October | 2010 | Blogger Priest

Muslim Cleric Says Rape Impossible in Marriage

Posted on October 14, 2010 by Father Joe

Muslim cleric Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed tells a reporter on THE SAMOSA website:

“It is not an aggression, it is not an assault, it is not some kind of jumping on somebody’s individual right. Because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage, so there cannot be anything against sex in marriage. Of course, if it happened without her desire, that is no good, that is not desirable. But that man can be disciplined and can be reprimanded.”

We as Christians often speak about our beliefs and our witness as signs of contradiction on behalf of the Gospel. Where the Judeo-Christian faith once heavily informed Western culture, there is today increasing tension and conflict. Scandal has made the situation even more critical, not only the past presence of predators among certain clergy but the passivity of many of the laity toward deviant lifestyles and the mass destruction of the unborn. However, although individual Catholics fail to be everything they are supposed to be, the Church stands for the dignity of the person and for justice. More aberrational and sometimes in conflict with our views from another angle is the rise of Islam in our society. The tendency toward religious relativism is hard-pressed to sustain itself in light of a religion where many still espouse forced conversions and the subjugation of women. As one secular critic remarked, “In light of Muslim rigidity, maybe we did not have it so bad under the Church and the Pope?” I would contend that the best of our values and the most objective truths about things are gifts from the Church and developments from the Good News of Christ. We should be careful not to stereotype religions and their adherents, but there should also be a critical honesty in reference to them.

This morning there was a MSNBC headline which brought this point home: “U.K. cleric: Rape is impossible within marriage.” I can imagine some readers looking at this and immediately asserting about the danger of Islam, “I told you so!” The topic itself is a difficult one to discuss. Over the years I have had to counsel women who were assaulted. Many think it is all about sex. Actually, it is more about violence and wrongfully asserting power over another. Such crimes are extremely serious and should not be taken lightly. Many women take years to heal and some scars may well be permanent. It is a sin that might leave bruises, but more than this, it wounds a person’s soul and destroys trust. It is also a very prevalent crime, often unreported.

Given the many sexually laden influences around us and massive promiscuity, it is often hard or impossible to prove that such encounters were not consensual. When purity was more of a premium, the righteous anger and justice of society against the violation of a virgin and another’s wife was swift and severe. Today, it is suggested that a third of teenage girls under 18 have endured attempted date rapes. Forgive me for a moment more, as my mind frequently wanders, but I also recall a situation where a diminutive young man was ridiculed for bringing up charges against a woman for raping him. He became the butt for all sorts of jokes. As one sick person remarked, “Men might be rapists, but outside of gay sex, men cannot be raped.” I would categorize such a critic as “sick” because he can envision a man as an abuser but not as a victim. Such a person is very dangerous.

Looking at the news article today, I suspect there are many other “dangerous’ people as well.

The Imam in question is not a wildcard or a rare fanatic. Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed is the president of the Islamic Sharia Council. He is a leading Muslim cleric in London. We are often told that we have nothing to fear from the “real” Islam, well the rape of human beings is pretty serious and word games make it no less so. The controversy is simple. Speaking as a teacher of his faith, he argues that it is impossible for a husband to rape his wife. Consequently, he says that the husband should never be prosecuted by law for raping his wife. The most we can request, he continues, is that the husband ask her forgiveness for any roughness. He concludes that should be enough. He is right that “sex is part of marriage,” but as I said earlier, this is a crime of violence. He explains on the Samosa website, “Maybe aggression, maybe indecent activity… Because when they got married, the understanding was that sexual intercourse was part of the marriage, so there cannot be anything against sex in marriage. Of course, if it happened without her desire, that is no good, that is not desirable.” He qualifies his remarks, but take note of the use of “maybe.” There is NO MAYBE about it. He does not believe a husband can rape his wife— period. He would have it that women should have no recourse to the authorities for justice and protection!

Illegal in Britain since 1991, this basic protection for married women would probably be stripped away by Islam. Proof of such an eventuality is in how Islamic countries so often treat their women. We have read the stories. Apologists would say that we do not understand and that they are isolated incidents. But the fact is that the problem is systemic and that even one such tragedy is too many. Women, married are not, are not property but persons with a sacred dignity, worth and calling. Husbands and wives are helpmates and companions. While they have different roles in the home, there is never an excuse for brutality or for oppression. Christians may view the husband and father as the head of the home but the wife is the loving heart. That heart must always be treated with respect and gentleness. They give each other to one another. They belong together. They are as the Scriptures remind us, one flesh. One commentor observed, “A religion which permits multiple wives and utterly subjugates them under the husband’s authority is jarring to our culture but also to the sensibilities of Christians.”

The cleric continued, that if the husband “does something against her wish or in a bad time,” he “may be disciplined, and he may be made to ask forgiveness. That should be enough.” Again, look at how carefully he couches his language. The conditional “may” is used again and again. These are hesitant allowances, but really he is giving up nothing about his view.

He is really saying that husbands have a right to rape their wives, but afterwards, if they feel like it, they can say they are sorry. Maybe they can give them flowers? Of course, they can rape them again tomorrow, and do so with impunity. But you wait and see, there will soon be people defending the cleric and brow-beating “intolerant” secularists and infidel Christians for criticizing him, the Koran and Islam.

Islam is a religion of the LAW. What the cleric is giving us is a legal definition and interpretation of rape under Muslim law. He told The Independent, “In Islamic sharia, rape is adultery by force. So long as the woman is his wife, it cannot be termed as rape. It is reprehensible, but we do not call it rape.” At least he calls it “reprehensible,” but still it is regarded as not something that can be prosecuted.

Although I am increasingly tempted toward cynicism, I am still hopeful that we will hear sane voices from Islam, Christianity and the secular world about this question.

Out of curiosity, I went to DICTIONARY.COM and looked up the definition of rape. The first entry reads: “the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.” A secondary entry omitted the reference to gender. I would elaborate that it also refers to a lack of consent. Husbands and wives should want to share the marital act, but sometimes because of the spacing of children, fatigue and illness, there should be a measure of restraint and understanding. The marital act is a duty of their state and hopefully a joy open to the generation of new human life. Respecting human dignity, consent needs to be present.

