NUBBY Guest Post! Critical Thinking: Having better conversations

The Bubble has the best readers in the world! While I am on a minor blogging break, furiously working on my little book project, Nubby has graciously come forth to fill the gap and has written a fantastic guest post! Anyone who has spent any time in the Bubble over the years knows that Nubby is brilliant, witty, no-nonsense, and just a great Catholic lady. We all are about to learn something important right now. Take it away, Nubby!

CRITICAL THINKING – Having better conversations

“If you do not know how to ask the right question, you discover nothing.”

-- W. Edwards Deming, PhD., statistician, electrical engineer, professor, author, lecturer, and management consultant.

“Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it.” – Henry Ford

Hello Bubble Readers,

Leila was kind enough to give me space on her blog to take this opportunity to share some thoughts on thinking – specifically, to give examples of two techniques that are sometimes used in logical problem solving in the private sector.  One can search for all kinds of charts or explanations online regarding the principles involved in critical thinking and various skills that should be practiced to acquire smarter habits of thinking (which are helpful), but here I’ve just written up a summary of two useful tools that I’m familiar with.

Before I begin a rundown on mere process, I think it’s important to take a step back and include an explanation of why we’re exploring this topic of logical problem solving on a faith-based blog in the first place. Why are these techniques valuable here or in any discussion?  Why is this topic of logical thinking pertinent to the interactions we have here in the Bubble? 

It’s common knowledge that here on Leila’s blog her purpose is to teach the faith and to engage the wider culture at large.  This means, of course, that her audience could be very broad and that her blog posts can usually generate a variety of perspectives from any number of people who respond in the comments section.  This can be useful and entertaining as we know.  Leila’s template here gives everyone a platform to contribute freely without censorship (unless there’s vulgarity), and she has always promoted the idea of clarity over agreement.  Her goal is to see transparency of thought -- not merely for purposes of debate, but for the wider idea of educating her readership.

And here we’ve hit upon the issue of why I’m writing about logical approaches to problems:  The main problematic issue that I see within the conversations in the Bubble (and Leila sees it, too) is that often times when commenters challenge the main idea of any given post of Leila’s, they typically start out with an emotional reaction and they continue to mentally wander around in that.  The comments get stuck in nugatory thoughts that ignore the facts and disregard the logical application of those, and so we just end up chasing opinions.  This doesn’t happen on purpose, perhaps, but it definitely illustrates why we should be (in my opinion) talking about logical reasoning, as we are in this post.

Picture the discussions like this:  There’s a wide open pasture with nothing but horizon.  Everyone wanders, everyone opines.  The point of the comments and of the interaction is to start fencing off the thoughts, to corral the thoughts, so that if we’re going to “wander” and challenge intellectually then we’re going to do that together.  We should aim to wander within the same logical parameters in order to clear up the thoughts, and to hopefully reach clearer intellectual insight on various points of discussion.  We can’t have good or (even entertaining) dialogue if everyone wanders and nobody’s thoughts tie into anyone else’s.  We can all agree on this.

So what’s a good approach to foster a better conversation?  Here are a couple of techniques summarized briefly and casually that will illustrate what Leila is shooting for here at the Bubble when she reiterates “clarity over agreement”:


Technique #1: Splitting the Dictionary

One problem-solving technique used in the business sphere is called, “Splitting the Dictionary”.   If you’ve ever played the childhood game, “Bigger than a Breadbox” or “20 Questions”, you’ll notice the similarities in technique.  How does it work?  A single question is asked that immediately divides the possible answers/solutions:  50% possible and 50% impossible.  A person then asks another question to split the remaining 50% the same way.  So in a mere two questions you have ruled out 75% of the possibilities. You’re now down to 25% to be analyzed.  That’s it.  The rest is off the table.

It’s a logical reduction. You can further split that 25% down with relevant questions and so on.  Consider how much irrelevance and conversational noise we’ve eliminated in just two questions!

This is a very useful method that drives clarity of thought.  This is probably the same formula used in those “magic mind reader”-type games.  You know, “Ask the thing a question and it will read your mind”?  They most likely use a similar splitting technique and funnel the possibilities.  That’s all.

The goal -- and the skill necessary -- is to ask pertinent, logical questions.  For instance, when you play “Bigger than a Breadbox”, an example of an unintelligent question would be, “Is it silver?”  Why isn’t this a smart question?  It’s not smart because you have not narrowed much down, not gained much new information, and you’ve left all the other colors besides silver as a possibility to sift through.

A better question for a tidier conversation is, “Is it alive?”  Then you know -- in one question alone -- that your answer will only include those things logical to the answer of “yes” or “no”.  You’ve halved the possibilities in one question.  Your goal is to effectively cut in half, and then cut in half again, etc.

It’s all about reduction of possibilities so that you can focus on the more detailed questions of what logically remains.  This is a tool often used to get people closer to a solution.  It’s not statistics or math, but it is a way to reduce possibilities and to trouble shoot for a logical solution (or at least for clearer thought towards that).

Essentially what this sounds like in action in the Bubble is:

“Ok, here are the facts on the post on the Resurrection of Jesus (for example).  Here are the opinions. Everyone has given their input.  Now couple the facts to opinion.  Start with one question to ‘set the table’.  Ask one question to clear off what doesn’t belong and leave the rest for exploring.  Categorize: If this question is true, then, say, we’ll move 50% of these possibilities off to the left since they can’t be true, but we’ll move 50% to the right, because they potentially could be true.”

Then you’re on a systematic road to exploring, reducing, and perhaps seeing the logical answer -- or at least seeing the logic in the possible answers -- without someone popping over on to the other side of the dividing line, bringing up what has already been logically dismissed.  “Timeout.  We’re over here now, on the right.  These are the only pertinent possibilities.”

