"What Would You Have Me Do For You?"

The story of the blind beggar, Bartimaeus, sitting along the way, waiting for Christ to pass by and to restore his sight is a masterpiece of spiritual insight. Although brief, the story contains within it a portrait of divine activity in the human condition, in the heart of everyman. The evangelist Mark uses the episode to summarize the effects of Christ on the human soul, requiring our willing cooperation.

The blindness of the beggar represents the truth that each of us is spiritually blind (to one degree or another), and that each of us is a vulnerable creature. If we are not literally begging for our daily bread, we are nevertheless dependent on the God who gives and sustains life. In other words, you and I are in the story. Christ embodies divine truth and love available to anyone who will but ask, who will open up his or her heart, and let the living God flow in. That the crowds at first tell the blind man to be quiet is typical of crowds in our human condition, typical of mass behavior: if we follow the crowds, and do as they do, we will miss the chance to encounter the living God. We must work contrary to the crowd, and seek God. Bartimaeus ignores the noisy crowd, and presses on to receive divine assistance: “Jesus, have mercy on me.”

The response of Christ shows us that God is ever available, ever willing to assist us, to open up the eye of our heart. But we must ask for divine assistance. God and man must work together for the human soul to experience the grace of God. In the story, Christ asks exactly the right question: “What would you have me do for you?” That question is valid here and now, and is being asked by Christ in the silence of your heart. You receive from God to the extent that you ask for God, letting Him live in you, and you live in accordance with the Lord. The blind beggar wants to see, but he is really asking for more than he probably knows: He is asking not only for physical sight, but for his eyes to be opened to the Presence of the living God. Proof that the blind beggar receives physical and spiritual sight is seen in the result: He follows Jesus up the road. And where is the road going? Up to Jerusalem, to where the cross awaits Christ. This man has become a disciple, and so is following Jesus on the way that is Christ--to the place where God becomes fully available to man. That is on the cross. Without our sharing in the cross, God is just a word to us, or perhaps a kind of love-god that does for us whatever we want. In our sharing in the cross, in dying to ourselves, Christ lives his life in us, with us, to make us fully one with him forever. “In his light we see light.” 

We The People, We......

The second presidential debate in this cycle is over.  Who won?  Not a mature question, really. The question itself reveals the disease of warfare.  And the fighting continues.

We the People... we the losers.  We witnessed more verbal bickering by two lawyers, both Harvard trained, each trying hard to make his case to gain or to maintain power, and to defeat the other.

The debate is over, the feuding goes on. Soon this election will be over, and the incessant feuding that has become the stuff, the essence, of American politics will go on and on. The fighting for power will not cease. Truth suffers, problems do not get solved, the fighting and struggling for power, for dominance, will continue unabated.

Why is American politics reduced to fighting for power? Partly, because of our human potential to seek power rather than truth and the common good. But more existentially, given what we have become, the unending feuding is a function of our loss of reason. Clever arguments, citing selected facts, do not make a well-reasoned argument. Watching Obama and Romney reminds me of children on a playground, bickering: much heat, little light. No, not men, but wounded and wounding warriors.

We are the losers. Long after Election Day, fighting will continue, with too little time, attention, effort given to solving real problems.

Talk is cheap, and argumentative talk is ugly to hear, disturbing, like being exposed to powerful, seemingly interminable winds. They blow and blow, allowing no quiet reflection.

What have we become? Whither are we tending? Nietzsche saw it clearly:  we are plunging headlong into perpetual warfare.

A Note On The Care Of Souls

 

That my primary role as a Catholic priest is to help ground parishioners in the living and true God has been clear to me since I was ordained a priest twenty-four years ago. Indeed, I know of no other reason to be ordained a priest, except to help lead fellow human beings into the reality that we call “God.” Had I wanted to put the bulk of my energies into social justice programs, for example, I could have been a social worker, or donated generously to Catholic Charities. A Catholic priest has three duties in church law: to teach and to preach the way of Christ; to help the faithful grow in holiness through meaningful celebration of the Sacraments (especially the Eucharist); and to provide pastoral leadership in parish ministry. All of these tasks I find well expressed in the old-fashioned description of a parish priest: a man who has the care of souls. That is a wonderful phrase, and meaningful to me. As your priest, I have been entrusted by our local Bishop with the care of your souls, depending on the guidance and action of the Holy Spirit, and your free and mindful cooperation.

In the care of souls, the first and primary duty is, perhaps, to “do no harm,” as in the Hippocratic oath. But along with this duty, one must “speak the truth in love,” using a phrase from St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians. Not to deceive, not to mince words, not to distort the truth, but to speak truthful words about what matters most: God and our relationship with Him. “The rest is passing.” Part of the duty to speak the truth is to remove clutter of untruth (our idols), and especially to help liberate minds from the distorting power of false opinions, of a misunderstanding of reality. Again, truth matters, and untruths lead us astray. In addition, the way in which the truth of God is communicated matters, too. Having just watched the “Vice-Presidential debate,” and watching a man’s expressions, facial gestures, interruptions, I saw how such a poor presentation limits one’s ability to focus on, or to understand, words. In brief, style matters, too.

In the care of souls, then, I must take care not to give scandal, not to mock your beliefs, to be respectful of “where you are now,” to be patient with our human weaknesses and mental limitations. If some of you need mental images of God, for example, to aid your life journey into the divine mystery beyond words, I must seek to understand that need of yours. If others, perhaps carrying baggage of anger at someone in their life, cannot bear to use certain words for God (such as “Father”), I need to be patient with that, too. If some sense God’s love through the maternal love of Mary, and faithfully pray the rosary, I can surely work with that. But if others have emotional difficulty relating to Mary as Mother, that stance, too, needs to be accepted and worked with patiently.

In short, the care of souls requires the priest to adapt himself to a rich variety of human preferences, styles, spiritualities. Unless a person’s way appears to be self-destructive and a hindrance to the union with God, in his care for souls a priest should encourage each person to fare forward with “faith working through love.”

