Tolerance

Avery Cardinal Dulles confronted this issue in the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, in a lecture entitled “Christ Among the Religions.” There, Dulles acknowledged that we live in a society that “includes people of many faiths and of no faith at all,” and examined four possible models by which different faiths can relate to one another: coercion, convergence, pluralism, and tolerance. Coercion was the predominant model throughout the majority of human history. Political leaders often compelled religious unity among their subjects, and conquerors forced their own beliefs upon their subject peoples. In Rome, for example, religious pluralism existed until the emperors insisted that they be accorded divine honors. Following Constantine’s conversion in 312, and the Roman Empire’s adoption of Christianity as its official religion, emperors “began to enforce Christian orthodoxy and persecute all other religions, including dissident forms of Christianity.” This continued throughout the medieval and modern periods when single states adopted uniform rites. Dissent was not tolerated and heresy quashed. At my own university in St Andrews, Scotland, the streets are littered with monuments to those burnt in the name of religious purity — both protestant and Catholic alike. Coercion ensured orthodoxy, but more often than not, it bred personal dissatisfaction and hate. In the modern West, the coercion model is difficult, if not impossible, to maintain. We have learned from generations of religious warfare that the cost is too high and that, from the perspective of Christian moral theology, it is indefensible to attempt to coerce genuine belief. Past efforts to enforce orthodoxy through coercion have led to resentment and a wide-scale abandonment of faith. True faith must be freely cultivated. As Dulles notes, in most cases, “religious coercion survives only in nations that have come late to modernity.” This is particularly true with regard to Islamic extremism as propagated by ISIS and the Taliban. The second model, convergence, is also untenable because it demands that believers concede that differences among faiths are superficial and that every religion is an equally valid path to God. This model is premised on the theory that all religions are human constructions and, in the words of Dulles, are “faltering attempts to articulate the whole and transcendent mystery by which human existence is encompassed.” But to maintain the integrity of this view, it is necessary for orthodox believers to concede too much. Religious belief is not necessarily a subjective human creation, especially when it is the product of divine revelation as in the cases of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. True belief, by definition, requires an ability to exclude ideas that are incommensurate with a faith’s core teachings, and for that reason, convergence is an unsatisfactory means to achieve religious harmony. In the politically correct atmosphere of early twenty-first century America, the third model – pluralism – has become a near ubiquitous ideal. To some degree, it has become a polytheistic faith in its own right and reflects the idea that all religious teachings embody particular aspects of the Logos, and that every faith must be a partial manifestation of reality, which can be improved by its interactions with other faiths. Like the convergence model, this is a favorite of relativists who believe in the epistemic impossibility of objective truth. To the average apologist of pluralism, religion is a personal feeling or sentiment, and claims relating to ultimate reality are viewed as strictly private matters. But to the devout believer, faith is not an individual preference and the idea that every religion is entitled to equal deference belies the very idea of truth. To be a pluralist, for many, is to propagate a lie. But, how are we to coexist peacefully in a world of many faiths? Are we to live as isolated beings, disconnected from each other and utterly separated by our beliefs? I would propose that the most reasonable answer is the fourth model – tolerance.
Link

Bitterness

When you are offended or disappointed by others and allow the hurt to germinate in your heart, bitterness and resentment will take root. Characterized by an unforgiving spirit and generally negative, critical attitudes, bitterness and resentment are sinful and self-defeating. They will color your conscious and unconscious thoughts and actions. Allowed to fester, they will destroy and kill (Galatians 5:19-21*). However, they can be dispelled with love.
What Scripture Says
"Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many" (Hebrews 12:14,15*).
"Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you" (Ephesians 4:31,32*).
"When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly" (I Peter 2:23*).
"Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing..." (Luke 23:34*).
"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins" (Matthew 6:14,15*).
"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. On the contrary: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:14-21*).
How To Be Free From Bitterness and Resentment
Life depression and other emotional stress, bitterness and resentment can aggravate or cause physical problems such as arthritis. You can be affected mentally, spiritually and otherwise. Your relationships will always suffer.
God can free you from this sin. It is an oppressive and destructive emotion having its root in hate, which is likened to murder. You must repent. No one can have peace and happiness with such emotions tearing at him. If you have not done so, ask God to forgive you and to come into your life right now. He will deliver you from the power of the enemy (Psalm 91:3*).
Link