We use this method to parse and analyze.  We simplify, compartmentalize, reduce, and synthesize. We want to drive good dialogue and separate fact from opinion now that everyone has given their input, and from there we logically apply the facts and distill down the thoughts.

See, facts talk to logic, and logic gives clarity, and clarity gives the answer/solution.  So there’s no real discussion until we all agree on these: Do we all understand what is what?  Have we guided the thinking and explored together?  Have we pruned off the extra noise of the conversation and focused on what is relevant to the facts and therefore to the logic?


Technique #2: Extreme Contrast

There’s another logical tool implemented in problem solving application that deals with analyzing through extreme contrast.  Certain work projects have tagged these as, “a BoB and a WoW”.  That stands for “Best of the Best and Worst of the Worst”.  So we use what is called ‘extreme contrast’. We mix and match to trouble shoot a solution to fix the ‘worst’.

A simple example from everyday life I can use here is an example of two different light bulbs in two different lamps.  You know you have the Best bulb working in one lamp already.  That’s your tester to put in the lamp with the bulb that doesn’t light up.

If it lights up, then you know it’s a bulb issue with your non-lighting bulb, because this (best) one lights in this lamp (the other bulb didn’t).  If the best tester bulb doesn’t light up then we know it’s a lamp issue, because we know this bulb works since it came out of a lamp where it worked.  You need to prove if the bulb is any good and, likewise, you prove if the lamp has any issues.

Essentially, this extreme contrast is helpful to drive better dialogue in the Bubble because it’s a line of thinking that contrasts meanings of things against a standard (a Best or a tester).  It’s a process of holding up ideas to a standard that’s already in place (like our working lightbulb and working lamp).  We test what seemingly doesn’t work against what is already working (logically).  But so as not to confuse you, reader, just think in terms of these types of good questions that are outside the realm of feelings and peer inside at the dialogue, objectively:

Are the facts driving the logic? Does the logic align with the facts? Am I being accurate in my thoughts by holding them up to a firm standard or next to a working theory?

“It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”

-- Albert Einstein

Leila’s aim in questioning her readers and commenters here is to promote thinking in a culture that, quite honestly, doesn’t “think” as much as it “feels”.  This is a common complaint we raise here at the Bubble, and the factors that contribute to this intellectual cultural laziness are many.  But this quote above attributed to Einstein should hopefully inspire us to stick with the learning process in order to acquire the skills to learn how to think better.

And this quote below from the late, great Pope St. John Paul II should inspire us as to the “why” it’s important to learn to correctly put the right questions together:

"Step by step, then, we are assembling the terms of the question. It is the nature of the human being to seek the truth. This search looks not only to the attainment of truths which are partial, empirical or scientific; nor is it only in individual acts of decision-making that people seek the true good. Their search looks towards an ulterior truth which would explain the meaning of life. And it is therefore a search which can reach its end only in reaching the absolute.” 

-- Pope St. John Paul II, Fides et Ratio

Why do we treat homosexual sins differently than other sins?

A mere five to ten years ago, the following was considered a tolerant and acceptable stance: Openly supporting and promoting natural marriage, while also being kind and loving towards our homosexual brothers and sisters. Today, that same stance is considered "bigoted hate", and its purveyors must be silenced, shamed, and ruined. To hold such a stance (publicly) is now unacceptable. The haters include the Catholic Church and all faithful Christians who speak up against gay "marriage".

The reaction to the simple and clear teaching on homosexuality is so visceral, so violent, so dark, that even otherwise outspoken and proud Catholics are gun shy on this particular issue, telling me that they are afraid to say anything, nervous to be labeled as evil and heartless, preferring to stay silent. This bullying is occurring in the whole western world at the moment, and it's so awful that even some gay people have (mostly quietly, for their own protection) decried what they see happening.

The Church is pretty much the only voice in the world that is not afraid to speak up against this sin (as she has done with other popular sins in the past), standing clearly for what is True. When the Pope and other Church leaders are bold, the rest of the flock finds the courage to speak as well.

But here's something that I don't understand, and it's perplexed me for years. For some reason, many faithful Catholics treat the sin of homosexual acts and gay "marriage" differently than any other sin, sexual or otherwise.

No faithful Catholic is afraid to say boldly that lying, cheating, stealing, blasphemy, greed, adultery, abuse, fornication, abortion, surrogacy, human cloning, contraception/sterilization -- all are grave sins. All have serious spiritual consequences, and we cringe and hurt to see our loved ones committing any of those sins. We hate those sins! We love the people, but we would never hesitate to speak or write on the wrongness and even the evil of those sins, many of which we have ourselves repented of.

But for some reason, active homosexuality sort of gets a pass, and we're told not to be so hung up on the gay "marriage" issue. I've even been told (more than once) that we should not be voting against gay "marriage" or engaging this issue in the public square, because to do so would make Catholics look "mean" and it will make people dislike us! There is a certain sympathy about this particular sin, and a reluctance to condemn it forcefully, that I don't see in any other area.

After the tragic vote in Ireland ushering in genderless marriage, I was heartened to hear the clarion statement given by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, calling it "a defeat for humanity". There is no question where the Church stands, and firmly. Yet, while I rejoice in the Cardinal's courage, other Catholics believe that statements like this are unhelpful at best, cruel and harmful at worst. They have great concern that such blunt and sweeping statements will not be received well by the LGBT community, that those souls will turn away from the Church, and that evangelization efforts will be hampered.

Here's what doesn't make sense to me about that. Let's say that a once-Catholic nation had been the very first in the world to pass a referendum in which the populace overwhelmingly and joyfully approved abortion. Or adultery. Or euthanasia. Or fill-in-the-blank sin.

