Hello everyone!

As the summer vacations draws closer to its official end (I start school late) my thoughts have recently been drawn much closer to the tentative subject of my BA thesis in philosophy.

Last year in my philosophy classes my most successful papers (and my favorite to write) both treated quasi-theological topics. The first was a bare-fisted attempt to wrestle with the problem of Plato's 'Euthyphro', "Do the gods love piety because it is pious, or is it pious because the gods love it?" The second paper was a look at the Eucharist in against the history of extraordinary relationships between people and things.

This coming year, I have the whole year to put together something bigger, a little broader, and more serious. As you may know, especially if you've seen Skoobouy's notes #1, I have several primordial ideas floating in my head. They deal with the following:

-Secularism. I want to take secularism seriously because, then, it can be treated better. William James wrote "Varities of Religious Experience"--I would like to write something like, "Varieties of Religious Inexperience". I want to look at my own generation (there are lots of books on the subject). I want to examine typical 'types' of secularisms--'knee-jerk pluralism' (a term by one of my professors), deism, spiritualism, agnosticism, and any number of other 'isms that go "I-believe-in-God-but-not-organized-religion". One object of this analysis is to point out the long laundry-list of values-in-common between secularism and strong faith, and this in order to highlight differences where attention should be drawn and progress made in dialogue.

-Definition of 'religion'. I maintain, alongside some other authors, that 'religion' is a collective term that cannot be essentialized. However, I want to contribute to the understanding of _why_ this is so. On one level, different religious *traditions* themselves constitute phenomena which may not, in fact, have anything really worth noting in common. That the word 'religion' applies to all such phenomena is only habit, convenience, or even caprice. Thus I posit the radical difference in the way different traditions are experienced: Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, New Age--each belongs to such a radically unique sector of their respective adherents' lives that each practically deserves their own category, and calling each one a "religion" is immediately deceptive.

We might posit that a 'definition' of the Christian Religion is the self-sacrificing Divine Frienship which men and women share with their Triune God (and all of his beloveds, the Church) in expectation of a transformed world in the fashion of a Kingdom of Jesus Christ.

This experience-oriented definition is crafted precisely to highlight the difference and non-interchangeability between so-called "religions".

But then we go deeper. Within the religious traditions themselves there are wild variations of priorities, energies, sentiments--sectors of experience--where the inherited tradition 'works' and manifests itself. For this, I already have substantial research left over from my Eucharist paper.

Within Catholicism, you have those whose faith is like an exclusive club they belong to; a priviledged 'class' (some have accused new ecclesial movements like the C. Way or Opus Dei of doing this, but such claims take no serious look at the experience of individuals in those groups and have no authority in themselves). For others, it's a game (pray the Rosary, win a 'grace' point, spend less time in Purgatory). For others, it's a high (go to a teen mass, get filled with the Spirit, feel good about yourself for a week). For some, it's a veritable prison (follow the rules, follow the rules, MUST FOLLOW THE RULES).

In any case, I hope you see what I'm getting at. The Knights of Columbus ask for "Practical Catholics"--but what Catholicism is being practiced? In which "sector" does your Catholicism dwell? Does it live within your loving relations with God and all his Creation, or does it live elsewhere?

THUS, pit Mother Theresa against one of the Irish child-beating nuns, and you have not two Catholics who behaved differently, but rather two people for whom 'Catholicism' is a completely, irreconcilably different phenomena altogether.

On the other hand (and this is very tenative): pit a Catholic with a highly-developed devotion to the Saints against a Mormon who believes firmly in their unique relationship with the dead, and you may find more in common than with an Evangelical for whom any such practice constitutes 'necrophilia'.

----------------------------------

-Another angle on Catholic iconography.

Protestants ask why Catholics have 'idols'. It happens--it happened to me on the Camino de Santiago.

Gary Hoge's "Catholic Outlook" (www.catholicoutlook.com) has the general gist of the traditional answer to this question:

“If God is represented by a symbol, and it is understood by all that this symbol is just that, and not God, then there is no problem with looking up to it and pledging allegiance.” link.

Or simply, the CCC answer, which states, "1192 Sacred images in our churches and homes are intended to awaken and nourish our faith in the mystery of Christ. Through the icon of Christ and his works of salvation, it is he whom we adore. Through sacred images of the holy Mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, we venerate the persons represented."

This will always be the Church's response, and I make no motion to change, improve, or in any way demerit its value.

But, you know, there's something else. I am struck by it every day now, having lived in Europe for a year and seen the glorious architecture and iconography in (counts on fingers) FIVE other countries. And what's more, I've felt it myself.

Christians had a lot of energy once. A LOT of energy. I mean, geez, like for half a millenia they hardly did anything but build MONUMENTAL CHURCHES. They also filled libraries. They also sang their hearts out and poured Divine Music into the world. They preached to death, literally. They made beautiful colored windows, wrote children's myths, danced, performed, laughed. We KNOW they made lots of babies! They went to war. Christians had lots of energy. And a lot of that energy is mystical!

