witness in traveling is a real sign of engaging the People of God. Even before his papacy, he traveled a lot with lay people and engaged them in the life of the Church as well.
Regardless of whether we find him right or wrong, he tried to create a teaching on sexuality which dignifies the life of people. Now, some of this analysis will be done below when we look at the symbol we've created. However, when we look at how he traveled with the people and engaged their lives, we have to at least give him credit for a best effort.
Cons:
JPII's record on the sexual abuse crisis is suspect at best, and this is putting it lightly. To be blunt, if he didn't know anything he's almost as much as fault as if he did. Reason being, if you're in that high of a position of power and don't notice when problems are arising, especially as people are reporting them and priests are being moved around, then that's vincible ignorance. Also, his record with Fr. Maciel of the Legionaries of Christ creates a problem when thinking about his sainthood. JPII took a lot of money and gave a lot of praise to this man. It's possible he didn't know about the major problems of sexual abuse which arose later, but someone had to know. The fact that nothing was done to stop the abuse at the time and that we're finding out about this 30-40 years later is appalling. (And I'd say the same about any place in dealing with the sex abuse crisis, as this has not been an transparent issue by any means.)
In granting beatification to JPII, we are changing what we value as Church, over and against Vatican II, at least with what we see in his modern life. Vatican II talked a lot about collegiality, openness, and a sharing of authority with bishops. JPII made decisions which hinder this collegiality. When every bishop has to be nominated by the Pope, it creates the potential for a Pope to select just people he likes, or people who think like him. In his own papacy, he didn't do this (namely, he selected Cardinal Walter Kasper to a prominent position and these two men think very differently). However, in building this system, people who follow can use this system irresponsibly to promote an agenda, and that has happened, especially in America. Also, we have come to oversymbolize sex and evangelization over and against anything else in the practice of the faith. To be fair, this isn't actually JPII's fault. But in creating a cult of JPII, people often oversimplify what has happened in a life to a few specific ideas. Rushing judgment on someone's thought and action builds a symbol which will affect the Church for hundreds of years to come. Also, the beatification of JPII in some minds will overpower the intended effect of Vatican II, which in doctrinal thought, should not happen. An ecumenical council is always supposed to have more authority than the life of one individual pope, and that is not happening right now.
Finally, if we're going to take seriously that JPII wrote all his own encyclicals, and was the major voice behind them all, then we have to deal with the fact, that at the end of his life we are symbolizing a man who became bitter and mean in his later writings. The tone of Redemptor Hominis, Laborem Exercens and his earlier encyclicals was one of "critical correlation" (Kasper, Jesus the Christ). He examined the world for what was good and bad in it to promote the Gospel message. He also talked about a variety of issues in his early encyclicals and founded it on an anthropology based in Scripture and Christian Tradition. (Again, regardless of his sometimes sloppy scholarship, and whether we agree or not, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that he was trying.) This is a strong case for speaking to many people. However, his later encyclicals, particularly Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae present a much different tone. These encyclicals are more condemning of culture and don't do a lot to work with the culture to make change. If he wrote these encyclicals, then we have to deal with the fact that we are symbolizing that we can do whatever we want in evangelizing peoples. This is not the tone Ad Gentes takes from the Vatican II documents, or the tone of Gaudium et Spes with its appeal to conscience (Cardinal Newman is also a strong voice in this tradition.)
However, we also have to think about what if JPII didn't have fuller voice in his later encyclicals because of his Parkinson's disease. This illness may explain the dramatic change in tone, especially if others had a part in writing these later encyclicals. I haven't done enough scholarship to fully test this theory, but I think there's some possibility here. People may change thoughts and opinions over time, I know that I have, but there are certain dispositions which don't change as easily and come clear in examining writing, speaking, and thinking. For example, I once was a Catholic who thought very in line with JPII. JPII is actually an influential reason for me staying in the Catholic faith past childhood as he engaged my thought. However, as is clear from my writing, I don't think completely like him anymore. One thing that hasn't changed though is my sometimes aggressive nature in dealing with issues. I try not to lack charity, but I'd much rather deal with stuff at its earliest point, rather than dealing with a massive mess later. This aggressiveness also shows up in how I deal with people in authority. If people are promoting a system, or acting in ways that I think are against the common good, I am going to say something. JPII's influence has some effect on me here too. But even though my thoughts changed, this disposition hasn't. Of course, this isn't always the case, but if JPII was influential in Vatican II, and he engaged the people as much as he did in his ministry, then something is not completely adding up from the information we have available to us.
