"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.

"Holding God in Consciousness"

 

No mind other than God’s can “hold God,” so what this phrase really means is “Keeping conscious of God,” or “keeping one’s mind on and in God.” I have borrowed the phrase from St. Paul’s Letter to the Christians in Rome, ch 1:28, which reads: “Since they did not hold God in consciousness, God gave them up to a base mind....” I am translating literally from the Greek.Using the mind in the movement to God was well developed in the Greek-speaking world long before the epiphany of Christ. Below I will quote from two Greek philosophers who lived roughly around 500 B.C., about a century before the death of Socrates, 500 years before Christ. These verses may give you some idea of the mental culture which the gospel of Christ encountered in the ancient world:

From Xenophanes (c. 530 B.C.)

“There is one God, among gods and men the greatest, not at all like mortals in body or in mind. He sees as a whole, thinks as whole, and hears as a whole. Without toil he sets everything in motion, by the thought of his mind.”

From Heracleitus of Ephesus (c. 500 B.C.)

“One must follow the Logos [reason], which is common to all. But although the Logos is universal, the many lives as if they had understanding peculiar to themselves.
“The sun is new every day.” “Asses prefer straw to gold.”
“How could anyone hide from that which never sets?”
“That which alone is wise is One; it is willing and unwilling to be called Zeus".
“You could not in your journey find the ends of the soul, though you travelled the whole way; so deep is its Logos.”
“I explored my soul.”
“Human nature has no power of understanding; but the divine nature has it"
“Without faith the divine escapes being known.”
“It is hard to fight against impulse; whatever it wants, it buys at the expense of soul.”
“To those who are awake, there is one ordered universe common to all, whereas in sleep each man turns away from this world into one of his own". “The Lord whose oracle is that at Delphi neither speaks nor conceals, but gives a sign.”
"The thinking faculty is common to all.”
“All human beings have the capacity to know themselves and to act in moderation.”

Finally, one from Socrates, killed by the Athenians in 399 B.C.

“The unexamined life is not worthy of a human being.”

Government Or No Government

 Sept. 6

Two extremes of thoughts are tangling in my mind this morning, neither of which I find admirable, both disturbing:  One is a kind of motto developed by the DNC, and used in their video:  "Government is the one thing we all belong to."  The other comes from a "liberal-libertarian" whose article I read this morning, arguing for the needlessness of having any government at all.  Two extremes, both have wide appeal, apparently. 

The second view, which is really anarchistic, probably comes to us from Ayn Rand, and as far as I can tell, leaves the weak and poor utterly at the mercy of the wealthy and powerful.  Private "insurance companies" would take the place of any "coercive government."  The view is propounded by a professor in Nevada, and it typifies what I think of intellectual pursuits in American universities (other than physical sciences):  in large part, brain-washing by ideologues, left or right, who seem divorced from reality.  I pity our students and young people.  Best advice I would have for someone going to college now: study a physical science or engineering, and keep as free as possible from all ideologically-inclined courses taught under the guise of "history," "liberal arts," "political science," "philosophy," and so on.  And that is most unfortunate, as the life of the mind suffers.  But the main casualty of our ideologically-drunk culture is the life of the mind, real thinking.

As for the slogan from the DNC, that "Government is the one thing we all belong to," it is nearly an inversion of our Founding principles:  "We the People" form a government, and are in principle superior to it.  Civil society precedes and overarches any and all governments.  On a popular level, the common in "the people" or "the country" was captured in JFK's  well-known phrase, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."  (He did not say, "Government," nor did he tell folks to ask what Government can do for them.)  Here, we are all members of "the country," which has a government as a part of it, not as the whole; and government needs to defend the whole country, protect the weaker members from the strong, serve justice.  Or again, remember the classical understanding that nourished western thought for centuries, and is so unlike this Governmentalism heard at the DNC:  We all belong to the Whole, the universe; and participate in it with our bodies, souls, reason.  Not "government," but reason (logos) is the common (koinos) which all share--a view articulated 2500 years ago by Herakleitos of Ephesus. 