Would a forceful Vatican statement against any of those sins be met with disappointment or frustration by the faithful? Would any of my Catholic friends be saying, "We really should not speak that way about [lying, cheating, stealing, blasphemy, greed, adultery, abuse, fornication, abortion, surrogacy, human cloning, contraception/sterilization] because we will offend and alienate [women, doctors, young people, corporate heads, pagans, adulterers, surrogates, etc.]."  Probably not, and yet those groups of people might feel excluded or marginalized or unloved, too. (I'm not being sarcastic, I really mean that.) So, is it that we think of active homosexuality as somehow different from other sins? Or even worse -- is there a sort of soft bigotry going on, where we don't think gay people are capable of hearing and handling the Truth as well as everyone else can?

I've been told that we need to love people, not "condemn" people or make them feel "unwelcome" by speaking Truth out loud and unvarnished. Yet, this is a false dichotomy! We don't choose between Love and Truth. We choose both Love and Truth. In his first encyclical, Lumen Fidei, Pope Francis goes over this, time and again.

There is a micro way to talk about things and a macro way. In the micro, we speak personally to individuals, we get to know them for their own sake, we laugh with them, break bread with them, love them. When sensitive questions arise or questions are asked, we speak the Truth. We are gentle and kind and respectful to all, and if we are not, then woe to us! It will not go well with us as we stand at our Judgement.

But in the macro, the Church as Teacher needs to be unambiguous and clear (and we laity have every right and obligation to repeat that Truth). The moral law is a beacon. It is True for everyone, and when the moral law is transgressed by entire nations, then yes, it is a blow not just to the Church, but to all of humanity. We say this clearly. We don't mince words. We speak the Truth in season and out. Who else will? Who else has been charged by Christ to do so? When we watch a traditionally Catholic nation embrace grave sin with shouts of celebration, we should be heartened, not concerned, to hear our Church speak with a clarion call, denouncing the evil we see.

In the macro, there are millions who do not understand that the Church will never change her teaching on homosexual sin. Most people assume change is coming just around the corner and so settle comfortably in their sin, even feeling "a step ahead" of the lagging Church. In the west, the comfort level for this sin is growing, and more people, not fewer, are becoming lost. If it were any other grave sin, every faithful Catholic would be fighting hard against it, and vocally.

One more thought, and it's personal. For every sinner that is "turned off" or stung by the Church pronouncing unambiguous Truth, there are others, like I was, who desperately need to hear it.

When I was in high school and in the midst of grave sin, I turned to the girl I saw as the most serious and devout of my Catholic friends. I asked her what I should do, whether I should continue on as I had been, down this sinful path (but one I was happy to be on). I will never forget her response. I even remember where I was standing. She placed her hand gently on my forearm, gave me a loving smile, looked me straight in the eye and said: "Leila, I just want you to be happy. You do what makes you happy."

At that moment, I decided to stop worrying about my sin.

She soothed and affirmed me when what I needed to hear was, "Leila, what the hell are you thinking?? You snap out of it right now, turn to God and stay on the straight path! I love you, and I am here to help you!"

I needed her to be the Church for me, not the world. Sure, I felt "loved" in that moment, and that comforting feeling led me to turn from the Truth, for at least a decade.

There are many millions like me out there, who need to hear the Truth clearly, who need to be held accountable to that Truth in order to change. Let's not forget about them and their spiritual needs.

Praise God for the Truth-tellers, and the ones who are not afraid to face the consequences of doing so.

I love being Catholic.

And I'm sorry for rambling and redundancy. It's very late here (early), and I'm just going to hit "publish".

Good-night!

+++++++

Related: This thoughtful atheist gets it! Check it out:

As a Gay Atheist, I Want to See the Church Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

Ongoing Dialogue with Matt, an atheist

I'm so excited to start the Ongoing Dialogue post with my friend Matt! He is my college roommate's husband, and he is an atheist who is kind enough to come to the Bubble and debate the concept of Truth and see where that leads. You all are welcome to join in or just read along, and if you would like more information about what we are doing, read this previous post.

Matt and I agreed to start by putting out an "opening statement" about Truth, and we did not consult each other when writing our statements. We will use these thoughts as a springboard as we jump into the comment box.

First, my thoughts on Truth:

For the purposes of this conversation, when I speak of "Truth", I am not talking about subjective truth, such as whether you prefer red wine to white, or what you think of grandma's new hairdo. 

I am talking Objective Truth. Truths that are true no matter what you or I think.  

Truth cannot contradict itself. So, it's either true that murdering innocent human beings is wrong, or it's not. It's either true that rape is wrong, or it's not. It's either true that God exists, or it's not. It can't be "your truth" or "my truth" on these types of issues. 

Objective Truth exists outside of ourselves and will remain true even if the whole world doesn't believe it. Truth is not ours to determine, it is ours to seek and find and receive.  

Believing doesn't make something true. But, if something is true, it is right to believe it. 

Truth is what is real. 

Truth would exist even if we didn't. 

Now, Matt's opening thoughts on Truth:

Leila, thanks for your kind words and the invitation to square off with you on your blog. The question of what "truth" is, and how we know or trust that something is true, is of course a topic that philosophers have gone back and forth on for thousands of years. But in simplest terms, I think I'd say that something is true if "it conforms to a fact in reality". C. S. Peirce noted four methods of deciding what is true: tenacity (we're just comfortable believing it), authority (we're told to believe it), a priori, or the scientific method. I don't believe there's a legitimate supernatural method for this.

Thanks, Matt! I like that we both agree that truth is what is "real".

Okay, my first question to start the dialogue is below in the comments, and please remember that I do not expect either of us to change the other's mind, nor am I looking for consensus. Here is the philosophy of the discussions on this blog, for those who might be new:

The Purpose of My Blog

Don't forget to subscribe to the comments so that you don't miss any of them (they will come straight to your email address), because once we hit 200 comments, things get messy on Blogger, unfortunately. In the meantime, hopefully we will all learn a lot through this respectful dialogue!