A Memo To Fellow Americans

10/13/2012

 

We have now seen two "debates" of the season. Obama did poorly, as many viewers believed. But few named the problem: an image of a leader, a politician largely created by media hype, was on display as embarrassingly empty of substance. But that was not new to reasonably objective citizens to in the least. Having heard Obama many times, I have seen the overwhelming preference for poetic-sounding phrases, and very little substance. But in his debate with Romney, Obama displayed not only his characteristic arrogance, but disdainful contempt for his political opponent.  It was literally painful to see what the political character of “We the people” is becoming:  the “ugly American,” indeed. 

But last night was for me considerably more revealing of the descent of American political leaders into an abyss of shrunken, self-indulgent, irrational psycho-drama.  It was deeply disturbing to me, as a citizen, to see how defective a character is the Vice President of the United States. I expected more decency from Joe Biden. He has been described as a kind man, whom Brit Hume has said "would give you his shirt." He may be likable, personable, friendly to his friends or to non-threatening politicians.  But as the Obama team has been on a downward slide in the polls, and the reality of losing the election has perhaps appeared possible to Obama-Biden for the first time (truth dawns very slowly on men living in a world of illusion), Biden displayed ugly and even sick characteristics. One of his long-term supporters from Delaware, hedge fund manager Gary Kaminsky, said on CNBC today that he has supported Biden with money over the years, attended Biden's speeches to hedge fund managers, and seen that "most of Biden's funding" came from Wall Street. Then Kaminsky heard Biden criticize Wall Street, but even more, display such a contemptuous character towards Ryan that Kaminsky said, "I would have slugged him in the face and walked off the stage." Well, Ryan kept his cool quite well, and endured an estimated 82 interruptions, plus sneers, smirks, laughing, hyena smiles.

Morally and spiritually speaking, the Vice-President self-destructed on national TV last night.  Here is a prediction:  20 years from now, or even 10, when Joe Biden has long been in private life or deceased, whatever good deeds he did in politics will not be remembered nearly as much as the night he "lost it" in full view of the watching nation. Of all the scenes in Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates so far, Biden's performance will stand out as the most vicious, most contemptuous, most bizarre. As for the content of what he said, who could concentrate on either man's words, when a man close to 70 was carrying on as if he were an immature teen-ager?
 
One person wrote that "Joe Biden was just being Joe." And he wrote the same line when Biden made the most openly racist statement I have heard from a leading politician in my life: "They gonna put y'all back in chains."  "Joe was just being Joe."  I am convinced that if Romney had said that same line, he would have been attacked in an unprecedented media assault on his private character, on his "racism," and on his "Mormon faith" for being "anti-Black."  Romney would have been publicly shamed as we have never seen. But "old Joe is just old Joe."  In other words:  If someone is on “our team,” he can say and do anything--no matter how foolish, how bad, how destructive of the common good--and that is okay--as long as “we win.”  That is a highly short-sighted and unwise stance. 

Well, Joe Biden may have done some good things in politics, but he has surely done some foolish things. But neither good deeds nor good character were on display last night. Rather, we Americans had a glimpse of the ugly depths to which we are descending as a people in history. When our highest elected officials act in this way, what example is being set before our youth, or even our adult citizens?  Were we shown how to act civilly and respectfully in the public forum? As President Clinton made sexual immorality acceptable for many Americans, Vice-President Biden went a long way to make an open display of contempt and disrespect for one’s opponents publicly acceptable. Obama displayed rank contempt for Romney, but his performance was vastly outdone by his lieutenant.
 
Three more points. First, at the end of his disturbingly rude performance, Biden made the claim that he accepts the Catholic teaching that human life begins at the moment of conception. Then he said that he would not want to enforce his belief, but, in effect, allow each person to make her own decision about whether to bear the child or to abort it. The structure of this argument is no different from this: "I think that Jews are human beings, but I would not impose my morality on those who think that Jews can be exterminated." If Biden had said, "The fetus is not human," the "pro-choice" stance would be more consistent, albeit deeply wrong. Or he could have given Obama's sophistical answer to the question:  Asked about whether or not the fetus is human life, Obama smartly quipped, “That is above my pay-grade."  But Biden’s argument is: “It is a human life in the womb, but you are free to take its life if you wish." That was the essence of his argument. Here we see not only stupidity, but a callous disregard for the weakest among us.

Second, the arguments one way or another do not matter when one's performance is so badly vitiated by his behavior. If anyone needs to be shown that analyzing a person’s words alone is not sufficient, that the context and the actions displayed must be taken into account, Joe Biden's performance last night gives the textbook example.  Biden shows everyone this: It is not just what you say, but how you say it that matters. Do not say, "I care for people," "I want to help the poor," “I believe in the middle class,” and then treat the human being next to you with proud contempt, disdain, rudeness. Biden has given politricks a new word. To "Biden" someone means to treat your opponent with sheer disrespect and mocking scorn. Ryan got Bidened, and acted gentlemanly in the process.

Third, as I think about this disgusting episode in American politics, I realize the obvious: totalitarianism is the end-form of progressive politics. I may have read that before in political philosophy, but now I understand and grasp it. To remove freedoms from citizens in the name of "caring for them;" to build up enormous governmental power in order to "be more fair, to give everybody an equal shot;" to seek political power as one's highest good; to use one's enormous power and prestige of office to destroy or belittle one's opponent:These and much more we are witnessing as our country continues its slide into totalitarianism. We cannot say, "I did not see it coming." When politicians use the cloak of "equality and a fair shot" to magnify their power, we are seeing tyranny in the making; but when they greatly magnify governmental power, and ride rough shod over local and state communities, over political opponents (especially "the other Party"), we are watching how Progressivism from T Roosevelt through Obama is bringing into being an American form of totalitarian regime that crushes whatever would resist or question its power. In the Vice-President's performance last night, we had a glimpse of blossoming totalitarian politics in America. Consider what you are seeing, my fellow citizens, for this is the country we are becoming. It has been by our choices and our passivity, and the work of highly ambitious and power-seeking human beings.
 