The claim that "Government is the one thing we all belong to" would be an ideological child of European "Democratic Socialism" from the late 19th century to the present.  It is based on the creed of Marx, but has dropped the call for violent revolution, and freezes the Marxist-Leninist stage of the "dictatorship of the Party" through government, not going on to Marx's goal of a "classless society" without any need for government.  In effect, this Democratic worldview is a more or less "benign" totalitarianism, in which the individual human being, and all non-governmental groups within society, are subservient to the "Government."  (And the "Government" is preferably controlled and dominated by one "Party," of course.)  This phenomenon was already analyzed by Nietzsche in the 1880's, who wrote about "the Idol State," and explained how degenerate Christianity, Socialism, and Democracy form the creed that creates a "herd mentality," making all subservient to the State.  Fascism, Soviet Communism, and National Socialism are all based on the same essential desire:  the individual and social units are subservient to the almighty, controlling, compelling, monopolistic Government.

So the liberal-libertarians want to dismantle the State, and at least the chosen spokesman for the Democrat Party (USA) seeks to elevate the Government / State as the one and only common reality to which we all belong.  I do not find such views "scary" (it is common now to find things "scary," as children do), but I find them disturbing, because these extremist views, detached from reality, have gained such a powerful grip in the consciousness of so many of our people.  "Age of ideology" indeed.  Common sense, with its grounding in reality, is increasingly eclipsed by ideological non-thinking. 

I must wonder, as I often have, if our country has not in reality become totalitarian, a way of life (or of death) developed mainly by men / women seeking power, and embodying their will to power in all-powerful institutions (mainly, Government).  What are political parties but means to get and to keep political power?  That is the foremost lesson of the recent party conventions.

Adult Faith Class on Romans

Why do I teach adult faith classes, and why do I think that they are significant for our parishes?

According to Catholic law and theology, a parish priest has three duties, listed in order of importance: teaching and preaching; celebrating the Sacraments; administration of parish properties. Preaching in the sense of proclaiming Christ is expected at every Eucharistic celebration. Teaching is the priest’s duty in his “care for souls,” in the effort to help ground human beings in the truth of Christ. Generally teaching our little ones is entrusted to worthy lay people in the parishes, who have a good grounding in their faith and desire to share that with our children. Adult education generally takes the form of initial instruction for non-Catholics who wish to enter our church (RCIA), and ongoing faith development, or mystagogy, for Catholicsseeking a deeper understanding of our common faith.

Regarding the significance of adult faith education, let me quote an exchange with a senior monsignor with whom I worked in Maryland. Parishes asked that I offer faith classes, but he refused to allow me, saying that “They are not needed. You learn your faith as a child.” As I said to the monsignor, “The faith you learn as a child is a child’s faith; it must grow.” It is that simple: Faith in God needs to grow into understanding, insight, wisdom, and ultimately, a more genuine love of God and of neighbor in God.

Our new class begins on 09 and 11 September at the times listed. After some thought, I have chosen to have us study together the New Testament letter often briefly called “Romans.” This letter is the longest and most developed presentation of the Apostle Paul’s understanding of our life in Christ. It justly can be called “the Gospel according to St. Paul.” Rather than present stories from the life of Jesus to flesh out the meaning of his death and Resurrection, the Apostle Paul explains the meaning of Christ for human life.

To enhance our understanding, I shall draw at times on Old Testament passages or from other letters of St. Paul, or from writings by Church fathers and theologians. But above all, we shall seek to read the text of “Romans” closely, and try to enter into its meaning and underlying spiritual experiences. Needless to say, we must proceed using not only reason, but the Spirit to help us understand this profound letter by the Apostle.

Please know that all adults and maturing younger people are invited to attend these sessions of our adult faith class.

Do You Also Wish To Go Away?

The concluding exchange between Jesus and Simon Peter pulls together the “Bread of Life” discourse we have been hearing at Mass for a number of weeks. St. John the evangelist tells us that many of Jesus’ disciples left him because of his claim to be “the Bread of Life.” His words clearly troubled them, even angered some. What was the cause? Christ’s words crashed against the walls of their closed minds, and rather than open up to the truth, they refused to listen, and turned away. It is a very old problem in our human condition. Many of us act at times as if we say: “Don’t bother me with truth. I want to cling to my opinions, to what I choose to believe. How dare you rock my boat, challenge my beliefs, shake up my world?” And so they left Christ, turning away from the living God who was addressing them in and through Jesus.

Hence, Jesus turns to the few disciples left with him, and asks one of his probing questions: “Do you also wish to go away?” To go away from what or whom? From Christ, from his words, from the unknown God acting on human beings in and through Christ. In effect Jesus asks, “Do you want to break communion with God? Do you want to leave me? Why?”

