Psalm 126 and 127

I was singing the Psalms the other day and I noticed a few verses that are relevant to one who is sent out to "sow seeds" through preaching the Gospel.

Those who are sowing in tears will sing when they reap. (Ps.126)

We know from the Gospels that the seed is the Word of God (Matt. 13). This is primarily sown by Jesus Christ, but he also send out laborer to share in this work of his. In this Psalms, the sowing is accompanied by tears--at least the sowing that will bring a songful harvest. What are these tears? For us who walk by faith, it could refer to our blindness in this present life. We do not yet see the things that we hold by faith, so that when we go out to sow, we have no clear vision of what will sprout, or if anything will at all. Perhaps also, it refers to the suffering that comes with preaching the Gospel, and this is more likely. Christ, the first-fruits of our salvation was reviled, betrayed and ultimately died for the sake of our salvation. So also, his ministers will not be treated any differently. A servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one that sent him. (Jn. 13) We will do all the things he did and suffer all that he did, if we are truly his disciples. But then we will also enjoy the harvest with him.

They go out, they go out, full of tears, 

   carrying seed for the sowing.

They come back, they come back, full of song,

   carrying their sheaves. (Ps. 126)

Then the very next Psalm considers the Lord's help, and again the reward:

If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor. If the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil.

Certainly we are the builders of an edifice founded upon Christ (Matt. 7) and also responsible for watching over the city. This Psalm is a reminder that we are not the chief-architect nor will our eyes be sufficient for protecting the city--the Lord does this and will do this. He not a mere assistant of ours, rather he has graciously allowed us to take part in the work that he could do alone.

Truly sons are a gift from the Lord, a blessing the fruit of the womb. The sons of youth are like arrows in the hand of a warrior. O the happiness of the man who has filled his quiver with these arrows! He will have no cause for shame when he disputes with his foes in the gateways. (Ps. 127)

These verses have a literal meaning about the blessings of children, but for those who are consecrated and without children according to the flesh, these verses have a spiritual meaning as well. The first is that the "sons" refer to our good actions. Psalm 137 talks about he who takes the little ones and dashes them against the rock. These "little ones" of Babylon are a sign of the first movements toward sin, and these must be altogether destroyed. So the sons of youth are healthy actions which are at once arrows in the hand of warrior, for a combat against sin and the evil one. Not only does it say sons, but also the fruit of the womb, which is explain in our Lord's command to bear much fruit (John 15, Matt. 7), again referring to our good actions which manifest the sort of tree we are, planted by streams of running water (Ps. 1). Indeed, if one who is found with only good actions will have no cause for shame when he disputes with his foes in the gateways. Of course, the most important gateway leads into heaven. Before entering, we will be subject to a judgment where our foes, our sins and the demons who accuse us, want to prevent us from entering, but these sons will prevent their dispute from winning.

I also thought that perhaps the sons of youth can refer to those who we win over by our preaching and example, indeed our spiritual sons. These too will prove a benefit at the judgment. He who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sin. (James 5:20) Although good works are the basis of this judgment at the entryway (Matt. 25), the Psalmist teaches these things only after the statements above that the Lord is the builder and watcher, who pours gifts on his beloved while they slumber. 

How to be a good minister

Every so often while reading Scripture, there will be a verse that stands out as though it says the most important thing in all of Scripture. Perhaps my favorite one of these is when Jesus speaks to Martha, "Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her" (Luke 10:41-42). How wonderful to know the only thing necessary! Yet, of course, we must look at the context to see what that one thing is. In this case, it is sitting at the feet of Jesus and listening to him with love. If we only did this and lived accordingly, we'd be doing just fine.

Now the verse that stood to me earlier was of a more limited scope. It was a verse from Paul saying what one must do to be a good minister: If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus (1 Tm 4:6). So that is what a good minister must do: put these instruction before the brethren. The next question is, what does these refer to? It might seem to refer to the 5 preceding verses, but Paul goes on to say more and then says, Command and teach these things (v. 11). And then the last verse of the chapter also has a general scope, saying what will bring about salvation for both Timothy and those who hear him, Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers (v. 16). 