Nothing supernatural about it. You love God = you do stuff. "For the love of God, DO SOMETHING." To which perhaps the most natural answer is...

...

...WHAT?! -ANYTHING!!!

And the result? Like water boiling out of a pot: Bllleaauuegh, there's a Cathedral. Look, there's a Crucifix. Look, there's a Blessed Virgin and Child. Look, there's a baptismal font. Look, there's an educated, fed, and Catholic leper colony (thinking of Bl. Damien Devuester). Look, this! Look, that!

I felt it, I know what it's like! One day it snowed in Belgium, and BOOM, there's a (amatuer) 5' tall Mary and Child snow carving in the front lawn. I mean, I just went out there with a couple of butter-knives, and there it was.

I have a good seminarian friend whose second wood-carving project ever was an exquisite representation of St. Mary Magdelane. I mean, seriously, he just... gave birth to the thing! (Well, it was a year's labor... heh).

So, that's MY contribution to the understanding of Catholic iconography... it just happens! We can't hardly contain ourselves, we just LOVE GOD SO MUCH! (One might think the only reason we put them in our churches is because we don't have room anywhere else for the darn things. They multiply like rabbits!)

That's it for this edition of Skoo's Scriblings. I love God! Pray for me! God loves you all!

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), August 31, 2003

Answers

I do apologize if I've been insensitive to anyone. Lest anyone think otherwise, I do actually understand that this stuff is ephemeral and lacks much needed work. I post here expecting readers to hold me accountable for ideas. Are they heretical? Are they total rehashes of something already written? Are they mere pop-thought trash? Not only am I just an American (who hardly left his own state before he was 18, no less); I'm also only an undergraduate. I'm enthusiastic, and I write a lot, but I fully expect to get lots of red ink.

*My hope is that the above does not get deleted, but if so, then ok*

And finally, on two points: First, those who know me know that I hold the Eucharist as the source and summit of my faith. The object of that paper was to _distinguish_ Eucharistic practice from other phenomena such as African fetishism or idolatry.

Second, yeah, I'm in Europe. I found myself here pretty much by accident. All of my experiences here, I owe to the generousity and devotion of others. I've been given much; I only hope I can return it.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), September 01, 2003.

Dear Skoob, God bless you on your endeaver. I pray for your safety and for God to bless you beyond what you can ask or imagine. Theresa

-- theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), September 01, 2003.

It is good to hear what people have on their minds and spirit. I wish that everyone could be as fluent (there are many who are).

rod..

..

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 01, 2003.

You might want to check out a couple little books for light on your philosophical reflections: The first is by Mortimer Adler called (I think) "10 philosophical mistakes" which pretty much nails every philosopher since Descartes...

The second book to read and really chew on is "Love and Responsibility" by Karol Wojtyla. In 1950 he was already an expert on "sexology" and human relations - decades before his later critics were even shaving. He helped write Humanae Vitae. He brings out the basic metaphysics of human relationships through a unique phenomenological style of writing...

You might also want to reflect on the fact that unlike the natural sciences, philosophy and theology do NOT "advance" or "progress" necessarily from one generation to the next. There is no historical inevitability in the realm of reason and insight. Some truths may be won or lost, forgotten or overlain with error... the story of philosophy is also the story of marketing and selling ideas. Lots of times error trumps truth because the children of the world are more clever than the children of light.

So just because Hegel came after Hume doesn't mean his thought is superior. Just because William James came after Aquinas doesn't mean Aquinas' was proven incomplete or wrong!

Now looking at the faith and the Church... read Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed. It's a tough book but well worth the effort to wade through.

Augustine's City of God is another good tome - though hard to read too. His theory about the city of man and city of God intermingled helps explain the diversity within Christianity: within EACH soul there is a constant civil war being waged for that person's allegiance and ultimate victory or defeat (cf. Screwtape Letters, CS Lewis). On the outside you can't immediately tell (always) whether a person is a member of the city of man or city of God. Indeed some who are now sinners will end as saints and vice versa.

So it is not surprising that a diversity as far as sanctity goes is evident in the visible "Church" or in Christian civilization. Like a flock of sheep everyone is milling about, constantly in danger of wandering off...

But on a theological level there is legitimate diversity even within unity. There was the 12 tribes of Israel and there are the 12 Apostles... there are the unique local church communities each with their own particular charism (gift) and challenge (cf. Revelation).

In Revelation Jesus tells us we will each receive "our own stone inscribed with our name" - God saves us as part of a family, yet we always REMAIN individuals to him.

Thus the Catholicity of the Church allows for differences of spirituality and rite, culture and language...but a unity of morals and faith.

Unlike Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddist religions, Catholics inspired by the Holy Spirit don't break off to form their own sect answerable to none but themselves: they submit to the authority of the Apostles in the Pope, and form religious congregations, orders, movements, prelatures, rites... thus maintaining unity in the essential while enriching the body with particular differences of emphasis and style.

If you'd like to continue this discussion further feel free to email me.

God bless you.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 09, 2003.

You can read a lot of Adler's essays here: Link as well as buy the above mentioned book for $9.60.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 09, 2003.