In conclusion, I want to say that by beatifying JPII, I fear what we are symbolizing as a Church in haste. JPII is a holy man, and deserves a lot of attention for what he did in his life. But, by expediting the process for him to become a saint, we're not honoring his life. Beatification, unfortunately, says more about the priorities of the people in power, then it does about the holiness of a person, especially an expedited one. And note what's being emphasized, how he evangelized people, how he promoted dignity through his sexual teaching. Very little is said about he started World Youth Day, or how he supported the Solidarity movement in Poland from the main people supporting his cause. No one talks about his preliminary use of phenomenology in his works (even though to be fair, he never really cites anyone either. For example, in Redemptor Hominis he gives a reflection on technology which is very identical to Heidegger's reflection on the goods of technology in his Introduction to Metaphysics, but JPII never cites Heidegger at all in this work.)
JPII is a complex person, and we lose that complexity when other people want to get their motives and objectives more power. Community always wants to shape a meta-narrative to support its own existence, and ideologies in particular communities are no exception to this phenomenon. JPII's beatification shows how ugly this reality is in our current Church, and we are symbolizing the good of this greater polarity by how we go about beatifying him. The event has already happened at the time of this posting, but we have to be really wary going forward about what we are seeing from the people beatifying him, and also the response given by many parties. I think JPII should be a saint, but maybe not as quick as the pace for this beatification suggests. Also, if JPII is a saint, Archbishop Romero should be a saint as well, for both men worked with the people, albeit in different ways. This is what our Church should be about, and this is in line with what Vatican II says about the Church being the People of God.
For those of you expecting NFL Draft analysis, we're taking a postponement for a day to examine the beatification of JPII. This is a major issue in thinking about symbolism of the Church, and its future philosophy so NFL Draft coverage will continue later this week. Also, I want to write about this issue as JPII's philosophy has done a lot to get me where I'm at in my current track of studying theology. So in homage to someone who would probably want a good challenge, here we go.
In thinking about beatification, we must think about the symbolism we are sending in proclaiming the holiness of a certain individual. We must think about a person's thoughts, actions, and dispositions very carefully before coming to a clear decision about beatifying a certain individual. Of course, an in-depth study is not possible in the confines of this blog, so I'm going to give a brief summary of the pros and cons of beatification and give some reflection at the end.
Pros:
JPII stood up to a lot of people in defense of the faith. This fact cannot be denied. He celebrated Mass in a country where communism was trying to snuff out the Church. His masses on rafts in the woods, or in the Soviet city which was built to have a city without God, testify to this great defiance. Personal authenticity is something I always encourage and his life is a testament to his belief in his faith; regardless of whether one agrees with him or not.
JPII went to the people. In an office that before his reign as pope was seen as isolating, namely Popes didn't do much travel or have a whole lot of exposure, he left the Vatican. Pope John Paul II traveled the world, even in failing health. If we're talking about the Church as the People of God in line with Vatican II, then this extraordinary witness in traveling is a real sign of engaging the People of God. Even before his papacy, he traveled a lot with lay people and engaged them in the life of the Church as well.
Regardless of whether we find him right or wrong, he tried to create a teaching on sexuality which dignifies the life of people. Now, some of this analysis will be done below when we look at the symbol we've created. However, when we look at how he traveled with the people and engaged their lives, we have to at least give him credit for a best effort.
Cons:
JPII's record on the sexual abuse crisis is suspect at best, and this is putting it lightly. To be blunt, if he didn't know anything he's almost as much as fault as if he did. Reason being, if you're in that high of a position of power and don't notice when problems are arising, especially as people are reporting them and priests are being moved around, then that's vincible ignorance. Also, his record with Fr. Maciel of the Legionaries of Christ creates a problem when thinking about his sainthood. JPII took a lot of money and gave a lot of praise to this man. It's possible he didn't know about the major problems of sexual abuse which arose later, but someone had to know. The fact that nothing was done to stop the abuse at the time and that we're finding out about this 30-40 years later is appalling. (And I'd say the same about any place in dealing with the sex abuse crisis, as this has not been an transparent issue by any means.)