Scapegoat

There are some thinkers that offer intriguing ideas and proposals, and there is a tiny handful of thinkers that manage to shake your world. Girard was in this second camp. In a series of books and articles, written across several decades, he proposed a social theory of extraordinary explanatory power. Drawing inspiration from some of the greatest literary masters of the West-Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, Proust among others - Girard opined that desire is both mimetic and triangular. He meant that we rarely desire objects straightforwardly; rather, we desire them because others desire them: as we imitate (mimesis) another's desire, we establish a triangulation between self, other, and object. If this sounds too rarefied, think of the manner in which practically all of advertising works: I come to want those gym shoes, not because of their intrinsic value, but because the hottest NBA star wants them. Now what mimetic desire leads to, almost inevitably, is conflict. If you want to see this dynamic in the concrete, watch what happens when toddler A imitates the desire of toddler B for the same toy, or when dictator A mimics the desire of dictator B for the same route of access to the sea.
 

The tension that arises from mimetic desire is dealt with through what Girard called the scapegoating mechanism. A society, large or small, that finds itself in conflict comes together through a common act of blaming an individual or group purportedly responsible for the conflict. So for instance, a group of people in a coffee klatch will speak in an anodyne way for a time, but in relatively short order, they will commence to gossip, and they will find, customarily, a real fellow feeling in the process. What they are accomplishing, on Girard's reading, is a discharging of the tension of their mimetic rivalry onto a third party. The same dynamic obtains among intellectuals. When I was doing my post-graduate study, I heard the decidedly Girardian remark: "the only thing that two academics can agree upon is how poor the work of a third academic is!" Hitler was one of the shrewdest manipulators of the scapegoating mechanism. He brought the deeply divided German nation of the 1930's together precisely by assigning the Jews as a scapegoat for the country's economic, political, and cultural woes. Watch a video of one of the Nuremberg rallies of the mid-thirties to see the Girardian theory on vivid display.

 

Now precisely because this mechanism produces a kind of peace, however ersatz and unstable, it has been revered by the great mythologies and religions of the world and interpreted as something that God or the gods smile upon. Perhaps the most ingenious aspect of Girard's theorizing is his identification of this tendency. In the founding myths of most societies, we find some act of primal violence that actually establishes the order of the community, and in the rituals of those societies, we discover a repeated acting out of the original scapegoating. For a literary presentation of this ritualization of society-creating violence, look no further than Shirley Jackson's masterpiece "The Lottery."  

 

The main features of this theory were in place when Girard turned for the first time in a serious way to the Christian Scriptures. What he found astonished him and changed his life. He discovered that the Bible knew all about mimetic desire and scapegoating violence but it also contained something altogether new, namely, the de-sacralizing of the process that is revered in all of the myths and religions of the world. The crucifixion of Jesus is a classic instance of the old pattern. It is utterly consistent with the Girardian theory that Caiaphas, the leading religious figure of the time, could say to his colleagues, "Is it not better for you that one man should die for the people than for the whole nation to perish?" In any other religious context, this sort of rationalization would be valorized. But in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, this stunning truth is revealed: God is not on the side of the scapegoaters but rather on the side of the scapegoated victim. The true God in fact does not sanction a community created through violence; rather, he sanctions what Jesus called the Kingdom of God, a society grounded in forgiveness, love, and identification with the victim. Once Girard saw this pattern, he found it everywhere in the Gospels and in Christian literature. For a particularly clear example of the unveiling process, take a hard look at the story of the woman caught in adultery.