Apart from the question of married couples, it should be added that some like children and those mentally challenged need to be protected because they cannot lawfully give consent and get married.

Filed under: Discipleship, Marriage, News, Sexuality, Uncategorized | 12 Comments »

XTC DEAR GOD, Atheism & Blasphemy

Posted on October 13, 2010 by Father Joe

About three years ago I wrote a post on another blog entitled, “XTC Dear God, Is It Blasphemous?” It spurred an interesting discussion and a number of non-believers took part. Given that the topic of atheism and faith is still very much in the news, and probably will continue as such for the foreseeable future, I thought I would repost the information here. The initial post was quite short and included a third-party video which employed the song in question:

XTC DEAR GOD, IS IT BLASPHEMOUS?

Dear God by the Musical Group XTC

Is this song blasphemous?

I have heard that it is the atheist’s song.

It may be that our own failure to reflect the divine presence has brought this angst upon us.

The song calls upon God and yet the singer says he cannot believe in him. It is as if he is so angry that he wants to hurt God.

What do you all think?

My reckoning is that it is a musical way of asking an old question, “How can a good God allow evil?”

There is so much sickness and suffering in the world. We endure natural calamities and the terror of men.

The Christian answer is that disharmony was brought into the world by human sin.

We contend that while Christ is victorious over sin and death and the war is won; nevertheless, these dark realities are not yet undone.

While we still experience pain and death, we know solidarity with God’s Son, and appreciate that this world of sorrow is passing away.

NOTE: Notice who is portrayed as Satan by the slide presentation…funny, but definitely not nice.

After many comments, here is an interchange between an atheist and myself:

GIL: Much of the motivation for all this writing, stems from the believers’ (mostly Christian) propensity to transform logic as secularists understand it, into an imaginative litany of excuses and alibis for the inconsistencies, errors and omissions of religion, the Bible, and other Christian dogma, in the light of scientific information acquired over the last half-a-millenium. The scientific evidence has gradually eroded the underpinnings of the Christian view of the cosmos, and as a result, they have responded with increasingly convoluted apologias for these shortcomings, necessitating more explanations from scientists and other secularists in an ever escalating spiral of explanation and rebuttal.

FATHER JOE: The motivation of this post is to speak about the Christian kerygma against the backdrop of modern atheism. It may be true that fundamentalists often posit the argument for blind faith over reason; but such is not the Catholic perspective. Indeed, it sometimes seems that secularists are themselves void of the very logic that they fault Christians for contorting. The language of faith is different from that of science. There are many roads that one may take to the truth. Elements of the truth might be better viewed through the respective prism of religion, philosophy or science. The truths of faith are often discerned through parable and allegory; however, this should not be construed as “an imaginative litany of excuses” or “alibis for the inconsistencies.” An old cliché comes to mind, “The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”

GIL: However, the millions of words generated by the capable defenders of Atheism, Agnosticism, and other non-religious viewpoints, fascinating as they may be, in a way, may all be only superfluous dressing on the delicious pastry of skepticism. In my opinion, the best (and really only necessary) argument for the nonexistence of God was arrived at two milleniums ago by the great stoic philosopher Epicurus, who disposed of the idea of God in a mere forty-five words, although these are probably not the actual words that he had used. Since, as with many ancient writers, we have to depend on later admirers and students for knowledge about their ideas, and the few extant examples of Epicurus’ own letters are fragmentary, the “riddle” is stated in a phraseology that was probably authored by someone else.

FATHER JOE: I am not sure what “scientific evidence” has undermined the Christian view of creation. I would not expect that we would find God through the eye-piece of a telescope. However, when I have studied the order and majesty of the universe, I have been filled with awe and my faith has been refueled. My late deacon friend was a top-notch scientist, and he saw no contradiction between his secular and spiritual professions. I will allow the contention that sometimes authorities are not entirely honest; however, such a lack of integrity afflicts both believers and the secular scoffers.

It is peculiar, at least to my mind, that anyone would regard the defenders of nothing or atheism or skepticism as a “delicious pastry.” It would seem to me that there is nothing on their plate, either to please the taste buds or to fill the stomach. Indeed, what they generate are polemics for despair.

GIL:

But regardless of the authenticity of its grammatical structure, as it is most often presented, (although it has never been found among Epicurus’ writings in that particular form) it asks and says:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

FATHER JOE:

While I run the danger of being rude, I suspect what we merely see in the last comment is an overly erudite but simplistic assertion that the riddle of Epicurus resolves the argument at hand in favor of atheism.

In Catholic circles, this is not known so much as the first postulate of atheism as it is an early rendition of the problem of evil. We should note that while there was little of true divinity about them, Epicurus believed in the existence of gods. Epicurus distanced himself from the concept of an all-powerful God and judged the gods as unconcerned about men and creation. The riddle itself emerges in the writings of a Christian apologist, Lactantius. He essentially echoed the Neo-Platonist argument in favor of theism over atomist materialism.

GIL:

In James A. Haught’s book 2000 Years of Disbelief, Haught rewrites or “requotes” Epicurus as saying more prosaically, “Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”

Some experts claim that this argument is “a reductio ad absurdum of the premises” and not a riddle or paradox at all, but when I tried to research and understand the meaning of a reductio ad absurdum of the premises, my head began to ache and I thought I’d try my own metaphor instead.

As I see it, solutions to the riddle of Epicurus are similar to someone telling me that they own a simple three-dimensional solid object that simultaneously possesses all the qualities of a sphere, a cube and a regular pyramid. One does not need a doctorate in mathematics, or even to have had a course in solid geometry to understand that an object cannot possess mutually exclusive attributes. Like oxymorons, they define themselves out of existence.

