God's Uncommitted, Omniscient Plan

"When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it" (Jonah 3:10).

The idea that God has repented of an evil "which he thought to do to his people" (Exodus 32:14) raises a lot of issues and sparks some intriguing discussions regarding the omniscience and benevolence of God. Taken at face value, it tells us that our "man with the plan" isn't very decisive at all. It implies that he might not know everything, or, that he might know all things, but he likes to play with our fears in order to get us to repent--that he is, essentially, a fundamentalist preacher threatening us with hell and damnation lest we repent from our thoroughly evil ways. However, I was thinking about all this and I finally came to an understanding about this idea that I can be satisfied with: his dithering is due, neither to indecisiveness nor cruel omniscience, but to love. 

Let's think about it for a second and ask ourselves one question: How can we believe in a benevolent being who loves us beyond our understanding, whom we are destined to spend not just a lifetime with but an eternity, and who, at the same time, takes delight in teasing us with suffering or in inflicting pain upon his "good" creation (Genesis 1:31)? Something doesn't quite add up here. Either God wants the best for us (Jeremiah 29:11) and wants us to respond to him freely, or he delights in the suffering and angst "of the living" (Wisdom 1:13). 

We know that there are consequences to all of our actions: often negative consequences from our negative actions, and positive from the positive. I'll give you an example.When my wife and I were still dating, I went out one night and had ten too many Guinnesses and three too many shots of Jamesons. Needless to say, I wasn't feeling too well the next day. The problem was, though, I ended up missing out on a date we had planned for the following day, which she was really looking forward to.  

Since our individual sins can have negative effects on the people and circumstances in our lives, as the above anecdote shows us, then what about corporate or even global sins? I don't think that we need to look much further than the Global Warming issue to see how our corporate sins (that is, sins committed by members of a group or community) effect the natural world. The consequences, by the way, are speculated to range from slight climate changes to a second ice age. So, we can see, at least in theory, how our sins (or negative choices) can have a global effect. 

Hmm ... sin, global effects ... does this remind us of anything?

When people talk about how God is going to punish us for our sins, they usually refer to three events from the Old Testament, all of which were quoted above, namely: Noah's Ark (Genesis 6-8ish); the disobedience of Israel during their exodus (Exodus 30-33ish); and the story of Ninevah (Jonah). However, almost every time they miss one key passage from each of these stories. Here's a quote from the story of Noah and the ark, for example:

"... the Lord said in his heart, 'I will never again curse the ground because of man ... neither will I ever again destroy every living creature ..." (Genesis 8:21).

So, when we read in Jonah, and elsewhere, that God repented from wanting to cull the sickly human race, it is implying one of two things: one, that our benevolent Father shamefully plays with our aversion to pain, or, two, that there is something more going on here--especially if we realize that our sins have far-reaching effects.

Instead of portraying a Dithering God or a sadist, I think that we are getting a glimpse of a God who is aware of the just recompense of our sin, but who is willing to do something about it which would diminish or banish its necessary punishment. This premise is particularly evident when we consider the example of our redemption won by Christ's suffering and death (Isaiah 53:5). The question then becomes about why a loving and all-knowing God would allow evil to exist (by evil here, I mean the deprivation of good). The answer is that he allows evil to exist simply because he loves us. 

That is, to remove evil from the world he would also have to get rid of our free will--the freedom to choose good and evil. As I said in another post, such an action would be antithetical to what he is calling us to do: to freely choose to be with him, in spite of the ritz, glamour, and lure of sin. 

What about his dithering? Let's look at Global Warming for example. What we have is a series of events, instigated by human sin and negligence. Global Warming, then, becomes a necessary consequence of both our corporate action and inaction. If God were to "change his mind" like he did in the story of Ninevah, for example, then through some sort of Divine Intervention, the ensuing storm of Global Warming would be quelled. Now, since God is omniscient, by virtue of what it means to be "god," the Biblical language for such an action is that God "changed his mind." Whereas the reality is that he intervened and stopped an event which was actuated by our freedom to choose good and evil. This is, of course, different from saying that God created Global Warming as a consequence of (pick one): abortion, euthanasia, and genocide; embryonic stem cell research; the exploitation of people and the environment; neglect of the elderly, the sick, and the marginalized; and last but not least, corrupt politicians and community (and church) leaders.