Typically it is Peter who speaks for disciples: “LORD, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life....” Note that Peter does not call him “Jesus,” as Peter is speaking to God-in-Christ, and uses the sacred, divine Name, Yahweh (translated as “LORD”). In typical Jewish style, Peter asks a question in response to Jesus’ question. To whom else could Peter go? To whom or to what can you go if you leave God? If you decided to cut free from God and His truth, what would you do? Where would you go to flee the face of God? As the Psalmist notes (139), “Even if I lie in the grave, YOU are there.” How does one escape the living God? Ask the first man. He tried to escape, hiding behind a tree (Genesis 3). Apart from the divine light, it is all darkness. Nothingness.

Then Peter gives his personal reason, Everyman’s reason, for staying with God-in-Christ: “You have the words of eternal life.” Surely each creature wants to live, and to live forever. Nowhere can such life and truth be found except in union with God. That is what “eternal life” means: true human life in union with divine LIFE. It is not only unending, but full of divinity, joyful beyond words, radiant in truth. Because Peter hears Christ speaking “the words of eternal life,” he identifies the One speaking to him: “You are the Holy One of God.”

One God-in-Christ, yet such diverse responses. Why is it that so few persons stayed with Christ? What is there about the unknown God speaking through Jesus that proves unacceptable, undesirable to so many? Is not one reason that many persons prefer ancient beliefs to living in God’s presence? According to Jesus, they think that “the old wine is better.” Ancient beliefs are familiar, safe, unthreatening. The God whose Presence enters a human soul is uncontrollable, ever new, always drawing one beyond himself into unchartered waters. Jesus draws one through religious beliefs into communion with the nameless I AM.

Brief Notes On Possible Interpretations/Distortions Of The Gospel Of Christ

04 August 2012  St. John Vianney

Preparing for the second of five weeks of homilies on the Gospel of John, chapter 6, it occurred to me that there are a number of different developments from the gospel of Christ that one can find in the New Testament. To put the matter more simply: the basic story of Christ could have given rise to various movements and interpretations, and indeed, it has.  Some of these have been more or less legitimate developments from the Gospel, because they embody an unfolding of original intentions into concrete reality. Other developments seems illegitimate, because they involve a betrayal of what one can discover of the evangelists’ intentions.

Jesus and the early gospel movements could and did give rise to:

• Relatively independent, discrete communities of disciples of Jesus gathered around his remembered words, and sharing their lives together. This pattern has been seen in the “low church” movements from the earliest centuries to the present.
• Relatively connected communities of faith, governed by a hierarchy, and developing various forms of liturgical life. This pattern shows up in Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist traditions, and so on.  
• A more individual, philosophical or non-intellectual approach to living the faith of Christ,  such as found among anchorites, hermits, solitaries, and some philosophers.
• Fervent communities of “believers” highly influenced by early Christian apocalyptic, and more or less waiting for “Jesus to return” and “establish the Kingdom.”
• Communities or wandering individuals assuming a Gnostic interpretation of Christ, meaning that adherents understand themselves as essentially Christ, who “know” that they are saved because they “know who they are,” which is God.
• Kinds of “progressive” Christian movements that eschew the thrust of living towards God unto eternal life, but who seek to use “gospel values” to “transform the world.” This approach has been highly powerful and entrenched in recent Catholicism and in various Protestant churches since the Enlightenment, which spawned this interpretation.

Comment:  According to my understanding of the story of Christ contained in documents of our “New Testament,” the first three approaches appear to be more or less legitimate readings; each unfolds some potentialities displayed in the canonical Gospels, the letters of the Apostle Paul, and so on. The apocalyptic variety has been found within Christianity from the beginning, so it, too, could be called “legitimate” to an extent, even though it embodies a split from present reality. On the other hand, the ancient Gnostic interpretation of salvation through knowledge essentially betrays the characteristic humility of Christ, and utterly disturbs the distinction between God and human being.  As for the Progressivist interpretation of Christ and the Gospel: by relegating a concern for the truth of God and eternal life to an at-best second-class status, the “Progressivists” also betray the essential core of the gospel; like Demus of old, they are “in love with the world,” and fail to recognize in the story of Christ a radical movement from this world into the divine Presence, both here and beyond.