FATHER JOE:

The critic fails to appreciate that much of what we know about an infinite and all-powerful God is through analogies that fall short. God cannot be reduced to mathematics or geometry. Such a god that is ridiculed in arguments of this sort is not really God at all. Christians speak of a Trinity: three divine persons but one divine nature. This is doctrine but no one really understands it. Augustine and Thomas would use the analogy of the mind or soul to speak about it. The Father knows himself and generates from all eternity the Son. There is infinite goodwill (Love) between the Father and Son, generating from all eternity the Holy Spirit. Taken too far, the analogy falls apart. But it still speaks truth. God is complete in himself. He is a perfect Spirit. He is the divine “esse” or existence itself and the source for all created beings. He is the Unmoved Mover. He has no parts and is changeless. He creates out of nothing and stands outside of time. And yet, the Second Person of the Trinity becomes a man, dies on the Cross and rises from the dead. Philosophical proofs might bring one to an awareness of God’s existence, but divine positive revelation and religion bring us into a personal and corporate relationship with him. One teaches, albeit poorly, “what” God is and the other “who” he is. True religion gives substance to that which we discover by natural reason.

The argument of Epicurus is laid out plainly enough in 2000 Years of Disbelief by James Haught:

“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to.”

“If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.”

“If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.”

“If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”

There seems at first glance to be a serious conundrum. If we were to accept these statements in an unqualified manner, then a logical contradiction appears. By definition, God must be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Given the fact of evil, this reasoning would back the theist into a corner. A deity (as understood by Christianity) that is either impotent or wicked is impossible. The problem is compounded when we add the element of divine omniscience.

Obviously an all-good God is opposed to evil. Would not such a God desire to abolish evil? The answer is yes, and in the course of time, his providence in this regard will be accomplished. Given that we are finite and only see a small temporal and spatial portion of reality, we are handicapped in any appraisal of the perimeters of this question. The problem of evil requires that we envision all of history and the final consummation. Indeed, given the angelic hosts, this question has a cosmic dimension that goes beyond material creation (where there may be duration but not time as such). Such a solution might be logically adequate but the problem of evil and suffering remains a mystery because we are intensely self-preoccupied. There is no evil that hurts as terribly as that which faces us right now in the present moment. A couple who loses a child cannot be consoled. The patient suffering pain in a hospital bed cries out for morphine, wanting the pain to stop, even if the treatment will kill him. The mother watching her children starve and sicken cannot be cheered with platitudes. Realities like these do not undermine the truth of Christian argument, but they do dampen or nullify our emotional and personal ability to be satisfied by them.

God is able to prevent evil.

However, the presence of evil is not an immediate sign that God is malevolent.

GIL:

Whether or not you understand what a reductio ad absurdum of the premises is, it is self-evident that there are no square circles . . . nor are there any gods as defined by the god-fearing. Either way, Epicurus came to the inexorable conclusion that the existence of god, as most Abrahamic religions describe him, is impossible.

But believers, most notably Christians, are not impressed with what appears to Atheists to be unassailable logic, and employing a mysterious logic of their own, have devoted countless hours, energy, and mental and semantic manipulation in attempting to refute, obfuscate and deny the undeniable conclusion of the “Epicurean paradox,” as it is sometimes called. In so doing, they have created the branch of theology called “theodicy” which despite its partial aural resemblance to “idiocy” is not necessarily etymologically related to that noble enterprise.

In an interesting statement (quoted form the Catholic Encyclopedia)* Catholics display an amazing degree of chutzpa mingled with self-contradiction, in calling theodicy “a science” while describing theology as the “knowledge of God as drawn from the sources of supernatural revelation” (Thereby admitting to the failure of theology.)

FATHER JOE:

There is nothing about the definition of theodicy or theology which admits to failure. The critic makes silly assertions but offers no sensible or logical argument.

Epicurus, himself, lived at a time prior to the incarnation and had not been exposed to the God who would reveal himself in human history. God created man in his own image and likeness. Of all creation, men and women could respond to God, not with blind animal instinct but with deep awareness and love. There was a terrible cost with such freedom and power for self-determination. God’s will would permit evil but would not remain frozen regarding it. This is why God is not a monster and why this argument against his existence fails. He intervenes in human history. What he would not prevent, he comes to heal and to forgive. He comes to make right the wrongs we committed. While sin, suffering and death have not been undone, they have been conquered. The Greatest Good, which nothing greater can be conceived and which by necessity must exist, will prevail over evil.

The “reduction to absurdity” argument is dependent upon the accuracy of the premises. If any of the assertions lack consistency or wholeness of meaning, the conclusion would be invalid. It seeks to prove a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial. I am reminded of the omnipotence paradox. “Given that God can do anything and is omnipotent, could God create a rock too heavy for anyone to lift?” If God could then he would not seem to be omnipotent at all. If he could not, the same conclusion would be applied. In truth, there is an inner contradiction to the reasoning. God can doing anything except violate his own nature, identity and will. God is an objective reality possessing the perfections of attributes in which we participate in a lesser manner. Similarly, Epicurus’ understanding of omnipotence, evil and goodness might need a re-evaluation. What God directly wills is not evil, no matter what name we might give it. This does not mean that evil is an illusion, only that there is some value we might not immediately perceive in permitting it, like free will and a contingent good. God is man’s judge, not the other way around. We can abstract from finite things the concept of the infinite. We know imperfection and thus attribute to God the perfection we do not experience. However, the finite can never exhaust or fully comprehend the infinite. There will always be mystery.

Just as he might contend that believers are bias in their reasoning, the atheist critic is also prejudiced in that he assumes he has proven what he set out to prove. I suppose he thinks that this brings under his ridicule the “Abrahamic religions” of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. While I cannot speak to the other two monotheistic faiths, the essential message of Christianity is a resolution of the problem of sin and evil. Christ redeems a people and heals the breach caused by human iniquity. The lamentation of Job is given its final resolution and response in the God who made our pain his own. He who was higher over us than we are over ants has made himself an ant for us. Such is not a sign of malice but a sacrificial love that is unmerited and unfathomable. Now the Father finally receives the love and fidelity he deserves. We join ourselves with Jesus so that there might be one eternal Lamb which surrenders himself to the Father. The riddle of Epicurus speaks against the god of the deists who like a watch-maker abandons his creation. False gods do not exist. But the God of Christian faith keeps us in existence from every moment and makes possible our re-creation in Jesus Christ.