What is one to do?  Leaving our country physically does not seem prudent.  But one must make some kind of exodus from this decadent culture and “progressive” regime, and withdrawal into a more wholesome life. And yet, one has a duty to expose the evil of our political culture, and to resist it to the extent possible. I will not be cynical and repeat the claim that in a democracy the people get the leaders they deserve. For we are a highly manipulated so-called “democracy,” in which mass media, intellectualistic elites, party machinery, and groups that benefit from the tyrannical State are drowning out the public philosophy and common sense, and forcing leaders on us who rule by power and manipulation, by lies and deceit, by providing “goodies” to people greedy for gain or “entitlements.”
 
What have we Americans done to ourselves?  Whither are we heading?  Do we really want to be partners in a totalitarian State?  Or, can we resist so much evil in ourselves and in our political culture, and begin to rebuild the Republic?  Then again, is it perhaps too late for this regime, this people in history?  I do not know; but I think that our fate is indeed in the balance.

Part II: Further Thoughts On God, And Whether God Feels

 

When considering any question having to do with what we call “God,” it seems beneficial to return again and again to the truth of reality experienced. For perhaps the foremost problem or obstacle in thinking about “God” is the mind’s tendency to objectify, and in this case, to treat “God” as “a separate being.”  Such tendencies of thought when relating to “God” are intensified in the Christian tradition because of the existence and weight of doctrine and dogma, much of which communicates symbolically, and gives the impression of objectifying “God.”

First, however, let me clarify why I am writing “God” in quotation marks in the preceding paragraph. What or who God is in “Himself” human beings scarcely know.  Our language about “God” is always at best tentative, and it must be symbolic.  Giving “God” names, and speaking of “Him” as we do, can and often is misleading.  And yet, saying nothing does not seem fitting, either.  So for the present I will write a few words about that which we call “God,” understanding that these thoughts are crude, the formulations approximate, and that any language about “God” can be, and often is, misleading. 

“Religions” have often given the impression that “God has been revealed.”  Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and even ancient “religions” in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Greece have given the clear impression that human beings know much about “God,” or “the gods,” or “the divine beings,” and so on.  I think that it is healthier and wiser to begin with the obvious truth, and to return to it repeatedly:  All of our speech about “God” or “the gods” is imperfect because our knowledge of God may not even deserve the name knowledge, but is at best a groping towards knowledge, a desire to understand what is ever beyond our full or satisfying understanding. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” is a far healthier or more true statement than “the truth of God was known to them” (Romans 1). Wiser is the Apostle Paul’s formulation in his letter to Christians in Galatia:  “Now that you have come to know God--or rather, to be known by God.”  We can know, apparently, that we are known; but who or what is knowing and forming us remains ever beyond our mind’s grasp.

                                                                                      ***
Return to the opening formulation: When considering any question having to do with what we call “God,” it seems beneficial to return again and again to the truth of reality experienced.

Whatever we think or say about God is one of several things, or a blending of these: (1) It may be a more or less mindless repetition of what we have heard or read about “God,” most likely from one or another religious tradition, scripture, liturgy, prayer, or doctrinal formulation. (2) Or, one’s own mind can develop some thoughts based on what one has heard or read about “God,” such as the “Triune God” of Christian dogma. (3) Or one’s imagination, moved perhaps by one passion or another, can imagine all sorts of things about “God,” and formulate them as “truth” or “revelation.”  (4) Or one can proceed more cautiously and circumspectly, presenting a more or less faithful exegesis of one’s experiences of the divine.  (5) Or one can recall and present in words another’s experience of the divine.  (6) Or, one’s formulations may be a combination of these or other kinds of discourse on “God.”  

I am seeking to avoid numbers 1-3 above, and to proceed mainly from numbers 4-5, to the best of my ability.  In other words, I seek to base my thoughts and words about “God” on the truth of reality experienced, especially by a prophet, apostle, philosopher, or mystic; or from some momentary lights in my own consciousness.  Although in Christian liturgy we necessarily use scripted language from the Judaeo-Christian tradition (in the scripture readings, in preaching, in songs, in the Eucharistic prayer, and so on), in one’s quieter meditations, or when speaking with those seeking understanding, we need to be more cautious, more analytically cautious.
 
Let us consider one of the greatest “revelations” in history for an example:  The experience by the man called “Moses” (Mosche) in or out of “the burning bush” on Mount Sinai.  What this one particular, concrete human being experienced on that occasion, and then formulated in words, remains probably the most significant and fundamental experience-formulation of the divine presence recorded in documents of human history.  It is recorded in the Book of Exodus (chapters 3-4) that God spoke to the man Moses, having drawn his attention through the appearance of what looked like a fire that burned, but did not consume a bush.  In any case, apparently what we call “God” broke into the consciousness of one particular human being, on one occasion.  In the midst of Moses’ awed and questioning mind, the divine Presence identified Itself not as a named, finite “god” dwelling on a mountain, not as a being of any sort, but simply as “I AM.”  Or from the written document (dated much later, of course, than the original experience), that is what Moses “heard” or experienced of the Divine:  “I AM WHO I AM.”  

Such an experience of the divine remains normative in “history.”  It is not for us to invent “gods,” or merely to have recourse to “the God of our tradition,” or so on, but to ponder and to be conscious of the truth as experienced.  And it is surely not for us to replace the truth of God for our own imaginations, for our own private and passing “self” or ego.  The often silly and shallow Swiss-French philosophe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, preferred his own fanciful musings to the truth of reality experienced.  In his novel, Emile, Rousseau asks the self-referential question, “Did God speak to Moses to speak to Jean-Jacques?” In other words, “What do I, Rousseau, need of any so-called “revelation” of God to Moses--or to anyone else? I have God speaking directly in my heart.”  Indeed, Rousseau says that he does have God speaking directly in his heart as “the voice of conscience,” which “makes man like God.”  Again quoting the Apostle Paul:  “Proclaiming themselves wise, they became fools.”  Or to put the matter more simply: Rousseau, drop your blind arrogance and self-centered existence, and open up to the truth of the God who did speak to Moses, and who speaks to anyone through that singular experience who will think about it, meditate on it, heed it.
 