*We cut it off after 220 comments (to time-consuming to load the last 20), so continue with the discussion, here.

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. 

Sorry, you're not allowed to do that.

This has been on my mind for a long time now.

I am going to be blunt.

You are not the arbiter of Christian doctrine.
You don't get to decide the tenets of Christianity.
You don't have permission to reverse or negate Christian teaching.

You don't have the authority to define Christianity.

Neither do I.

If you are a Catholic, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the moral law and the Creed are valid. If you are a Protestant, you don't get to personally interpret the Bible and tell us what you are sure Christ meant. If you are a secularist, you don't get remake Jesus in your own image, i.e., a New Agey, non-threatening guru who fits neatly into your own worldview.

Trust me, it's nothing personal.

You just simply don't have that option.

You didn't establish Christianity, and you have no permission to reinvent it.

You see, Christianity is a revealed religion.
It was given. It is handed down.

It is not open to anyone's personal interpretation, whether one's name is Arius, Nestorius, Luther, Kennedy, Pelosi, Chittister, or Miller.

You can choose to accept the whole of Christianity and her teachings, or you are free to reject them. You are even free to start your own religion, teaching whatever you'd prefer.

But you do not have the right to speak in the name of Christ's Church and define authentic Christian belief for yourself or others.

You do not have that right, because you do not have that authority. 

Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle (St. John) and the entire Deposit of Faith has been handed down intact by the only men to whom Christ delegated His authority: The Apostles and their successors, also known as the pope and the body of bishops. This teaching authority, or Magisterium, is not you, and it's definitely not me.

The Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, protects the Deposit of Faith from any deviation, addition, subtraction, reversal, contradiction, distortion, or destruction offered by those who wish Church teaching to be something it is not.

So, as earnest as you are, as sincere as you are, as studious as you are, as kind as you are, even as holy as you are, you are not allowed in any way to alter, bypass, morph, undermine, negate, or redefine Christian teaching on faith or morals and still insist that it's Christian.

You may receive the Faith, you may accept the Faith, and you may hand down the Faith pure and entire, but you may not be its arbiter.


Sorry, you're just plain not allowed to do that.



Related post: Authority

+++++++

For emphasis, and for the sheer joy and peace that faithful Catholics feel when the millennia melt away as we read the Early Fathers, I give you St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, extolling in 189 A.D. the selfsame faith we hold today. He writes of what Christians everywhere already knew… but which the heretics could not accept:

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). 

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2). 

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4). 

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1). 

"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2). 

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8). 

For more Fathers on Church authority and apostolic succession, go here.

.

We are not dogs

In the past week, I've had the unpleasant experience of engaging in a series of exchanges with a herd of "freethinkers", secularists, atheists, and gay rights advocates. Lemme tell ya, it's dark and cold out there, folks. I've never thanked God so much for His mercy. In the meantime, a young Bubble reader, Margo, sent me a homily preached by her hometown priest from last Sunday. It fit in so perfectly with what I have witnessed this week that I have decided to reprint it here, with his permission. 

Fr. Josh Miller

Saints Peter and Paul Parish

Naperville, Illinois 

August 27, 2011

Two weeks ago, I preached a little bit about my family beagle and what dogs show us about sitting at the feet of the Master, and today I thought I’d continue that theme of exploring something else dogs can teach us about how we’re different from animals.

One thing about dogs, if you’ve ever noticed this, is that they’re relatively easy to make happy. Food, water, attention, and they’re good to go: the tail’s wagging, they’re happy and content if their needs are met. This is because dogs live from one stimulus to the next: they’re hungry, they’re sleepy, they want to play. They move from one thing to the next and seem absolutely contented when they get what they want.

But this isn’t so true for human beings. We’re more complicated: We all know that we can have everything we need and be miserable; we can have everything we need and still feel like something is missing. This is because human beings seek fulfillment, not just happiness. We need a grander sense of accomplishment, of having achieved something; that desire we have for absolute and total fulfillment in life is a strange thing, something my dog cannot experience.

So let’s look at St. Paul today. Paul tells us about the need to “offer [our] bodies as a spiritual sacrifice,” and warns us not to “conform [ourselves] to this age.” He warns us of this because in every age, but most certainly in ours, perhaps in our age more than Paul, the world around us always seems to be focused on happiness, rather than fulfillment. And this is where the world stands to get us in trouble, because it treats us as if we were animals rather than human beings. Modern society confuses happiness for fulfillment and urges us to move from one stimulus to the next, like my beagle.

Just to give you an example of this, how we continually confuse happiness for fulfillment in this culture, John Paul the Great deals with the concept of “freedom” in his Veritatis Splendor. Now, don’t feel embarrassed here if this is your view, but when I say the word “freedom” most Americans in our society today would say that “freedom” means an individual should have the right to do whatever he or she desires so long as it doesn’t impede upon the freedom or rights of others. But what John Paul the Great notes is that this is actually a perversion of the word “freedom,” since the word has always meant our unimpeded ability to choose what is good. Not whatever we say is good, not whatever we designate as good, but what is truly and objectively good. What modern society has done in the past couple of centuries is say that freedom is all about your happiness, what you desire, rather than what will bring you absolute fulfillment, and this is absolutely problematic in our current society.

Modern society has reduced us to dogs. Everything in our culture has become emotionally driven nowadays. We make our decisions, we focus on everything through emotional desire, what we want in the moment. This is what St. Paul warns us about.