The thing is, and here's the irony in all of this, it is anti-christian to claim that God is out to get us. Instead, he never ceases to call us back to him, despite our negative choices. In fact, it doesn't even matter how many positive choices we make throughout the day, he will unceasingly call us back to him regardless of which choice we are inclined to act on. He calls us back to him because of who we are as human persons, made in his image and likeness, and not because of what we do or don't do. 

It doesn't matter what we have done or what we continue to do, he will never stop loving us; he will never stop giving you and me the freedom to choose good or evil, because to do so would diminish the value and dignity inherent to us as human beings. 

"... I set before you life and death ... Now choose life ..." (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Padre Pio

I don't really know a lot about Padre Pio. The video above is of him celebrating mass, and if you look carefully, you will notice one black band on each of his hands. St. Pio had the stigmata, a highly misunderstood, and often misrepresented, gift given by God. The Oxford dictionary defines it as "marks corresponding to those left of Jesus' body by the Crucifixion." The Catholic Encyclopedia elaborates further:

the substance of this grace consists of pity for Christ, participation in His sufferings, and for the same end: the expiation of the sins unceasingly committed in the world. If the sufferings were absent, however, the wounds would be an empty symbol, a theatrical representation, conducing to pride.

There are quite a few saints throughout the history of the Church who have received this gift. In fact, one of my favourite pictures is of St. Catherine of Sienna receiving the stigmata while in prayer in front of the blessed sacrament (pictured on the right). 

In this picture I see contentment, ecstasy, love, and adoration. It inspires me to be more holy, more devoted to my relationship with Christ, and to want to fall in love with him with all of my being. Striving for a perfect union with Christ, here on earth, may seem like a daunting task. I realize that I may be pretty far away from attaining this level of intimacy with God, but instead of feeling discouraged, I feel encouraged to press on, to move forward in spite of my weakness and inclination to sin. 

You know what's at the heart of the lofty levels of holiness? Consistency. Consistency is the key to growth in the spiritual life. It doesn't matter how many times we fall asleep during adoration or while praying the rosary, for example, what matters is that we show up and try to show up on a regular basis. All it takes is one little step after another, done with the intention of wanting to know and love Jesus more and more each day. 

Christ has called the whole human race to the lofty heights of sanctity ... Let no one believe that sanctity belongs to a few chosen people, while the rest of humanity can limit itself to a lesser degree of virtue.

- Pope Pius XI

Obama's Wall

I was just listening to Pink Floyd's "The Wall," and I was suddenly struck by how much it reminded me of Obama's Freedom of Choice Act. You see, "The Wall" is about isolation. Although it is a depiction of Roger Water's own experiences of isolation, we can derive from it Orwellian inferences of thought policing and such things that 1984's Ministry of Truth would consider, well, truth.

Totalitarian regimes seek protectionist isolation in two ways. They seek to conserve their way of life by shunning outside influences. They can accomplish this by limiting the media, controlling the information taught in various educational sectors, and by defaming their opponents.


However, such regimes also guard their rule by isolating dissidents. In Orwell's dystopian Oceania, thought and choice are controlled to such a degree that a dissident would find himself intellectually, emotionally, and psychologically alone. This loneliness, this type of isolation is insidiously used to further the party's rule and promote their seemingly omniscient ideology. To be isolated in this way dehumanizes an individual, since he is unable to embrace his social environment with his whole being. Thus, the isolated individual finds that he must become void of thought, void of passion, and void of freedom in order to be accepted as a valued and respected citizen.


