Here we go again

I have been sick for the past 4 days, and so it has given me time to reflect on the Pope's visit a bit more then I probably would have been able to if I was well (heck, I would have been able to see almost none of it if I was well!).

1. Media

I wish the media would listen. I was watching CTV Newsnet this evening, and most of it was ok. I am getting a bit frustrated because it seems all the news bites focus just on the Pope's address of the priest sexual abuse. I have seen very little coverage of his UN speech, which was a cornerstone of his visit and his hope for engaging the world in terms of relativism and natural law. Plus, I was rather saddened by the fact that the media TOTALLY mishears things, or hears things that as they want to hear them. At the end of the story on the Pope's events for the day, the reporter mentioned how "Benedict even abandoned God in his youth in Germany". I would like to know what speech they were listening to. He was warning against societies that lose their ability to recognize the place of God in their lives and how the Nazis in Germany abandoned God when he was young, but not him. I am a bit perplexed about that to say the least.

However, from what I have heard (and from the bit I have been able to see from their website), CNN has been giving fantastic coverage of the event. I saw a 5 minute spot about Wolf Blitzer meeting the Pope with 9 other journalists. He looked absolutely giddy. He even said on the air "I almost never say this, but I was truly blessed today". Apparently the Baptist man who works for CNN was also quite moved by the Mass on Thursday.

So, there have been the ups and downs.

2. Politicization

It is typical of people wanting to put things in a box. Unfortunately, too, they are attempting to create a certain polarization. These are unfortunate. You can't really "box up" Benedict, except to say he is orthodox. Most news stories and such are attempting to show that "if the Church doesn't change her teachings, then she will lose her numbers". But that is not the message of the Church, which states that "if the people in the Church don't strive for holiness, then the Church will lose her numbers". But numbers aren't what it is about. Of course, it would be wonderful if the entire world accepted the Church, her teachings, and strived for holiness. But that's not reality. The Church's mission is to bring people to Christ, and that they live lives in pursuit of His Face.

This politicization and polarization come from the labels "conservative", "progressive", "moderate", and "liberal". First, these words refer to terms that change. That is, the terms they point to change according to the trends. For example, the "conservatives" used to be the "liberals". And people use these words for the Church in the same way. And some say that the Pope is "conserving the Deposit of Faith" and so, in that sense, is a conservative.

However, I still don't think that that is a viable label for the Pope. To conserve means to prevent a danger from happening to something, and that it can change. We don't conserve things that don't change. But both those situations are contrary to the very essence of the Church. The Church does not change, and Christ promised that the gates of Hell shall not prevail. There is nothing to conserve, because the Church's essence, by her essence, cannot change. Thus, no one can be a conservative, because there is nothing to conserve, there is only a Truth, Who is a Person, to be uplifted and brought to everyone.

And some may complain about the word "orthodoxy". It is true, it refers to right belief. But Chesterton says that orthodoxy in the Catholic view involves the entirety of our faith. As St James says "Faith without works is dead". Thus our belief, if it is right (and that is that it our faith is in the Person of Jesus Christ) means we truly live it out. Orthodoxy, then, is much more then the doctrines we hold.

3. The Pope

I was blown away by the Pope's time at Dunwoody today. First, I must say, a friend of mine who lives in New York served the Papal Mass today at St Patrick's Cathedral, he was the one holding the Missal for the Pope.

Anyways, the Pope at the Seminary, I saw there the Benedict that I know. This is not to say I haven't elsewhere. But he has seemed tired and a bit worn out these past few days, and that is to be expected of someone of 81! But today, at Dunwoody, he was electric! He was energetic, with a smile that was constantly beaming across face. He was funny, and he even did something unscripted. He was passionate, because I think for him the youth are the hope of the Church's future. He saw true hope present. He definitely fed off the crowd, and he gave a 45 minute talk to the youth! That is far longer then any other talk he has given, which tells you that this was the most important to him. I encourage EVERYONE to read it, or go to EWTN's website and watch it there (they have the whole of the Pope's trip on the web to watch). It was fantastic and out of this world. Please watch it.

-Harrison

Barack Obama

I had a friend from Poland e-mail me this speech from Barack Obama and he asked me some questions that he was hoping for my feedback on. The speech can be found here:

http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628-call_to_renewal_1/index.php

My friend asked me the following questions, which I hope I answer to his satisfaction:

What do you think of it? Is it a hijack of religious language? Is it a Trojan horse into Christian mindset? Or maybe Obama has right to formulate his opinions using religious language? And by using Christian language he is legitimizing it? Or maybe he is rather discrediting it or abusing it?

Before I get started, I would like to say that Obama is quite the rhetorician. He really knows how to speak the talk of the right while not actually buying into anything that it stands for. It is very clear that he is trying to please both sides, saying that our duty is to the progressive ideal while saying it is not fundamentally opposed to having been informed by religion. I will have to say, I can see how easy it is to be carried by his sway, but his colours showed deep down through his clever use of language in an attempt to appease all sides. In fact, I believe the following paragraph illustrates this perfectly:

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal

What do you think of it?