In granting beatification to JPII, we are changing what we value as Church, over and against Vatican II, at least with what we see in his modern life. Vatican II talked a lot about collegiality, openness, and a sharing of authority with bishops. JPII made decisions which hinder this collegiality. When every bishop has to be nominated by the Pope, it creates the potential for a Pope to select just people he likes, or people who think like him. In his own papacy, he didn't do this (namely, he selected Cardinal Walter Kasper to a prominent position and these two men think very differently). However, in building this system, people who follow can use this system irresponsibly to promote an agenda, and that has happened, especially in America. Also, we have come to oversymbolize sex and evangelization over and against anything else in the practice of the faith. To be fair, this isn't actually JPII's fault. But in creating a cult of JPII, people often oversimplify what has happened in a life to a few specific ideas. Rushing judgment on someone's thought and action builds a symbol which will affect the Church for hundreds of years to come. Also, the beatification of JPII in some minds will overpower the intended effect of Vatican II, which in doctrinal thought, should not happen. An ecumenical council is always supposed to have more authority than the life of one individual pope, and that is not happening right now.
Finally, if we're going to take seriously that JPII wrote all his own encyclicals, and was the major voice behind them all, then we have to deal with the fact, that at the end of his life we are symbolizing a man who became bitter and mean in his later writings. The tone of Redemptor Hominis, Laborem Exercens and his earlier encyclicals was one of "critical correlation" (Kasper, Jesus the Christ). He examined the world for what was good and bad in it to promote the Gospel message. He also talked about a variety of issues in his early encyclicals and founded it on an anthropology based in Scripture and Christian Tradition. (Again, regardless of his sometimes sloppy scholarship, and whether we agree or not, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that he was trying.) This is a strong case for speaking to many people. However, his later encyclicals, particularly Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae present a much different tone. These encyclicals are more condemning of culture and don't do a lot to work with the culture to make change. If he wrote these encyclicals, then we have to deal with the fact that we are symbolizing that we can do whatever we want in evangelizing peoples. This is not the tone Ad Gentes takes from the Vatican II documents, or the tone of Gaudium et Spes with its appeal to conscience (Cardinal Newman is also a strong voice in this tradition.)
However, we also have to think about what if JPII didn't have fuller voice in his later encyclicals because of his Parkinson's disease. This illness may explain the dramatic change in tone, especially if others had a part in writing these later encyclicals. I haven't done enough scholarship to fully test this theory, but I think there's some possibility here. People may change thoughts and opinions over time, I know that I have, but there are certain dispositions which don't change as easily and come clear in examining writing, speaking, and thinking. For example, I once was a Catholic who thought very in line with JPII. JPII is actually an influential reason for me staying in the Catholic faith past childhood as he engaged my thought. However, as is clear from my writing, I don't think completely like him anymore. One thing that hasn't changed though is my sometimes aggressive nature in dealing with issues. I try not to lack charity, but I'd much rather deal with stuff at its earliest point, rather than dealing with a massive mess later. This aggressiveness also shows up in how I deal with people in authority. If people are promoting a system, or acting in ways that I think are against the common good, I am going to say something. JPII's influence has some effect on me here too. But even though my thoughts changed, this disposition hasn't. Of course, this isn't always the case, but if JPII was influential in Vatican II, and he engaged the people as much as he did in his ministry, then something is not completely adding up from the information we have available to us.
In conclusion, I want to say that by beatifying JPII, I fear what we are symbolizing as a Church in haste. JPII is a holy man, and deserves a lot of attention for what he did in his life. But, by expediting the process for him to become a saint, we're not honoring his life. Beatification, unfortunately, says more about the priorities of the people in power, then it does about the holiness of a person, especially an expedited one. And note what's being emphasized, how he evangelized people, how he promoted dignity through his sexual teaching. Very little is said about he started World Youth Day, or how he supported the Solidarity movement in Poland from the main people supporting his cause. No one talks about his preliminary use of phenomenology in his works (even though to be fair, he never really cites anyone either. For example, in Redemptor Hominis he gives a reflection on technology which is very identical to Heidegger's reflection on the goods of technology in his Introduction to Metaphysics, but JPII never cites Heidegger at all in this work.)
