tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-195567972024-03-07T18:03:06.728-06:00Gift of Self"...if man is the only creature on earth that God willed for its own sake, man can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself."
- Gaudium et Spes, 24ABhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13909234307086337337noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-76446047730489878792009-07-03T22:26:00.001-05:002009-07-03T22:28:05.690-05:00God bless America?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 13px; line-height: 22px; "><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; "><em>Disclaimer</em>: I do not here intend to make any political statements whatsoever. I am not all that interested in the conservative v. liberal polemic on the matter. Rather, I intend to attempt to make a theological point.</div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; "><em></em><p style="font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; "><em>N.B.: I am grateful for the freedoms and rights which I enjoy as a citizen of this country, although I do not necessarily agree with the manner in which our freedoms have been won and protected throughout history, but that is a discussion for another post.</em></p></div><p style="font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; "></p><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; "><em><br /></em></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; "><p style="font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; ">Around this time of year it is not uncommon to see flags, signs, facebook statuses, etc. which exclaim “God bless America!” It seems a nice enough sentiment and potentially a reflection of a valid and perhaps virtuous patriotism. Of course, it could also reflect an idolatrous nationalism. However, I do not intend to parse that distinction here. Rather, I want to ask whether it is theologically accurate or appropriate to utter this exclamation.</p></div><p style="font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; "></p><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; "><p style="font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; ">To my knowledge the only “nation” that God promises to bless is Israel (which does not refer to the modern nation-state of Israel or any nation-state for that matter), and we must remember that while His love is clearly unconditional, his blessing is not, not even for Israel. In the face of Israel’s idolatry and hard-heartedness God, on more than one occasion, withdrew his blessing and replaced it with the curse of exile and/or other natural consequences of the actions which expressed Israel’s will.</p></div><p style="font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; "></p><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; "><p style="font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; ">Additionally, Israel’s status as God’s people, while never revoked, has essentially been superseded by the one, holy, catholic (universal), apostolic Church. Thus no nation or state has a claim to be God’s own in the same sense that Israel could have made that claim in Old Testament times. Furthermore, we are a pilgrim people. Our home is the heavenly Jerusalem and our loyalty should go to all other members of the BODY before it goes to members of our nation.</p></div><p style="font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; "></p><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; "><p style="font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; ">Now, I see no problem with praying for God’s blessing upon our nation. However, it seems to me that that prayer should sound more like the prayer of the repentant publican. “Lord, we, as the body of America, have sinned against you and turned our backs to you. Have mercy on us. Forgive us. Do not turn your face from us, but in your mercy bless and guide us and our leaders to conform to your Truth and Love.” Rather, the tenor and tone of “God bless America” tends to reek of pride, the vicious type. “Thank God we are not like those other damnable nations. We stand for truth and goodness and freedom. Rejoice at our greatness. God bless America the beautiful, the proud, the good!”</p></div><p style="font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; "></p><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; "><p style="font-size: 1em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-bottom: 10px; ">Perhaps our country would be in a healthier spiritual condition if we repented and did penance for the sins of our country before asking for God’s blessing, rather than praising our alleged virtues and nearly demanding blessing in an act of praise, not of God, but of ourselves, our country.</p></div></span>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-89992239777995672522009-06-22T12:39:00.002-05:002009-06-22T12:49:54.373-05:00On Keeping Holy the Sabbath DayGrowing up, I never really contemplated the idea of keeping holy the Sabbath day. We went to Mass every Sunday, and normally we would spend the rest of the day at Grandma's, which included spending time with the extended family, football and/or swimming for us kids, and TV, cards, cooking, and cleaning for the adults. While there was nothing explicitly holy or religious about this, I think through family custom we did a decent job of fulfilling God's decree, keeping in mind that man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man. <div><br /></div><div>However, as an adult who is a perpetual student and who has been a teacher, I now frequently procrastinate throughout the week and use Sunday to complete any remaining homework, grading, or lesson planning. Yesterday as we were to driving to see family for Father's day, I was reflecting on those who were working: truck drivers in particular, but also waiters and waitresses, cooks, cashiers, etc. How difficult it has now become to refrain from participating in the "social sin," for lack of a better term, of violating the sabbath! </div><div><br /></div><div>What do you think it means to keep holy the Sabbath? How much are we/you willing to sacrifice (convenience stores, Monday deliveries, gas stations, etc.) to enable others to have the freedom to rest on the Lord's Day? </div>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-55012774607625038182009-06-20T23:41:00.003-05:002009-06-21T00:08:15.361-05:00Sunday Snippets: a Catholic CarnivalGreetings and Peace to all newcomers. <div><br /></div><div>My wife AB and I are grad students in theology and new parents too an adorable 5month old boy. Most of our blogging focuses on Catholic theological or social issues. </div><div><br /></div><div>We aren't able to p<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">ost</span> on a daily basis, but our most recent one, <a href="http://giftofself.blogspot.com/2009/06/on-hobbies-and-pursuing-holiness.html">On Hobbies and Pursuing Holiness,</a> has had some decent discussion, which was probably better than the post itself. I'd love to hear any further thoughts you may have.</div><div><br /></div><div>Other older posts of interest include the following:</div><div> - A theologically dense post on the<a href="http://giftofself.blogspot.com/2007/07/anthropological-structure-of-faith.html"> Anthropological Structure of Faith</a></div><div>- An interesting post by my wife on <a href="http://giftofself.blogspot.com/2008/01/going-green-and-pill.html">Going Green and the Pill</a></div><div> - The first of an 8-part series on <a href="http://giftofself.blogspot.com/2008/01/being-faithful-catholic-in-america-part.html">Being a Faithful Catholic in America</a></div><div> - The conclusion to a long series entitled <a href="http://giftofself.blogspot.com/2008/01/being-faithful-catholic-in-america-part.html">"Christ our Hope in the Face of Violence and our Witness to Nonviolent Love."</a></div><div>- Our baby <a href="http://giftofself.blogspot.com/2009/01/blessing-blessing-from-lord-or-unto-us.html">boy</a></div><div><br /></div><div>Enjoy and let us know you stopped by.</div><div><br /></div><div> Peace. </div><div><br /></div><div>For more Faith-Filled Posts please go to the <a href="http://rannthisthat.blogspot.com/2009/06/sunday-snippets-catholic-carnival_20.html">Sunday Catholic Carnival over at This and That.</a></div>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-15822367923838274942009-06-15T12:43:00.004-05:002009-06-15T15:37:25.529-05:00On Hobbies and Pursuing Holiness<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">“Faith comes from what is heard”, says </span><st1:city><st1:place><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">St. Paul</span></st1:place></st1:city><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> (Rom </span><st1:time minute="17" hour="10"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">10:17</span></st1:time><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">)…The assertion “faith comes from what is heard” contains an abiding structural truth about what happens here. It illuminates the fundamental differences between faith and mere philosophy, a difference which does not prevent faith, in its core, from setting the philosophical search for truth in motion again…</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">“In faith the word takes precedence of the thought, a precedence that differentiates it structurally from the architecture of philosophy. In philosophy the thought precedes the word; it is after all a product of reflection that one then tries to put into words…Faith, on the other hand, comes to man from the outside, and this very fact is fundamental to it.” (Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 90-92)</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"> St. Anselm defined theology as “faith seeking understanding,” however, it ceases to be so when one ceases to listen, to receive that <i>word </i>which is the foundation of faith. This essentially turns theology into some sort of philosophy of religion. It makes it dead and private, rather than living and communal.</span></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">A danger which I have had to face as a student of theology is the temptation to turn theology into mere thought. Sometimes I find myself thinking about some theological precept, abstracting, attempting to figure it all out, and doing so without turning to prayer, without listening to the <i>Logos</i>. Sometimes I find myself abstracting about how to love in relationship rather than asking for the grace to love.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In this regard, as my wife and I are preparing for significant changes in our lives, we are attempting to re-evaluate some of our habits, choices, hobbies, leisure activities, etc. The questions we are posing to ourselves I now pose to you our readers, all four of you: </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">If every person is called to be a saint, to strive for holiness, and if I claim to place my faith in Christ as my savior, as the second-person of the Triune God who became man so that I may be divinized, what leisure activities are…permissible, nay, prudent, for a person striving to grow in holiness? </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Perhaps specific examples would be helpful: Are video games merely a waste time? What virtue do they cultivate? </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">In this past I rationalized that when I played video games I was socializing with and occasionally even evangelizing those with whom I was in competition, but I can no longer make that claim. Can I still justify spending time on video games when I could be praying, playing with my son, studying, etc.? </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">What about television? Certainly some shows have more merit than others, but generally speaking can one make the claim that TV is a neutral media? </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">As someone who is more educated than most of my family (I do not say this with pride, it’s a mere fact), who is more interested in theology, and who, at the very least, at to appear to be living a life consistent with Catholic social doctrine and morality, I sometimes find it difficult to engage in small talk or other social activities that many of my loved ones engage in. I obviously have little to no interest in beer-pong or going to hooters, activities which in my opinion seem contrary to growth in holiness. However there may be more neutral activities in which I could have an interest in order to aid small talk which could hopefully turn to more meaningful conversations. Therefore, I have reasoned that television shows can offer some common ground about which to converse without my feeling uncomfortable or the other party feeling bored. On the other hand, now that we have a child, to what extent are we willing to expose him to television? How much should we shelter him? If we abstain from television are we not more likely to spend our time cultivating virtue and teaching our child to cultivate virtue? Or, if we are the virtue-cultivating type, we would do so regardless of whether or not we watch television?