One of my favorite living Catholic writers is a man by the name of John C. Wright. He’s a brilliant man, and he spends most of his time writing science fiction novels. Strangely, the best and the brightest Catholic writers nowadays are writing in the science fiction and fantasy genres. I came across a quote this week that highlights precisely what I’m trying to get at with this misplaced emotion in our society, and I thought I’d share it with you. John C. Wright says:

We live in the midst of a Dark Age, that is, an age when intellectual and literate things are despised by the intellectuals and the literati. A Dark Age approves of emotional rather than intellectual response, the emotions judged and ranked according to purity and glitter, like precious stones.

It seems to John C. Wright, as it seems to me and countless others in the Church today who attempt to live according to the Gospel, that we have become entirely emotionally and impulsively driven. Humanity has been prone to this throughout time; when Peter is rebuked by our Lord in today’s gospel, he’s rebuked because he’s let his emotion overcome him. In his bravado, in his emotional understanding of things, he stands up and says, “No, Lord, we can’t let anything like your suffering and death happen! This won’t work!” And yet Jesus, who actually thinks things through, is focused on fulfillment. And this is precisely why he rebukes Peter, tells him to get away, to stop tempting him with his nonsense.

Nonsense. That’s really what the world offers us. If left to my emotional impulses I end up like my dog, moving from one thing to the next, endlessly choosing what makes me “happy” without ever finding fulfillment. And God forbid someone should try and break that chain for me, tell me that something I’ve chosen is actually toxic to me in the grand scheme of things: How dare they try and do that, when my emotional senses tell me something is good?

People sometimes ask me why priests never preach on controversial topic x, y, or z. The answer there is that the greatest social crime someone can commit in our fickle culture is making someone else feel bad. And because people today tend to form their opinions through emotional desire, preaching what is objectively true through Reason, which does not account for your feelings one iota, can end up with a lot of hurt feelings. The truth hurts, especially in a culture that rarely stops “feeling” their emotions long enough to think. Abortion, euthanasia, and a host of other topics are debated on the other side of the Church not through reason-able, rational argumentation, but through emotion, through that false sense of what freedom means, through our desire to make no one feel bad or put out. But what the Cross shows us time and time again is that fulfillment, humanity’s highest end, is often going to feel bad. Fulfillment isn’t always going to feel good.

But that’s what it’s all about. Fulfillment, finding our Highest and most Perfect Good. The world tells us that it’s to be found in emotional happiness. Don’t buy it.

Rather, pray for what St. Paul calls “a renewal of the mind,” so that we might sharpen all the tools God has given us to choose what will bring us to fulfillment. Let our emotions serve our minds, and not the other way around. In doing so, we will know a sense of true freedom as we continue to grow ever closer to the Highest Good in God, who is that Good which no greater can be thought.



Amen!






.

Truth: Exclusive? Catholics: Arrogant?

We've talked about the notion of objective Truth before, and some folks just plain don't like it. It's exclusive and arrogant, they believe, to speak of a "truth" that is unchanging and to which we should submit and order our lives.

So, are they right? Is Truth exclusive?

Well, yes. It is exclusive in the sense that it cannot compromise with error. The minute that Truth is mixed with error, it is no longer true, right? It becomes erroneous. So yes, Truth excludes error, by definition.

Sorry, Error, you are not allowed to co-mingle with Truth! {Error slinks off, indignant….}

But in another sense, Truth is not exclusive, for it is available and accessible to all. Everyone is invited on board the Truth Train! Welcome, all mankind! The Truth is here for you to embrace! After all, Truth is the end for which we were all made.

But isn't it arrogant to claim to have the Truth?

Well, it depends.

For example, let's say that I am sitting here in the Bubble, fashioning and spouting my personal opinions all day long and claiming those opinions as "truth" to be held by all. Yep, claiming to be the source of Truth would be arrogant or worse. For sure.

But let's say that I am sitting here in the Bubble, stating that "1+1=2" is a truth to be held by all. Not my opinion, nothing I thought up on my own, simply something I received and am passing on. I don't think that such a statement would be arrogant, nor should it be perceived as such.

Or if I present "rape is immoral" as a truth to be held by all. It's not a novel idea that I graced the world with, and it's not my own personal morality imposed on others. Again, I don't think such a statement would be arrogant.

And yet when Catholics state other objective, universal truths, we are sometimes perceived as arrogant by our detractors simply because we claim those truths as true. However, just as with "1+1=2", or "rape is immoral", Catholics are not inventing new ideas, and we are the source of exactly none of them.

When I speak the truths of the Faith on this blog, I am merely passing on something I've received from the Church. When I present doctrine or morality as true, none of it is my personal opinion or my brilliant insight. I can take credit for none of it, nor can any other Catholic.

Maybe, then, it is the Church who is arrogant? After all, who is the Church to claim Truth?

Well, the Church is also simply handing down what was given to her. She was given the Truth by Jesus Christ -- Who is Truth. In the way that a teacher is commissioned to hand on the truths of mathematics, the Church is the teacher who is commissioned to hand on the truths of faith and morals. She has been given the legitimate authority to do so by Christ, and in doing so she is lovingly, dutifully fulfilling her mandate, not preening in arrogance.

In fact, there is one thing that goes hand in hand with proclaiming the Truth, whether as a pope, a bishop, a saint, a theologian, a layman or even a housewife blogger: A recognition that we are no better, and probably worse, than everybody else.

St. Paul the Apostle, one of the greatest saints of all time, said this:

The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners; but I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience for an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. -- 1 Timothy 1:15

And St. Paul gently admonished the rest of us Christians:

Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves.  -- Philippians 2:3

The only proper response to discovering and receiving Christ's Truth is not arrogance, but utter humility; not the exclusion of non-believers, but an extended hand of inclusion.

When I fail in this regard, please call me on it. For the times I already have, please forgive me.

"…and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Jesus Christ, John 8:32

.

"That makes sense, but...."