JPII is a complex person, and we lose that complexity when other people want to get their motives and objectives more power. Community always wants to shape a meta-narrative to support its own existence, and ideologies in particular communities are no exception to this phenomenon. JPII's beatification shows how ugly this reality is in our current Church, and we are symbolizing the good of this greater polarity by how we go about beatifying him. The event has already happened at the time of this posting, but we have to be really wary going forward about what we are seeing from the people beatifying him, and also the response given by many parties. I think JPII should be a saint, but maybe not as quick as the pace for this beatification suggests. Also, if JPII is a saint, Archbishop Romero should be a saint as well, for both men worked with the people, albeit in different ways. This is what our Church should be about, and this is in line with what Vatican II says about the Church being the People of God.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
The NFL Draft: NFC South and North
This is not going to be my usual post. One of the few things I love as much as I love philosophy or theology is football. Therefore, to dedicate some space to this I'm going to do some analysis on the draft and look at strengths and weaknesses based on what people picked up. I'm going to analyze 2 divisions at a time in my analysis
NFC South
Carolina Panthers:
Cam Newton (QB), Terrell McClain (DT), Sione Fua (DT), Brandon Hogan (CB), Kealoha Pilares (WR), Lawrence Wilson (OLB), Zachary Williams (OC), Lee Ziemba (OT)
Carolina gets the flashy QB they need for their division and some help on defense. Carolina needs a lot of stuff to rebuild but this is a decent start if Cam Newton works out, who has a lot of questions of how well his game will adapt to the pros. Overall grade B-
Atlanta Falcons:
Julio Jones (WR), Akeem Dent (ILB), Jacquizz Rogers (RB), Matt Bosher (P), Andrew Jackson (OG), Cliff Matthews (DE)
The Falcons gave up a lot to get Julio Jones (2 draft picks this year and next). However, Julio Jones is the weapon the Falcons need to assist Roddy White and Matt Ryan. Also, I love the Jacquizz Rogers pickup as it adds dynamic running offense in contrast with Michael Turner's power running game. Akeem Dent will also be a very nice addition to a defense that needs some young energy. Overall, they did well, but there will be rough effects due to the amount given up to get Julio Jones. Overall grade: B.
New Orleans Saints:
Cameron Jordan (DE), Mark Ingram (RB), Martez Wilson (OLB), Johnny Patrick (CB), Greg Romeus (DE), Nathan Bussey (OLB)
The Saints didn't have a lot of picks, but I like what they did in the first round, shoring up their defense with a solid pick in Cameron Jordan, and adding a reliable running back with Mark Ingram. Given what they had to work with, this wasn't a bad draft. Overall grade: B
Tampa Bay Buccaneers:
Adrian Clayborn (DE), Da'Quan Bowers (DE), Mason Foster (ILB), Luke Stocker (TE), Ahmad Black (S), Allen Bradford (RB), Anthony Gaitor (CB), Daniel Hardy (TE)
I like what the Buccaneers did here. They have a stud offense with Josh Freeman, Mike Williams and LeGarrette Blount, so they shore up their defense which did not get a lot of pressure on the QB last year. Clayborn and Bowers will wreak havoc on opposing defenses, along with their picks McCoy and Price from last year. Building a young defensive line and having a lot of success with offense from lower round and undrafted free agents is a great key for success. Overall Draft: A
NFC North:
Minnesota Vikings:
Christian Ponder (QB), Kyle Rudolph (TE), Christian Ballard (DT), Brandon Burton (CB), DeMarcus Love (OT), Mistral Raymond (S), Brandon Fusco (C), Ross Homan (OLB), De'Aundre Reed (DE), Stephen Burton (WR)
The Vikings got a lot of players, but they didn't get what they needed. They didn't get a Safety, they didn't get a quality corner, and Christian Ballard is the only solid defensive player they acquired. They did get a QB but Christian Ponder was probably picked too early and the Vikings really didn't need another tight end. Overall grade D-
Green Bay Packers:
Derek Sherrod (OT), Randall Cobb (WR), Alexander Green (RB), Davon House (CB), D.J. Williams (TE), Caleb Schlauderaff (OG), D.J. Smith (OLB), Rick Elmore (DE), Ryan Taylor (TE), Lawrence Guy (DT)
The Green Bay Packers are the Super Bowl Champions but I don't particularly like what they did in this draft. The Packers got a receiver in Randall Cobb which will help spread defenses, but I don't see a lot of depth on defense in this draft (anyone after the first four-five picks are not usually people who have an immediate or at all effect for a team.) It's hard to explain but I don't see enough sizzle in this draft for the Packers, though they got some line help for Aaron Rodgers. Overall grade C
Detroit Lions:
Nick Fairley (DT), Titus Young (WR), Mikel LeShoure (RB), Douglas Hogue (OLB), Johnny Culbreath (OT)
Not a lot of picks, but I love what they did with their defensive line. Ndamukong Suh and Nick Fairley are going to run over the NFC North offensive lines. Titus Young is also a very good receiver who got a lot of throws from Kellen Moore (who was an underrated QB in this draft.) Leshoure will be a good compliment to Jahvid Best. Surprising to say, but the Lions had a really good draft. Overall grade A
Chicago Bears:
Gabe Carimi (OT), Stephen Paea (DT), Christopher Conte (S), Nathan Enderle (QB), J.T. Thomas (OLB)
Decent draft for the Bears. Not a lot of picks, however, they shore up the offensive line (Jay Cutler will be happy), and they added another solid defender in Stephen Paea. Overall grade B.