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">What about sporting events as entertainment? Intramurals as hobbies or exercise routines?Etc. Etc.?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">What hobbies or leisure activities do you find assist you in your slow journey to holiness? What hobbies have you resisted because you find they hinder your sainthood?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-57975757584018303192009-05-21T13:40:00.004-05:002009-05-21T14:11:46.771-05:00Final Thoughts: Notre Dame vs. Bishop D'Arcy and the USCCB<p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;">Over the past couple of months, I have frequently flipped and flopped over the Obama-Notre Dame issue. At first glance, I saw no problem with him speaking at the commencement exercises of a Catholic institution, but as a man, a politician, whose policies on abortion fly directly in the face of Catholic teaching, he should not be honored by a Catholic institution.<br /><br />Ultimately the difficulty in discerning my position on the issue boiled down to a tension: on the one hand I do not think Catholic institutions should honor in this way those who persist in promoting views and policies which are contrary to the Gospel. I believe bestowing an award on someone is a very different kind of honor than visiting their house (as Jesus visited tax collectors and the like). On the other hand, most of the "pro-life" response by Catholics has been well...unCatholic, and even when it has been reasoned, measured, and authentic - in the case of many of the bishops, it has been inconsistent. This inconsistency did not sit well with me. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"></span></span> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;">It was not until I read an </span><a title="article" href="http://centerforchristiannonviolence.org/resources/resources.php#DeadRight_DeadWrong"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:#800080;">article</span></a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"> by Fr. Emmanuel McCarthy that I was able to lucidly think through the problem. McCarthy's style of writing is always is bit more biting than I am comfortable with. In this article I believe his primary point is spot on, however at times I think he states it more harshly than is necessary, and several of his example are stretched outside of their proper context in order to make his point. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;"></span></span> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;">Nevertheless his point is correct. McCarthy is not concerned overly with Obama; he is concerned with the intra-Church squabble over the issue. McCarthy argues that Bishop D'Arcy and the other bishops are absolutely correct. A Catholic institution should not give this kind of honor to Mr. Obama. However, the reason their voice lacks authority for many Catholics, the reason that many Catholics are dismayed by the protests, rests in their inconsistency. </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-size:100%;"></span></span></span></p><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><br /><blockquote id="g7if"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">The beef with John D’Arcy is not with him as a person—he is a most decent human being— but with his permitting himself to become a symbol, a mouthpiece, and a puppet for the USCCB’s illogical, immoral, long-running, and blatant rigorism-laxism dance on behalf of the powerful and wealthy. Note the historical fantasy, and the spiritual, moral, theological, and factual absurdity, which Bishop D’Arcy employs to validate his present decision and to exculpate himself and his U.S. episcopal colleagues, past and present, for their support of 2 legalized mega-murder extra-utero: “[President Obama] has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.”</span></blockquote></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;">The bishops are absolutely correct in stating that an institution which is supposed to be guided by and reflecting Christ should not give honor of this sort to a man who supports the killing of innocent life <i>in-utero</i>. However, their voice lacks the authority it should carry because the bishops have given their support to other men whose policies support and put into action the killing of innocent life, that is murder, <i>extra-utero</i><span style="font-family:Arial;font-size:85%;">. </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><br /><blockquote id="ygis"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">That is the beef. If the Bishop and his episcopal peers had consistently stood up for what Jesus taught by word and deed about violence, and for what he and they were explicitly commissioned by Jesus to teach as successors to the Apostles ( Teach them to obey all that I have commanded you. Mt 28:20) about violence, and had acted publicly and consistently from day one of their episcopacies in accordance with this stand, no one could have the slightest criticism of Bishop D’Arcy’s course of action in response to President Obama being honored at Notre Dame...Instead, they have chosen to stand by something called “Natural Law Catholic Just Violence Theory"... This is why what is happening now is happening. Bishop John D’Arcy, the NCCB, and Notre Dame have all refused to stand with Jesus and His teaching of Nonviolent Love of friends and all enemies, in utero and extra-utero. Therefore each will “stand for” what Jesus would self-evidently never stand for from His Apostles and disciples. Simultaneously, the Bishop, the USCCB, and Notre Dame have each played the ostrich in relation to reality and rationality in their respective applications of this so-designated Catholic Just War Theory and Catholic Moral Theory. The present spiritually dis-graceful, anti-witness, antievangelical situation they all inhabit is the direct consequence of not following Jesus as He said to follow Him. </span></blockquote></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;"></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">For McCarthy, the problem can be traced back to Constantine. Once the Church had worldly power, it was all too easy for members of the Church to reject portions of Jesus’ teaching and put their trust in violent power rather than in nonviolent love. Some members of the Church have recognized the evil of certain actions, like abortion, but have been unable to separate themselves from other evils like capital punishment and unjust killing, that is murder, in wars.<br /></span></span></p><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">As Fr. McCarthy explains: </span></span></p><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><br /><blockquote id="to60"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">In Catholic theology there is no moral doubt that intentional abortion is murder…However, in Catholic theology there is equally no moral doubt that the unjust killing of the child in utero is no more, nor less, murder than is the unjust killing of a child or any human being extra-utero. All are the intrinsically grave evil of murder. The intentional, unjust killing of a human being in the womb in Baltimore, MD, is no more, nor less, murder than the intentional unjust killing of a human being, outside or inside the womb, in Iraq, or El Salvador, or Honduras, or Guatemala, or Nicaragua, or Panama, or Afghanistan, or Grenada, or Vietnam, or Nagasaki.[1] </span></blockquote></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">In this regard, McCarthy quotes Pope John Paul II: </span></p><span style="font-family:TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT;"><br /><blockquote id="dw2n"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">Better still, perhaps, a direct quotation from John Paul II is most appropriate here:<i> Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act , either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action…We now need more than ever to have the courage to look truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophets is extremely straightforward: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”</i></span></blockquote></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:85%;">America, indeed the entire world, desperately needs Jesus right now. We desperately need prophetic voices, without compromising or denigrating, to speak the Truth in Love with authority and consistency. We need Christian witness with integrity.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:85%;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:85%;"></span> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:85%;">I am glad the bishops have found a voice. I am glad they are speaking out against the evil of abortion, but if they wish to be taken seriously, if their words are to be efficacious, they must embrace a consistent ethic of life and denounce as unCatholic and unChristian all forms of violence. If Obama cannot be honored in this way, then neither should Bush or Cheney. The center must be Christ, which means remaining absolutely and unequivocally in the Truth, but doing so lovingly and patiently. While we ought not honor men and women whose policies and actions directly oppose truth and goodness, we must recognize that they remain sons and daughters of God. We must love them. Dialogue with them. Pray for them. Work with them where we agree and challenge them when they err. Only when the voice of the Church, episcopal, priestly and lay, speaks Truth in Love with consistency and integrity to the Gospel will that voice speak eloquently, prophetically, and convincingly.<br clear="all"></span><br /></p><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><a title="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=5797575758401830319#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-size:85%;color:#800080;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:85%;"> I do not wish here to dispute whether there is a difference in the gravity of voting for someone who supports abortion versus someone who supports unjust war. Both are murder. Both are evil. Neither should be supported or given honors by the Church. </span></p></div><br /><br /><p><br /></p>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-1195545831975825912009-05-19T16:26:00.002-05:002009-05-19T16:40:35.517-05:00Metaphysics of Peace/NonviolenceAs many of you know, philosophy plays an incalculable role in directing the perspectives and worldviews of society. Several hundred years ago St. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus developed two contradictory metaphysical outlooks on the relationship between God and the world. The prevalence of the Scotist worldview has led in part to many of the problems we face today in the Western world.