GIL:

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is alleged to have coined the term in a philosophical treatise ”The Theodicee,” published in 1710, while he was engaged in the practice of “apologetics, . . . a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity.” By doing this he made inroads into the nefarious practice of combining theology and philosophy, thereby contributing to the corruption of both, although it is difficult to conceive of the corruption of theology. I say this because in my opinion, theology (like Seinfeld’s TV show) has as the object of its study . . . “nothing.” Imagine; thousands of people, many with doctorates, scouring the earth, its libraries, and all of the vast repositories of human knowledge, and every one of them is engaged in what they believe and proclaim to be a scientific study; to which I add . . . of nothing.

For thousands of years, believers and apologists, have attempted to convince Atheists and other freethinkers, beginning with Epicurus, that there really is no problem with the existence of a benevolent god in a world full of plagues, tsunamis, (and in modern times) Holocausts, and educated professionals, who fly fuel-laden commercial jetliners into hundred-story skyscrapers.

FATHER JOE:

The critic here really has no argument of his own. All he can do is offer empty ridicule. He calls theodicy “idiocy” because he gives no value to theological reflection. He displays ignorance at many stages of his response, proving I suppose that schools give fools doctorates these days if they can parrot their teachers and pay tuition bills. The word “science” is used in regard to theology and he mocks such a label, evidently unaware that it traditionally signified any field or branch of knowledge. He speaks about Leibniz as a progenitor in the combination of theology and philosophy and yet Augustine much earlier used Neo-Platonism and Aquinas employed Aristotelianism. This represented no corruption but truth building upon truth. He impugns such work as the vast studying of “nothing.” Again, he is very presumptuous, borrowing information he does not understand and criticizing that which by his own admission he deems as unworthy of study. Such attitudes make for very dull-witted minds although they will sometimes masquerade as informed, plagiarizing those with bigger heads and thumbing excitedly through thesauruses.

While he contends that atheists and believers have been at loggerheads for thousands of years; the history of the matter is that most arguments have been among theists. Atheism as we know it today is a fairly modern animal. Epicurus would not be counted among them although the mythic deities of his age and culture were all too fallible and often more reprehensible in character than many men.

GIL:

For me, the problem came to light, again, in an after-dinner conversation recently with a Christian schoolteacher who described the wonderful experience of having had a student discover that some good might have resulted from the Holocaust. The student had come to the conclusion that the reason the concentration-camp inmates did not rebel against their captors, was that the energy they would have needed for such a daunting undertaking was consumed by their desperate daily obsession with food, water and survival. They did not have the luxury of exploring solutions to problems like rebellion. The teacher described this student’s enlightenment as an “epiphany” and said that it demonstrated that “some good had come out of the death of six million Jews, in the fact that a high-school kid in South Florida realized how lucky he was to not have to spend his entire waking life in the pursuit of safety, food and water!”

I protested that this was another example of apologetics, whereby the apologetic stretch for the identification of “good” in the face of unimaginable horror, is analogous to claiming that some good was derived from the San Francisco earthquake in April of 1906 because in a few places near the sea it formed cliffs for affluent twentieth-century Californians to build homes with an ocean view.

FATHER JOE: The aside about a Christian school teacher and a partial apologia or rationalization of the Holocaust is aberrant to this discussion and ridiculous. However, can good come from terrible evil? The legacy of the early Christian martyrs is a point in favor. Their blood watered the plant that was the early Church. We are moved and inspired by those who witness for the Gospel as signs of contradiction in the world. As for the Jewish Holocaust, we should never forget this terrible evil and the hatred and apathy of men that made it possible. There is nothing we can do to change what happened. However, we can work for a better world where there is understanding and toleration. The reason why there is a museum to this mass murder in Washington, DC, is so that these deaths will not be in vain. God did not intervene and stop it but the believer trusts that after our short sojourn in this world, there is an eternity that awaits us. This world with our frightful freedom prepares us for what is to come. Christians trust that even in the present, because of the passion of Jesus, God is in solidarity with the suffering, the oppressed and the poor. God will reward faithfulness and punish disobedience, particularly the failure to love.

GIL:

Of course, it is always possible to redefine terms, restructure ideas and waffle on descriptive categories, as was done by one of the most eminent of biologists and free-thinkers, who unfortunately was also an apologist of sorts. Self-described “Jewish agnostic” Stephen Jay Gould, in arguing for the peaceful co-existence of science and religion, created his concept of non-overlapping magisteria, NOMA, in which each magisterium was a “domain of teaching authority,” and by so doing, in 1999, he arbitrarily established the existence of two universes, despite the fact that as a scientist he was obligated to live and study in only one.

He wrote, “. . . I have great respect for religion, and . . . I believe, with all my heart, in a respectful, even loving, concordat between our magisteria—the NOMA concept.”

FATHER JOE: Stephen Jay Gould writes about a collaboration of believers and secularists. The critic contends that such falsely creates multiple universes where there is only one. (I guess he is not familiar with string theory and possible overlapping universes, but this takes us to another subject.) He fails to fathom that there may be many roads to approach some of the same truths and values. The Church focuses upon natural law as a means by which believers and non-believers might hold similar views about human dignity, behavior and life. He sees religion and God as a joke, not even as something which enriches human society and culture. His way is no way at all. It leads to persecution of believers and the marginalization of faith and values.

GIL: So it is possible not only for theologians and philosophers to play the game of “apologetics,” apparently even prominent scientists are not above this attempt to circumvent logic and common sense in an effort to placate the gods. But over two thousand years ago, Epicurus, in a mere few sentences, refuted for all time, the pious, misguided meanderings of theologians, philosophers, scientists and ordinary people, . . . including my erstwhile dinner companion. . . . Yet none of them have the slightest clue that they are attempting to define “truth” as ideas that are in accord with their own distorted reality.