We see some good teams and some bad teams. Good teams draft for their needs, don't overpay for players and find the best talent they can on the board. Bad drafts include some combination of drafting players too early, not drafting to needs, or not taking opportunity of a good situation. The best teams in these two divisions are the Detroit Lions and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. These teams took advantage of the players that fell their way and built a good draft class. The worst team on here by far was the Minnesota Vikings. They overpaid for their QB (Ponder would have been available second round more than likely, and they took him 12th overall) and Kyle Rudolph wasn't really a need for the Vikings, (particularly with Da'Quan Bowers still on the board when they took Rudolph). The Vikings didn't address their defensive needs (like getting a safety) either. Though this is basic, I hope this gives some basic insight into what I observe while watching the NFL Draft.
Aristocrates
NFC South
Carolina Panthers:
Cam Newton (QB), Terrell McClain (DT), Sione Fua (DT), Brandon Hogan (CB), Kealoha Pilares (WR), Lawrence Wilson (OLB), Zachary Williams (OC), Lee Ziemba (OT)
Carolina gets the flashy QB they need for their division and some help on defense. Carolina needs a lot of stuff to rebuild but this is a decent start if Cam Newton works out, who has a lot of questions of how well his game will adapt to the pros. Overall grade B-
Atlanta Falcons:
Julio Jones (WR), Akeem Dent (ILB), Jacquizz Rogers (RB), Matt Bosher (P), Andrew Jackson (OG), Cliff Matthews (DE)
The Falcons gave up a lot to get Julio Jones (2 draft picks this year and next). However, Julio Jones is the weapon the Falcons need to assist Roddy White and Matt Ryan. Also, I love the Jacquizz Rogers pickup as it adds dynamic running offense in contrast with Michael Turner's power running game. Akeem Dent will also be a very nice addition to a defense that needs some young energy. Overall, they did well, but there will be rough effects due to the amount given up to get Julio Jones. Overall grade: B.
New Orleans Saints:
Cameron Jordan (DE), Mark Ingram (RB), Martez Wilson (OLB), Johnny Patrick (CB), Greg Romeus (DE), Nathan Bussey (OLB)
The Saints didn't have a lot of picks, but I like what they did in the first round, shoring up their defense with a solid pick in Cameron Jordan, and adding a reliable running back with Mark Ingram. Given what they had to work with, this wasn't a bad draft. Overall grade: B
Tampa Bay Buccaneers:
Adrian Clayborn (DE), Da'Quan Bowers (DE), Mason Foster (ILB), Luke Stocker (TE), Ahmad Black (S), Allen Bradford (RB), Anthony Gaitor (CB), Daniel Hardy (TE)
I like what the Buccaneers did here. They have a stud offense with Josh Freeman, Mike Williams and LeGarrette Blount, so they shore up their defense which did not get a lot of pressure on the QB last year. Clayborn and Bowers will wreak havoc on opposing defenses, along with their picks McCoy and Price from last year. Building a young defensive line and having a lot of success with offense from lower round and undrafted free agents is a great key for success. Overall Draft: A
NFC North:
Minnesota Vikings:
Christian Ponder (QB), Kyle Rudolph (TE), Christian Ballard (DT), Brandon Burton (CB), DeMarcus Love (OT), Mistral Raymond (S), Brandon Fusco (C), Ross Homan (OLB), De'Aundre Reed (DE), Stephen Burton (WR)
The Vikings got a lot of players, but they didn't get what they needed. They didn't get a Safety, they didn't get a quality corner, and Christian Ballard is the only solid defensive player they acquired. They did get a QB but Christian Ponder was probably picked too early and the Vikings really didn't need another tight end. Overall grade D-
Green Bay Packers:
Derek Sherrod (OT), Randall Cobb (WR), Alexander Green (RB), Davon House (CB), D.J. Williams (TE), Caleb Schlauderaff (OG), D.J. Smith (OLB), Rick Elmore (DE), Ryan Taylor (TE), Lawrence Guy (DT)