Looking before and after chapter 4, some clues indicate where this section begins and ends. [This is where I get distracted by the letter as a whole, but thankfully I can narrow down the consideration.] In rough outline, here is what Paul discusses up to this point:

• 1. Thanks to God for all
• 2. Exhortation to prayer
• 3a. The offices of bishop and deacon

Because section 3a seems to be so particular a consideration, but what follow is more general I'm taking it as a break. Section 3b starts at 3:14 which says, I am writing these instructions to you. Those are probably the same instruction referred to in 4:6, the ones which will make Timothy a good minister if he teaches them. The consideration gets more particular again at the start of chapter 5, when Paul discusses how to treat elders, widows, slaves, etc. The instructions of Paul are divided as follows:

• 3b. Mystery of our faith
• 4a. False doctrine about creation
• 4b. True doctrine about creation
• 4c. Commands to Timothy

Mystery of our faith
Here is the text from St. Paul on "the mystery of our religion" (from 3:16):

• He was manifested in the flesh, 
• vindicated in the Spirit, 
• seen by angels [messengers?], 
• preached among the nations, 
• believed on in the world, 
• taken up in glory. 

This is a very brief summary of what we believe about Jesus Christ. God became man (in the flesh) accomplished the work of teaching and suffering, his divinity was manifested by many signs (in the Spirit), witnesses brought this word to men who believed in him, and then he was taken up into heaven. This is our faith.

Teaching about Creation
The task of teachers is not only to teach those things which God has revealed to men in Christ Jesus, but even to teach things concerning the natural order which relate to God, and which are not seen by men who are deceived.

An interesting side note. In Patristics class, we are currently reading about the Gnostics and the Christian response to them. The Gnostics basically held that they were taught by spirits, some forbid marriage and certain foods, and they all taught that the material created universe is evil, born out of sin. Marcion, one of these Gnostics, held (most of) the Gospel of Luke and 10 of Paul's letters to be canonical. He did not include this letter. Why? Probably because it speaks directly against him about the goodness of creation and the fact that God is the one who created (Gnostics taught that an evil god, the Demiurge, created all material things). One other stab at the Gnostics was in the preceding chapter when he calls the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth. Not Gnostic teachers who learned from spirits, but the church, those who saw received the witness of Christ's resurrection.

In summary though, God created everything and therefore all things are good if they are received with thanksgiving. One can use creature for godlessness (and then your action are evil, not the things), but creatures are meant to lead us to God and they will be as good as they can be if they succeed in doing this.

[Bad teaching] 1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.  
[Good teaching] 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. 6 If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. 

Commands to Timothy
I always find it helpful to see lists of things in Scripture actually formatted as a list. The Medievals always use numbered lists as a memory tool (12 steps of humility, 7 virtues go with 7 gifts of spirit go with 7 beatitudes). It helps me remember too.

• 7 Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. 
• Train yourself in godliness; 
• [reason] 8 for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. 9 The saying [namely, that there is a life to come] is sure and worthy of full acceptance. 
• [another reason] 10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.  
• 11 Command and teach these things.  [what things? all of them]
• 12 Let no one despise your youth, but 
• set the believers an example 
• in speech 
• and conduct, 
• in love, 
• in faith, 
• in purity.  
• 13 Till I come, attend 
• to the public reading of scripture, 
• to preaching, 
• to teaching. 
• 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.  
• 15 Practice these duties, devote yourself to them, 
• [not a reason, but a desired effect] so that all may see your progress.  
• 16 Take heed to yourself and to your teaching; hold to that, 
• [reason] for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. 

In summary, to be a good minister teach and do according to what you have received concerning Christ and all creation.
 

