When Truth doesn't cut it

For almost twenty years, I have operated under the assumption that souls generally come to God through a hearing of the Truth. After all, that's how my own faith was awakened -- by an exercise of the intellect. I read and I studied and I compared and I examined, and everything Catholicism claimed made beautiful sense to me. It was reasonable, logical, cohesive, coherent, and consistent. On the basis of that coherence, I changed my actions, my beliefs, my heart, and my soul, and I have never looked back. The Truth of the Church was, to me, the essence of her appeal. One of my favorite sayings when it comes to evangelization is "Truth comes with graces attached" -- and yes, it does.

However, I have recently come to understand that I and those like me are not the norm. I have learned that most people do not come to Christ and the Church through an exacting and exhilarating exercise of the intellect. For most people, Truth is not what initially propels them toward Christ.

Well, knock me over with a feather.

But don't get me wrong: Somewhere in my brain, I knew that already. Every human being is unique by design, and I'd read that different folks are drawn to God in different ways: Some are drawn by the fact that God is Truth, for sure, but others by His Oneness (unity), or by His Goodness, or by His Beauty, etc. I've referred to these different "voices of God" when discussing the call to conversion, but I don't think it truly sank in until recently.

First came the election of Pope Francis. For those of us who live mostly in our heads, adoring Truth, embracing intellectual order, craving clarity, and swooning at doctrinal precision, Pope Benedict XVI was our dream pontiff, following on the heels of another beloved papa, the philosopher Blessed John Paul the Great. We Truth-groupies had two popes in a row who nourished our souls by feeding our minds as well. Then suddenly, Pope Francis burst into our comfortable neatness and encouraged us to "make a mess" -- by leaving our books and debates and pristine doctrines for a time and going out into the streets and byways to meet our fellow human beings exactly where they are. Francis had impromptu, non-authoritative exchanges with journalists, secularists, and atheists, chats that were off-the-cuff, even sloppy -- not at all the polished and carefully weighed words of his predecessors.

And the world went nuts. And folks like me readjusted, mentally.

The world "likes" this pope, not for the doctrine and morality he teaches and preaches (which is no different from what came before), not because of ordered thought and careful words, but because he seems to care and listen and love. He seems relatable and real, and more like a loving grandpa in the neighborhood than a Supreme Pontiff on a throne.

But let me stop right here, lest anyone misunderstand: It's not that his predecessors did not love and care for and ache for every soul on the planet! Oh, how it boils my blood when people misunderstand the mystical, saintly JPII who embraced all mankind, or when they malign the shy and kindly Benedict, a quiet and gentle introvert. It's simply that Francis moves the world in a different way, and I think it's that he makes people feel something first, before he makes them think something.

For so many reasons, the soul of modern man is desperate to feel, and feel profoundly.

Francis instinctively operates on an understanding that I needed to learn: Most people do not come to Christ through Truth first. Most people come to Christ prompted by an encounter with Beauty or an experience of Goodness. Love and Truth cannot be separated, of course, but in this era of disconnection, isolation, and despair, Love must precede Truth or Truth won't get a hearing, much less an understanding. They will not hear our Truth if they do not first feel (and believe) our Love.

The next step in my broadened understanding came when I started pondering what I do on this blog. My whole shtick is debating and dissecting and raking over ideas for Truth and clarity. I know from the combox and from my email inbox that this approach is helpful to many, especially those Catholics who, due to poor catechetical formation, need to understand the tenets of the Faith better. I have something to offer in that area, it's been the main goal of the Bubble all along, and I've absolutely no intention of changing what I do on this blog (so don't worry, truthoholics!).

But I have noticed something other than the intellectual debates (and the insistence on Truth) quietly at work here.

You cannot imagine (heck, I would never have imagined!) what goes on behind the scenes of a blog like this. I don't want to reveal anything personal or betray confidences, but trust me when I say that many of the most challenging and even exasperating commenters are the nicest folks off-screen. I love them, truly, and I think they know it. I've been quiet friends with some of them for years, and a few have asked my advice or poured out their hearts, sensing that for all my doctrinal rigidity, I really do care. I've even had one hit-and-run Church-hater email me later to apologize and tell me the heartbreaking story behind the rage in her comment. I was able to pray for her and her family, and both our hearts were changed.

It's in the relationships forged, not so much the technical debates, that real human connections are made, and the fruit I've seen is that an opponent finds some respect for the Church and gives consideration to Christ where before there had been no such thing. I've even witnessed small miracles that have come through the heart-to-hearts and not through the doctrinal debates.