<br /><p class="MsoNormal">Duns Scotus proposed a univocal conception of being, existence. Accordingly he, and later on William of Occam, a fellow Franciscan, saw God and his infinite existence standing alongside all other beings which exists in finitude as different types, instances, of a broad, common category. Thus, God is merely the greatest of all beings. He is the Supreme Being. But, there is no necessary and ontological connection, relation between God and finite beings. </p>St. Thomas Aquinas, on the other, proposed a participation metaphysics. He saw God as the ipsum esse <i>subsistens,</i>the sheer act of to-be itself. God <i>is</i> Being; God <i>is</i> Existence. This parallels well the name by which God identifies Himself when speaking to Moses through the burning bush: I AM WHO AM; I am He who is, who always has been, who always will be; I am.<br /><br />This perception of God as <i>esse</i>, being, has at several important implications. First, rather than defining God as one being (albeit the supreme one) among many, Aquinas’ view sees God as the ground of all finite existence. Thus God must be “in all things, by essence, presence, and power.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=119554583197582591#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""></a><br /><p class="MsoNormal">This understanding moves us to our second important implication: “the connectedness of all created realities through God.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=119554583197582591#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:100%;">[2] </span></span></span></a>Thus God is both radically different from all other beings, ecause He <i>is </i>existence Himself while other receive their existence from in, and intrinsically connected with all finite beings because they share in a limited way in His existence. “As fellow participants in God’s act of to-be, all things are related to one another in the most intimate way possible, for they are all ontological siblings.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=119554583197582591#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:100%;">[3]<br /></span></span></span></a></p>Additionally, this has powerful implications for our we view the act of creation. “If God is <span style="font-style: italic;">ipsum</span> <i>esse subsistens</i>, then whatever else comes to existence must be created ex nihilo, literally from nothing.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=119554583197582591#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:100%;">[4] </span></span></span></a> The mythic creation stories of pagan religions all saw creation coming about through act of violence among the gods. However, if God is the sheer act of to-be, if God is existence, then from the “beginning” there is nothing else, no matter, no stuff, no other beings which exist with Him. He must create all other beings from nothing,and they can only exist by participation in His existence.<br /><blockquote><br />“This implies that the act of creation is thoroughly noninvasive, nonmanipulative. God’s creative act is one of utter generosity (since he needs nothing outside himself) and utterly nonviolent (since he shapes nothing outside of himself)…The implication of the Christian doctrine of <i>creation ex nihilo </i> is that nonviolence is the deepest truth of things, noncompetitiveness is the ground of being. And thus to live nonviolently is not simply to be ethically upright; it is to be cosmically correct,to go with the grain of creation.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=119554583197582591#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:100%;">[5]</span></span></span></a></blockquote>If I can recognize in our hearts and minds the correctness and truth of this vision of creation, that all created things are most intimately connected by sharing deeply, ontologically, and virginally, in the <i>esse, </i>the to-be, of God, then any antagonism, competition, violence, between me and other nor between me and nature reduces to a nonsensical destruction of that by which I exist.<br /><br />The being of God, as existence itself, logically requires the doctrine of <span style="font-style: italic;">creatio ex nihilo</span> and points toward the connectedness and relatedness of all finite beings as variegated instances of participation in the infinite being of God. Both <span style="font-style: italic;">creatio ex nihilo, </span>as an utterly gratuitous and nonviolent act, and our inner-relatedness to all beings require that our lives bear evangelical witness to the Truth of God with daily lived attitudes of nonviolence, peace, brotherhood, and mutual concern for the other.<span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><br /></span>Consumerism, Abortion, Torture, Capital Punishment, War, etc. all deny our interrelatedness and reflect lives lived within the current of ways of men, but against the grain of creation and of the ways of God. <span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span><p class="MsoNormal">Part 2 to follow: Where our society is in direct contradiction, philosophy and metaphysically to God as <i>ipsum esse substens, </i>to <i>creation ex nihilo, </i>and to the nonviolence and peace with is the ground of our very existence.</p><div><hr size="1" align="left"><div id="ftn1"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=119554583197582591#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""></a> </p></div><div id="ftn2"><p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=119554583197582591#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:85%;">[2]</span></span></span></a> Robert Barron, Bridging the Great Divide, 201.</p><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=119554583197582591#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:85%;">[3]</span></span></span></a> <i>Ibid.</i><br /></div><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=119554583197582591#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:85%;">[4]</span></span></span></a> <i>Ibid.</i><br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=119554583197582591#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size:85%;">[5]</span></span></span></a> <i>Ibid., 202.</i></div>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-39811376656719792272009-05-06T13:10:00.002-05:002009-05-06T13:14:19.806-05:00Cool Quotes 4<h3>Fr. Barron on the category- destroying vibrancy of Catholicism,Faith, lived with integrity,grounded in the Logos</h3><br /><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">In study after study, article after article, one finds the puzzled commentator scratching his head over the ‘contradiction’ of Dorothy Day, this woman who prayed in front of the Blessed Sacrament, attended daily Mass, took frequent retreats, spoke in pious language and accepted the traditional dogmas of the Church, <i>and who, at the same time,</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> lived with the poor, opposed any and every way, sharply criticized the economic and political status quo, and advocated a ‘radical Catholicism.’ How could she have been, simultaneously, so conservative and so liberal? What this questions reveals, of course, is simply the gross inadequacy of those categories in the presence of a saint…She was a person who had made Jesus Christ in all of his concreteness the center of her life. Her ‘conservative’ piety is expressive of this continual act of centering, her ‘liberal’ social commitment is her living out the unambiguous message and style of Jesus… <br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Anchored in Christ and filled with a sense of mission, we can take what we need from any source and get up in any pulpit available to us…let us embrace the spicy,troublesome, fascinating, and culture-transforming person of Jesus Christ. And then let <i>the Church of Christ</i></span><span style="font-size:85%;"> thereby shape the world.</span><br /></blockquote>- <i>Bridging the Great Divide</i>, 20-21.<br /><br />What say you, what say we, "Catholics" who trust in the power of money to save us, who trust in the power of arms to deliver us, who trust in the goodness of men to free us, who deny the dignity of the poor, the immigrant, the prisoner, the enemy, the other? What say we?JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-13349462149699526162009-05-03T08:47:00.001-05:002009-05-03T08:47:57.050-05:00Cool Quotes 3<h3>Barron/Ratzinger on the subversive nature of the Christian Credo - I/We Believe</h3><br>Barron writes: <br><br><blockquote>"The opening statement of the credo -- I believe in one God, the Father the Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth-- is a reaffirmation of the Old Testament Shema ('Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is God alone'), a declaration that formed the people of Israel and provided the ethical foundation for their lives. Joseph Ratzinger has commented that this proclamation of monotheistic faith is subversive in nature, since it implies that no nation, state, political party, leader, ideology, or culture, indeed nothing in the created realm, can be of ultimate concern. The Credo therefore, like the Shema, relativizes and places in question all rival gods, all powers that would week, in a final sense, to order human life."<br></blockquote> - Fr. Robert Barron, <i>Bridging the Great Divine</i>, 44-45, citing Ratzinger, <i>Intro to Christianity</i>, 73-76.<br><br>Ratzinger writes: <br><br><blockquote>"For to believe as a Christian means in fact entrusting oneself to the meaning that upholds me and the world; taking it as the firm ground on which I can stand fearlessly....[It] means understanding our existence as a response to the world, the logos, that upholds and maintains all things...And further: Christian belief means opting for the view that what cannot be seen is more real than what can be seen. It is an avowal of the primacy of the invisible as the truly real, which upholds us and hence enables us to face the visible with calm composure -- knowing that we are responsible before the invisible as the true ground of all things. To that extent it is undeniable that Christianity belief is a double affront to the attitude that the present world situation seems to force us to adopt. ...[It] invites us to confine ourselves to the 'visible,' the 'apparent,' in the widest sense of the terms; to extend the basic methodology to which natural science is indebted for its success to the totality of our relationship with reality...The primacy of the invisible over the visible...runs directly counter to this basic situation. No doubt that is why it is so difficult for us today to make the leap of entrusting ourselves to what cannot be seen."<br></blockquote><i>- Introduction to Christianity</i>, 73-75.