Rule of Life (and some more on freedom)

I saw that I had recently written a post about freedom which reminded me of further thoughts I had on freedom, which lead me further to think about writing a rule of life.

In the early centuries of the Church, whenever Christians got serious about following the teaching of the Gospel, this often led them to write a rule of life as a measure for how to live. The most famous of these is probably The Rule of St. Benedict, and before this came the Rule of St. Basil (which is mostly an organized list of Gospel passages) and the Institutes of St. John Cassian.

Why write or follow a rule? Here's a passage from Habakkuk:

Write the vision;
make it plain upon the tablets,
so he may run who reads it.
For still the vision awaits its time;
it hastens to the end--it will not lie.
If it seems slow, wait for it;
it will surely come, it will not delay.
(Hab.2:2-3)

It's easy to think about how one should live and even to talk about every so often, but by actually writing it down you can now hold in your hands and see the standard of your life before you. When you pick it up and review it, you can see "Oh man, I haven't been doing that lately..." or if your rule includes the reasons for why you live as you do (and all the best rules have this!), you will say, "Oh yeah, that's why I do that!" and thereby be renewed in your zeal. So the purpose of the rule is to attain the goal sought more perfectly.

But will this not restrict freedom? Yes and no. Inasmuch as a rule will bind you to do something and forbid you to do others, indeed this is a restriction on the endless capacity of your freedom. Yet by this same restriction, one is more free to do and attain that for which one has any freedom at all.

Every action limits or determines your freedom in some way. When you make a decision, you no longer had the unlimited freedom which you had before making that decision. But we have no choice with respect to one thing: we must make our choice. The question is whether we shall make a choice that leads to more freedom or a choice which cuts off and limits our path to higher freedom. Back to rules of life...

Sin, the devil, and the cares of this world are 3 things which are always drawing near and taking hold of our freedom. When you choose to sin, you exchange your freedom for the consequences of sin--anxiety, punishment, and loss of communion with God and one another. So the freedom dedicated to sin is thereby lost. By a Rule of Life, one orders the exercise of freedom so as to maintain it and increase it. The setting aside of time for prayer, study and work keeps keeps the world and its charms (which are often quite meager, really only distractions). By constant examination of conscience, the devil is foiled in his devices and the vices are rooted out and replaced by virtues.

And what are virtues? They are firm dispositions of character by which one is capable of exercising freedom. Really? Yes. Here are the chief virtues and how they contribute to this:

• Temperance: By this virtue we use the things of this world for the sake of our own ends, without becoming overly attached to them and making them ends themselves
• Fortitude: By this virtue we have the vigor to actually strive for those things we desire most in life; this is opposed to the slavish habits of laziness, fear, and so on
• Prudence: By this virtue we consider what means are most apt for attaining our end, so that our freedom is not wasted doing in a sloppy manner what could have been done neatly and reasonably
• Justice: Yeah, this is always listed as a cardinal virtue by the ancients and medievals, but it does seem a little different. It's often characterized as that virtue by which we give each man his due. Certainly if we don't do this, our conscience will plague and we will thereby lose any authentic freedom. Also, people aren't like any other objects in the world. Ultimately, the greatest use of freedom is when it is ordered to other persons. Anything less would make us subject to some inanimate body. An idol. But I'll need to think about this more. The first three should be clear enough.

So then, what should I write in my rule? Pretty much anything that will help. But here are three general rules that will factor into any authentic Christian rule, keeping it from going astray:

• Rule of Faith: Believe all that is contained in the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition as taught by the Pope and all the bishops in communion with him. This is the norm of faith, and whatever else someone believes, this is always to be upheld.
• Rule of Hope: Our final end and purpose is eternal life in heaven with God and the saints. Whenever we sin and fall from this end, we must not despair, but confess our sins and seek eternal life once again.
• Rule of Love: Jesus taught only two commands. Love God with all your soul, strength, mind, heart. Love your neighbor as yourself. This is the regula vitae for every Christian, and everything else must be ordered to living these two principle commandments more perfectly.