Obama's autocratic Freedom of Choice Act is just as conniving. What it affectively accomplishes is isolating dissident doctors from their human community. It demands that one tow the party line or face isolation. It is dehumanizing in the sense that one's intellect has no more value within the public market. The only choice for doctors and health practitioners to make is to have no choice, no critical thought that may dispute Obama's freedom machine. In this sense, then, labeling the restriction of intellectual and religious liberty as the essence of freedom, subverts what it means to be free and, ultimately, to be human.


Furthermore, Obama's neo-freedom policy destabilizes the meaning and value of "fundamental human rights." What it effectively says is that we no longer have the right to certain things, but that we have the might to seize them. That is, things like conscience and religion, or thought and expression, no longer belong to the essence of humanity, but by equating such inalienable rights with the subjective whims of the ruling majority, we, in effect, subvert the value and worth of such freedoms within the polis. Peter Kreeft's "Apple Argument Against Abortion" touches on this tyranny of the majority in section eight, but I highly recommend reading his argument in full. Nevertheless, here is section eight:

All these examples so far are controversial. How to apply moral principles to these issues is controversial. What is not controversial, I hope, is the principle itself that human rights are possessed by human beings because of what they are, because of their being—and not because some other human beings have the power to enforce their will. That would be, literally, "might makes right." Instead of putting might into the hands of right, that would be pinning the label of "right" on the face of might: justifying force instead of fortifying justice. But that is the only alternative, no matter what the political power structure, no matter who or how many hold the power, whether a single tyrant, or an aristocracy, or a majority of the freely voting public, or the vague sentiment of what Rousseau called "the general will." The political form does not change the principle. A constitutional monarchy, in which the king and the people are subject to the same law, is a rule of law, not of power; a lawless democracy, in which the will of the majority is unchecked, is a rule of power, not of law.

It must be remembered, however, that Obama's tyranny isn't all that new. As I said in another post, despite his engaging speeches, his charismatic personality, and his appeal to the heart-strings of the public, on the issue of human life and social conservatism, in general, Obama is merely a product of a political machine.

Homophobe!!!!

I may not fully understand the whole story here, but I am pretty annoyed with gay activists who claim that any opposition to things like same-sex marriage is seen as homophobic. Here in Canada, it's been a real annoyance since we've sanctioned same-sex marriage. It seems that you can't say anything that may be seen as contradictory to these activists without it being labeled as homophobic. It seems like a trump card, really. You know, when you're playing Hearts and you just laid down that Ace of spades to take the Queen of spades and what you think to be the round's last remaining heart and some yahoo throws down his 2 of hearts, takes your Queen and you get stuck with a bunch of points against your impeccable record--if you've never played hearts, then, simply put, the trump card takes all.

Unlike a game of cards, however, playing the homophobic trump is pretty insidious. It is used in place of critical thought, and it is used to intimidate all in opposition to the activists' cause. What it functions as is, essentially, a way to control how people express their ideas and thoughts. It makes everyone express thought the same way as the dominant ideology expresses its thoughts. Has anyone ever read George Orwell's 1984? In the book, this kind of ideological oppression is known as newspeak. The almighty Wikipedia has a lovely description of newspeak:

"Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking — 'thoughtcrime,' or 'crimethink' in the newest edition of Newspeak — or speech impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: 'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.

Orwell's 1984 is a very interesting and timely read; I think everyone should be reading this book, especially in light of Barack "The Saviour" Obama's Freedom of Choice Act--which is so erroneously and misleadingly (again, the term "insidious" comes to mind) titled that it is sure to sway people to its agenda. Another great example of why Orwell's book is timely is Canada's Kangaroo Court. Unless things have changed since I've last read about it, the laws of this court state that if someone feels that they might be offended by something you've said, they can take you to this idyllic court and have you fined for saying something that hurt their feelings. Sure, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal probably does play an important role in protecting the well-being of Canadians, but it is too subjective to be of any real benefit for us all. Additionally, homophobia is a real problem that we must all be aware of, but objecting to the whims of gay activists does not imply that one is homophobic. Furthermore, it is ignoble to use it as a type of trump card to silence the opposition--particularly if these activists in question are truly concerned with the well-being of all Canadian citizens.