At some point, l will be able to tell you specific stories. Today, I will just remind you that behind every comment, query, challenge, and curse is a person who has a story -- and wounds that we cannot see. Be gentle and kind with everyone you meet and everyone you debate, because for most people, if they can't sense your authentic love for them, they will not want anything to do with your Truth.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. -- 1 Corinthians 13

Thank you, Pope Francis, for reminding us that Truth is not
always the first way to introduce Christ to the human heart. 

Time for courage, Catholics! Be kind, not "nice"….(and UPDATE)

Many of you have seen this post before, but in light of recent events (both Obama's outrageous HHS mandate forcing Catholics to violate their consciences, as well as the unholy backlash after Susan G. Komen for the Cure wisely cut ties with Planned Parenthood), it's good for Catholics to revisit the directive to be kind but not "nice". If you've spent any time on facebook lately, I think you know what I'm talking about!

I hope the wisdom of Bishop Thomas Olmsted, Blessed John Paul II, St. Paul, and Jesus Christ Himself will bolster and refresh you!

+++++++

Providential encouragement came to me well over a year ago, in the form of a local crisis pregnancy center's newsletter. It contained excerpts from a speech that our beloved Bishop Thomas Olmsted had recently delivered at a pro-life luncheon. Anyone who knows Bishop Olmsted knows that he is a gentle, kind and holy soul. Not loud, bombastic or combative, but joyful, peaceful and caring. I daresay he is one of the "nicest" men you'll ever meet. He entreats us Catholics:

Do not be "nice"; instead, tell the tough truths. At no place in the Sacred Scriptures does it say: Be nice! However, popular portrayals of Christianity would lead us to think that the first and greatest commandment is niceness.

The English word "nice" comes from the Latin word "nescius" --meaning "ignorant, knowing nothing." In English usage of the 13th century, "nice" meant "foolish, stupid, senseless." Today, it means hurting no one's feelings, without regard to what is true or good or right. Garrison Keillor said, You taught me to be nice, so nice that now I am so full of niceness, I have no sense of right and wrong, no outrage, no passion.

St. Paul writes to Timothy (2 Tim 4:2-4), Proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths....

John Paul II wrote in Evangelium Vitae (#58): The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.

....So what to do? Should we not recall Jesus' charge: Remember, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. He knows what He is doing.

....Love our enemies. Love is not "nice." Love is kind; it is patient; love does not rejoice in what is wrong, but rejoices in the truth.... Love is best illustrated by Jesus on the Cross, where He forgave those who put Him to death, where He died so that we sinners might have forgiveness and new life. Love is not cowardly but it is fair, while relentlessly opposing all threats to the dignity of human life. 

....So, do not be "nice"; be kind and tell the truth. Love your wives, your husbands, your children. Love your enemies. Do not be discouraged.

It was not till later that I realized (duh!) that the word "discourage" has "courage" as its root. We need courage to counteract our dis-courage-ment. And courage just might be the virtue most lacking today among Christians.

A couple of years ago, Danya approached Bishop Olmsted and asked him how we Catholics can best dialogue about the contentious, unpopular and controversial teachings of the Church, especially when we know we will be met with mockery, hostility and personal attacks. This meek and humble man responded that at those times, we must set aside our own fears, anxieties and dread, and we must simply speak the truth.

+++++++

In the wake of recent events, the need to speak the truth becomes even more urgent. We Catholics will be misunderstood, mocked and derided for our beliefs, but that shouldn't worry us. As Christ said to us in Matthew 5:11:

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven….

I say, Bring it.

Courage, friends.

Be kind, but not "nice".

Do not be silent, do not fear, and pray unceasingly.




UPDATE: Looks like Komen has caved to the abortion fury. Now someone tell me how to take back my donation.

.

When devout secularists and devout Catholics agree...

…then it's time for everyone else to pay attention, because a point of great clarity has likely been reached.

A few examples of what I mean:

Embryonic Stem Cell Research and In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)

Years ago, I was listening to Ron Reagan, Jr. (avowed leftist and atheist) advocate on television for embryonic stem cell research. Young Ron was strongly in support of using "excess" human embryos from IVF labs for research material. He caught my full attention when he dismissed pro-lifers' objections to embryo research by noting with a smug chuckle: "Look, if pro-life Christians were really interested in the protection of human embryos, if they really thought those embryos were babies, they'd be against IVF as well. But they're not!"

That "gotcha" statement had me yelling speaking calmly to Ron through the TV: "Why, yes! You are right, Ron, that one cannot logically oppose the use of embryos for research and support IVF at the same time. The Catholic Church teaches that both embryonic stem cell research and IVF are immoral. Both violate the dignity of the smallest humans, and ultimately lead to their mass destruction. The Catholic Church is utterly consistent when it comes to the life issues." (Okay, I didn't use those exact words, but that's what I meant.)

Ron thought he was making a clever point. He was; he just didn't realize that the Church had been making that point for years. 