As I write this I am still finishing the talk. It is quite intriguing because he puts in many attractive statements, only to follow them with subtle arguments that, if one is not careful, will fall into the razzle dazzle of his smoke and light show.

What was eerie for me was that all I could think about was Fr. Elijah by Michael O'Brien. The politician who was able to convince people of all faiths that they were all right, yet in a subtle way so as they could think that they could still be who they claimed to be. It eerie how similar it was to that book as I was reading this to be completely honest. The man who would bring world peace by bringing an end to division, a division which, at its root (according to the world) is in religion. Religion is what divides, but according to Obama, it is our reason that unites.

It is weird because I read a paragraph and think to myself "right on!" only to follow it up with a "oh, I see where he's going" and quickly see the error of the original excitement. I hope to address the rest of the observations in the remainder of the questions.

Is it a hijack of religious language?

I am of the firm opinion that this speech is a definite hijack of religious language. He is using it all over the place, but that is precisely the point, he is using it. It is funny how at one point he is talking about the universality of morality, while at another point saying that some basic moral precepts are only right for some cultures and not for all.

I really am just amazed about the subtle contradictions. What I am even more amazed about is that I think he is fully aware of the contradictions, but says them because he knows that the average joe will not see these contradictions and see that progressivism and faith are actually the best of buddies and are not mutually exclusive.

One spot I noticed the hijacking to be at its height was at the following:

Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.

First I thought to myself "wow, he knows Rick Warren!" After regaining my senses, I looked at this and thought "he is using religious convictions to promote ideals that are not necessarily religious." I can't remember the last time we have talked about the role of budget cuts in our attaining salvation. But that just might be my lack of exposure. He says at one point that we can't have our religious convictions influence our political decisions in matters like abortion and homosexual marriage, while at other points, such as the above quoted paragraph, he is saying we need to exercise our religious faith in the public square. This is ok, of course, because it is in line with the progressive agenda. It seems, in the end, Obama is saying that faith is ok in the public square only when it is in according with the progressive agenda, which to Obama, seems to be the true revealer of all that is true.

Is it a Trojan horse into Christian mindset?

I will be brief here. I will simply say that yes, it is a Trojan horse. He is talking about things that every religious person has a deep concern about and says to them "yes, you are right for having a deep conviction of faith". That is his way in, and he talks the language they talk, but it is through that language that he subtly moves his progressive agenda in. For example, he says "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values." He is using a language that many Christians are accustomed to, the idea of universals. But he seems to think that if it is universal, it is in conflict with religiously based morals, as if religion cannot attain an understanding of morality, unless it is the version he is touting with the progressive flag. 'Nuff said there.

Or maybe Obama has right to formulate his opinions using religious language?

Well, Obama does have the right to formulate his opinions using religious language. However, the question needs to be asked if this formulation is in accordance with truth. I think the Catholics who read my blog would say no, it is not a proper religious infusion into language. The inherent contradictions alone make it contrary to "religious-speak"! The idea that things can be universal, but also relative, and so forth. Yes, he has the right, but is he forming it right? I think he is not.

And by using Christian language he is legitimizing it? Or maybe he is rather discrediting it or abusing it?

I think the first part of this question hits the problem dead on. He is attempting to legitimate his perspective of the issues by throwing in Christian language. By speaking the language many conservatives would use, he is speaking at their level and engaging them in a way I am sure they are not used to by a progressive. Furthermore, he is quick on his feet and subtle, so it is tough to see that he has inherently wrong positions, but he is crafty enough to cover them up with statements that conservatives would like to hear.

I think, however, the second part of the question answers the remainder of the first. In the end, he is hijacking something that is not his. If he is really a relativist, who sees religion informing your public opinion only when it is in accordance with the progressive agenda, then he is definitely discrediting and abusing such a style of talking.

I would like to make one final comment. He sure liked to throw in his Catholic jab. He notes that "a majority" of Catholics practice birth control and are not opposed to the legalization of same sex marriage. First off, I would like to know how he knows that this is what the majority of Catholics do. Secondly, just because the majority does it, doesn't mean it is right. He is saying that the Bishops have to encourage their faithful to oppose birth control and same sex marriage on a personal level, but in the public sphere it can only be the progressive truth. I wonder how the heck you can encourage people to be anti-birth control privately while saying at the same time they are right for practicing it.

I think it is unfortunate that Barack fundamentally falls into so many easy errors. I think it is even more unfortunate, however, that this man has such command of the U.S. public. This man is indeed quite smart, and he knows how to use the right words to speak to the right people. But he uses those words to his advantage so that he can lure people into voting for him, , if he pulled the usual progressive lines, would usually not.

It is interesting what he is saying. He sees the conservative movement as having a control over the majority in the US and he sees that the only way to engage is to speak their language. It is a very brilliant move, I must admit. I just hope that those on the conservative side show that he really is not speaking their language at all. If only Barack could see it.