For a great resource on some problems with same-sex marriage, check out this link from the Catholic Education Resource Centre.

Polygamy, here we come!

So good ol' Winston Blackmore is experiencing some religious persecution. He claims that because he is a Mormon--a Fundamentalist Mormon, no less--he was recently arrested and charged with, according to the Globe and Mail, "'practising a form of polygamy or practising a kind of conjugal union' with 19 women." These charges have been 20 years in the making, however, and it was only recently that the RCMP felt they had enough evidence to actually enforce Canada's polygamy laws. Nonetheless, despite having put "vulnerable children at risk" of sexual and emotional abuse, Mr. Blackmore is claiming that, his arrest is "not about polygamy," but an affront to both Mormonism, specifically Fundamentalist Mormonism, and Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, he goes further and, in an appeal to our emotions, claims that the RCMP, and Canadians in general, ought to be ashamed of the lack of "sensitivity when it comes to dealing with our children." Further still, he tugs at our hardened hearts by emphasizing that his children "hated the police all day long" because of his arrest. Remember, he uses this appeal, despite having put his children at risk of abuse by himself and other husbands whose love is too big for one bride.

Before we all get blinded by Blackmore's fallacious appeal to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, let's recall some of this abuse that the police are concerned about, and that Blackmore seems to want us to easily forget.

Tapestry Against Polygamy is a Utah-based web site run by women and children who were once involved in polygamous relationships. They remind us that some of the forms of abuse rampant in these relationships include the following: "incest, statutory rape, underage marriage ... lack of education, trafficking of minors across borders for the purpose of sex, medical neglect, and extreme forms of domestic abuse & mental torture." Despite the attempts by shows like Big Love to normalize polygamy, and despite Blackmore's appeal to his "right" to religious freedom, we cannot become desensitized to the plight of the women and children who are sexually, psychologically, and emotionally devastated by all of the "loving" going on in their bedrooms and homes.

So that we could get an idea of what goes on, here's a list of warning signs that Tapestry published on their site:

Danger Signs of Abuse within a Polygamous Relationship

- Control over private lives: telling people where they should work; expecting attendance at multiple church services and activities, dictating decisions that should be made by the entire family.
- Manipulation of marriages: arranging for people to get married; telling women to stay in abusive home situations and accept the abuse as "correction from the Lord".
- Sexual demands: pressures to perform sexual acts through coercion.
- Threats or intimidation: threats to "take away" the husband’s attention for "wrong behavior."
- The group seems perfect: everyone agrees and follows orders cheerfully.
- The group claims to have "all the answers" to your problems.
- You begin to feel guilty and ashamed, unworthy as a person.
- The group speaks in a derogatory way about those outside the religious affiliation.
- Outsiders are defined as unable to understand and help you with religious matters.
- Males are believed to have more rights and abilities than females.
- Leadership is never shared.
- Someone frequently prefaces his or her remarks with things like "The Lord has told me."
- An authoritarian leadership that claims exclusive access to God’s will.
- Total control over members' daily lives.
- Exclusivity and isolation.
- Development of unhealthy emotional dependence.
- Prohibition of critical analysis and independent thinking.
- Practices methods of ego destruction and mind control.
- Discouragement of free and independent pursuit of education.



Postscript:

You know, the guy's pretty smart. By claiming that polygamy is enshrined by the Canadian Charter's list of Fundamental Freedoms, he is almost guaranteed success in court, or at least in Canada's official Kangaroo Court. If not resulting from his court proceedings, then certainly a few years down the road--and you can be assured that we will hear this plea to freedom within the next couple of years--polygamy will be legalized in Canada, much the same as same-sex marriage was. Sure, you can claim that same-sex marriage is different, but what both of them have in common is that they contribute to the erosion of the value and contribution that marriage adds to our society--or at least our awareness of its contribution. Furthermore, and you don't hear that much of this since same-sex marriage was rammed down our throats, but both same-sex marriage and polygamy have a detrimental affect on our children and, correspondingly, on our society. Here's a quote from a book titled, Marriage on Trial by Stanton and Maier:

While "Nathanson and Young don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with gay relationships ... they contend that same-sex marriage will harm society because 'marriage between men and women must be publicly fostered by culture and supported by law.' Nathanson and Young contend that the advocates of same-sex marriage ignore all of the societal loads natural marriage must carry ... because, for the most part, gay activists are radical individualists who show little concern for the greater culture."