*The Catholic Encyclopedia also referred to today as the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, is an English-language encyclopedia published by The Encyclopedia Press. It was designed to give “authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine.”

FATHER JOE:

The distortion of reality belongs to the critic here. It is no wonder that such a closed-minded person cannot begin to appreciate the complexity of the question about God’s existence and the problem of pain. It amazes me that while we cannot even make a basic seed from scratch, that we would presume in two or three short sentences to refute the existence of the very Creator who ordered the universe and gave us the seeds we plant. There is one word that summarizes the feigned mastery and pathetic argument of the critic here: HUBRIS.

God could have created a world void of evil. The Church contends that God allows evil as a result of the fall and as the price for human free will. He could have made us like ants or robots. Christians also believe that divine providence will ultimately prevail. This challenges us to acknowledge that we only see a small part of the whole situation. God does not view creation in a sequential fashion, but all at one time. As all powerful, he is above it all. The very fact that God can make right what we see as so many wrongs is a demonstration of his authority.

Christians are realists in regard to the presence of evil in the world. God’s passive or permissive will tolerates and even uses quantitatively limited evils for long-term eventual goods. There is no denying the possibility and the subsequent occurrence of evil; however, God does not directly will evil in itself. Christianity gives great weight to divine providence but it would not be catalogued as a form of determinism or fate. It is precisely because God desires for us to know the greatest good of love that he has given us free will. Divine omnipotence is not compromised by the insertion of such freedom into the human equation even though it includes potency for evil or sin. There is also the potential for faithfulness. Indeed, the divine response to iniquity is the passion and death of Christ. The absurdity of the Greeks (Epicurus) becomes the wisdom of God. The God that they cannot fathom to exist, by the implementation of his almighty power, traverses the infinite distance between the Creator and the creature in becoming man and subjects himself to the punishment of suffering and death which we incurred by sin. In the course of salvation history, God in Jesus Christ conquers evil and the devil. Goodness itself shines all the brighter against the backdrop of evil. We see this in the courageous witness of martyrs and saints. Indeed, suffering or sharing in Christ’s Cross brings us into a closer relationship or affinity with God. The Christian resolution to the mystery of evil and suffering is our Lord’s solidarity with us in the dark things of life. He gives them a transformative meaning and does not abandon us as orphans. We are promised a share in his risen and glorified life.

Catholic thought about evil or sin and suffering in the world is heavily informed by an Augustinian theodicy. Reading Genesis, it is apparent that what God created was good but sin came into the world because of the primordial rebellion of our first parents. Suffering from a fallen nature, moral evil is perpetuated by human beings who have distanced themselves from God and have disobeyed him. This fall also brought about a disharmony in the world or natural evil. Evil is either a deviation from the path given us by God or a privation of goodness. Evil does not exist in itself. While God is all-good, there is no such thing as an all-evil entity. The devil is a fallen creature but not the parallel opposite extreme of God. Thomas Aquinas would echo Augustine and speak of metaphysical, moral and physical evil. There are some things we regard as natural evils only because human beings are involved, like living next door to an active volcano or caught in a raging fire storm or flood. Evil is thus seen as a relational concept. Thomas would write that the created universe would be less perfect as a whole if it contained no evil. The example is given of the wood which gives warmth as it is consumed by the fire. Similarly, we eat other creatures to survive. However, the evil of sin is permitted but finds its source in men and not in God. It is the result of the abuse of free will.

Christian anthropology will sometimes speculate about what might have been had man not fallen. Perhaps the final consummation would have taken place at the beginning of human history instead of at the end? Maybe death would have been like our casual walking through a doorway from one room to another, not true death at all? But men sought to return to the bestial, denying their high calling. Sin and death entered the world. God brings good from our evil. He does not abandon us. The priest or deacon sings in the Exultet on Holy Saturday, “O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!”

Filed under: Atheism, Faith, God, Philosophy | 12 Comments »

Mercy and Justice Meet in Jesus

Posted on October 11, 2010 by Father Joe

Just as Jeremiah images the blind and lame as among the throng returning from exile, Jesus pays particular attention to the crippled and blind. The Gospel scene in Mk 10:46-52 is very touching and telling. Bartimaeus is a blind beggar who has heard about the miraculous deeds of Jesus. Now that Jesus is nearby, he calls out to him. People literally scold him to keep quiet. He shouts all the louder. The crowd did not want to hear him. Maybe they were even ashamed of his presence? Nevertheless, while their ears and probably their hearts are closed to the beggar, Jesus hears his cry. Note what Bartimaeus says, “Son of David, have pity on me!” He is acknowledging that Jesus is a descendant of David and from his royal line is to come the Messiah and Savior of Israel. The beggar cries for mercy, but attached to his plea is a profession of faith in our Lord. When Jesus calls him over, the sentiment of the throng seems to change. There is a total about-face. “You have nothing whatever to fear from him! Get up! He is calling you!” There is a two-fold action. This remains an element of discipleship. We cry out for mercy and God hears our prayer. We seek God and he seeks us out. Note what Bartimaeus does. He throws aside his cloak, jumps up, and comes to Jesus. As a blind beggar he probably had little else besides his one cloak. No doubt he slept and sat upon it, lest it be blown away or stolen. Instead of grasping it tightly around him while walking to Jesus, he throws it aside. He no longer needs what is literally his security blanket. He will be able to find it afterwards because he believes that he shall soon see. He wastes no time and jumps up. Such should be our disposition when God calls us. When he reaches Jesus, our Lord does something a bit peculiar, no doubt for the crowd. He asks, “What do you want me to do for you?” We might ask, is it not obvious? The beggar responds, “I want to see.” What else might he ask? Was Jesus hoping for another answer? In any case, the gift of sight is given him. No more mention is made of the cloak. The beggar’s old life has been swept away. He sees, not only with physical eyes, but with eyes of faith. Jesus tells him, “Be on your way! Your faith has healed you.” Here is where we get a hint as to what Jesus wanted to hear from the beggar. His eyes open, Bartimaeus follows him up the road. He becomes one of the many followers or disciples of Jesus. Can you imagine what laughter would have resulted had he answered Jesus’ question, “I want to be your disciple.” Nevertheless, the result here is the same. Tradition suggests that many of those given restored sight and made able to walk would later be blinded and crippled again in the persecution of the Christian saints. Their little faith that brought healing would blossom into a great faith meriting a share in Christ’s eternal life.