The Green Bay Packers are the Super Bowl Champions but I don't particularly like what they did in this draft. The Packers got a receiver in Randall Cobb which will help spread defenses, but I don't see a lot of depth on defense in this draft (anyone after the first four-five picks are not usually people who have an immediate or at all effect for a team.) It's hard to explain but I don't see enough sizzle in this draft for the Packers, though they got some line help for Aaron Rodgers. Overall grade C
Detroit Lions:
Nick Fairley (DT), Titus Young (WR), Mikel LeShoure (RB), Douglas Hogue (OLB), Johnny Culbreath (OT)
Not a lot of picks, but I love what they did with their defensive line. Ndamukong Suh and Nick Fairley are going to run over the NFC North offensive lines. Titus Young is also a very good receiver who got a lot of throws from Kellen Moore (who was an underrated QB in this draft.) Leshoure will be a good compliment to Jahvid Best. Surprising to say, but the Lions had a really good draft. Overall grade A
Chicago Bears:
Gabe Carimi (OT), Stephen Paea (DT), Christopher Conte (S), Nathan Enderle (QB), J.T. Thomas (OLB)
Decent draft for the Bears. Not a lot of picks, however, they shore up the offensive line (Jay Cutler will be happy), and they added another solid defender in Stephen Paea. Overall grade B.
We see some good teams and some bad teams. Good teams draft for their needs, don't overpay for players and find the best talent they can on the board. Bad drafts include some combination of drafting players too early, not drafting to needs, or not taking opportunity of a good situation. The best teams in these two divisions are the Detroit Lions and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. These teams took advantage of the players that fell their way and built a good draft class. The worst team on here by far was the Minnesota Vikings. They overpaid for their QB (Ponder would have been available second round more than likely, and they took him 12th overall) and Kyle Rudolph wasn't really a need for the Vikings, (particularly with Da'Quan Bowers still on the board when they took Rudolph). The Vikings didn't address their defensive needs (like getting a safety) either. Though this is basic, I hope this gives some basic insight into what I observe while watching the NFL Draft.
Aristocrates
Sunday, April 24, 2011
On Resurrection
If Holy Saturday teaches us about death, and the existential fear of non-being, a belief in the Resurrection on Easter Sunday teaches us about the hope of eternal life as an overcoming of non-being. Resurrection is not simply a bringing back of an earthly body waiting to die again, (such as in the case of Lazarus) but it's the apparition of a heavenly body that will no longer die. Witnesses to the Resurrection emphasize the differences in Jesus' body but yet similarities as well. Jesus' risen body is one which can travel to different places in seemingly little time, yet Jesus can still show the wounds in His side to the doubting Thomas. Jesus appears as a paradox to the human condition, divine, yet still human and individualized, recognizable.
Part of the brilliance of the Resurrected phenomenon is that it does not appear to everyone. The Gospel accounts (Matthew and John in particular) emphasize the women as the first to receive the apparition of the Resurrection. Women are people who had no particular status in the ancient world, they were property either of their fathers or husbands for the most part. Jesus appeared to people without status for the most part, until he appeared to Paul. This insight is important because it enables an exploration of the unseen. The witnesses to the Resurrection see the Risen Christ, while other onlookers do not see. Other people view what the disciples see as foolishness or blasphemy. In any event, no person can see every possibility of interpretation which an event may hold, therefore, the Resurrection appears as true to some, and false to others, because our vision as humans is necessarily limited.