I've heard it a lot in the past few months:

"That makes sense, but...."  

I didn't really notice it at first, but it's frequent enough now that it's got my attention. Looking back, I repeated the very same sentiment when I first encountered what I now understand to be objective truth. Perhaps it's a universal reaction to a brush with God.

Here's how it goes:

We encounter a moral truth presented clearly and joyfully. It is a beautiful vision, and it resonates in our heart. It is simple, elegant and even transcendent. It speaks to our human dignity, and we are compelled, even delighted by it. It makes sense. However, for any number of reasons specific to the hearer, it is not immediately embraced. It is admired from afar, praised as a captivating ideal, but....

"That makes sense, but...."

That's when I want to burst out with, Wait! Stop! Just stop right after the "that makes sense" and forget the "but"! 

We moderns love to overcomplicate things, which is a shame.   Now, I'll grant you that circumstances are often complicated, emotions are often complicated, people are often complicated. But core principles, pure ideals and objective truth? Not complicated. While they are infinitely deep, sublime and profound, they are -- in essence -- quite simple.

A saint once said something that's become my motto: "Truth comes with graces attached." That would be actual grace, knocking on the door to our heart, stirring our soul. God Himself tells us that He speaks not in the fire nor in the earthquake, but in a gentle whisper. When something makes beautiful sense, take notice.

I'll close with a friendly challenge, which comes from my own life experience: If you hear yourself saying, "That makes sense," try following it up with "Okay, what now?" instead of "but...." Do that, and you might be amazed where you'll find yourself this time next year.  :)

"Values" vs. Virtue -- and what kind of man your daughter will bring home!

I've been a parent for a long time now, and I have heard many, many parents -- in real life, in print, and on television -- talk about their ultimate hopes for their children: "I just want my child to be happy." "I want my child to be successful." "I want my child to have a good education, a good job and good relationships."

I never hear: "I want my child to be virtuous."

Virtuous??

Who talks about virtue anymore?

Well, outside of the Church, not many. (Okay, let's be honest... even most Catholics today don't talk about virtue.) In general, talk of being virtuous has been replaced by talk of having "values" -- even though virtues and values are not synonymous.

Here's how I see it:

"Values" are simply, well, what one values. We all have them. They are beliefs, ideas or priorities that are special and important to a person. Values are subjective, and they are not based on the concepts of good and evil, or right and wrong; rather, they are based on personal preference, choice and emotion. Even unrepentant killers, narcissists, and the devil himself have values.

Virtues, on the other hand, are based in objective morality. The very word, virtue, means "moral excellence" and is defined as the habit of doing good and avoiding evil. As St. Augustine said: "Virtue is a good habit consonant with our nature." So, while everyone has "values," not everyone is virtuous.

To illustrate the difference, let's play out the scenario of a daughter (my daughter??!!) bringing home a man of "values" vs. a man of virtue.

Scenario #1: The "Values" Man


Daughter [excited and giggling]: Mom, Dad, I want you to meet Fritz! He is just awesome, and he has so many values! He's spent a lot of time going through "values clarification" exercises in school, from elementary all the way through grad school, so he has learned to "choose, prize, and act upon" the following things that make him feel great:  Being popular, making money, looking good, being comfortable, and enjoying sensual pleasures*! Oh, Mom, Dad, don't you love him??!!

[Mom faints in horror, and Dad catches her as he weeps.]


Scenario #2: The Virtuous Man


Daughter [excited and giggling]: Mom, Dad, I want you to meet Athanasius! He is so awesome! He was raised to have the habit of virtue, and thus is incredibly virtuous! He is patient and humble, chaste and temperate, courageous, just and merciful. He is prudent in all he does and has incredible fortitude. He is joyful, generous, understanding, faithful, and has amazing self-control! He is also modest, peaceful, hopeful and reverent. And, he has such love! Love for God above all, me next [giggle], and for his fellow man! Mom, Dad, he is what real manhood is all about! Don't you love him??!!

[Mom faints in ecstasy, and Dad catches her as he weeps for joy.]


Moral of the story? The difference between "values" and virtues could be the difference between my daughter bringing home a narcissist or a hero!

I'm rooting for Athanasius.  ;)

So my hope (plea?) is that we Catholics would bring "virtue" and "virtuous" back into our everyday vocabulary and to the front of our minds. It shouldn't seem strange to say the words, nor should it be old-fashioned to live the life. In fact, in this confused, disconnected, disordered world of "value-neutral" values (irony!), I'm thinking that to quite a few lost and wandering souls out there, the rediscovery of virtue might be like a cool drink of water to a parched and dying man.


*all these "values" were found on "values clarification" exercises on the Internet. 



.

Sterilization: Is it getting "fixed" or getting broken?

I've promised a contraception post for a long time.

For the moment, let's forget about condoms, diaphragms, spermicides, birth control pills, birth control patches, birth control rings, birth control sponges, birth control implants, birth control injections, IUDs... and whatever other contraceptives I am forgetting (I am sure the scientists are working on more ways to thwart fertility as we speak!).

Let's start with an easy one: Surgical sterilization.

Specifically, vasectomies and tubal ligations.

First, some background. When my husband and I were first married, we wanted approximately two children. Maybe three, but that was pushing it. We liked the first two so much that I talked him into number three (and quickly at that, so that we could be free to "have fun and travel in our forties" -- ha ha ha!).

After number three, it was time to get serious about getting sterile. My husband and I had agreed that he would get a vasectomy. I joked to friends that I surely wouldn't be the one getting sterilized because "it was against my religion [Catholic] but not his [agnostic Jew]!" As a lapsed Catholic at the time, I guess I thought that was pretty clever.

But a funny thing happened on the way to our "planned barrenhood": We both had profound conversions of heart. And one of the easiest things to see when we took the secular blinders off was the immorality of surgical sterilization. What once seemed responsible now seemed perverse.

