Ecumenism Without Compromise

Speaking of ecumenism, Peter Kreeft has a great talk on his website about how Christians can maybe, just maybe be united again as one body. The talk can be found here.

God can get it done

Today's readings at mass really made an impact on me. I was most moved by the second reading, Eph 4:1-6. Paul tells the Ephesians (and us) that we should strive to "preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit..." But we are not one body, in fact we are far, far from that hope. With something like 20,000 Christian denominations and counting, if Paul weren't in Heaven, he would be turning over in his grave!

A number of years ago I worked for a man who was (and maybe still is) a staunch atheist. He and I would often discuss matters of theology and philosophy. There was one argument he made for which I had no answer. He would often say, "Josh, how can you expect me to become a Christian when Christians can't even define what is means to be a Christian?" Indeed, the disunity of the church is scandalous. How often has it thwarted evangelization?

Paul tells us to be one body, because the Body of Christ is not schitzophenic. It does not have multiple personalities, multiple theologies,or multiple liturgies. Why should it be one? Because, as Paul explains, the call we have received to be Christian is a call to be one body. That is a big part of being Christian.

But how do we become one, now, at this point in time? The denominations are so different, so separated. It seems impossible. Let's forget for a moment about the theological differences, and just look at the practical ones. Different churches have different ordination requirements, how do we reconcile those? How about communion, how often should we have it? We Catholics believe the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ, can Protestants just accept that? What about statues? And the church leadership, bishops, deacons, elders, presbyters - how are these to be joined together? Often in business to corporations of 10,000 people will try to merge and fail, because their cultures are so different. How can over one billion Christians, all with different cultures and beliefs, become one?
At this point during mass, I was really starting to wonder if Christian unity is anything more than a pipe dream.

Then the gospel was read.

I suppose the disciples kind of felt a bit like me, seeing those 5000+ hungry people. How are we going to accomplish this? - they must have thought. Phillip even verbalizes these thoughts to Jesus (not that he needed to) by quantifying the situation. The answer to the apostles implicit question is what struck me: no. That's it. No, they are not going to accomplish this task. Jesus will.

How simple! How beautifully simple! Feeding 5000 with five loaves and two fishes requires a miracle, plain and simple. Now I don't know any human who can perform a miracle, so God has to be the one to do this. And as the deacon at our parish to eloquently pointed out in his homily, if you weren't paying attention, you almost wouldn't know the miracle had occurred. There was no announcement, not even any thunder. Just a miracle, subtle and effective.

I think this is the way the church will be united. It will be a miracle. The task seems (and is) too big for us, for any of us. But I hope and pray, with John Paul II, that while the first millennium was a millennium of Christian unity (despite heresy and persecution), and the second millennium was a millennium of Christian disunity, the third millennium will be a millennium of Christian reunity. Please Lord, make us one!

An argument in favor of arguing

So often it seems that matters of religion and politics spark arguments (that's why these subjects tend to be banned at family gatherings large and small). But what, if anything, is wrong if arguing? At its root, argument is simply speech, and speech is not inherently evil. Certainly the Bible, the Word of God, which is Jesus, is not evil, and just as certainly, it is speech. So like most things of this world, the morality or immorality, or amorality of speech, and therefore of argument, is defined by the nature in which we use it.

In general, the morality of an act depends upon the outcome of three tests. The act itself, the circumstances surrounding the act, and the motive of the actor. We've shown that argument is not inherently evil, since it is essentially speech. Thus argument does not fail the first test.

We cannot make any general statements about the second test, the circumstances of an argument. The mindset of the arguers and the topic of the argument constitute the circumstances of the argument. Certainly these circumstances can make an argument immoral. An argument between Stalin and Mao about the best techniques for running a death camp could certainly be considered immoral based on its circumstances. However circumstances don't make all arguments immoral.

So we're left with the motive of the actor. Why do one or both parties start and continue the argument? In my case, I most often find myself arguing to win. I may be more clever than my opponent, or more knowledgeable about the subject, or I may have truth on my side. In any case, I am arguing to win, as if there is some cosmic scoreboard keeping track of the argument's progress.

For most of my life, this is how I've viewed argument. However I recently listened to one of Peter Kreeft's lectures, entitled Pro-Life Philosophy, and my view drastically changed. Near the beginning of the lecture Kreeft explains that arguing is not about winning, but rather about knowing. The purpose of an argument should not be to win, but rather to test knowledge. Like a science experiment, which tests a proposed hypothesis, an argument is an intellectual experiment which tests a theory. So the motive of the actor, in this case the arguer, can make an argument immoral. If the goal of the arguer is to win, then an argument is really no longer an argument, but a war of some sort (albeit a cold war, hopefully). Thus the principles of just war theory should be applied to determine whether or not an argument is moral.

For a person who enjoys argumentation and usually argues with the intent of winning, this can be a startling revelation. Yet Kreeft's argument about arguing makes sense. A victory in an argument (if such a quantity can be measured) usually accomplishes little more than ego inflation.

However even arguing to win can have some benefit. Throughout college, I participated in Lincoln-Douglas debate. A highly structured argument, the focus of LD debate is victory. Yet in the proper context, we can use this type of arguing to win to train our minds and prepare them for the more important arguments, those which seek knowledge and truth, not victory.

So argumentation is not necessarily wrong, but it must be approached with the proper motives in order to be right.

Is NFP evil?

Oftentimes I find myself falling into the trap of thinking of Natural Family Planning (NFP) as the official Catholic Birth Control. And certainly, NFP, though not illicit in its form, can be used in a sinful way. As I recoil from this thought, I usually bounce to the opposite extreme, thinking that NFP is completely wrong and shouldn't ever be used.

One of the reasons I love the Catholic church is that dilemmas like this have almost always already been solved - we just have to find the answers. Catholic author Thomas Storck has compiled some of the answers into a clear and concise form in his article NFP: A Defense and an Explanation.

As the title of the article suggests, he both explains why NFP is not Catholic Birth Control and defends (as well as defines) the licit use of NFP. Faithful to the Church's magisterium, Storck sifts through church teaching to reveal the nuggets of wisdom already proclaimed by the magisterium, then uses sound reasoning to answer the unexplained questions.

Although Janet Smith's babies and bonding argument has been a staple of the Catholic apologetics diet for some time, I've found that line of reasoning tends to lead to a characterization of NFP as Catholic Birth Control. However, Smith's arguments combined with Storck's elucidation of church teaching provide a potent intellectual defense of the Catholic teaching on birth control.

Yet in this case, I'd be willing to bet the best intellectual defense of the teaching means next to nothing. In matters of birth control, the Holy Spirit certainly earns his keep.

Back Again

It's been a while since I've posted, but I hope to start posting again regularly soon. It's not that I haven't had things to talk about (that may never happen), it's just I keep losing that pesky time.
Hopefully I'll find more of it soon!