Contraception and Homosexual "Marriage"

In July 1997, Philip Lawler wrote an excellent article about homosexuality in The Catholic World Report, which I've saved to this day. In it, Lawler quotes homosexual activist Andrew Sullivan* from his book, Virtually Normal: 

The heterosexuality of marriage is intrinsic only if it is understood to be intrinsically procreative; but [with the acceptance of contraception] that definition has long ago been abandoned by Western society.

The response from Lawler, a faithful Catholic:

If Sullivan's premise is correct, then his logic is inexorable. If [sex] is robbed of its distinctive quality -- its fecundity -- then there is no rational explanation for a public policy that restricts that franchise to heterosexuals.

They are right. If a culture accepts the marriage act stripped of its essence and purpose, with willfully sterilized sex now the norm within marriage, then that culture will be hard pressed to find a philosophical leg to stand on when traditional marriage needs defending. Pro-contraception Christians are in a particularly hard spot.

The redefining of marriage began with society's acceptance of contraception, and both gay activists and the Catholic Church know it.

(Update April 2013: More secularists make the connection, here.)

Contraception and Abortion

Those who approve of contraception but are uncomfortable with abortion will deny the link between contraception and abortion all day long. But how then to explain the similarity of reasoning between the liberal, pro-abortion Supreme Court justices and the pro-life Pope in Rome? Though diametrically opposed on this issue, both sides "get it": There is a symbiotic relationship between contraception and abortion that cannot logically be denied.

Liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 1992 (emphases mine):

...for two decades of economic and social developments, [people] have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives...  

...In some critical respects abortion is of the same character as the decision to use contraception.

Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (emphases mine):

But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree. It is true that in many cases contraception and even abortion are practised under the pressure of real-life difficulties, which nonetheless can never exonerate from striving to observe God's law fully. Still, in very many other instances such practices are rooted in a hedonistic mentality unwilling to accept responsibility in matters of sexuality, and they imply a self-centered concept of freedom, which regards procreation as an obstacle to personal fulfilment. The life which could result from a sexual encounter thus becomes an enemy to be avoided at all costs, and abortion becomes the only possible decisive response to failed contraception.

If opposing sides understand the connection, why is it hard for the "middle" to see?

Abortion and Infanticide

Atheist Peter Singer (a utilitarian and celebrated Princeton bioethicist) believes that most people are missing something important in the debates about human life and death. His logical mind agrees with the Catholic Church that "viability" and "birth" are utterly arbitrary designations when discussing the morality of abortion and infanticide:

[I]n discussing abortion, we saw that birth does not mark a morally significant dividing line. I cannot see how one could defend the view that fetuses may be 'replaced' before birth, but newborn infants may not be. Nor is there any other point, such as viability, that does a better job of dividing the fetus from the infant. Self-consciousness, which could provide a basis for holding that it is wrong to kill one being and replace it with another, is not to be found in either the fetus or the newborn infant. -- "Taking Life: Humans", from Practical Ethics, 1993.

Singer understands that abortion and infanticide are not morally different. "Viability" and birth itself are illusory lines drawn by abortion proponents to make themselves feel a moral distinction where there is none.

Of course, while Singer horrifically uses this truth to make the case for infanticide, the Church uses this same truth to call for the protection of all innocent human life, beginning at conception.

Pope John Paul II called the battle we face The Culture of Life vs. The Culture of Death, with lines clearly drawn. But those who deny the very existence of a culture war insist that the "truth" lies somewhere in the gray and shadowy middle, and that we can safely dismiss the two "extremes". I am grateful, therefore, for the refreshing clarity of Peter Singer when he spoke about his philosophical, spiritual, and cultural nemesis, Pope John Paul II:

"I sometimes think that he and I at least share the virtue of seeing clearly what is at stake."

May the rest of us have the grace to see it clearly, too.





*Sullivan identifies as Catholic, but he takes the position of the secular left when it comes to gay "marriage" and social issues. He has described himself as a "religious secularist" and a "dogged defender of…secularism."


.

Stop moping around!

If you are like me, you've been disheartened by the vote to legalize gay "marriage" in New York.

But tonight I read Thomas Peters' excellent reminder that we Catholics aren't getting nor reporting the full picture. We tend to follow the "mainstream" liberal media's reporting habits, and the media spend far more time touting the few gay "marriage" successes, and not much time discussing the much broader support for true marriage.

For example, did you know that two blue states, Maryland and Rhode Island, shot down gay "marriage" bills recently, thanks to the Democrats? I confess that I didn't! Yes, those and other victories for marriage have been taking place all around us, and we have allowed the defeat in New York to discourage us.