From what can be known in the course of human history, God indeed spoke to Moses to speak to us.  Or more cautiously:  the divine communicated himself to Moses, who in turn communicated the truth of God to us.  But how did God “speak” to Moses?  What happened?  Assuming that Moses was a human being as we are, let us briefly consider the truth of reality, and how it is that a human being can “hear” God speak, or be moved by God.

What we call “human being” is essentially that part of the whole of reality that is between the Divine and other beings / material reality. Man is between God and the “sub-human.”  (Ways in which animals may or may not experience God is not here the question, but set aside for further thought later.) Man is a part of reality in which the Divine can and does move, break in, communicate, act.  Again, leaving aside the ways in which the Divine acts on other parts of reality, what we can know and experience is God moving us in consciousness.  When we question God, when we ask, “Who are you, LORD?” it is God himself moving us to question. What we experience is a restlessness, a wondering, a desire to know that which simply is, a desire to be rooted and grounded in what truly is and what endures, so that we do not simply pass away as all material being does. Desiring life now and forever, desiring what is really good (and not just an appearance of good), desiring the source of all that exists, desiring to glimpse that which is simply beautiful and present in all things beautiful, our minds are drawn towards God. The divine is that Presence in us moving us towards the Divine. Human is the being drawn to God; or to be human is to share responsively and consciously in God. All things are in God, but human is the mode of being in God mindfully, with awareness, with a desire for a more perfect union.

What is it that can truthfully be called “God,” based on such experiences as those of the great man, Moses?  Who or what is the God of Moses?  Who is it that speaks or is heard by Moses to say, “I AM.”  What is happening in Moses?  What has stirred him up?  Why does God move Moses?  In the context of Exodus, Moses is moved in order to stir him up to lead “my people Israel” from bondage into freedom under God.  Did God move Moses ultimately to lead all human beings, or even all of creation somehow, from bondage to death, to sin, to self, into freedom and fullness of life in He WHO IS?  Is Moses the Representative of the God to humankind, for one and for all?  If Moses, then why other prophets?  Perhaps we do not heed, and need reminders?  Why Christ?  To see what God-in-man fully looks like?  Why does the divine stir and move in each of us?  Can we not just hear words with our ears, obey, and live?  What is gained by encountering the Divine hiddenly in the truth of one’s soul or consciousness? 

Why does God seek man, human being?  Why does man seek God?  Why do I ask these questions?

                                                                               ***
Let us consider once again, briefly, the question, “Does God have feelings?”  

What God is in and of Himself, we do not know. What we know of God is the Divine as experienced by particular human beings in history.  Men such as Moses and the Apostle Paul “heard” God speak to them, in them, but does that mean that God has a voice?  To have a voice, would not God have to have a body?  To be a body, would not God be bounded in space-time, limited, and bound to perish?  Does it not make more sense to say, “The divine Presence can be experienced in a human being as words, or as love, or as peace”?
 
When the divine is experienced as present in a human being, one may “hear,” or “see,” or “feel.”  Words can be heard in a receptive human being: “I AM.”  “I AM Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”  “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Words are heard, for the Divine communicates to the human soul in a way that a man can understand.  So God “speaks” Hebrew to Moses, Greek to Paul, Aramaic to the Apostles, English to Wesley, and so on. Or the  mind of a man, moved by the divine Presence, can “see” images, or pictures in the mind, in response to flowing Presence.  Or one feels “the peace of God that surpasses all understanding,” when one is not “in his flesh,” in himself, but conscious of divine Presence here and now.

In God Or In Human Being

06 Oct 2012  (St. Bruno)
Note to a parishioner:  

I came across the note I wrote you yesterday morning in response to your question about feelings in God.  Your question surprised me, in that I had probably unconsciously assumed that everyone knew or realized that what we call "God" is neither body nor a human soul, but beyond everything material in any way.  Because feelings are functions of our being embodied, I presumed that it was self-evident that the divine does not have feelings.  Language that speaks of "God's love" or "God's anger," and so on, are symbolic expressions of what human beings experience of the divine, not of God Himself.  

This is the kind of question that should be raised and discussed in adult faith class.  In homilies I have referred to this conception of God quite a few times, but without explicitly linking it to "feeling language" as symbolic, or as expressing what the receiver experiences, not God per se.  In referring time and again to "I AM," to the God of Moses, I thought that it was evident that we are speaking of a presence beyond all bodily existence, not in any way caused, bounded, or influenced by space-time.  

Or to put the matter differently:  Why would a person think that "God" has feelings?  Do hearers take expressions of God's love or anger literally?  God is neither a being nor a person.  Beings, or "sentient beings," have feelings.  Beings exist in space-time.  What we call "God" is not a being.  Indeed, the best philosophers may speak of the divine as "non-existent being," to communicate the truth that God is non-existent, yet is.  

From the human side, when I read that "God's mercy came on me," or "the peace of God," or "God loves us," I have understood those expressions as communicating what a human being experiences of the divine, not what "God" is in and of "Himself."  Again, language of God is necessarily symbolic, and taking it literally distorts the truth of reality, and even the truth of reality as experienced. I was getting at this issue by speaking of biblical language, and the Christian story generally, as "mythical."  But I noticed how you balked at that, which I did not explore in my mind as indicating that you may be taking symbolic language literally.  

It is far better to take symbolic language literally (myth as historical reality, for example), than to dismiss symbolic or mythical language as "non-sensical," as many modern "thinkers" have done, and still do.  One can err in many ways, and usually, some ways are more damaging than others.  To think that "God feels love" may not do harm to one's life, although it may keep one living in mythical language longer than necessary.  

