Monthly Archives: February 2010

St. Teresa of Avila on Making Excuses

Having discussed, in chapter 32, how the petition “your will be done” means that we pray for God’s true will–that we suffer for our betterment, St. Teresa goes on to explain how hard it is for us to willingly give things up for the sake of the Kingdom.

“Yet He knows that it will be difficult for us to carry this out; for if anyone were to tell some wealthy, pampered person that it is God’s will for him to moderate his eating so that others, who are dying of hunger, shall have at least bread to eat, he will discover a thousand reasons for not understanding this but interpreting it in his own way. If one tells a person who speaks ill of others that it is God’s will that he should love his neighbour as himself,[13] he will lose patience and no amount of reasoning will convince him. If one tells a religious who is accustomed to liberty and indulgence that he must be careful to set a good example and to remember that when he makes this petition it is his duty to keep what he has sworn and promised, and that not in word alone; that it is the will of God that he should fulfil his vows and see that he gives no occasion for scandal by acting contrarily to them, even though he may not actually break them; that he has taken the vow of poverty and must keep it without evasions, because that is the Lord’s will — it would be impossible, in spite of all this, that some religious should not still want their own way. What would be the case, then, if the Lord had not done most of what was necessary by means of the remedy He has given us? There would have been very few who could have fulfilled this petition, which the Lord made to the Father on our behalf: Fiat voluntas tua.” (Way of Perfection, Ch. 33 para. 1).

The Parable Nobody Talks about

You know the “Prodigal Son,” The “Parable of the Talents,” the “Good Shepherd,” and so on. But there’s one parable no one really gives a title to. They don’t talk about it much. One of the best homilies I’ve heard about it was by Fr. James Haley.

Liberal priests don’t talk about it because, contrary to the image they like to present, they’re not really concerned about the the poor. The ideology behind liberalized clerics is called “pluriformity“: application of cultural relativism to poverty, chastity and obedience.

Liberal priests are liberal because they want to appeal to the rich liberal parishioners and tell them what *they* want to hear, so they won’t withdraw donations.

Meanwhile, “conservative” priests are too tied up into Republican values.

Anyway, it can’t be read often enough:

16 And he spoke a similitude to them, saying: The land of a certain rich man brought forth plenty of fruits. 17 And he thought within himself, saying: What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? 18 And he said: This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and will build greater; and into them will I gather all things that are grown to me, and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul: Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years take thy rest; eat, drink, make good cheer. 20 But God said to him: Thou fool, this night do they require thy soul of thee: and whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?

21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God. 22 And he said to his disciples: Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat; nor for your body, what you shall put on. 23 The life is more than the meat, and the body is more than the raiment. 24 Consider the ravens, for they sow not, neither do they reap, neither have they storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them. How much are you more valuable than they? 25 And which of you, by taking thought, can add to his stature one cubit?

26 If then ye be not able to do so much as the least thing, why are you solicitous for the rest? 27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. 28 Now if God clothe in this manner the grass that is today in the field, and tomorrow is cast into the oven; how much more you, O ye of little faith? 29 And seek not you what you shall eat, or what you shall drink: and be not lifted up on high. 30 For all these things do the nations of the world seek. But your Father knoweth that you have need of these things.

31 But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.

(Luke 12:16-31, Douay-Rheims)

A reading list for a crash-course in Catholic philosophy

One of the things I’ve always wanted to do is take my own readings in various areas and advise others on the best paths to follow.

In a chat session with a young convert and college student about how to get caught up in Catholic philosophy to impress even the most liberal atheist college professors, I’ve come up with a basic guide to getting familiar with philosophy, building up to Aquinas, if you don’t know where to start.

1. Start with C. S. Lewis. He’s easy. Many professors over the past 60 years have used _The Abolition of Man_ in intro philosophy classes. _Mere Christianity_, I later learned, is really just a summary of St. Augustine. So Read The Abolition of Man and then Mere Christianity (_Abolition_ must come first because the first chapters of MC summarize what it says).

2. Move to G. K. Chesterton. I have to admit, I’ve never read _The Everlasting Man_, or if I have, I forget. But this volume from Ignatius Press’s complete Chesterton series is a must-have: it’s Everlasting Man, Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi in one volume. Read Everlasting Man and the biography of Thomas Aquinas. Of course, you *must* read Orthodoxy.

Most of these books are relatively short. Abolition of Man is three 45-minute lectures Lewis gave in a conference series. Mere Christianity was a series of radio shows. It’s all fairly simple stuff, and the books aren’t that long. At a reasonable pace, one could read through Abolition, Mere Christianity, Everlasting Man, Orthodoxy and Thomas Aquinas in a couple months. A voracious reader could tackle them in a matter of weeks.

These books should really get your brain working. It’s tough to say how to proceed at this point, and it really depends upon your skill level.

You really need to know a lot of background material to read Aquinas. He draws heavily from St. Paul (“The Apostle”), Aristotle (“The Philosopher,”) and St. Augustine. One can read St. Augustine without knowing a lot of philosophy, but one can’t really read Aquinas without a firm grounding in Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, St. Paul and the historical background. That’s one area where Chesterton’s biography helps.