Thoughts on Sacraments as Signs

Typically when considering the sacraments, I think about what they effect and not so much about what they signify, yet these are closely related. Most definitions of sacrament will somehow include sign, whether be "an efficacious sign of grace" or "an outward sign instituted by Christ for giving grace" (Baltimore Catechism) or "a sign of a sacred thing, with determinate words and a determinate matter" (St Thomas).

Lately I've been thinking about the question, "Why not women priests?" I'm thinking more and more that the answer is that a woman (as woman) is not a sufficient sign of Christ the Priest. It seems that it has to be on account of the sign. As far as offering sacrifice (which is the chief act of a priest), this is not something only men do. We are all called to be "a nation of priests" and "offer sacrifice" in all of our thoughts, words, and actions. Yet when people talk about the capacity to become priests, they are referring to the sacramental priesthood, the priesthood which is a sign of the priesthood of Christ.

Now I'm talking about signs a lot and some might think, "If it's just a sign, then doesn't that mean it doesn't really matter?" The answer is no, it really does matter. Think about baptism: the washing with water signifies the washing away of sins--no water, no sacrament. But all the other liquids may complain, "If it's just a sign, can't you use beer or coffee to baptize someone just as well?" Christ, in his wisdom, instituted the sacraments with determinate things and with determinate words so that they might have determinate effects. The tendency to attend only to the effect of the sacrament and not to the sign might be a result of a kind of utilitarian mindset, but without attending to the sign we cannot understand the reality effected by means of the sacrament.

Marriage is another example of a sacramental sign. Why can't two men marry each other in a church? (at all really, but especially not sacramentally.) Because marriage is primarily a sign of the union between Christ and the Church, a union which requires a both diversity in kind and a total self-giving of the one to the other. You do not have this in two men. Perhaps two men can have the holiest of friendships and can even spend a whole of service together (these aren't typically the men that seek such a union...), yet their friendship does not sufficiently signify the union of Christ and the Church, a union which is signified by bride and bridegroom, male and female.

Another example intrigues me in the sacrament of Confirmation. At the Council of Trent, it was declared "If anyone says that the ordinary minister of holy confirmation is not the bishop alone, but any simple priest, let him be anathema." I always thoughts this was an odd canon since it is only about an ordinary minister of a sacrament. Simple priests can administer confirmation, yet the Church declares that bishops are the only ordinary minister. Why? Because the bishop more perfectly signifies the one who sends the Holy Spirit. I will have to read more on this, but St. Ignatius of Antioch (2nd century bishop in Syria) often compares the bishop to God the Father, priests to Christ or the company of Apostles, and deacons to the ministry of the Apostles. Both the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit, thus both the bishop and the priest have this capacity, and yet all the Son has he has from the Father (including, if I am not mistaken, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him), thus it is proper that the bishop be the ordinary minister of the sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is confirmed in souls. (A note: these are just top-of-head thoughts, if I say something that sounds heretical, check the catechism and disregard what I said as needed)

After considering the sacramental priesthood to some extent, there is also the question of other ministers at Mass. Many argue that these should be male whenever possible, citing what appears to be the meaning of Canon Law but also arguing that the other ministries are in some way a participation in the priesthood. There is certainly more leeway here, since these are ministers (besides the priest and deacon) do not receive a sacrament, yet the principle of a significant sign should still apply. Thus, when the Epistles of St Paul or any of the Apostles is read, it does seem fitting that a male should read these so as to signify the Apostle better. Another example of a sign beyond the sacraments: I know a priest who always has the gifts brought up from the congregation (although this is not required) since this better signifies the contribution of man in the divine sacrifice.

Must go to class. Signs--very important.

Thoughts on Person, Relation, Family

This post is really just going to be a handful of quotes and thoughts.