Evangelism

Ya gotta love Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, the Preacher to the Papal Household. Here is a snippit from one of Fr. Raniero's homilies to the Papal House, recently delivered on December 19:

"Those who hear the word without putting it into practice, those who have one spiritual abortion after another, making plans for conversion that they systematically abandon when they get halfway down the road, conceive Jesus but do not give birth to him. They are impatient observers of the word, they look at their face in a mirror and then go away forgetting what they looked like (cf. James 1:23). In sum, they are those who have faith but no works."

He doesn't stop there:

" ... there are also those who, on the contrary, give birth to Christ without having conceived him. They do many works, even good ones, that do not come from the heart, from love of God and right intention, but rather from habit, hypocrisy, the pursuit of their own glory and their own interests, or simply from the gratification of doing them. In sum, they are those who have works but no faith."

And he concludes this part of his homily with a sweet quote from St. Francis of Assisi:

"'We are mothers of Christ,' he says, 'when we carry him in our heart and in our body by divine love and with a pure and sincere conscience; we give birth to him through holy works, which should shine forth as an example for others. ... How holy and dear, pleasant, humble, peaceful, lovable and desirable above all things it is to have such a brother and such a son, our Lord Jesus Christ!' The saint is telling us that we conceive Christ when we love him with a sincere heart and with rectitude of conscience, and we give birth to him when we accomplish holy deeds that manifest him to the world."

You may remember St Francis. He was the one who reminded us to "preach the gospel at all times, and, when necessary, use words." He's also the lovey-dovey saint who is a favourite of animal lovers and people who don't like to preach and use the above quote to justify their mantra of "no pushy-pushy the gospy-gospy." What they forget is that St. Francis was a preacher. Not just an ordinary preacher, mind you, but an itinerant one who shared the gospel with his words and actions. St. Francis shared the gospel without compromise, and Fr. Cantalamessa is exhorting us to do likewise.

How do we preach, then? Certainly, neither St. Francis nor Cantalamessa would have us force the gospel's message of unconditional love into the lives, minds, and hearts of our families, friends, and co-workers, but they would have us share it with our families, friends, and co-workers, "at all times."

I think that Catherine Doherty provides us with a good model on how we ought to approach evangelization. In a talk addressed to seminarians and priests she suggested that "the only true dialogue is the one between two crucified persons." If we take a moment to break that down, I think that we can come to a profound understanding of what it means to preach. For instance, when we think of a crucified person, what comes to our minds? We immediately think of the naked, humbled, and wounded Christ, nailed to a tree on our behalf. If the only way for us to enter into a true dialogue is to be like this crucified Christ, what would this image of a naked, humbled, and wounded Christ imply? It implies that we meet every pilgrim, every person yearning for this unconditional love, with an empty heart, naked of judgement, selfishness, and arrogance; we meet them with a heart that acknowledges its brokenness and has removed all masks that seek to hide such limitations. We meet these pilgrims as beggars, with our actions and our words leading them to the Bread of Life. We allow ourselves to become vulnerable, naked, and empty, unassuming and uncompromising in our delivery of the gospel message. That is how we become crucified, and this is how we evangelize: we acknowledge our frailty and our shortcomings as valiant Christian Soldiers. We acknowledge that were it not for the grace of God, we would be the ones searching, unfulfilled in our quest for true happiness.

So, we must preach, lest we become guilty of "spiritual abortion," but we do it from the base of Christ's cross.