<br><br>Yet how many of us are more American than we are Christian? How many of us are more Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, than we are Catholic? How many us listen to , reflect upon, and live out the Gospel truth, recognizing the suffering Christ in the suffering poor, in the war torn villages of our enemies, in the undocumented immigrants, in the prisoner, the homeless, the unborn? <br><br>What is the ground of our lives? <br><br>P.S. The next quote will examine what our lives might look like if we actually abandoned ourselves in the invisible, if we totally entrusted ourselves to the logos as the ultimate ground of reality. <br><br><br>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-27351229057894223752009-04-27T17:28:00.009-05:002009-04-27T18:31:30.078-05:00Speeches and Honors at Catholic Universities<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">[ Note: I apologize in advance for the length of this, but there is much to say. I hope the length will not discourage you from stating your thoughts]</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">In 2004, the USCCB released a document entitled </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" title="Catholics in Political Life" href="http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholicsinpoliticallife.shtml" id="quy3">Catholics in Political Life</a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> , in which they taught "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should </span><b style="font-family: verdana;">not honor</b><span style="font-family:verdana;"> those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">When Notre Dame announced the President Obama would be their commencement speaker this year and would receive an honorary law degree, my reaction was similar to </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" title="Policratus" href="http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/08/once-more-on-notre-dame/" id="x0mr">Policratus</a><span style="font-family:verdana;">'. I stated that I believe dialogue is important. We must not demonize or alienate ourselves from our interlocutors, especially those in positions of power and those who want the same results as we do - in this case, a reduction in abortions - simply because their means of achieving said reduction differs, albeit drastically and egregiously, from our means. However, I stated that I thought that Notre Dame was going too far in honoring Obama. I could not recall Jesus honoring "sinners." At the time I did not have the bishops' statement quoted above in mind. However, it now seems an accurate reflection of my intuitions.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Upon expressing my thoughts to a few wise and trusted Catholic friends, I was advised that Jesus certainly honored sinners. He honored Zaccheus the tax collector with His presence. The whole Jewish/Middle Eastern culture was based upon "honor." Pilch apparently exemplifies this well. I was told that Jesus does honor the Pharisees for what they teach, but not how they act. Can we not honor Obama's achievements while challenging his problematic views? If we wish to change the culture we must dialogue with the culture. We must be in the world but not of it. We must hate the sin and love the sinner. We cannot simply blackball all pro-choice politicians from Catholic institutions. This is what I was told. I saw much truth in it. But I was not comfortable, not at peace with it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Since then my own Archbishop Hughes has </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" title="weighed" href="http://www.arch-no.org/News.php?mode=read&id=436&title=Archbishop+Hughes+speaks+out+to+defend+life" id="r3cn">weighed</a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> in on the Obama-ND situation. He writes:</span><br /><br /></span><blockquote style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-size:85%;">We cannot compromise our Church's clear and unflagging opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research by providing honors and a platform for those who deny the humanity and dignity of the most frail creature in our midst.... I respect the President of the United States. I pray for him. As Catholics we need to enter into civil debate with him on the fundamental issues on which we disagree. We work with him on those issues with which we agree. But we do not supply a platform or grant an honor to someone who not only is so wrong on such a fundamental issue but is aggressively pursuing policies which exclude the human rights of the unborn.</span><br /><img src="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=2735122905789422375" alt="" /><br /></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><img style="font-family: verdana;" src="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=19556797&postID=2735122905789422375" alt="" /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Shortly thereafter Xavier University's plans to honor </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" title="Donna Brazile" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Brazile" id="xuzy">Donna Brazile</a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> at their commencement became public. She is the first African American to have directed a presidential campaign, is Catholic, and has done much for the rights and respect of African Americans. She is also pro-choice and has stated as much publicly. Hughes chose to write to the president of XULA as well as to boycott their commencement, which he usually attends. To Dr. Francis, President of XULA, Hughes </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" title="writes" href="http://www.arch-no.org/News.php?mode=read&id=448&title=Archbishop+Hughes+not+to+participate+in+Xavier+commencement" id="zyme">writes</a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> :</span><br /></span><blockquote style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> <span style="font-size:85%;">I recognize that Ms. Brazile is a Catholic Louisiana native who has worked effectively in service to the poor and African Americans in particular. However, her public statements on the abortion issue are not in keeping with Catholic moral teaching. She has supported President Obama’s decision to reverse the Mexico City policy allowing federal funds to organizations that provide abortions overseas by saying that this policy will “save lives.” She has also relativized the importance of the fundamental life issues on national television suggesting that there are more important things for the American people to discuss than abortion. She has supported and worked for the election of candidates who support contraceptive practices and abortion on the basis that this stance is pro-woman.<br /></span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Additionally Hughes released the following statement entitled </span><i style="font-family: verdana;"><a title="Recognition of Public Figures by Catholic Institutions" href="http://www.arch-no.org/News.php?mode=read&id=451&title=A+statement+from+Archbishop+Alfred+Hughes" id="ihux">Recognition of Public Figures by Catholic Institutions</a> , </i><span style="font-family:verdana;">apparently in response to ...shall we say "social-justice" Catholics. In it he explains:</span><br /></span><blockquote style="font-family:verdana;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:85%;" class="bodytext" >We recognize that abortion and embryonic stem cell research are not the only “life issues” of concern for the Catholic Church. Some point out that capital<br />punishment is also rejected by the Catholic Church and suggest that a proponent of it should be denied similar recognition.<br />It is important to distinguish an absolute moral principle from one that is subject to different applications according to varying conditions or circumstances. Direct abortion is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances. Capital punishment is accepted in the Church as one way in which innocent life can be protected. Over the years, as viable alternatives such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, have become more possible, the need for recourse to this has become<br />less necessary. This is what has led the Pope and Bishops to recommend that as a society we move away from it. It is not in itself wrong, if the crime is heinous, people are threatened and there is no alternative available. </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;"> Meanwhile</span><i style="font-family: verdana;">, </i><span style="font-family:verdana;">Fr. Louis Arceneaux, c.m. of Pax Christi has written a letter to Archbishop Hughes for apparent inconsistencies. I cannot find a link to the letter, which was emailed to me, therefore I shall post it in its entirety. It is not too long.</span></span><blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;"></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Dear Archbishop Hughes:<br />I am writing you regarding your decisions and public declarations regarding President Obama and Donna Brazile, receiving honorary degrees at Catholic universities. Let me be clear. I am as opposed to abortion as you are. I long for the day when few, if any, women and men choose to have abortions. Where you and I disagree is our approach to getting there.<br />For example, I do not think that your publicly stating that you will not attend Xavier’s graduation because someone who is being given an honorary degree and will speak at the graduation is pro-choice is going to help the cause of reducing and eliminating abortion. In my opinion, all you are doing is giving people who agree with your approach a reason to boast. You are also antagonizing many other people who might be open to dialogueabout ways to reduce abortions in the country. Did you read what Sarah Comiskey gave as an explanation for the reason President Obama was allowed to attend and speak at the Al Smith dinner in New York? She is quoted as saying “They are recognized as candidates, but not honored.” Do you not agree that this is yet another example of a distinction without </span><span style="font-size:85%;">a difference, so often used as an explanation, that most people will not find helpful?<br />I think that there are ways that you and other American bishops would better promote your goals. Why could you not have spoken positively about all the good that President Obama has done already and all the Catholic social values he shares with us and urge him to speak out more often on his specific proposals to reduce the number of abortions in the country since we are opposed to any abortions. You could have taken the same approach with Donna Brazile. I think that kind of approach will be more helpful in reducing the number of abortions than blanket statements against universities and politicians. There can be and ought to be a different way to deal with this issue in the political arena than the way we deal with it in Catholic schools and churches.<br />I also think you and other Catholic bishops would get a more positive response and greater respect if you spoke out more consistently for the human life and dignity of all persons. These distinctions that are made about “just wars” and the permissibility of the death penalty do not help the full pro-life cause of our Church. When I speak of pro-life in retreats and parish missions, I make it clear that we need to be for the life and dignity of every human being from conception to death. I have been criticized by a minority for that stand, and yet I truly believe it is the position we ought to take as true followers of Jesus Christ, despite the distinctions that Catholic theology has made over the years. Wouldn’t you agree that Jesus Christ would not support war the way it is waged today, not with bows and arrows, but with bombs that destroy innocent men, women and children. Don’t you also think that He would not support the death</span> <span style="font-size:85%;">penalty when we can incarcerate criminals for life, without parole, if they are found guilty of heinous crimes? And yet, so many so-called “pro-life” Catholics and evangelicals hold that Jesus Christ would support modern warfare and the death penalty, including the governor of Louisiana, whom you will honor by your presence at the Loyola University graduation.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">My point is that the narrow “pro-life” focus on the unborn is probably detrimental to the very cause of reducing and eliminating abortions and that we are not doing a very good job of helping Catholics to be truly pro-life from conception to the grave.<br />As we used to say in the seminary, those are my thoughts on the subject. I would be happy to have a fuller discussion with you on these thoughts.<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Sincerely yours in St. Vincent DePaul,<br /></span><span style="font-size:85%;">Louis Arceneaux, c.m.