For more such reflections, contact me about getting my book, CHRISTIAN REFLECTIONS.

Filed under: Bible, Catholic, Forgiveness, God, Incarnation, Jesus, Redemption, Reflection, Repentance | Leave a comment »

The Mystery of Good and Evil

Posted on October 10, 2010 by Father Joe

The Lord is ever so patient with us. Look at Matthew 13:24-43. Weed (sinners) and wheat (saints) are allowed to grow together. Where are we in this? What is our response to salvation and Christ’s coming kingdom?

We are told that God’s “mastery over all things makes [him] lenient to all” (Wisdom 12:16). In other words, God has nothing to prove. Just as God is almighty, and along with his power comes divine justice, he also possesses a boundless mercy. Indeed, he is forgiveness itself. As believers in Christ, along with the first people called by God, we are also called sons and daughters of God. “And you gave your sons good ground for hope that you would permit repentance for their sins” (Wisdom 12:19). While the promise of salvation has been fulfilled in Christ, the working out of the saving mystery in our lives is our occasion for hope. The difficulty is not with God but with us. Will we repent and believe? Will we remain steadfast afterwards? These are the fundamental questions that must be asked and finally answered for each one of us.

Turning to Matthew 13:24-43, we are given the parable of the wheat and the weeds, the mustard seed, and the yeast. Prior to the harvest, it may be difficult to distinguish the weeds from the wheat. It is the same way with people. A young woman argued with me once that there was no such thing as hell. All people, she said, are basically good. Over and over again, she asserted that a loving God would never do such a thing to anyone. Years later, after the divorce from an abusive marriage and the assault of her daughter by an assailant, she confided that sometimes she had trouble thinking God was good or that he cared. In any case, she had little difficulty in believing in hell as she had experienced a taste of it. Evil is real, although it is sometimes well disguised. The Church requires that we believe in the existence of hell, although as the lay theologian and street preacher Frank Sheed once insisted, we can hope that the devil is lonely.

Charity is the ingredient that distinguishes the wheat from the weeds. If the love of God and of neighbor is not present, then the yield is worthless. Wheat is made into bread and bread is life. We feed one another with our very selves in love, surrendering our lives for one another. Weeds are good for nothing other than burning. They give nothing– not life and not love. Do we take the existence that God has given us as an opportunity to pour ourselves out in loving service? Or, do we manipulate and drain the life out of others?

The parable of the mustard seed has been taken as an analogy for the mysterious and rapid growth of the Church, the kingdom of God breaking into the world. There is a similar understanding for the yeast. However, some authorities have also seen in them a message about the kingdom in each and every believer. The Hebrews saw the mysterious and life-giving hand of Jesus in the seed and in the yeast added to the flour. The soul must be willing to receive the seed or yeast. It must allow watering or kneading. In any case, the work is entirely that of God. The Father kept his promise in sending a deliverer, Jesus. Jesus is the Son of God who allows himself to be planted in the ground after he is taken from the tree of the Cross. He comes back to life and grants us a participation in his new life. We can see something of this organic model in the analogy of the vine and the branches.

If we refuse to allow ourselves to die with Christ, to remain grafted to him, then we cannot possess eternal life. The weeds mimic life, but offer nothing. This is what makes the matter so tragic and confusing. Good people sometimes do bad things. Bad people sometimes, despite themselves or for ulterior reasons, do good things. Who is who? It is no wonder that hypocrisy made Jesus furious.

Sometimes our error is not that we do things clearly wrong, but through omission, fail to do the works of love we should do. A wonderful story about this comes to mind regarding the famous essayist Thomas Carlyle.

He married his secretary Jane Welsh, an intelligent and good-looking woman. A number of years into the marriage she came down with cancer and became bedridden. Being a workaholic, Thomas only spent small snatches of time with her. After lingering for a while, she died. Following the funeral he happened by her diary next to her bed. What he read traumatized him to the depths of his soul. She had written a single line on one page, “Yesterday he spent an hour with me and it was like heaven; I love him so.” He began to awaken from his moral slumber. He had been too busy to be there for her. All the wasted time came to mind when he had ignored her. He felt the knife pierce his heart with the turning of the page, reading, “I have listened all day to hear his steps in the hall, but now it is late and I guess he won’t come today.” After reading a little more, he threw the book down and raced from his home. Friends discovered him at his wife’s grave, his face buried deep in the mud. He wept uncontrollably. It seemed he was trying to bury himself with her. He rambled again and again, “If I had only known, if I had only known.” Carlyle lived another 15 years, but his illustrious writing career ended that day. He had trouble forgiving himself for his preoccupation with fame and fortune, and his failure to love.

(Source: Article from “American Family Association” Newsletter, date unknown. Dr. Donald E. Wildmon, President).

All sin is a failure to love. We can bury our faces in the mud; but the remedy is to repent of our hardness of heart. If we truly love God and neighbor then we will regret our negligence and seek to bury ourselves with Christ, the one we murdered with our sins– the one we have often failed to appropriately love above all things.

St. Augustine tells us that in this world we cannot know for sure who belongs to what kingdom. However, manipulation and selfishness are true indicators of spiritual disease and maybe death. Should this cause us concern? Yes, most assuredly it should do so. However, while there is still mortal life there is hope that we will be counted among the elect, no matter how wicked we have been. Romans 8:26-27 tells us that “the Spirit too helps us in our weakness,” that our prayer and life might be brought to sincerity and authenticity. Psalm 86:16 gives us the posture or openness we need to render for the Spirit: “Turn to me, and have pity on me; give your strength to your servant.” We are all sinners. We have all fallen short of the glory of God. We are not the masters of our lives. Repentance is a prerequisite for faith— and love makes it all real.