In the unseen, we have to ask where do we see the possibility of transcendence in our faith today. The life of Jesus is a life of self-gift and proclaiming a message that transcends time and place. The themes explored in the Bible and in particular the Gospel accounts, are ones which speak to every people who journey on the Earth. Life, death, suffering, power, mercy, and love are experiences that every person feels in life. What is seen in individual experience can never be fully understood by another, because they see but do not see. However, in this existential journey, there are certain messages that speak to a greater reality than our existential existence.
The transcendence of our faith is seen in many symbols. In liturgy, we have sacraments and our common worship. These sacraments are an opportunity for mutual self-transcendence as people come together to go outside themselves and worship God. In our liturgy outside the Church, we have love, and our communion with other people, which includes any act that seeks to proclaim liberation to the other from sin, darkness, fear, whatever image we can think of for bondage. We transcend ourselves by giving to the other because it shows the dignity of the other person. In that case, our transcends gives life to another, a life which extends beyond any particular phenomenon or moment. However, we also need to receive life from others in order to have transcendence, as being able to receive a gift is just as important as giving the gift itself. Without reception, we never appreciate the presence of the giver of a gift. Resurrection and the gift of new life is that, a gift, one which says we will new life, even after we experience non-being as an apparition on the Earth. Death, life, giving, receiving, these paradoxes express the sentiments of the Easter season, and it's these paradoxes which the Resurrection celebrates. Without interactions and paradoxes, our world simply would not function, as we consistently deal with things which are not as they appear. The gift of the Resurrection is simply another of these paradoxes, any words we can say, or sight we could see does not adequately describe the entire phenomenon, yet we see the possibility of the Resurrection being real through God's gift to humanity, and our sharing in that gift with others.
Aristocrates
Part of the brilliance of the Resurrected phenomenon is that it does not appear to everyone. The Gospel accounts (Matthew and John in particular) emphasize the women as the first to receive the apparition of the Resurrection. Women are people who had no particular status in the ancient world, they were property either of their fathers or husbands for the most part. Jesus appeared to people without status for the most part, until he appeared to Paul. This insight is important because it enables an exploration of the unseen. The witnesses to the Resurrection see the Risen Christ, while other onlookers do not see. Other people view what the disciples see as foolishness or blasphemy. In any event, no person can see every possibility of interpretation which an event may hold, therefore, the Resurrection appears as true to some, and false to others, because our vision as humans is necessarily limited.
In the unseen, we have to ask where do we see the possibility of transcendence in our faith today. The life of Jesus is a life of self-gift and proclaiming a message that transcends time and place. The themes explored in the Bible and in particular the Gospel accounts, are ones which speak to every people who journey on the Earth. Life, death, suffering, power, mercy, and love are experiences that every person feels in life. What is seen in individual experience can never be fully understood by another, because they see but do not see. However, in this existential journey, there are certain messages that speak to a greater reality than our existential existence.
The transcendence of our faith is seen in many symbols. In liturgy, we have sacraments and our common worship. These sacraments are an opportunity for mutual self-transcendence as people come together to go outside themselves and worship God. In our liturgy outside the Church, we have love, and our communion with other people, which includes any act that seeks to proclaim liberation to the other from sin, darkness, fear, whatever image we can think of for bondage. We transcend ourselves by giving to the other because it shows the dignity of the other person. In that case, our transcends gives life to another, a life which extends beyond any particular phenomenon or moment. However, we also need to receive life from others in order to have transcendence, as being able to receive a gift is just as important as giving the gift itself. Without reception, we never appreciate the presence of the giver of a gift. Resurrection and the gift of new life is that, a gift, one which says we will new life, even after we experience non-being as an apparition on the Earth. Death, life, giving, receiving, these paradoxes express the sentiments of the Easter season, and it's these paradoxes which the Resurrection celebrates. Without interactions and paradoxes, our world simply would not function, as we consistently deal with things which are not as they appear. The gift of the Resurrection is simply another of these paradoxes, any words we can say, or sight we could see does not adequately describe the entire phenomenon, yet we see the possibility of the Resurrection being real through God's gift to humanity, and our sharing in that gift with others.
Aristocrates
Saturday, April 23, 2011
On Death
Holy Saturday is a weird day to write about death, but I found it appropriate as Jesus is technically dead for the whole day, thus it allows for a basic exploration about what it means to die and how non-being appears to us.
To be brief, death is the non-existence/appearance of a particular person or animal. Only things which are animated can technically die. This is why Jesus' death is important for the Christian faith as to die shows He was human. Without death, Jesus does not experience full finitude. But apologetics aside what we're exploring is the lack of animation and the darkness this creates in human persons.