</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">So, locally, Archbishop Hughes is boycotting Xavier's graduation because the university is inviting and honoring a Catholic who wholeheartedly supports and advocates for the Democratic Party Platform on abortion and ESCR, which are contrary to Catholic teachings. On the other hand, he is apparently not boycotting Loyola's graduation, although it is inviting and honoring Bobby Jindal, a Catholic and the Governor of Louisiana who has advocated for and signed legislation enacting the death penalty or chemical castration for child rapists. The Archbishop has, rightly I think, exhibited the difference between abortion/ESCR and captial punishment. However, in my understanding, there is no acceptable prudential reason which Jindal can cite in defense of his stance. That abortion and ESCR are intrinsically evil tells us that they can never be justified. Similarly, capital punishment cannot be justified in our circumstances, even if it is not intrinsically evil. Therefore, it is not clear to me why Archbishop Hughes must boycott Brazile but not Jindal. Certainly more are killed through abortion and ESCR than capital punishment, but if we are to propose a consistent ethic of life to this culture of death, can we afford to compromise?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">The issue has been further complicated by </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" title="Mary Ann Glendon" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon" id="o6-4">Mary Ann Glendon</a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> , who is currently the first female President of the Roman Catholic Church's official Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, and is has been nominated for Notre Dame's prestigious Laetare Medal. Despite being counseled by some of the US bishops, including Notre Dame's own Bishop D'Arcy who has not at all approved of Obama's invitation, to accept the award and attend the graduation, she has </span><a style="font-family: verdana;" title="decided" href="http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/27/mary-ann-glendon-refuses-notre-dame-award/" id="wxua">decided</a><span style="font-family:verdana;"> to reject the award and abstain from attending. This seems to be a complex and divisive issue as is evidenced by reading the comments on the previously linked post. </span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">Several questions arise from all this, which I think are preliminary to any sound judgment on the matters as hand. I ask for your insight and discussion on these preliminary questions.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">1. What is the role of Catholic universities in dialoging with and forming the culture?</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">2. How can we properly bear witness to a culture of life, which presupposes a consistent ethic of life, without being consistent?</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">3. What is the role of scandal in this? Would American Catholics be scandalized by Obama's presence at ND? By the Bishops' presence at the commencement? By Hughes' presence at Xavier? Should Catholics be more </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">scandalized </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:verdana;">than are likely to be by Jindal's presence at Loyola? Why was Obama's presence and honor at <a href="http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/archbishop_hughes_to_boycott_x.html">Xavier </a>in 2007 not worthy of Hughes' boycott? Did he slip under the radar? Was Senator Obama somehow less important then than Brazile is now?</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;">4. How are we to dialogue with the culture while being in the world, without compromising ourselves or our own institutions, without being of the world? On the personal level this is difficult enough; how can we do it on the institutional level when so many of our Catholic institutions are becoming more and more secular and less Catholic?</span><br /><span style="font-family:verdana;"><br /></span></span>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-36479081292419732392009-04-24T21:15:00.002-05:002009-04-24T22:44:01.671-05:00Fr. Benedict Ashley on Science and the FallI just returned from a talk given by Fr. Benedict Ashley, OP. It focused on science as an avenue leading us to a greater knowledge and understanding of God and the Trinity. The talk was pretty good, interesting if nothing else. However, I wish to focus on a brief comment he made in a Q&A session following the lecture.<br /><br />He was asked to discuss the physical (as opposed to moral) evil of death and the like as it relates to the fall, and how that entrance of suffering into human life at the fall can be reconciled with evolution. Fr. Ashley explained that science now shows us that human life began in eastern Africa, in a garden-like place. He posited that had we not fallen, perhaps the intimacy of our relation to God would have enabled us to develop technology at an incredibly accelerated pace, sparing us from physical evils such as toil, painful childbirth, possibly even death (?), by cultivating the surrounding desert with technology for our use.<br /><br />Thus he stated: <i>science can help us overcome some of the effects of the fall.</i><br /><br />I ask you, faithful readership (all 4 of you), could science have made the advances it has without the Incarnation? We know the important role Christian thinkers have had in the development of philosophy, anthropology, psychology, etc. Is it possible that only redeemed man, participating in He who is Truth, could have brought together all the various truths of the ancient world to develop the worldview(s) which have enabled us to build up to the modern depth and breadth of scientific thought ?JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-84648776247757196842009-04-23T15:15:00.001-05:002009-04-23T15:15:14.126-05:00Cool Quotes 2<h3>Ratzinger on Holy Saturday and the apparent death of God in modernity</h3><br><blockquote>On Good Friday our gaze remains fixed on the "death of God," the day that expresses the unparalleled experience of our age, anticipating the fact that God no longer is simply absent, that the grave hides him, that he no longer awakes, no longer speaks, so that one no longer needs to gainsay him but can simply overlook him. "God is dead and we have killed him." This saying of Nietzsche's belongs linguistically to the tradition of Christian Passiontide piety; it expresses the content of Holy Saturday, "descended into hell."<br><br>This article of the Creed always reminds me of two scenes in the Bible. The first is that cruel story of the Old Testament in which Elijah challenges the priests of Baal to implore their God to give them fire for their sacrifice. They do so, and naturally nothing happens. He ridicules them, just as the 'enlightened rationalist' ridicules the pious person in response to his prayers. Elijah calls out to the priests that perhaps they had not prayed loud enough: 'Cry aloud, for he [Baal] is good, either he is musing, or has gone aside, or he is one journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened' (1 Kings 18:27). When one reads today this mockery of the devotees of Baal, one can begin to feel uncomfortable; one can get the feeling that <i>we</i> have now arrived in that situation and that the mockery must now fall on us. No calling seems to be able to awaken God. The rationalist seems entitled to say to us 'Pray louder, perhaps your God will them wake up.' 'Descended to hell'; how true this is of our time, the descent of God into muteness, into the dark silence of the absent.<br><br>But alongside the story of Elijah and its New Testament analogue, the story of the Lord sleeping in the midst of the storm on the lake (Mk 4:35-41), we must put the Emmaus story (Lk 24:13-35). The disturbed disciples are talking of the death of their hope. To them, something like that death of God has happened: the point at which God finally seemed to have spoken has disappeared. The One sent by God is dead, and so there is a complete void. Nothing replies anymore. But while they are speaking of the death of their hope and can no longer see God, they do not notice that this very hope stands alive in their midst; that 'God', or rather the image they had formed of his promise, had to die so that he could live on a larger scale. The image they had formed of God, and into which they sought to compress him, had to be destroyed, so that over the ruins of the demolished house, as it were, they could see the sky again and him who remains infinitely greater...<br><br>Thus the article about the Lord's descent into hell reminds us that not only God's speech but also his silence is part of Christian revelation. God is not only the comprehensible word that comes tous; he is also the silent, inaccessible, uncomprehended, and incomprehensible ground that eludes us. To be sure, in Christianity there is a primacy of the logos, of the word, over silence; God <i>has </i>spoken. God <i>is </i>word. But this does not entitle us to forget the truth of God's abiding concealment. Only when we have experienced him as silence may we hope to hear his speech, too, which proceeds in silence. Christology reaches out beyond the Cross, the moment when love is tangible, into death, the silence and eclipse of God. Can we wonder that the Church and the life of the individual are led again and again into this hour of silence, into the forgotten and almost discarded article, 'Descended into hell'? <br></blockquote><i>Introduction to Christianity</i>, 294-297.<br><br><br>Good stuff!<br>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-23741625517017374712009-04-22T20:37:00.003-05:002009-04-22T22:16:17.821-05:00Cool Quotes 1: Ratzinger/Plato - Good Friday and the Just ManI read a few apropos sections from Ratzinger's <span style="font-style: italic;">Introduction to Christianity</span> to aid my Holy Week reflections. An except from Ratzinger reflecting on Jesus' Crucifixion:<br /><br /><blockquote>The Cross is revelation. It reveals, not any particular thing, but God and man. It reveals who God is and in what way man is. There is a curious presentiment of this situation in Greek philosophy: Plato's image of the crucified 'just man.' In the <span style="font-style: italic;">Republic </span>the great philosopher asks what is likely to be the position of a completely just man in this world. He comes to the conclusion that a man's righteousness is only complete and guaranteed when he takes on the appearance of unrighteousness, for only then is it clear that he does not follow the opinion of men but pursues justice only for its own sake. So according to Plato the truly just man must be misunderstood and persecuted in this world; indeed Plato goes so far as to write: "They will say that our just man will be scourged, racked, fettered, will have his eyes burned out, and at last, after all hte manner of suffering, will be crucified." This passage, writting four hundred years before Christ, is always bound to move a Christian deeply.<br /> - pg 292, quoting Republic book 2, 361e - 362a.<br /></blockquote>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-28506237043681670182009-02-25T13:44:00.003-06:002009-02-25T17:56:20.705-06:00Lenten ResourcesLast year I wrote a post summarizing the focus of Lent and providing a few links to resources. You can find my summary <a href="http://giftofself.blogspot.com/2008/02/lent.html">here</a>, and I will provide several more links. I pray this helps you use this time as a time of conversion via prayer, fasting, and almsgiving.<br /><br />Pax<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Blog Reflections</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">Fr.