Let me conclude with a concrete example of how a philosopher deals with these issues / problems. Thomas Aquinas is both utterly profound, and very prudent in what he says, lest he confuse people, but also, to avoid getting declared a heretic, or burned at the stake. Whether or not he would directly address these matters as I have done here, I do not know, but he presses much further, much more purely, in his insight into the divine as simply "the act of to be."  That is all. The rest is fleshed out for our sakes. When Thomas writes about God as "self-diffusing Good," it means what those living within mythical understanding would say, "God loves us."  Note that "self-diffusing Good" attributes no feeling to God, but communicates the truth that human beings can see and know goodness from God.  To say, "God loves us," on the other hand, can suggest to a more literal understanding that God "feels love."  What one does with that, I do not know, but it leads to strange conceptions if one thinks about what one is saying.

Admittedly, language used in the scriptures, in poetry, in liturgy, is highly symbolic, and employs many mythical elements to communicate.  Indeed, we speak words out to God in prayer, although God has no ears, and does not need spoken words to discern what we think. We need to speak out generally. Silence is, however, more like God.

Just a few thoughts in a fuller response to your question.

In Christ,
Fr. Paul

"Aura Of Power"

10/04/2012

 

Please look at this 1.5 min clip from last night's debate [noted below]  The GOP added music, which I would not have done.  I will look for more clips. They may reveal more.

Obama is not used to being spoken to in that way.  Presidents do live in a bubble of believers and supporters. LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Baby Bush, Obama display the same reality. As a political scientist, this phenomenon stands out to me.  These men are treated as Emperors, as gods, and how dare anyone question them.  It is not at all a sign of political health in our country, but of a huge gap between rulers and ruled.  We are a democracy in name, an empire in reality.  We the People do not know or face this truth.

These political leaders need more genuine, open discussions with their opponents. Consider how the PM of the UK must speak before Parliament regularly, and how they are booed by opponents. That is much healthier than our American elevation of Presidents as Messiahs. (UK gives the divine aura more to the Monarch, removed from politics.) To my mind, this elevation of the Leader was what last night displayed. The same unmasking occurred to Reagan in 1984 in his first debate. These Presidents are not accustomed to being cross-examined or openly assaulted in public. They need more of it.  Reality breeds humility.

Friends, our elected political leaders are indeed a governing class, and largely removed from real life.  Both parties.  Virtually identical in this regard.

We see the truth of Lord Acton's insight: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Whether Roman or Chinese emperors, or Popes and bishops, or leaders of ideological mass movements, or American Presidents, the same disease of the arrogance of power and protection from the truth of reality shows up. And this reality of self-importance and self-worship is masked by political hoopla, smiles, handlers, media that share in the aroma of power, and so on.  
www.youtube.com/embed/dKMUHcgsbag

After The First "Predidential Debate" of 2012

03 Oct 2012

Folks,

This "Presidential debate" made me uncomfortable, and I need to think about why.  President Obama looked into the camera a number of times, and as I watched, I wished that Romney would do the same.  But Romney often addressed Obama directly, and looked at him, whereas Obama addressed Romney far less often. Also, for being old enough to be Obama's father, I thought that Romney looked younger and fresher, and Obama looked a little shrunken, tired. I am not sure why, but office has its burdens.

I have seen that on a "vote meter," Romney's impassioned speech to sit down with both Democrats and Republicans, discussion, and make decisions received a strongly favorable response. Indeed, this speech had the strongest response in the "focus group" in suburban Denver. Supposedly, suburban Colorado is a remarkably accurate predictor of Presidential elections in the U.S.  

But I wonder why the whole "debate" make me feel a little restless, uncomfortable? In good part, it seemed that each man spoke past the other, that they were not seeking common ground, but to make themselves look good, and the other bad. That is politics, but the lack of openness to reasoning together makes me, at least, feel uncomfortable. A good leader helps each person to feel that s/he is contributing something to the common good. Why could not either of these two men have said to the other, "You have a good point there, and I need to take it further into account." 

When so much power is at stake, truth is not the foremost goal.  Each side seeks victory in the polls, not to see "truth emerge in the marketplace of ideas."  I understand that, and expect it in our "democratic political system," but I much prefer genuine intellectual engagement to political posturing.  For my part, I pity men and women who get caught up in politics.  They are not evil, not fools, but they must compromise so much of nobility of character.  Political leaders often sacrifice goodness to the quest for power.

One thing for sure: Romney did a much better job last evening than Senator McCain did in 2008. Obama was, I think, weaker than he was in 2008, because he seemed less present, less engaged.  No doubt the office of President weighs very heavily on a person. Consider how Obama has visibly aged; the same happened to the younger Bush, and to Bill Clinton, during their tenures in office.

As I watched this "debate," I spontaneously thought that three times, Romney "hit the ball out of park," and that Obama did the same once.  But then, my preference for Romney may bias me to judge fairly of their qualities as debaters. It would be interesting to hear a truly objective analyst of the political scene to see what he or she would say.

The one line by Obama that most fascinated me was "I believe in America's [pause] future."  I was expecting, "people." How can one believe in what does not exist? The future is indeed empty of content. We must choose and act to make our present become future. Why did he not say, I believe that the American people can realize a good future," or some such formulation?  I wonder if Obama also could say, "I believe in America's past, and its present."  Or, "I believe in America."  The use of "future" deserves careful reflection because, as I said, the future has no substantial reality, it is merely possible. So how can it be the object of "believe?"  Maybe he meant, "I believe that America has a good future."  That could be. But frankly, our "future" is fully open, fully dependent on our choices and actions. Nothing in "the future" is guaranteed, fixed. Nothing is "pre-determined," except that "everything that comes into being must perish," including our country.  And this is a truth that Americans do not like to face, as I have discovered repeatedly while teaching courses in politics to American college students. 