Friendship seems to hold states together, and lawgivers apparently devote more attention to it than to justice. For concord seems to be something similar to friendship, and concord is what they most strive to attain, while they do their best to expel faction, the enemy of concord. When people are friends, they have no need of justice, but when they are just, they need friendship in addition. In fact, the just in the fullest sense is regarded as constituting an element of friendship. Friendship is noble as well as necessary: we praise those who love their friends and consider the possession of many friends a noble thing. And further, we believe of our friends that they are good men. (Nicomachean Ethics, 8.1, at the beginning of Aristotle's consideration of friendship)

Relativity toward the other constitutes the human person. The human person is the event or being of relativity. (Joseph Ratzinger, Concerning the Notion of Person in Theology)

"Pope Paul VI noted that “the world is in trouble because of the lack of thinking”. He was making an observation, but also expressing a wish: a new trajectory of thinking is needed in order to arrive at a better understanding of the implications of our being one family; interaction among the peoples of the world calls us to embark upon this new trajectory, so that integration can signify solidarity rather than marginalization. Thinking of this kind requires a deeper critical evaluation of the category of relation. This is a task that cannot be undertaken by the social sciences alone, insofar as the contribution of disciplines such as metaphysics and theology is needed if man's transcendent dignity is to be properly understood." (Pope Benedict, Caritas in Veritate)

The third reason [against marrying blood relations] is, because this would hinder a man from having many friends: since through a man taking a stranger to wife, all his wife's relations are united to him by a special kind of friendship, as though they were of the same blood as himself. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv, 16): "The demands of charity are most perfectly satisfied by men uniting together in the bonds that the various ties of friendship require, so that they may live together in a useful and becoming amity; nor should one man have many relationships in one, but each should have one." (Summa, II-II.159.9)


All right, those are all the quotes I wanted to bring together. The one quote from Aristotle has long been on my mind since it sounds odd when first heard: legislators care most about friendship. When we think of lawmakers, this is not the first thing that comes to mind, but giving it a few minutes of thoughts, that certainly seems like the way to go. Laws bring about justice for the sake of this higher good, friendship. If everything were just but nobody had friends, that would be a very poor state. A state with many friendships and strong friendships would seem to be the ideal.

The Ratzinger quote is one that I have puzzled over for sometime. Is he saying that a person is relation, or even that relation is somehow prior to a person being a person? Those statements both seem odd. Yet it is true that every persons is potentially related (to all other persons) and even necessarily actually related to at least two persons upon coming into existence. It is also the case that only persons can have the kinds of relations that are noble (i.e. friendship). So the capacity for friendship (I will call this relation, meaning this limited sense) is a property of the person, in the sense that only persons can be friends and all persons can be friends.

I want to note here that person does not name a nature, so it is interesting that I can point out a property. There are other properties (having intellect and will), so perhaps its not too odd, but I did want it to be noticed that these are not properties of a nature, but of something else.

These relations really seems to be what a person is made for. Aristotle speaks very highly of friendship, saying that life would not be worth living apart from it, yet goes on to say that our happiness consists in a contemplative act. His argument for this is from our nature, to which it is proper to know. That contemplation/seeing is certainly our happiness is beyond doubt. Yet there is more to be said, and what is seen is also to be considered. He says (I'm being vaguer than he) that the object of contemplation must be the highest thing for it to constitute our happiness. Yet in the two preceding books he talked about the glory of a friend and how one reason friends are so great is that one can contemplate the highest things in his friend. So it seems the object of the perfect sight is likely to be a friend.

Toward the end (this is just my memory) he says the object are the gods. Now surely, something divine is the highest object, right? I think so. Yet to see the divine, not only as other or as higher, but as friend is surely a far greater happiness. I do not know what Aristotle could have known about the personality of God, yet I think he would agree that to behold a friend is better than not to behold a friend, and that to behold God is better than not to; therefore, to behold God as friend is the highest of all.