<a href="http://salesianity.blogspot.com/2009/02/whats-fasting-got-to-do-with-it.html"> Dwight Longenecker</a> via Fr. Steve Leak<br /><a href="http://godzdogz.op.org/labels/Lent2009.html">Lenten retreat</a> with daily Scriptural reflections by Dominican priests over at Godzdogz<br />Lenten <a href="http://www.cathedlink.com/blog/">Meditations</a><br />Random Lenten <a href="http://www.catholicblogs.com/search/lenten_season_2009">Blog </a>posts<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Prayer</span><br /><br />Daily Audio podcasts of <a href="http://divineoffice.org/">Liturgy of the Hours</a><br />Lenten <a href="http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/Lent/">overview </a>with prayers<br /><a href="http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/cap-mus-sistina/documents/index_inni_en.htm#Lent">Hymns </a>for the Liturgical Year<br /><a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/sacmus/documents/rc_ic_sacmus_sound_en.html">Sacred </a>and Classical Music<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Church Links<br /></span><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><a href="http://www.usccb.org/lent/">United States Conference of Catholic Bishops'</a> resources and links<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">VATICAN/POPE<br /></span>Lent <a href="http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/lent/2009/index_lent2009_en.html">2009</a>, including stations, music, and papal homilies<br />Lent <a href="http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/lent/index-lent2008_en.htm">2008</a><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>Lent <a href="http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/lent/index-lent2007_en.htm">2007</a><br />Lent <a href="http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/lent/index-lent2006-hf_en.htm">2006</a><br />Lent <a href="http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/lent/index-lent2005_en.htm">2005</a>, Pope John Paul II's last Lent<br />Lent <a href="http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/lent/index-lent2004_en.htm">2004</a><br />Lent <a href="http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/lent/index-lent2003_en.htm">2003</a><br />Lent <a href="http://www.vatican.va/liturgy_seasons/lent/index-lent2002_en.htm">2002</a><br />Lent <a href="http://www.vatican.va/liturgy_seasons/lent/index-lent2001_en.htm">2001</a><br /><br />Have a blessed and holy Lent<br /><br />Peace!<br /></span></span></span></span>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-46563592547463983472009-02-20T22:22:00.003-06:002009-02-20T23:22:51.911-06:00From around the web....<span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Excellent Lenten Reflection</span><br /><br />Jennifer at Conversion Diary has posted a <a href="http://www.conversiondiary.com/2009/02/friend-of-emperor.html">reflection</a> on her first reading of Pontius Pilate's role in the Passion of Christ which focuses on our tendency to rationalize sin out of fear of losing favor with the "Emperor," whomever that may be for us in our lives. She writes:<br /><blockquote><br />I knew that the threat of losing favor with the Emperor would be more than a person like Pilate could take. I knew it would be the last straw, the spark to ignite the rationalizing and denial that would clear the way for proceeding with evil. I knew it because, at that moment, I recognized somewhere within myself my own disturbingly strong desire to be "friends with the Emperor." My "Emperor" was something different than Pilate's, of course: his was an actual man who had the power to make all Pilate's wildest dreams of riches and success come true; mine was a symbolic Emperor comprised of all my desires for things like comfort and pleasure and money and control and success and acclaim, an Emperor whose friendship I sought over doing the right thing on at least a daily basis.<br />...<br />And, as I realized only later, Pilate's all-to-familiar actions 2,000 years ago are not as different in severity from mine as I might have liked to tell myself, because they both led directly to Jesus' death on the Cross.</blockquote>It is always helpful and humbling to recognize ourselves so clearly in the sins and motivations of those whom we so often demonize. Pilate recognized Jesus was a good man and did not want to sentence him, but he placed his own well-being and desires above truth and goodness. Am I willing to take up my cross and follow Christ? Am I willing imitate Jesus' sacrifical love of Christ? Or am I merely a good guy with good intentions who tends to flake out when things get tough?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Benedict XVI and Nancy Pelosi</span><br /><br />On Wednesday Pope Benedict met with pro-choice Catholic Nancy Pelosi.<br /><br /><blockquote>His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.<br /></blockquote>H/T to <a href="http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2009/02/speaker-gets-talking-to.html">Rocco Palmo</a><br /><br />This has caused some interesting conversation. Some are citing the lack of photo-op and the Pope's using the meeting for a teachable moment as evidence of his stern condemnation of Pelosi. However there is no real evidence to support such a view. On the hand, some are criticizing the Pope and Pelosi's bishop for failing to discipline her by witholding the Eucharist from her.<br /><br />In light of this there has been an interesting conversation in the <a href="http://vox-nova.com/2009/02/18/pope-benedict-xvi-talks-about-respect-for-life-with-speaker-pelosi/">comments </a>over at Vox-Nova regarding Canon 915 which reads:<br /><strong style="font-weight: normal;"></strong><blockquote><strong style="font-weight: normal;">Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion.<br /></strong></blockquote>Should it be enforced by bishops and the Pope more frequently and forcefully for those Catholic politicians who persist in voting pro-choice? The argument may be summed up thusly:<br /><br />St. Paul tells us that anyone who eats the body of the Lord unworthily eats condemnation upon himself.<br />A loving pastor would not want his sheep to engage in self-condemnation, desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, or scandal to the faithful.<br />Canon 915 tells that those who persist in grave sin should not be permitted to receive the Eucharist.<br />Catholic politicians who public support and vote for pro-choice policies are engaging, in objective, if not subjective, grave sin.<br />Therefore why would the successors of the Apostles choose not discipline Pelosi, Biden, and other pro-choice Catholics accordingly?<br /><br />Do the Pope and Bishops disagree with canon law? Are they ignoring canon 915? Is it not mortally sinful to vote for pro-choice policies? If not, why is canon 915 in the canon law at all? What is the relationship between canon law and its application by the Church's pastors.<br /><br />Others will argue that the Church's understanding of law is unlike that which most Americans have. We tend to view law and that which is to be interpreted literally and enforced in a black and white manner. On the hand, from the ecclesial perspective canon laws are more like guidelines which must and can only be properly interpreted by those ordained with the pastoral responsiblity and charism of doing so for their flocks.<br /><br />What do you think?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Vulnerability<br /><br /></span>Veronica over at Making Gumbo has a great post on Jesus' vulnerability, which reminded me of Balthsar's concept of God's omnipotent powerlessness. The Father all-powerfully empties himself entirely into the Son in kenotic Love. In thanksgiving (eucharist) for the Father's gift of self, the Son wills to give himself to the Father's will. Thus the Son omnipotently becomes powerless in incarnation as an infant, as a criminal on the cross, and as a dead man in the descent. <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><br />Nevertheless, as a new dad my son's vulnerability reminded me of Jesus' vulnerability as an infant, but more than that, in choosing to conceive a child my wife have made a choice of sacrifical love to be powerless to our son. We are slaves to his will. When he is hungry, tired, gassy, or upset for whatever reason, we free and lovingly stop everything we are doing to attend to him. <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><br />Life is beautiful. I pray that my wife and child and our love may teach me to love and Christ loved so that i may be more willing to make myself vulnerable out of love to them and to my neighbor and even to my enemy. God knows I have a long way to go.<br /><br />Peace to all. <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-73036402877116336642009-02-04T23:42:00.002-06:002009-02-04T23:45:50.798-06:00Thesis Thoughts 4: RAHNER’S CHRISTOLOGY/SOTERIOLOGY<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="line-height: 200%;font-family:";font-size:12;" ><span style=""> </span>Before we move on to directly examine what Rahner has to say about salvation for non-Christians, we must consider his Christology and Soteriology more generally speaking. As a Christian, and more specifically as a Jesuit priest, Rahner firmly believes that Jesus is the savior of the world, but, as Ratzinger explains, the problem is for Rahner that of “the dichotomy between the particularity of Christian history and its claim to the whole being man. Can a particular history justly claim to be salvation not just for a particular historical period but for man precisely <i style="">qua</i> man?”<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Marshall identifies two possible approaches for answering this dichotomy. The first approach focuses on the Jesus’ life, passion, death, and resurrection as that which makes him meaningful and significant for salvation generally speaking. In other words it is an appeal to the particularity of Jesus in his historical situation rather than an appeal which demonstrates how Jesus fulfills some general criteria for universal salvific significance, which is precisely what the second approach attempts to exhibit. Proponents of the second approach believe that one must first show that anything can be significant for the salvation of all, and until that is shown to be credible, belief in Jesus as the savior must be in-credible.<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><br /><span style=""> </span>Rahner, following Kant, Schleiermacher and Transcendentalism, chooses the second approach. He believes that before one can reasonably believe in a universal savior one must determine the general criteria necessary for there to be an absolute savior and then must demonstrate that a particular person or entity, in this case Jesus Christ, fulfills the criteria. Rahner writes: “how can he [Jesus], the concrete one, in his historical-concrete reality, which is not at all generally valid, be a norm for me?”<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><br /><span style=""> </span>In addition to his philosophical allegiances, Rahner chooses the second approach because of his understanding of the problem of apologetics. He rightly believes that Christians have a responsibility to preach the gospel, that is, the Good News of Jesus’ salvation, to the world, but recognizes that the modern world, due to modernity and some of the developments of the Enlightenment, finds this message harder to believe than earlier generations did.<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Rahner believed this was because the kinds of things said by Christians, specifically in the tradition of the Neo-scholasticism of his time, are found to be in-credible by modern people; the teachings of the faith were presented in way that modern people had difficulty relating to.<span style=""> </span><br /><span style=""> </span>Kilby explains Rahner’s perspective: for Rahner “what we need is to get away from a propositionalist system of theology so that we can relate Christian doctrines to what we experience in the depths of our being.”<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>Therefore, according to Rahner, the presentation of the doctrines of the Faith must be adapted to the philosophy and perspectives of the day, redolent of the anthropological turn following the Enlightenment.