-Harrison

Priority of Culture

Last night I had dinner at a family's house whom I try to go to whenever I can. The family is great and loving and the discussions are lively.

Well, my friend Madeleine suggested to her dad that we discuss the ideas of socialized vs. public health care, based on a discussion her and I had about a month earlier.

I was a BIT unwilling, only because the position I seem to be leaning towards is something that still requires much research so that I may form a proper opinion of such a position. I must back it up with statistics, a proper anthropology, a proper understanding of the true role of the state, and so forth. I have a base understanding of my position, but not enough to be able to dialogue about it in great detail at this moment in time. I was very happy to hear other opinions on the subject and appreciated the input into the subject I was given.

The reason I bring this up is because we all agreed on what needs to happen. Culture, not politics, is the driving force of history.

It just so happens, too, that this is a section in the book I'm reading for Tertio Millennio that I have just begun reading.

It has made me think about how the Church adapts to various political situations. She deems some political systems completely contrary to man's dignity (ie Communism and Socialism), while the rest she embraces in what they offer for a positive role in society.

It used to be that the Church was a "Church of Power" before the idea of the modern state came about. It used to be that the Church dictated where society would go based on its position of power and not on its evangelical nature to bring the Gospel to all through her example. This isn't wrong per se, it is just the political climate through which the Church had at the time.

Now, however, Democracy is a "theologically-free" system. That is to say, it is not the role of Democracy to take on a position about Who God is. Democracy can claim where its authority comes from, but that is about as far as it goes.

In this new political system, the Church adapts to it so that she can bring Christ to others.

It seems to me, that in Democracy, the political nature of things are in fact secondary to the cultural nature of things. People make political decisions only based on their cultural heritage in which they have been exposed to. They see that this cultural heritage, which ought to instill a sense of virtue and respect for man's dignity, is what forms them to be the social person they are.

So, it seems to me, that in order to bring about proper political decisions, we need to evangelize a culture of virtue to the people.

It seems to me that it is evangelization, a deeper sense and understanding of the Church as "missio", that our culture can be renewed.

The only way to do this is to challenge our culture and the way many people live their lives. We must enter into dialogue and bring ideas to the public square for dialogue and discussion. If we are able to express the reasonableness of our Christian idea of virtue, even for those who aren't Christian, then I believe we can bring a cultural, political, and, most importantly, anthropological revival to our country, in which man is seen for the greatness that God has created Him for.

How, though, do we do this? How do we enter into dialogue with the country?

I think there are many ways. It is, I think, perhaps the greatest thing our country is lacking. It is lacking an intellectual bend to itself. There are very few "think tanks" in Canada, and the Universities, in my opinion, are a sad example of intellectualism. It is ideas that create change. For example, look at Descartes and his dualism. His idea of separation of body and soul has had profound effects on culture and the way we think about the world that are still having their effects on us all today!

It is ideas, proposed through dialogue and not imposed by will, that will begin change. Yes, it is slow, but it is possible. Look at Poland, what an example of a cultural revolution that came to such great force in their understanding of who man is that they were able to make proper political action based on their cultural heritage.

So, we create those opportunities for dialogues. I think the place to start is by re-introducing the University not as training ground for employment, that is what a trade school is for, but for creating an authentic intellectual atmosphere in which all ideas are discussed for the pursuit of truth, not the pursuit of our own truth. Through a re-claiming of a proper ideal for the University, authentic dialogue can begin.

I think the same can be said for think tanks. It is through them that papers and books are written which are discussed and read in the popular media, newspapers, are analyzed by other think tanks and also make their way into the University.

I think these two things, in which an idea of a true understanding of man can be proposed, is where the culture can begin to turn around.

This, of course, is not the only means. I think the simple idea of example is key to this. The Opus Dei ideal of "sanctifying your work" is essential. Bring Christ into all that you do, so that others can experience the joy you bring, and it will help them yearn for such a joy as well. They may not accept Christ immediately or at all, but it will at least plant a seed for them to hopefully yearn to live a life of virtue based in truth and not their own will

To bring this full circle, I was discussing "Jesus of Nazareth" with Madeleine's dad last night and I said that the metaphysical conflict of the Middle Ages is still having its impact today. William of Ockham argued that what had primacy in God was His will, while St Thomas Aquinas said it is His intellect.

This is the battle that is still being hashed out today in each and every person. What defines man? How does man exercise himself in the world? Is it through the ockhamist imposition of the will, in which it is will that creates the individual to be free against other wills? Or is it the Thomistic idea that reason, and truth in which reason is based on, that helps us define who we are, in which we search for the truth and see if it is reasonable and live a life according to it?

I argue that the Thomistic view is the proper view. It is through this view that we yearn to enact our will based on Truth, which we search for through reasonable dialogue with others. Reason, and not will, is what is primary in a person. Will is the ressulting actions based on a conscientious discernment of truth.

-Harrison