These thoughts will be continued after I have more time to think.

Note on an Upcoming series of classes

We continue our study of the Letter of the Apostle Paul to Christians in Rome (“Romans”), and it may take a number of weeks.  

Our next study will be a non-biblical work, as requested by several parishioners, and it makes good sense, I think, to turn to other writings. What is evident is that our scientisitic, literalistic culture has confused people on how to interpret symbolic language. Scripture has many passages that are so highly symbolic and often mythical that they confuse many contemporary minds. Trying to interpret the symbolic language in light of the engendering spiritual experiences is not a method familiar to most of our parishioners, as I have seen. Hence, we shall read together a work that is less steeped in symbolic language, or at least more explicitly attuned to the truth of reality as we experience it.  Hence, we shall study St. Anselm’s masterful work, the Prologion (Address to God), to which Anselm gave the explanatory title, “Faith seeking understanding.”  

We will need to get an account of the approximate number of parishioners who will attend these classes, so that I may order the proper number of books in advance.  Some of us may prefer to download texts onto our e-readers (iPad, Kindle, Nook, and so on). 

Part II: Further Thoughts On God, And Whether God Feels

 

When considering any question having to do with what we call “God,” it seems beneficial to return again and again to the truth of reality experienced. For perhaps the foremost problem or obstacle in thinking about “God” is the mind’s tendency to objectify, and in this case, to treat “God” as “a separate being.”  Such tendencies of thought when relating to “God” are intensified in the Christian tradition because of the existence and weight of doctrine and dogma, much of which communicates symbolically, and gives the impression of objectifying “God.”

First, however, let me clarify why I am writing “God” in quotation marks in the preceding paragraph. What or who God is in “Himself” human beings scarcely know.  Our language about “God” is always at best tentative, and it must be symbolic.  Giving “God” names, and speaking of “Him” as we do, can and often is misleading.  And yet, saying nothing does not seem fitting, either.  So for the present I will write a few words about that which we call “God,” understanding that these thoughts are crude, the formulations approximate, and that any language about “God” can be, and often is, misleading. 

“Religions” have often given the impression that “God has been revealed.”  Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and even ancient “religions” in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, Greece have given the clear impression that human beings know much about “God,” or “the gods,” or “the divine beings,” and so on.  I think that it is healthier and wiser to begin with the obvious truth, and to return to it repeatedly:  All of our speech about “God” or “the gods” is imperfect because our knowledge of God may not even deserve the name knowledge, but is at best a groping towards knowledge, a desire to understand what is ever beyond our full or satisfying understanding. “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” is a far healthier or more true statement than “the truth of God was known to them” (Romans 1). Wiser is the Apostle Paul’s formulation in his letter to Christians in Galatia:  “Now that you have come to know God--or rather, to be known by God.”  We can know, apparently, that we are known; but who or what is knowing and forming us remains ever beyond our mind’s grasp.

                                                                                ***
Return to the opening formulation: When considering any question having to do with what we call “God,” it seems beneficial to return again and again to the truth of reality experienced.

Whatever we think or say about God is one of several things, or a blending of these: (1) It may be a more or less mindless repetition of what we have heard or read about “God,” most likely from one or another religious tradition, scripture, liturgy, prayer, or doctrinal formulation. (2) Or, one’s own mind can develop some thoughts based on what one has heard or read about “God,” such as the “Triune God” of Christian dogma. (3) Or one’s imagination, moved perhaps by one passion or another, can imagine all sorts of things about “God,” and formulate them as “truth” or “revelation.”  (4) Or one can proceed more cautiously and circumspectly, presenting a more or less faithful exegesis of one’s experiences of the divine.  (5) Or one can recall and present in words another’s experience of the divine.  (6) Or, one’s formulations may be a combination of these or other kinds of discourse on “God.”  

I am seeking to avoid numbers 1-3 above, and to proceed mainly from numbers 4-5, to the best of my ability.  In other words, I seek to base my thoughts and words about “God” on the truth of reality experienced, especially by a prophet, apostle, philosopher, or mystic; or from some momentary lights in my own consciousness.  Although in Christian liturgy we necessarily use scripted language from the Judaeo-Christian tradition (in the scripture readings, in preaching, in songs, in the Eucharistic prayer, and so on), in one’s quieter meditations, or when speaking with those seeking understanding, we need to be more cautious, more analytically cautious.
 
Let us consider one of the greatest “revelations” in history for an example:  The experience by the man called “Moses” (Mosche) in or out of “the burning bush” on Mount Sinai.  What this one particular, concrete human being experienced on that occasion, and then formulated in words, remains probably the most significant and fundamental experience-formulation of the divine presence recorded in documents of human history.  It is recorded in the Book of Exodus (chapters 3-4) that God spoke to the man Moses, having drawn his attention through the appearance of what looked like a fire that burned, but did not consume a bush.  In any case, apparently what we call “God” broke into the consciousness of one particular human being, on one occasion.  In the midst of Moses’ awed and questioning mind, the divine Presence identified Itself not as a named, finite “god” dwelling on a mountain, not as a being of any sort, but simply as “I AM.”  Or from the written document (dated much later, of course, than the original experience), that is what Moses “heard” or experienced of the Divine:  “I AM WHO I AM.”  

Such an experience of the divine remains normative in “history.”  It is not for us to invent “gods,” or merely to have recourse to “the God of our tradition,” or so on, but to ponder and to be conscious of the truth as experienced.  And it is surely not for us to replace the truth of God for our own imaginations, for our own private and passing “self” or ego.  The often silly and shallow Swiss-French philosophe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, preferred his own fanciful musings to the truth of reality experienced.  In his novel, Emile, Rousseau asks the self-referential question, “Did God speak to Moses to speak to Jean-Jacques?” In other words, “What do I, Rousseau, need of any so-called “revelation” of God to Moses--or to anyone else? I have God speaking directly in my heart.”  Indeed, Rousseau says that he does have God speaking directly in his heart as “the voice of conscience,” which “makes man like God.”  Again quoting the Apostle Paul:  “Proclaiming themselves wise, they became fools.”  Or to put the matter more simply: Rousseau, drop your blind arrogance and self-centered existence, and open up to the truth of the God who did speak to Moses, and who speaks to anyone through that singular experience who will think about it, meditate on it, heed it.
 