Now it is a person that has a relationship. This is most clearly seen in the Christological disputes that took place. We call Mary the Mother of God because she bore Christ, a person who is divine. She did not beget a nature, but a person. I was not born of "parenthood", but of my mother and my father who became related to me when I was conceived.

(I wish my thinking was more complete and orderly on this. I'm really just writing where my mind goes, but I'm leaving out tons of stuff that I think is worth saying...)

There was a TIME magazine cover recently about how childless couples seem to be happier than those without children. Just about everyone I know was disgusted by this cover. Nope, I haven't read the article, but here is the cover: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20130812,00.html "The Childfree Life: When having it all means not having children." Someone seems to be missing something. That most parents would give away everything they have to care for their child should be a sign that a child is something very special, something not entirely understood, but something loved--someone loved. It's a person! And the dignity/worth/awesomeness of this person is most made manifest through relation. It's nice that every child is born within at least two relations (this reminds me of a board game called Catan, where everyone automatically starts with 2 points; and yes, I just gave nature a compliment). A developing person is one that is learning to form and grow in relationships with others. If a child learned to eat, drink, dress himself, sleep, work, pay bills, study and entertain himself, but did not have any relationships with others, it would be safe to say that something went wrong, the child had not yet finished growing.

In the context of a family, one is immediately tied to others by familial bonds. First are the parents already mentioned several times, and then there are the siblings. I have trouble imagining life without siblings. They are persons who have a common origin, common experiences, often common likes and dislikes, common appearances, a common name, and common relatives! Whereas this can take many years to develop with another persons, in the context of the family, one is born into it. How wonderful! Meeting cousins is always wonderful, because there is at once a newness and a familiarity. This kind of relationship is so good that St. Thomas in the quote about talks about how marrying those of another family is wonderful, precisely because it increases the number of relationships like this.

I had a thought regarding the childless. Aristotle says that the ideal state is one that has as its end the common good. Less perfect states are those that aim at less common goods. Another premise, a common good is one's own good. All right, now someone who does not have children (or at least younger relatives or younger friends) will seem to have little or no interest for laws unless they affect someone of their own age group. This would be detrimental to a state which is to last from one generation to the next. On the other hand, those who have descendants (I read of an Israeli woman who recently died--she had 1400 living descendants) will be concerned that laws are framed such that they will benefit not only their own generation, but even those to come.

This makes me want to read The Republic again, paying special attention to the state invented there. Socrates suggests having children and wives in common, and yet by doing this the special relationships among them would be diminished. This is why Marx's plan leads to the destruction of the person. After reading that again, I will want to read book 2 of Aristotle's Politics where he criticizes it. Here is one line from chapter 3: "Each of the citizens comes to have a thousand sons, though not as an individual, but each in a similar fashion the son of any of them; hence all will slight them in similar fashion." And another: "It is better to have a cousin of one's own than to have a son in the sense indicated." Oh, and another! "It is impossible to avoid some who suspect who their brothers, parents, etc. actually are." That is to say, we are provided by such relations by nature.

There's some great stuff here. A quote from chapter 4: "We suppose affection to be the greatest of good things for cities." and "There are two things above all which make human beings cherish and feel affection, what is one's own and what is dear."

Another brief note. Some will say "Why are you looking to Aristotle's Politics for wisdom about political life and family relations? Doesn't he encourage slavery?" Two answers: one, he takes slavery as a given and then tries to understand its place within the whole of political and economic life. (I sometimes want to point out that the tasks done by slaves have not gone away: they still need to be done. Though I will grant that slavery and employed labor are not the same thing. That can be a long conversation for later..) The second encouragement to study the Politics comes from Blessed John Paul II! Here's a quote: "Returning to Aristotle, we should add that, as well as the Nicomachean Ethics, he also left us a work on social ethics. It is entitled Politics. Here, without addressing questions concerning the concrete strategies of political life, Aristotle limits himself to defining the ethical principles on which any just political system should be based. Catholic social teaching owes much to Aristotle’s Politics and has acquired particular prominence in modern times, thanks to the issue of labor." So that's encouraging. Read the whole of that chapter here: http://www.jknirp.com/mandi.htm