For more such reflections, contact me about getting my book, CHRISTIAN REFLECTIONS.

Filed under: Catholic, Confession, Discipleship, Forgiveness, Redemption, Reflection, Repentance | Leave a comment »

Reconciliation with God & Man

Posted on October 9, 2010 by Father Joe

A central theme of Christianity is reconciliation with our neighbor and with God. In Matthew 5:20-26, Christ exhorts us to nurture a holiness which goes beyond external appearances and which emanates essentially from within. Our hearts need to be forgiving and willing to accept forgiveness. Our minds need to elevate good thoughts about our brothers and sisters, and not be centered upon how we might get even with those who hurt us. This is what Christ would do for us who murdered him by our sins. Instead of utterly destroying us with thunderbolt and fire, he offers us a share in his victory over death. He died, loving and forgiving his murderers. When we come together to celebrate this great gift offered by Christ, the Lord desires us to respond in kind. He says, “If you bring your gift to the altar and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift at the altar, go first to be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matthew 5:23-24). With the bread and wine which comes up to the altar, we have to offer ourselves for transformation, so that Christ may live more fully in us. This is the essential meaning behind the sign of peace. This becomes even more essential when we recognize that Christ identifies himself with the persons in our lives whom we least love. Here is the kind of love which grants blessings upon another and not curses, even when we find it difficult to like someone. It is this kind of love which is quick to forgive and which makes one willing to admit his or her sinfulness, and need for forgiveness. The Old Testament was not silent about such a disposition. Ezekiel 18:21-28 challenges us to forgive as God forgives. Ezekiel said, “None of the crimes he committed shall be remembered against him; he shall live because of the virtue he has practiced.” When God forgives, it is as if he forgets. We are made as white as snow. For this reason, let us forgive as God forgives, without resentment and backstabbing. Let us forgive ourselves, recognizing that we have no right to hold bound what Christ in the Church has loosed.

For more such reflections, contact me about getting my book, CHRISTIAN REFLECTIONS.

Filed under: Catholic, Confession, Discipleship, Forgiveness, God, Jesus, Reflection | Leave a comment »

A Modest Wife

Posted on October 8, 2010 by Father Joe

Filed under: Marriage, Sexuality, Video | Leave a comment »

Love or Intimidation?

Posted on October 5, 2010 by Father Joe

Sometimes the Church is falsely charged with the wrongful coercion of people into guilt-trips and/or with brain-washing the young through religious indoctrination. This allegation is unfair. What the Church wants people to know is that while we are guilty as sinners, we can know the forgiveness of sins in Christ. Religious formation in the truths of faith respects human freedom and conscience; but, objective truth remains what it is. Others skip condemnation of the Church and directly charge the Judeo-Christian God with intimidation and harshness, especially in regard to hell and judgment. Believers would argue that the critics have it backwards; intimidation and/or manipulation are precisely the tools of sin and the relationship of devils. If there is no genuine love, what other cohesive force is there for control? C. S. Lewis paints an image in his writings of big devils that literally eat the lesser ones– in other words, they use them to their own advantage without regard to their personhood and rights. Sometimes we might paint a picture of God’s justice that falsely falls into such a category. Hellfire images that threaten damnation from a wrathful God are a case in point. Do not get me wrong. Fearing the loss of heaven and suffering the fires of hell have their place. These are real tragedies. But people choose this fate for themselves, more so than by divine imposition. The prophets and our Lord were willing to endure any hardship for the saving message they delivered. Did they do this out of fear of almighty God or out of love? The answer is love. A true parent does not abuse or lie or callously manipulate children. Rather, he or she speaks the truth, even when it is unpopular, and makes every sacrifice to insure the well being of the family. May we all be imitators of God and speak with his voice.

An anonymous story forwarded to me some years back speaks to the sacrificial love we should all live out:

Many years ago, when I worked as a volunteer at Stanford Hospital, I got to know a little girl named Liza who was suffering from a disease and needed a blood transfusion from her five-year-old brother, who had miraculously survived the same disease and had developed the antibodies needed to combat the illness. The doctor explained the situation to her little brother and asked the boy if he would be willing to give his blood to his sister. I saw him hesitate for only a moment before taking a deep breath and saying, “Yes, I’ll do it if it will save Liza.” As the transfusion progressed, he lay in the bed next to his sister and smiled, as we all did, seeing the color returning to her cheeks. Then his face grew pale and his smile faded. He looked up at the doctor and asked with a trembling voice, “Will I start to die right away?” Being young, the boy had misunderstood the doctor; he thought he was going to have to give Liza all of his blood.

For more such reflections, contact me about getting my book, CHRISTIAN REFLECTIONS.

Filed under: Confession, Discipleship, Faith, Forgiveness, Jesus, Redemption, Reflection | 1 Comment »

A Greater Than Jonah Here

Posted on October 4, 2010 by Father Joe

In Jonah 3:1-10, the prophet Jonah came to Nineveh with the warning that lest they turned away from their sinful ways, the city would be destroyed. So struck with fear were they at the impending doom in forty days that the king declared that man and beast alike would be covered in sackcloth and ashes. Perhaps, just perhaps, God would relent and forgive them? Sure enough God did preserve them from destruction. Luke 11:29-32 revealed a far more serious kind of impending doom. In the former, mere physical life and property were threatened; now spiritual life was at risk and the loss of the greatest treasure possible, Christ himself. The people around Jesus sought a sign, being blind to the significance of this new prophet who healed the sick and who forgave sins. Jesus said quite explicitly, “For at the preaching of Jonah they reformed, but you have a greater than Jonah here.”