Think about what surgical sterilization is: It's the deliberate mutilation of healthy organs.

Even from a secular standpoint, the very concept should be repellent: Paying a doctor (a healer!) to cut up, burn, disconnect, or otherwise destroy healthy organs, for the express purpose of destroying their normal, healthy functioning. In other words, there is nothing wrong with Jane's reproductive organs; in fact, they are working as designed (this is called "health"). But Jane will pay someone to go in to surgically mutilate her organs so that they don't work as they are intended to work. From a Natural Law standpoint, this is clearly disordered.

What an irony that we call this getting "fixed" when we're literally getting broken.

Now, this is a bit more painful, but let's look at it from a Christian standpoint: We know that our bodies are "fearfully and wonderfully made" by the Lord, and that we are temples of the Holy Spirit. The gift and blessing of fertility is mind-boggling in its goodness. In giving us the gift and blessing of our fertility, God has designed us to bring forth His children. What an unspeakable honor, of which we are not and could never be worthy! And yet instead of being awestruck with gratitude or even trembling in reverence for the gift and blessing of fertility, most Christians see no problem with taking this most precious gift and destroying it without a thought. (As one now-regretful Christian  friend told me, "I tied my tubes without batting an eye." She is much older now, and it's one of her two biggest regrets in life -- the second being not throwing out her TV.)

Please understand.... I don't think that most Christians intend to throw the gift of fertility back in God's face when they sterilize themselves, and I could never weigh in on the culpability of any individual. Our culture long ago replaced the Judeo-Christian view of sexuality with the Planned Parenthood view, so the confusion is understandable, if tragic.

But if we step back and give it a moment's thought, the truth should hit each Christian like a ton of bricks. God did not make a mistake when He designed our bodies. His design for our bodies, and for bringing His children to life, was perfect and deliberate. To reject it, to take a healthy body and willfully destroy its most incredible function, should be unthinkable.




Related: The Day the Air Conditioner Tech Told Me He Got "Fixed"






.

An open letter to abortion rights advocates

Dear abortion rights advocate:

I want to take this opportunity to introduce you to three precious human beings. These little people were born prematurely to a mother, Michele, who mourns the loss of her children. They lived only a short time outside of her womb. 

First, there are the twins, Nicholas and Sophia:

Nicholas

Sophia

Nicholas was born at nearly 16 weeks, and he lived for 55 documented minutes. Sophia was born 15 days later, at 18 weeks. She lived for 5 minutes. They were both loved and baptized.

Next, I'd like you to meet their brother, Alexander. Today is his birthday. He would have been two years old. He was born at 17 weeks, and he lived for 5 minutes. He was strong, and kicked against his father's hands. He, also, was loved and baptized.

Alexander

Now, dear abortion rights advocate, I know that you work very hard to make sure that children just like these are dehumanized and denied the right to life. 

And yet I wonder: Does it strike you as you look at their pictures that these tiny people are not "blobs of tissue"? I challenge you to look at these babies and then publicly (in the comment box) deny their humanity. Tell me, or tell their mother (who is reading this), that they had no human dignity and no right to life. Tell their mother that they are not her children.

Oh, wait.... You know that their mother loved them, so you would never publicly deny that they are her babies? It's only if she had not wanted them that they would go from being beloved children to being "products of conception"? If she had chosen to abort these very same little ones (that's what fetus means, you know, "little one"), you would have supported her right to have them dismembered, scraped out, and tossed in the trash as medical waste, correct? So, if I'm understanding you, it's "wantedness" that gives a human being value? Help me understand. 

Or perhaps you want to claim that these children (or those of like age and size) are a "part of the woman's body" and therefore not people? But hang on a second.... What about those fingers you see laying across Alexander's little chest and under his chin? Whose fingers are those? Are those his mother's fingers, or do those fingers belong to Alexander? They are attached to hands. Which are attached to wrists. And look at those ears, attached to a beautiful head! Whose body is that? Is it hard to say?

Well, what about Sophia's perfect nose and eyes, right there on her pretty face? And the elegant lines of Nicholas' fingers, arms, biceps? To whom do these parts belong? I know for a fact that their mother has her own fingers, her own nose, her own chin and eyes and ears and face and arms and biceps. You believe a woman has a right to control her own body, but are you sure these parts don't belong to someone else's body?

May I ask, do you see yourself as "more human" than they? Can there possibly be degrees of humanity? It seems to me that one group of people getting to determine the humanity of another group of people leads to, well, inhuman things. Check your history on that. And tell us why you get to determine who belongs in the human family and who does not. Do you call those shots because you are bigger and stronger than Nicholas, Sophia and Alexander? But that would mean that "might makes right" which makes you an oppressor of the weak. If not, show me how.

Oh, but you say that babies that age are not viable, and that they cannot live independently outside of their mother's womb. Their complete dependence on their mother makes them undeserving of human status. An interesting argument, but can you name any born baby who can live independently? Aren't all babies totally dependent on others? I haven't met one yet that isn't.

One day medical technology (maybe an artificial womb?) will be able to save babies as small as Nicholas, Sophia and Alexander. It's only a matter of time, and you and I both know it. What to do then, when the threshold of "viability" gets lower and lower? Will a baby attain human rights earlier, simply because technology is better? How does that work, exactly? Please explain.

Perhaps you think it's wrong to bring emotion to this debate by posting the pictures of these little lost babies. These are real pictures of real babies at a stage of human development when lives have no legal protection. When they are totally vulnerable and at your mercy. Looking at their pictures may bring up strong feelings. You bet it's emotional. I feel a lot of emotions when I look at these little ones and think of abortion. Remember, I've never said that emotions do not accompany truth, only that emotions do not determine truth.