3. Thus, here I would say that, if you are brave enough, you should tackle any of the following three by St. Augustine:
_City of God_
_On Christian Doctrine_.
Also, St. Augustine is of course in public domain, so all these works can be found online for free.
As C. S. Lewis himself would say, though, if Augustine is still too tricky, move on. When I read _City of God_, for example, I recognized a lot of it as having been summarized in _Mere Christianity_.

4. “It’s all in Plato,” says C. S. Lewis’s Professor Digory Kirke, and that’s largely true. Not everything in Plato accords with a Christian worldview, but he’s foundational to Western thought. The first real Plato I ever read was a collection called Five Dialogues, containing the Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, and Phaedo. _The Apology_, Socrates’ defense at his trial, is a biggie (and it will explain my screen name to you). , and are also important. Of course, all of these can be found online in public-domain translations.
My philosophy senior seminar course was an in-depth study of _The Republic_ (I did two papers: one on the tripartite soul theories of Plato, Sigmund Freud and C. S. Lewis, and the other contrasting Aristotle’s and Plato’s views of the nature of society with the Catholic teaching of subsidiarity). Our professors’ chosen translation was a “banned book,” the Allan Bloom edition, because of its footnotes. The Bloom edition of _The Republic_, they joked, is a censored book in many campuses and conferences because his classic _The Closing of the American Mind_ is so hated.
I would say that any selection of _The Republic_, _The Apology_ and one or two other of the dialogues mentioned should be enough to get your feet wet.

5. Having introduced yourself to Augustine and Plato, you can move on to Aristotle. Aristotle’s a tough nut to crack. He’s very wordy. He’s not really that hard to understand if you can keep the train of thought, but he goes off on a lot of tangents. I strongly recommend him–and, again, he can be sampled for free online. For purposes of Thomas Aquinas, you’d want to jump straight to the “Categories,” “Logic,” “Physics,” “Metaphyics,” “Politics” and “Ethics.” Or else, you can save yourself time by a great book that explains Aristotle to the layman the way C. S. Lewis explains theology to the layman:
Aristotle for Everybody by Mortimer J. Adler.

Adler really breaks Aristotle down, so if you’re eager to sink your teeth into Aquinas, you can get the basic terminology and theories of Aristotle down without having to read all those other books (though I recommend them). Or else by reading Adler first, having also read Plato and Augustine and Lewis and Chesterton, you’ll be well prepared for reading the real Aristotle.

6. Now, you have the contemporary writers to explain things to you. You’ve dipped into some of the classics yourself. Next step: Medieval philosophy.
You may want to go back and take a gander at Chesterton’s biography of Aquinas, if you haven’t done that yet, or else review it slightly.
Unfortunately, Amazon only has it in various out-of-print editions, but the next step in your journey *has* to be Etienne Gilson’s classic Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages. This book is crucial to explaining the historical and academic situations into which Aquinas appeared: the “dark ages,” the return of Aristotle to the west via some Muslim philosophers known to the Latin-speaking academic world as Averroes and Avicenna, etc.

7. If you’ve followed all these steps successfully, you should be ready for “the big guy.” For your first venture into St. Thomas Aquinas, you *have* to read Peter Kreeft’s Summa of the Summa. This book is fantastic. I can’t speak highly enough about it. Kreeft takes out passages from _Summa Theologiae_ that are relevant to the modern reader and provides wonderful explanatory footnotes, written as a teacher’s explanation, not a scholar’s exegesis.

Ralph McInerny has his own book of selections from Aquinas, and, of course, being perhaps the greatest Thomistic scholar of the past generation, McInerny has a *ton* of books about Aquinas and Medieval philosophy, but his style is a little bit more “dry” than some of the people I’ve recommended. And, of course, McInerny has numerous EWTN series and some fine DVDs out there.

Another great medieval scholar of the mid-twentieth century was Vernon J. Bourke, who also has a bunch of anthologies of Aquinas, Augustine, and Aristotle, as well as his own textbooks and commentaries.

Party on!

Jesus says not to sue people

“11 And when they shall bring you into the synagogues, and to magistrates and powers, be not solicitous how or what you shall answer, or what you shall say; 12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say. 13 And one of the multitude said to him: Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance with me. 14 But he said to him: Man, who hath appointed me judge, or divider, over you? 15 And he said to them: Take heed and beware of all covetousness; for a man’s life doth not consist in the abundance of things which he possesseth.” (Luke 12:11-15, Douay-Rheims)

“Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. “

We often hear of what is necessary to protect ourselves, to defend ourselves, to protect our families. Yet what does Jesus say?
“4 And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him. ”
(Luke 12:4-5, Douay-Rheims).

“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Some people say that the difference between abortion and other life issues is that unborn babies are “innocent.” In that case, go ahead and kill me. I’m not innocent.. I’m guillty of many grievous mortal sins, sins that are just as worthy of eternal Hellfire as murder or terrorism. For if we have ever engaged in sexual sins, blasphemy, theft, skipping Mass on Sunday, coveting another person’s goods, lying, etc., we are just as worthy of death, according to God’s Law, as a terrorist.

I, however, thank God that Christ has come and changed the Law so that only those who are free from sin (according to some commentators, this could mean those who are in a state of grace) are permitted to execute the death penalty.

The Church may be a Hospital for Sinners, but in most hospitals, the cafeterias are in the basement.

And the people who use the cafeteria are the ones who think they’re healthy.