From what can be known in the course of human history, God indeed spoke to Moses to speak to us.  Or more cautiously:  the divine communicated himself to Moses, who in turn communicated the truth of God to us.  But how did God “speak” to Moses?  What happened?  Assuming that Moses was a human being as we are, let us briefly consider the truth of reality, and how it is that a human being can “hear” God speak, or be moved by God.

What we call “human being” is essentially that part of the whole of reality that is between the Divine and other beings / material reality. Man is between God and the “sub-human.”  (Ways in which animals may or may not experience God is not here the question, but set aside for further thought later.) Man is a part of reality in which the Divine can and does move, break in, communicate, act.  Again, leaving aside the ways in which the Divine acts on other parts of reality, what we can know and experience is God moving us in consciousness.  When we question God, when we ask, “Who are you, LORD?” it is God himself moving us to question. What we experience is a restlessness, a wondering, a desire to know that which simply is, a desire to be rooted and grounded in what truly is and what endures, so that we do not simply pass away as all material being does. Desiring life now and forever, desiring what is really good (and not just an appearance of good), desiring the source of all that exists, desiring to glimpse that which is simply beautiful and present in all things beautiful, our minds are drawn towards God. The divine is that Presence in us moving us towards the Divine. Human is the being drawn to God; or to be human is to share responsively and consciously in God. All things are in God, but human is the mode of being in God mindfully, with awareness, with a desire for a more perfect union.

What is it that can truthfully be called “God,” based on such experiences as those of the great man, Moses?  Who or what is the God of Moses?  Who is it that speaks or is heard by Moses to say, “I AM.”  What is happening in Moses?  What has stirred him up?  Why does God move Moses?  In the context of Exodus, Moses is moved in order to stir him up to lead “my people Israel” from bondage into freedom under God.  Did God move Moses ultimately to lead all human beings, or even all of creation somehow, from bondage to death, to sin, to self, into freedom and fullness of life in He WHO IS?  Is Moses the Representative of the God to humankind, for one and for all?  If Moses, then why other prophets?  Perhaps we do not heed, and need reminders?  Why Christ?  To see what God-in-man fully looks like?  Why does the divine stir and move in each of us?  Can we not just hear words with our ears, obey, and live?  What is gained by encountering the Divine hiddenly in the truth of one’s soul or consciousness? 

Why does God seek man, human being?  Why does man seek God?  Why do I ask these questions?

                                                                                  ***
Let us consider once again, briefly, the question, “Does God have feelings?”  

What God is in and of Himself, we do not know. What we know of God is the Divine as experienced by particular human beings in history.  Men such as Moses and the Apostle Paul “heard” God speak to them, in them, but does that mean that God has a voice?  To have a voice, would not God have to have a body?  To be a body, would not God be bounded in space-time, limited, and bound to perish?  Does it not make more sense to say, “The divine Presence can be experienced in a human being as words, or as love, or as peace”?
 
When the divine is experienced as present in a human being, one may “hear,” or “see,” or “feel.”  Words can be heard in a receptive human being: “I AM.”  “I AM Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”  “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Words are heard, for the Divine communicates to the human soul in a way that a man can understand.  So God “speaks” Hebrew to Moses, Greek to Paul, Aramaic to the Apostles, English to Wesley, and so on. Or the  mind of a man, moved by the divine Presence, can “see” images, or pictures in the mind, in response to flowing Presence.  Or one feels “the peace of God that surpasses all understanding,” when one is not “in his flesh,” in himself, but conscious of divine Presence here and now.

In God Or In Human Being

 

06 Oct 2012  (St. Bruno)
Note to a parishioner:  
 

I came across the note I wrote you yesterday morning in response to your question about feelings in God.  Your question surprised me, in that I had probably unconsciously assumed that everyone knew or realized that what we call "God" is neither body nor a human soul, but beyond everything material in any way.  Because feelings are functions of our being embodied, I presumed that it was self-evident that the divine does not have feelings.  Language that speaks of "God's love" or "God's anger," and so on, are symbolic expressions of what human beings experience of the divine, not of God Himself.  

This is the kind of question that should be raised and discussed in adult faith class.  In homilies I have referred to this conception of God quite a few times, but without explicitly linking it to "feeling language" as symbolic, or as expressing what the receiver experiences, not God per se.  In referring time and again to "I AM," to the God of Moses, I thought that it was evident that we are speaking of a presence beyond all bodily existence, not in any way caused, bounded, or influenced by space-time.  

Or to put the matter differently:  Why would a person think that "God" has feelings?  Do hearers take expressions of God's love or anger literally?  God is neither a being nor a person.  Beings, or "sentient beings," have feelings.  Beings exist in space-time.  What we call "God" is not a being.  Indeed, the best philosophers may speak of the divine as "non-existent being," to communicate the truth that God is non-existent, yet is.  

From the human side, when I read that "God's mercy came on me," or "the peace of God," or "God loves us," I have understood those expressions as communicating what a human being experiences of the divine, not what "God" is in and of "Himself."  Again, language of God is necessarily symbolic, and taking it literally distorts the truth of reality, and even the truth of reality as experienced. I was getting at this issue by speaking of biblical language, and the Christian story generally, as "mythical."  But I noticed how you balked at that, which I did not explore in my mind as indicating that you may be taking symbolic language literally.  

It is far better to take symbolic language literally (myth as historical reality, for example), than to dismiss symbolic or mythical language as "non-sensical," as many modern "thinkers" have done, and still do.  One can err in many ways, and usually, some ways are more damaging than others.  To think that "God feels love" may not do harm to one's life, although it may keep one living in mythical language longer than necessary.  