Everyone has some fear of not existing. People make displays of power, money, progeny, etc for people to remember them when they are gone. In this way, people try to make their life extend beyond their own human finitude. Jesus did not have such power, progeny, or money in His ministry, so the death of a peasant in the ancient world seems like it should have little meaning. The fact that He was tried as a criminal also adds to the lack of meaning, just like so many other non-Roman citizens. (Because Romans couldn't be crucified, they saved that for the foreigners, kind of a ancient day hazing of sorts.)
Also, death is something which is communal. The death of the other reminds me of my own death (Levinas). The disciples also feared Jesus' death because His non-existence makes it appear that the promise of life and restored order is gone. It appears hard to restore kingdoms when the charismatic leader is dead and does not exist. The idea of Resurrection seems far away when one peers on a grave and sees a giant stone rolled in front of a cave to signify the grave. Dead Jesus, D-E-D Dead. No respawn, no extra lifes, just dead. Well, sort of... (Well, see more tomorrow about this.)
However, appearance is not the only reality. True, it is the only reality we can see, thus phenomenology gains its strength as a philosophical discipline as it deals with what we can see. What we learn on observation is that with every phenomenon there is an unseen parts of the phenomenon (notably, the idea that many people can look at the same event or symbol and see many different things.) Therefore, the unseen presence of death is that a community can embrace death as a communal strength. People come together when people die, and Jesus was no exception. On this day, we remember Jesus' death as a sign for people to gather together and mourn the loss of someone who had hoped to save a people who feared God. By faith, we all know the end of the story is different, but the disciples didn't know this. Part of our meditation must be to explore that this is the end, there is no mission, kingdom of God, or promise. The reality of Jesus' death is that the disciples appeared wrong. On top of mourning the loss of a friend, having one's trust seemingly betrayed is difficult. But again, this isn't the end of the story, all we see is what appears.
(Note: Most people are already celebrating Easter Vigil by the time this will post, but let's have some fun with the reflection.)
To be brief, death is the non-existence/appearance of a particular person or animal. Only things which are animated can technically die. This is why Jesus' death is important for the Christian faith as to die shows He was human. Without death, Jesus does not experience full finitude. But apologetics aside what we're exploring is the lack of animation and the darkness this creates in human persons.
Everyone has some fear of not existing. People make displays of power, money, progeny, etc for people to remember them when they are gone. In this way, people try to make their life extend beyond their own human finitude. Jesus did not have such power, progeny, or money in His ministry, so the death of a peasant in the ancient world seems like it should have little meaning. The fact that He was tried as a criminal also adds to the lack of meaning, just like so many other non-Roman citizens. (Because Romans couldn't be crucified, they saved that for the foreigners, kind of a ancient day hazing of sorts.)
Also, death is something which is communal. The death of the other reminds me of my own death (Levinas). The disciples also feared Jesus' death because His non-existence makes it appear that the promise of life and restored order is gone. It appears hard to restore kingdoms when the charismatic leader is dead and does not exist. The idea of Resurrection seems far away when one peers on a grave and sees a giant stone rolled in front of a cave to signify the grave. Dead Jesus, D-E-D Dead. No respawn, no extra lifes, just dead. Well, sort of... (Well, see more tomorrow about this.)
However, appearance is not the only reality. True, it is the only reality we can see, thus phenomenology gains its strength as a philosophical discipline as it deals with what we can see. What we learn on observation is that with every phenomenon there is an unseen parts of the phenomenon (notably, the idea that many people can look at the same event or symbol and see many different things.) Therefore, the unseen presence of death is that a community can embrace death as a communal strength. People come together when people die, and Jesus was no exception. On this day, we remember Jesus' death as a sign for people to gather together and mourn the loss of someone who had hoped to save a people who feared God. By faith, we all know the end of the story is different, but the disciples didn't know this. Part of our meditation must be to explore that this is the end, there is no mission, kingdom of God, or promise. The reality of Jesus' death is that the disciples appeared wrong. On top of mourning the loss of a friend, having one's trust seemingly betrayed is difficult. But again, this isn't the end of the story, all we see is what appears.
(Note: Most people are already celebrating Easter Vigil by the time this will post, but let's have some fun with the reflection.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)