<span style=""> </span>Here, it seems, Pope Benedict XVI would disagree with him. Rahner believes the problem is on the side of the presentation of the information, the content of the faith. However, in <i style="">Spe Salvi</i> Pope Benedict XVI explains that the faith must not be merely informative, but performative;<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> more important than the delivering of the information is the evangelical witness of performing, of living, the faith.<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><br /><span style=""> </span>Regardless of his reasons, Rahner chooses to follow Kant and Schleiermacher in Transcendental approach and Marechal by incorporating the thought of Aquinas in an attempt to solve the apparent paradox between Jesus’ particularity as a 1<sup>st</sup> Century Jew from Nazareth and his supposed significance as the absolute savior. In following the second approach, the Transcendental approach, Rahner will make an anthropological turn; much of his system will thus start with man. Thus, Marshall elucidates Rahner’s goal:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: normal;"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12;" >If the goal of a transcendental Christology is to show how Jesus Christ can be significant <span style=""> </span>for salvation, the method of transcendental Christology is to show that an absolute savior <span style=""> </span>can be significant for salvation, can be that kind of reality. Once this established, it must <span style=""> </span>indicate the way in which absolute savior can be asserted of Jesus, and the goal would <span style=""> </span>then be achieved.<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: 200%;"><span style="line-height: 200%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >As we have discussed above, for Rahner, all people, in their essence, anticipate the unsurpassable self-communication of God,<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> which is made possible by the supernatural existential, but for them to receive this very real self-revelation as communication, it must occur historically and categorically. This requires that the <i style="">a priori</i> transcendental experience of man be mediated historically as human freedom is mediated categorically. Thus, in Rahner’s system, the absolute savior must be a historical individual who freely and unconditionally accepts God’s self-offer, while not only pointing to, but actually <i style="">being</i> God’s self-communication. Thus, Rahner’s system demands a sort of Hypostatic Union in order for there to be an absolute savior, and, because the absolute savior is one of us, he must merely be the prime example of what we are oriented towards. He elucidates, “The incarnation of God is therefore the unique, <i style="">supreme</i>, case of the total actualization of human reality, which consists of the fact that man <i style="">is</i> in so far as he surrenders himself.”<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Therefore, “The concrete human essence (<i style="">wesen</i>) is nothing other than a <i style="">potential obedentialis</i> for hypostatic union,”<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> and accordingly, Rahner can axiomatically claim, “anthropology is defective Christology.”<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style=""> </span>In light of this, Marshall rightly asks how any of us can be satisfied with anything less than hypostatic union is that is what we are ordered towards?<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><br /><i style=""><span style=""> </span></i>Rahner has shown than man has an <i style="">a priori </i>orientation or dynamism toward transcendence. A transcendent openness can only open towards the Absolute Horizon of being. Therefore, the <i style="">telos</i> of the world, or mankind at the least, is in receiving God’s self-communication, in fulfilling this potential for reception of God’s grace.<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Because man is not merely spiritual, but physical as well, this self-communication must take place historically and spatio-temporally. It must be a real event with a permanent beginning.<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[16]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Thus, for Rahner, “we give the title of Savior simply to that historical person who, coming in space and time, signifies that beginning of God’s absolute communication of himself which inaugurates the self-communication for all men as something happening irrevocably and which shows this to be happening.”<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[17]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> It is not necessary that the historical advent of the Savior mark the beginning of God’s self-revelation, but it must be the irrevocable and absolute form and climax of the communication. However, in addition to the historical advent of God’s absolute self-communication in the Savior, in order for the Savior to be the universally significant for all men, he must be “the object of a radical orientation of our whole being, on account of which such a reality is capable of affecting [mankind] as a whole.”<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[18]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><br /><span style=""> </span>Perhaps we should summarize what we have thus far discussed. A being can only be absolute savior if mankind is dynamically oriented toward it. We see in the essence of man the supernatural existential, the preparation for the offer of God’s self-communication as grace, that transcendent openness to the Absolute Horizon. Thus, only God, the Horizon, can be our savior. The savior must be the real pledge of God, must actually be God’s self-communication, and this communication must be historical. In the absolute savior, God be must enter into history, and he must do so as one of us so that we can fully receive this communication.<br /><span style=""> </span>We can now see how Rahner’s system has led to recognition of Jesus as the absolute savior of the world. Jesus is the divine Son of God. He is the eternal Logos, the Word of God, God’s self-communication, enfleshed. In the Hypostatic Union the Word of God has become one of us to fully reveal himself to us. Although he may only contact a portion of us in his historicity and particularity, because we are transcendentally <i style="">a priori</i> oriented to receive this self-communication as grace, all men, even those who have no contact with this “consummation of human reality at the hands of God, towards which all person are oriented in grace”<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[19]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>, can receive this new salvific grace of Christ in their transcendence. He can be significant, efficacious for their salvation as the historical fulfillment of the pledge made by God in the supernatural existential, the openness to receiving him.<br /><span style=""> </span>Marshall attempts to critique Rahner’s transcendental Christology. He is critical not of Rahner’s execution, which he finds to be masterful, but of the problem inherent in applying the transcendental method to Christ. Marshall believes that Rahner’s system forces him to make implications which result in the loss of particularity of Christ, which, Marshall admits, even Rahner says is unacceptable. In this regard, Marshall references Rahner as having said that the Catholic faith is indissolubly bound up with Jesus of Nazareth and that when Jesus becomes only one among several exemplary persons, we are no longer dealing with Christianity.<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[20]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> Nevertheless, Marshall describes Rahner’s definition of what is necessary for something to be an absolute savior, “any reality/person can be significant for salvation only because and in so far as we are oriented toward it by our very nature; only by falling within the scope of this transcendental orientation can any reality affect us as a whole and so be genuinely saving”<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[21]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>, and adds that Jesus cannot possibly fulfill this criterion.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 0.5in; line-height: normal;"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:12;" >We are not and cannot be, oriented in this way toward Jesus Christ; he himself can in no <span style=""> </span>we be derived or deduced from our transcendental orientation and its content. Therefore, <span style=""> </span>Jesus is not and cannot be significant for salvation…Since he, as a particular person, <span style=""> </span>cannot be significant for salvation, he cannot be the absolute savior, according to <span style=""> </span>Rahner’s logic.<a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[22]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;"><span style="line-height: 200%;font-family:";font-size:12;" ><span style=""> </span>Thus, Marshall believes that Rahner’s transcendental method forces into choosing between two alternatives. On the one hand, Marshall argues that Rahner can argue that Jesus fulfills the general criteria he has set forth for being generally significant for salvation, but this requires Rahner to let go of Jesus’ particular as emphasized by the Christian faith because it has nothing to do with significance for salvation. On the other hand, Marshall explains, Rahner can uphold the importance of Jesus’ particularity as the faith does, emphasizing his being a first century Jew who fulfills the specifically Jewish prophecies for the Messiah, his poverty, his miracles, his death, etc. while recognizing that Jesus, in his particularity, does not fulfill the general criteria for being the absolute savior. <a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:12;" >[23]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><br /><span style=""> </span>However, despite Marshall’s sharp intellect, we must conclude that his critique is flawed and incorrect. We could argue, as some critics do, that Rahner’s transcendental method puts Christianity on a slippery slope which may relativize Christ’s unicity, but we cannot say it is incompatible with Christianity. The deficiency in Marshall’s critique appears to be that he forgotten about the Hypostatic Union. Jesus is fully God and fully man. In his divinity he fulfills the general criteria for being significant for salvation. In his humanity we can honor his particular place in human history. Jesus of Nazareth is the divine Logos. He is the son of Mary and the Son of God. He is a man who lived near Jerusalem some 2,000 years ago, and he is the absolute savior of the world. <span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <div style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"> <!--[endif]--> <div style="" id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[1]</span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" >Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, <i>Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology</i> (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 163.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > Marshall, 19.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > Karl Rahner, Schriften zur Theologie, Vol. 15, 234; emphasis added: “wie kann er, der Konkrete, in seiner gar nicht allgemeingültigen, sondern in seiner geschichtlich-konkreten Wirklichkeit für mich eine Norm sein?”<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn4"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > Marshall, 19.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn5"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > Kilby, 263.