It's true, dear abortion rights advocate, that I have asked a lot of questions. I want to hear your answers. Please answer even one or two, because I cannot wrap my mind around how you think as you do, and I want to understand.

Sincerely,

Leila

A note of profound gratitude to the babies' mother, Michele. No human being created will ever be the same as Nicholas, or Sophia, or Alexander. They were irreplaceable and unrepeatable, just like every baby lost either by natural causes or the violence of abortion. Nicholas, Sophia and Alexander never had a voice, but they are speaking loudly now.

There's a Liberal Bubble, too.

I believe there is a Liberal Bubble. And it's not little.

I believe that a large number of secular humanists rarely, if ever, come into meaningful contact with conservatives or conservative ideas. 

Kick me for bringing up Dennis Prager again, but I think he is dead on with this observation: It is possible for a liberal in America to go through his whole life without encountering conservative thought in any depth or significance (though it will be presented to him in caricatured form).

By contrast, conservatives constantly come into contact with liberals and liberal thought. There is simply no avoiding it, since the major societal institutions -- schools/academia, arts and entertainment, the mainstream media, even the government and courts -- are bastions of modern liberalism and "progressive" activism.

A couple of things I've read recently brought this home for me.

The first was written by a regular reader and commenter, MaiZeke, on her own blog. She told her readers:

One of the reasons I’m following this other blog [Little Catholic Bubble] is to actually hear how conservative minds think (esp religious conservative minds). I just never meet anyone like this in real life...

And then, from Mrs. M, on the question of objective truth:

I have to be honest and say that the idea of 'truth' isn't something I've thought about too much in my life, so I can't guarantee that my position on it will be very clear.

Now, I think it's commendable that MaiZeke comes to this blog to find out how we think. I wish more liberals were as open-minded as she. I hope that she discovers over time that our conservative positions are reasoned and consistent, even if she doesn't ultimately agree with them.

And I appreciate Mrs. M's honesty. If she hasn't thought too much about the idea of "truth," it's because it isn't taught anymore. There has been a huge paradigm shift in education over the past few decades. Truth used to be the end of education. It was the goal. Today, it's entirely possible for an American student to go through the entire education system (kindergarten through graduate school) without having been taught to seek what is true, good and beautiful.

Living in a bubble is not good if it's about purposely insulating oneself from those who live and think differently. My "bubble" (a silly name I call my Catholic community) is a joy and a comfort; however, I venture out often to engage a spectrum of people and ideas. Some liberal readers have taken shots at me for living in a "Little Catholic Bubble" -- and then they've scurried away to bubbles of their own, never to be heard from (or challenged in their thinking) again.

I am grateful that MaiZeke and Mrs. M are not like those hit-and-run liberals. I am grateful that they have chosen to stick around and get to know us better.

Pilate said to him, "What is truth?"

Remember when I said that my blog had two purposes? That I want it to be a teaching blog and a learning blog? Well, this post covers both.

First, the teaching part:

One of the most dramatic moments in the Gospels is the exchange between Jesus Christ (who is on trial for his life) and Pontius Pilate (who ultimately orders Jesus' execution). Here is John 18:37-38:

Jesus [said]...."For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."

Pilate said to him, "What is truth?"

Thus we see the two main worldviews regarding truth: One is Jesus' and one is Pilate's. The two views are irreconcilable. Choose a side.

If you want to be a Christian, you must choose Jesus' side. The secular world increasingly chooses Pilate's side.

Now, let's be clear: I am not talking about subjective truth, such as whether you prefer red wine to white, or what you think of grandma's new hairdo.

I am talking objective truth. Truths that are true no matter what you or I think. Truths about who we are and who God is. Truths of "faith and morals".... back to that Deposit of Faith I was talking about here.

Truth cannot contradict itself. So, it's either true that killing innocents is wrong, or it's not. It's either true that rape is wrong, or it's not. It's either true that God exists, or it's not. It can't be "your truth" or "my truth" -- objective truth exists outside of ourselves and will remain true even if the whole world doesn't believe it. Truth is not ours to determine, it is ours to seek and find.

Think about it:

The whole world once believed the earth to be flat. That belief didn't make the world flat. The earth was as round as ever back then, despite public opinion to the contrary.

Believing doesn't make something true. But, if something is true, it is right to believe it. I remember a great line from a Peter Kreeft book: "The only reason to believe something is because it's true." If I have cancer, what good is it for me to believe that I don't have cancer? If it's snowing outside, what good is it for me to believe it's scorching hot? If the light is red, what good is it for me to believe that it's green? We should believe what is true, not what we wish to be true.

Truth is what is real.

Truth would exist even if we didn't. We don't decide what is true or not, we receive what is true (this is known as revelation). We are not the arbiters of Truth, but we hand down what we have received (this is known as catechesis).

We live in a world that increasingly rejects the idea of objective truth. Instead, we are surrounded by Pilate's worldview: "What is truth?" You have your "truth" and I have mine, and it doesn't matter if these "truths" contradict. In fact (and ironically), the only "truth" is that there is no Truth! Pilate's words are conventional wisdom today, but we Christians must understand that Pilate's worldview -- the worldview that all truth is subjective -- is incompatible with Christianity.


Now, on to the learning part of the post, because I really want to know:

To those of you who hold a worldview of "you have your truth and I have mine," please explain the difference between your truth and your opinion.

Thanks, and I look forward to learning how you reconcile the two concepts.

We must be kind, but not "nice"

I know many of us were shaken by the "blog war" that broke out last week. The extent of the vitriol was unexpected, and some of us are still decompressing.

I was still sorting it all out when providential encouragement came in Saturday's mail, 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. In his own words:

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 tonight 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.

About a year 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.

Courage.

Amen.