But stop and think about it: We are talking about New York! Remember that New York City is the epicenter of the Culture of Death in America: It was recently reported that a full 41% of NYC's unborn children are aborted. Should we be shocked that that gay "marriage" would eventually come to this place?

New York has dark days ahead if it stays on this path, but most states are not this far gone.

We Catholics need to stay strong ("Be not afraid!" as Blessed John Paul II so often told us), and we must have the courage to fight for traditional marriage in the public square, as Pope Benedict XVI has exhorted us:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable….

His list includes:

Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role.  (2006 speech to European politicians)

It is clearly part of our job as Catholics to bring back the understanding that rights are based on natural law (self-evident, inalienable rights, with which we are endowed by our Creator), and to beat back the idea of a "right" as "something you really, really want, and it would be mean to deny it".

And from here on in, I will be much more aware of the media's propensity to give "extra attention" to gay "marriage" victories while downplaying its defeats.

I hope you will too, so that we all have the fortitude to stay in the game.

+++++++

On a personal note, I am beseeching prayers for a friend, the mother of five small children, who has recently been diagnosed with stage 3B Hodgkin's lymphoma. If you could send up a prayer for her healing and her family's comfort, right now, as you are thinking of it, I would so deeply appreciate it.

Beatification and Canonization: How does it happen?

With the much-anticipated beatification of Pope John Paul II tomorrow, this seems the perfect time to explain the process of canonization!

If you are dying for all the official details, you can read the canonical procedures as laid out in the Apostolic Constitution Divinus Perfectionis Magister. But I like to put things simply, so here is a bare bones outline:

1) A person with a reputation for sanctity dies.

2) Before a "cause" can begin for his beatification and canonization, five years must pass. This is to ensure that emotions and fervor, which often surround the death of a holy person, have stabilized.

3) The local bishop, at the request of the faithful, may open an investigation. A diocesan tribunal is formed, and witnesses are called forth to testify to the heroic virtue of the candidate, as demonstrated by facts of his life. Documents and evidence are gathered, and the candidate is deemed "Servant of God".

4) Upon completion of the local investigation, the case is sent on to Rome, to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, where a more rigorous investigation begins. After an intense examination of the claims of heroic virtue (and doctrinal orthodoxy) of the candidate, nine theologians vote as to whether the cause should move forward. If yes, then the cause is sent to the cardinals and bishops who are members of the Congregation. If, after months of meetings, they also vote yes, then the cause moves on to the Pope for approval and public decree.

5) The next step is beatification. For a candidate to be eligible for beatification, the Church requires evidence of one miracle attributed to the intercession of the candidate -- a miracle that occurred after his death. A posthumous miracle is considered proof that the person is truly in Heaven. (Martyrs are exempt from the requirement of this first miracle.) Beatification also requires another investigation of the candidate's heroic virtue, and the Church may call "devil's advocates" to the stand, to testify against the candidate's cause. If the results of these investigations are favorable, the Pope beatifies the candidate, who may now be called "Blessed" and receive limited veneration.

6) Canonization is the final step in the process, and it requires evidence of a second miracle (or first, in the case of a martyr), which must have taken place after the beatification.

It's the miracle stuff that I find so fun! I remember watching a network news magazine back in 1998 (I think it was Dateline NBC), which did a segment on the canonization of Edith Stein, aka Teresa Benedicta of the Cross. They focused on the Vatican's miracle investigation, specifically that a little American girl at death's door was healed miraculously through Edith Stein's intercession.

The secular doctors who were called before the Vatican panels to testify about the alleged miracle were interviewed by the network. These doctors (who treated the girl and/or were expert medical witnesses) had no affiliation with the Church, and had no prior knowledge of or interest in the Church's investigative processes. I recall one doctor expressing his surprise and admiration for the thoroughness and seriousness of the panel inquiry. He hadn't expected it to be so objective and scientific, and he was quite impressed and satisfied.

It was one of the only times I've witnessed a major media network report fairly and respectfully about the Catholic Church.

7) Finally, if all the investigations are decided in favor of the candidate (after many years!), the Pope canonizes the candidate, who acquires the title of "Saint". This declaration is considered infallible.

It's important to remember that everyone in Heaven is a saint. Canonization does not "make" someone a saint, but merely confirms the truth of what God has already done for that person. The faithful on earth have assurance that the canonized saint dwells with the Lord in Heaven, and that we may look to him as a Christian role model and hero, and request his intercession at the Throne of God.

The saints are such a gift to the Church!

+++++++

On a personal note, I am giddy that tomorrow my eldest daughter, who has been studying in Italy, will be attending the vigil and beatification mass of Pope John Paul II! For those of us not lucky enough to be there, we can watch the vigil and beatification live on EWTN, or watch/listen through the internet.

JPII, we love you!