What does this incident say to us? It dictates that Jesus makes all the difference, even for those who do not clearly know him for who he really is — God come among us as one of us. Not deserving such an honor, our only response is one of humility, repentance, and praise. Because he makes a difference, this reality must be reflected in our lives. Because he makes all the difference, we cannot hesitate to proclaim the Good News to non-Christians and to those who have lost track of Christ somewhere upon their paths in life. We must not be ashamed of him or try to explain away his significance. Because of him, nothing shall ever be the same again. If we have a greater than Jonah here, then why do we sometimes hide him? Why are we not quicker and more resolved in turning around our lives so that Christ may live more fully in us?

For more such reflections, contact me about getting my book, CHRISTIAN REFLECTIONS.

Filed under: Bible, Catholic, Faith, Jesus, Reflection | Leave a comment »

Twenty-seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time

Posted on October 3, 2010 by Father Joe

Hab 1:2-3; 2:2-4 / Ps 95:1-2, 6-7, 8-9 / 2 Tm 1:6-8, 13-14 / Lk 17:5-10

Looking at the Gospel selection today, the request from the apostles to our Lord to increase their faith comes immediately after the Lord has talked about the dire consequences of sin. If the iniquity of any one of them should cause one of the little ones to sin he says that it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and to be thrown into the sea. He tells them to be on their guard and to always be quick to forgive, again and again, a contrite brother. They know their sinfulness and their hardness of hearts. Their request for increased faith is literally a petition to be changed. Jesus affirms that they are men of little faith, still self-preoccupied and burdened by their sinfulness. He pulls no punches. But he also does not want to make it easy for them. Their request is almost like the servant bossing the master around. Jesus puts them back into their place.

Their faith will increase and their discipleship will mature, not with a magical wave of Christ’s hand, but by their experience (as companions) of Christ’s fidelity to the Father, even unto the Cross. They, like us, are changed by walking with the Lord. Faith is indeed a supernatural gift, but it is mediated and nurtured by openness to the truth and a willingness to follow God where ever he might lead us. There is indeed a mystery here because for some faith seems to come easily in the midst of innocence and for others it is polished and fashioned under the crucible of opposition, struggle and pain.

Jesus wants them to start seeing with God’s eyes. He tells them a brief parable about a master coming in from his work and how he would approach his servant. Would he tend to the needs of the servant or expect the servant to give him food and drink? Obviously, the rhetorical answer is he would expect the servant to care for him. Given that society, knowing that the servant merely did his duty, there is not even any special gratitude. Jesus knew the minds of his followers and he knew there was still a problem with their disposition for faith. Several times we hear requests from apostles in the Gospels for special places of leadership and the question, “What is in it for us?” Toward the end of his ministry in this world, our Lord will return to the theme of servant. He will tell them that the one who would be the first must be the last and the servant of all. He will give them the example of washing the feet. Humility is important for Christian faith. When you have rendered your service to God and charity toward your fellow men and women, our response should simply be, “We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.” God gifts his friends with faith and he will give us a share in Christ’s reward, not because we deserve it but because he loves us. Ironically, it is this love which ultimately answers the parable question in an entirely different way. He asks, “Who among you would say to your servant who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here immediately and take your place at table’?” Only at the end of the Gospel can the apostles answer this question. Jesus himself is the master, who after his work for our redemption is the one who feeds us with his body and blood from his altar-table. He has done all the work, and yet he takes upon himself the role of servant in caring for the lesser servants of God. God’s plans in the world and in us come about in God’s own good time.

Turning to the other Sunday Scriptures, the prophet Habakkuk has a dire vision of destruction. There is a great deal of internal corruption in Judah. God will punish them through the Chaldeans. The text jumps somewhat, skipping 13 verses, to where God tells the prophet to write down his vision. The selection ends with confidence in God’s justice, “…but the just one, because of his faith, shall live.” Similarly, in the New Testament, our participation by faith in the righteousness of Christ grants us a share in his eternal life. We were sinners but in the Lord there was forgiveness and hope. The end of the Gospel is an apparent scene of despair and destruction. All seems lost. But faith sustains those who trust in the Lord and who witness his resurrection. We too need an abiding faith, knowing that God will make things right according to his providence.

Paul’s letter makes similar connections. Everything appears dim and the apostle must face captivity. He writes to Timothy about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and admonishes, “Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.” God’s people and ministers can build upon the testimony of the Gospel. It becomes an occasion for our encounter in faith with the Lord. Just as he must face his hardship for the Good News with courage, he tells us all not to be ashamed or afraid to “bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God.”

The psalm response speaks to our receptivity in regards to God’s presence and the gift of faith he wants to sow in us: “If today you hear his voice, harden not your hearts.” Notice the admonitions in our responsorial: the Lord is our “ROCK;” we enter into his presence “with thanksgiving;” we “bow down in worship;” we “kneel before the Lord;” he created us and we belong to him; and he is the shepherd and we are his flock. All that we have and all that we are is dependent upon God. God’s people of old forgot him and judgment fell upon them. We must never forget! Our Lord was betrayed and abandoned by his friends. Did they forget all that he did? Did they forget his promises? Did they forget his prophetic words about what he must endure and overcome? We must never forget!

When times get tough for us and we become afraid, where is our confidence in Jesus?

When the bills are mounting and our job is not working out, where is our trust in the Lord?

When our family forgets us and friends betray us, where is the love and peace we know in Christ?

As a renowned preacher once said, “Tough times never last, tough people do!” God’s grace remains with those who keep faith in Christ. He can sustain us to weather the storms of life and even the coming judgment itself. If the entire world should forget God and his goodness, we must never forget!

Filed under: Catholic, Discipleship, Faith, Homily, Jesus | Leave a comment »

The Ultimate Homeschooler Video Game?

Posted on October 2, 2010 by Father Joe

Although this promotion exhibits a false game for a real one (Dante’s Inferno), what else does it communicate? Is it simply a fun parody which should make us laugh (at ourselves)? Or does it inadvertantly imply that Mass and church attendance is boring? Are traditional Catholics being mocked?

Filed under: Parody, Video | 3 Comments »

« Previous Page