Let me conclude with a concrete example of how a philosopher deals with these issues / problems. Thomas Aquinas is both utterly profound, and very prudent in what he says, lest he confuse people, but also, to avoid getting declared a heretic, or burned at the stake. Whether or not he would directly address these matters as I have done here, I do not know, but he presses much further, much more purely, in his insight into the divine as simply "the act of to be."  That is all. The rest is fleshed out for our sakes. When Thomas writes about God as "self-diffusing Good," it means what those living within mythical understanding would say, "God loves us."  Note that "self-diffusing Good" attributes no feeling to God, but communicates the truth that human beings can see and know goodness from God.  To say, "God loves us," on the other hand, can suggest to a more literal understanding that God "feels love."  What one does with that, I do not know, but it leads to strange conceptions if one thinks about what one is saying.

Admittedly, language used in the scriptures, in poetry, in liturgy, is highly symbolic, and employs many mythical elements to communicate.  Indeed, we speak words out to God in prayer, although God has no ears, and does not need spoken words to discern what we think. We need to speak out generally. Silence is, however, more like God.

Just a few thoughts in a fuller response to your question.

In Christ,
Fr. Paul

"Aura Of Power"

10/04/2012

 

Please look at this 1.5 min clip from last night's debate [noted below]  The GOP added music, which I would not have done.  I will look for more clips. They may reveal more.

Obama is not used to being spoken to in that way.  Presidents do live in a bubble of believers and supporters. LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Baby Bush, Obama display the same reality. As a political scientist, this phenomenon stands out to me.  These men are treated as Emperors, as gods, and how dare anyone question them.  It is not at all a sign of political health in our country, but of a huge gap between rulers and ruled.  We are a democracy in name, an empire in reality.  We the People do not know or face this truth.

These political leaders need more genuine, open discussions with their opponents. Consider how the PM of the UK must speak before Parliament regularly, and how they are booed by opponents. That is much healthier than our American elevation of Presidents as Messiahs. (UK gives the divine aura more to the Monarch, removed from politics.) To my mind, this elevation of the Leader was what last night displayed. The same unmasking occurred to Reagan in 1984 in his first debate. These Presidents are not accustomed to being cross-examined or openly assaulted in public. They need more of it.  Reality breeds humility.

Friends, our elected political leaders are indeed a governing class, and largely removed from real life.  Both parties.  Virtually identical in this regard.

We see the truth of Lord Acton's insight: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Whether Roman or Chinese emperors, or Popes and bishops, or leaders of ideological mass movements, or American Presidents, the same disease of the arrogance of power and protection from the truth of reality shows up. And this reality of self-importance and self-worship is masked by political hoopla, smiles, handlers, media that share in the aroma of power, and so on.  

www.youtube.com/embed/dKMUHcgsbag

After The First "Presidential Debate" of 2012

03 Oct 2012

Folks,
This "Presidential debate" made me uncomfortable, and I need to think about why.  President Obama looked into the camera a number of times, and as I watched, I wished that Romney would do the same.  But Romney often addressed Obama directly, and looked at him, whereas Obama addressed Romney far less often. Also, for being old enough to be Obama's father, I thought that Romney looked younger and fresher, and Obama looked a little shrunken, tired. I am not sure why, but office has its burdens.

I have seen that on a "vote meter," Romney's impassioned speech to sit down with both Democrats and Republicans, discussion, and make decisions received a strongly favorable response. Indeed, this speech had the strongest response in the "focus group" in suburban Denver. Supposedly, suburban Colorado is a remarkably accurate predictor of Presidential elections in the U.S.  

But I wonder why the whole "debate" make me feel a little restless, uncomfortable? In good part, it seemed that each man spoke past the other, that they were not seeking common ground, but to make themselves look good, and the other bad. That is politics, but the lack of openness to reasoning together makes me, at least, feel uncomfortable. A good leader helps each person to feel that s/he is contributing something to the common good. Why could not either of these two men have said to the other, "You have a good point there, and I need to take it further into account." 

When so much power is at stake, truth is not the foremost goal.  Each side seeks victory in the polls, not to see "truth emerge in the marketplace of ideas."  I understand that, and expect it in our "democratic political system," but I much prefer genuine intellectual engagement to political posturing.  For my part, I pity men and women who get caught up in politics.  They are not evil, not fools, but they must compromise so much of nobility of character.  Political leaders often sacrifice goodness to the quest for power.

One thing for sure: Romney did a much better job last evening than Senator McCain did in 2008. Obama was, I think, weaker than he was in 2008, because he seemed less present, less engaged.  No doubt the office of President weighs very heavily on a person. Consider how Obama has visibly aged; the same happened to the younger Bush, and to Bill Clinton, during their tenures in office.

As I watched this "debate," I spontaneously thought that three times, Romney "hit the ball out of park," and that Obama did the same once.  But then, my preference for Romney may bias me to judge fairly of their qualities as debaters. It would be interesting to hear a truly objective analyst of the political scene to see what he or she would say.

The one line by Obama that most fascinated me was "I believe in America's [pause] future."  I was expecting, "people." How can one believe in what does not exist? The future is indeed empty of content. We must choose and act to make our present become future. Why did he not say, I believe that the American people can realize a good future," or some such formulation?  I wonder if Obama also could say, "I believe in America's past, and its present."  Or, "I believe in America."  The use of "future" deserves careful reflection because, as I said, the future has no substantial reality, it is merely possible. So how can it be the object of "believe?"  Maybe he meant, "I believe that America has a good future."  That could be. But frankly, our "future" is fully open, fully dependent on our choices and actions. Nothing in "the future" is guaranteed, fixed. Nothing is "pre-determined," except that "everything that comes into being must perish," including our country.  And this is a truth that Americans do not like to face, as I have discovered repeatedly while teaching courses in politics to American college students. 

These thoughts will be continued after I have more time to think.