Link

Making Mass More Masculine

There are constant reports about how attendance at Mass continues to fall, and how this is mainly due to the disinterest of men. In one of the churches I attend, Sunday Mass attendance has fallen from over 6,000/Sunday in the 1980’s to about 4,000 today. The purpose of this article is address some of the things that may be causing this decline.

Sermons

Let’s face it. A lot of sermons given today are boring. Instead of rousing parishioners to their feet, some sermons occasionally put people into a somnambulist trance. The most popular feature of Protestant services, the Sunday sermon, is somehow the least stimulating in the Catholic Mass. This is the one time of the week that priests have their flock present to talk to them about Christ, and it should be the time that the laity is moved in their hearts and minds to give their lives more fully to Christ. Sadly, this is hardly ever the case. Homilies should be inspiring, and should not sound like a monotone college professor lecturing his class on the intricacies of statistics, calculus, or metallurgy.
Priests should give us the unvarnished holy truth, both the good and the bad, and in a stimulating way that it is interesting and moving. Most football coaches seem more inspiring in their talks about winning football games than the average priest sounds about our salvation. Maybe the Catholic Bishops could hire Urban Meyer from Ohio State or Nick Saban from Alabama to come to their seminaries and coach young priests on the art of inspiring their flock. It really is okay for priests in the pulpit to show some masculine emotion and to even get a little emotional while giving sermons. They know exactly what the problems are with their parishioners because they hear their sins in the confessional. After all, even Jesus got angry and cleared the temple. Jesus even once called Herod “a fox,” and the Pharisees a “brood of vipers!” Men respond well to this kind of sermonizing. Being insipid inspires no one; rather, it is only the bland leading the bland. And even if a few people get upset and leave because of an angry sermon, that’s okay, because being an inspiring homilist will definitely bring in more and more new parishioners eventually.
Reading some of the homilies of St. John Vianney, the patron saint of parish priests, would be helpful for young priests, as well as watching the style (not the content) of Protestant sermons on TV.

Be Masculine

Men respond well to other masculine men. Being masculine means sometimes showing real emotions during sermons, in the confessional, and during parish get-togethers. The masculinity of priests should always be front and center. Additionally, a lot of men do not like to hold hands with other men while reciting the Our Father, and this practice (which is not part of the official rubrics of the Mass) should be eliminated in the Mass, not encouraged.
Read rest

Beauty and Peace

Every now and then we all run across a description or definition of something that captures its truth, yet at the same time respects its mystery. For indeed mere words can ever really be, or take the place of, the thing or person they describe. The reality is always richer than the descriptions we attempt with the grunts and scrawls we call “words.”
Such were my thoughts when I was rummaging through some old philosophy notes and came across two classic definitions that are moving in their simplicity, yet mysteriously accurate. Here they are:

1. Beauty is the splendor of order. Yes, order is magnificent. Sometimes we speak of symmetry (Greek for “same measure”). Sometimes we speak of proportion (from a Latin word meaning that something is properly divided or shared). Musically, we speak of harmony (from the Greek harmonia, meaning agreement of sound) or of “concerts” (from the Latin concertare, meaning “to bring into agreement”). Yes, order is a beautiful thing that points beyond itself to purpose and design. Things in creation are not just here on earth haphazardly. They are not chaotically strewn about. Rather, things are intricately interrelated in multiple ways and at every level: atomically, molecularly, organically, ecologically, and cosmically. Such order, such beauty! Beauty is truly the splendor of order.
2. Peace is the rest of order. This definition is even more mysterious. We all know that order brings peace, but why? When our lives are in order we sleep well. When chaos wounds order we are in distress and seek to restore order. The perception of order bestows a kind of satisfaction and fulfillment. For a moment we can stop and say, “It is well; things are as they should be.” This sense of well-being ushers in peace and serenity. Yes, peace is the rest of order.

Link