Rereading that chapter just now, I noticed how much the Blessed Pope talks about freedom, which he also defines: "Freedom, for Aristotle, is a property of the will which is realized through truth. It is given to man as a task to be accomplished. There is no freedom without truth." How wonderful! Freedom is often identified with autonomy, being able to do what one wants without anyone's help or burden; the freedom John Paul speaks of is something which is open to others because it is open to truth. The Pope mentions many documents about such freedom and how it stands to human relations, especially noting Gaudium et Spes. I'm putting that at the top of my queue now...

Speaking of relation, my sister coincidentally posted a status on Facebook that seems capture something of what I'm trying to get at:
"While over the summer I was exposed to sickening amounts of profanity and blows of blatant sexism, these same men could become the most sensitive and heartfelt when talking about one subject: thier wives. Like an excited child talking about Christmas, each one would talk about her unique, timeless beauty, often showing me pictures. They would tell of her sweetness, intelligence, her motherly wisdom. Their love was so great for their wives. With overtime there is rejoicing, since they are already away from home and their wives aren't at the hotel. Weekend work? A silence of sorrow. This marvelous sweetness and passion turned an awful day around, restoring a little hope in love. Thank you. And yet, they didn't share for my sake; they just couldn't keep from talking about the one they love."

Yep, that sums it up. 

Pope Francis Catechism

"Do not “water down” your faith in Jesus Christ. The Beatitudes: What must we do, Father? Look, read the Beatitudes: that will do you good. If you want to know what you actually have to do, read Matthew Chapter 25, which is the standard by which we will be judged. With these two things you have the action plan: the Beatitudes and Matthew 25. You do not need to read anything else. I ask you this with all my heart." (Pope Francis, Thursday 25 July 2013, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130725_gmg-argentini-rio_en.html )

Matthew 5
The Beatitudes
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. 5 "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 7 "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. 8 "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. 9 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 10 "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Matthew 25Parable of the Wise and Foolish Maidens 1 "Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them; 4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, 'Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.' 7 Then all those maidens rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' 9 But the wise replied, 'Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you; go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.' 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut. 11 Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, 'Lord, lord, open to us.' 12 But he replied, 'Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.' 13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.  

Parable of the Talents
14 "For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; 15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. 17 So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' 21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' 23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26 But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.' 

Judgment of the Nations
31 "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' 40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' 44 Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45 Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Write about contemplation

Write about contemplation

I've noticed a trend here and there of students who are fatigued by classes and study, who consequently come to despise the intellectual life to some degree and then want to turn elsewhere in order to find meaning. There could be many factors involved, but one seems to be the confusion of contemplation and study. They suggest active works, such as farming or making music, in lieu of what they consider the act of the contemplative life, but this seems due to a poor understanding of contemplation.

To write a decent on this subject will take some more time and study on my part, but I am confident that it is worth it. Contemplation is the highest operation of man and in it man comes closest to the beatitude that awaits him. The texts I want to draw on are mostly that from the end of Summa II-II, on the contemplative and active lives, also on religious life. After showing how awesome contemplation is (and the evidence is overwhelming), there is an article on whether religious orders can have study as their end. In that article he shows how study can be ordered to end of any religious life. This is helpful. Again, the beginning of his commentary on De Hebdomadibus compares contemplating to play. This is on account of its delight and ease, neither of which necessarily goes with study. Then I want to look at the Ethics, making sure of the Greek which I take to be erroneously translated as study. Perhaps it is worth spending time on the etymology of contemplate and study. Seeing how contemplation relates to the commandments and how it is more meritorious than the works of the active life is also to be considered.

The spiritual/intellectual life of the next generation may depend on this.


Sent from my iPhone