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn6"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > Note that here Balthasar and Rahner differ as well.<span style=""> </span>“For Balthasar, neo-scholasticism was inadequate because it was dry as dust and reductive, because it fialed to bring out, indeed it positively obscured, the reality and beauty of the thing presented, the object of revelation.” (Kilby, 263). <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn7"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > Benedict XVI, <i style="">Spe Salvi, </i>par. 2. <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn8"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[8]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > Here Benedict is reminiscent of Balthasar and his emphasis on the Cross and martyrdom as witnessing to the faith. <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn9"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[9]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > Marshall, 28.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn10"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[10]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > <i style="">Ibid.</i>, 34.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn11"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[11]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > <i style="">Ibid.</i>, 110; Rahner’s emphases; translation slightly altered.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn12"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[12]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > <i style="">Ibid.</i>, 36<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn13"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[13]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" >Karl Rahner, <i>Theological Investigations Volume I: God, Christ, Mary and Grace</i>, (New York, New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1973), 122.<i style=""><o:p></o:p></i></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn14"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[14]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > Marshall, 36.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn15"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[15]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > McCool, 167.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn16"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[16]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > <i style="">Ibid</i>. <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn17"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[17]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > <i style="">Ibid</i>., 168.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn18"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[18]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > Marshall, 33-34.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn19"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[19]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > <i style="">Ibid.</i>, 34.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn20"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[20]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > <i style="">Ibid.</i>,53.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn21"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[21]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > <i style="">Ibid.</i>, 56.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn22"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[22]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > <i style="">Ibid.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div style="" id="ftn23"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; line-height: normal;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=19556797#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style=";font-family:";" ><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-family:";font-size:10;" >[23]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></span></a><span style=";font-family:";" > <i style="">Ibid.</i>, 57. <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-42211231906564918822009-01-21T17:47:00.003-06:002009-01-21T17:52:53.049-06:00A blessing, a blessing from the Lord! or Unto us a child is born<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlqh7x_9X1GzpB2xqu3MJ8Rnaa_KUNVVxeQe15PXIJYwWEmw_Po9xU2RTb5yvgllZF7rzEKzQAT6fSUaj6mA5n5g3xIUOrocKzq3mw0SFXXu50Rj2My_dGUU4ATzZmu-PnGI2TQA/s1600-h/PIC_0037.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlqh7x_9X1GzpB2xqu3MJ8Rnaa_KUNVVxeQe15PXIJYwWEmw_Po9xU2RTb5yvgllZF7rzEKzQAT6fSUaj6mA5n5g3xIUOrocKzq3mw0SFXXu50Rj2My_dGUU4ATzZmu-PnGI2TQA/s320/PIC_0037.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293899042711992082" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbjkE5wm1p0ar49MEPY8QBEcd-zyl21A-cIVPughzP_shtbRU50r0vMzPdAIrbhVohow8ssbT1XgQKQxLCAewNUfXocIfvfQx96Ow6clLT7RdjLLD9NGq2FAoaMszEJkHXqbeNyg/s1600-h/PIC_0032.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbjkE5wm1p0ar49MEPY8QBEcd-zyl21A-cIVPughzP_shtbRU50r0vMzPdAIrbhVohow8ssbT1XgQKQxLCAewNUfXocIfvfQx96Ow6clLT7RdjLLD9NGq2FAoaMszEJkHXqbeNyg/s320/PIC_0032.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5293899038549223762" border="0" /></a><br />Announcing the birth of JB's and AB's first child, John Paul Joseph.<br /><br />After a completely natural labor he was born via water-birth in a birth center at 4:40 Thursday morn. He weighed 7 lbs was 20 inches long.<br />Mom, Dad, and Baby are all tired, but doing well and celebrating the goodness of God.JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-65592637610025336722009-01-10T22:07:00.004-06:002009-01-12T21:57:17.442-06:00Whose Church?Those of you not from the New Orleans area may not have heard, but there has been some serious drama in the Archdiocese of New Orleans lately.<br /><br />In <a href="http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/after_129_years_holy_cross_pri.html">April </a>of 08, Archbishop Hughes unveiled a plan to close some parishes and consolidate others in order to help the Archdiocese cope with millions of dollars in losses from Hurricance Katrina, fewer parishioners post-Katrina, and an aging and shinking clergy.<br /><br />From the start <a href="http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/uptown_church_members_vow_figh.html">people </a>were not shy about expressing their unhappiness with the changes.<br /><br />After churches which had been scheduled for closure (and consolidation with other parishes) were closed in October, parishioners immediately <a href="http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/04/uptown_church_members_vow_figh.html">moved </a>to occupy the churches in what they called vigils, although media coverage and parishioners interviewed made it seem more like a prolonged protest.<br /><br />More than two months later the churches were still being illegally occupied by former parishioners, who had barred the doors closed and refused to allow representatives of the Archdiocese into the church.<br /><br />As a result, <a href="http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/police_evict_parishioners_from.html">police </a>were eventually sent to the churches to clear out the trespassers. The <a href="http://www.arch-no.org/News.php?mode=read&id=362&title=A+Statement+from+the+Archdiocese+of+New+Orleans">Archdiocese </a>had this to say about the incident (quote lengthy, but I felt obligated to post the whole thing, since no one in the media was) :<br /><p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="bodytext" style="color: rgb(127, 126, 97);"></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="bodytext" style="color: rgb(127, 126, 97);">Around <span> </span>10 am this morning, representatives of the Archdiocese of New Orleans entered the occupied buildings at both the former Our Lady of Good Counsel on Louisiana Ave. and the former St. Henry on General Pershing in Uptown New Orleans.<span> </span>They were accompanied by members of the New Orleans Police Department at the request of the Archbishop.<span> </span>The occupants were first asked to leave the buildings voluntarily.<span> </span>Then they were told that if they did not leave on their own, they would receive a summons and if they would not leave at that point would then be arrested. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="bodytext" style="color: rgb(127, 126, 97);">It was necessary for the police to break-in to Our Lady of Good Counsel because those inside refused entrance to either archdiocesan representatives or the police.<span> </span>Two occupants at Our Lady of Good Counsel received a summons and two were formally arrested.<span> </span>At St. Henry Church, the occupants allowed representatives and police to enter.<span> </span>Only one parishioner received a summons.<span> </span>There were no arrests.<span> </span>In both instances, the buildings were then secured.<span> </span> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="bodytext" style="color: rgb(127, 126, 97);">It has always been the intention of the archdiocese to bring these vigils to a peaceful conclusion.<span> </span>This forced <span> </span>closure involving the NOPD is the result of the actions of protestors at the former parishes.<span> </span>This decision was made reluctantly after exploring every possible alternative, including multiple attempts to persuade the people to leave the building on their own.<span> </span>These initiatives are unfortunate but made necessary now to ensure the safety of the people and security of the buildings.<span> </span> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="bodytext" style="color: rgb(127, 126, 97);">As already reported, attempts were made at both the former Our Lady of Good Counsel and the former St. Henry buildings early morning on Saturday, January 3, 2009 to peacefully bring these occupations peacefully to a close.<span> </span>At St. Henry, those keeping vigil refused to leave despite multiple requests.<span> </span><span> </span>At Our Lady of Good Counsel, the occupant left allowing officials first to search the building and then to move to secure the building.<span> </span>It was discovered later that day that protestors had regained access to the former church building and bolts placed in doors had been removed.<span> </span> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"> <span class="bodytext" style="color: rgb(127, 126, 97);">On Monday, January 5, 2009, archdiocesan representatives attempted to make a routine inspection at Our Lady of Good Counsel and were denied access to the buildings.<span> </span>Protestors refused archdiocesan personnel entry and barricaded the doors preventing entry.<span> </span>At the former church building at St. Henry, archdiocesan representatives entered for their inspections, but later that afternoon, it was discovered that occupants there had locked the doors to the church building to prevent entry to anyone beyond those allowed in from the inside.<span> </span>These actions forced the difficult decision to bring these occupations to a close to be made </span></p> <span class="bodytext" style="color: rgb(127, 126, 97);">It is our hope that the Catholic community may now heal and move forward together.<span> </span>Our prayers are withl those experiencing anger and sadness at losing their home parishes.<span> </span>We pray that they may find peace and a spiritual home in their new parish.<span> </span>As we begin the new year, we must all work to center our faith on the Eucharist and to move forward as one community in Christ.<span> </span></span></blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">My thoughts on the fiasco...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span>I am in no position to judge the prudence or correctness of Archbishop Hughes' decisions on which churches to close, which to merge, etc. Many of the parishioners of St. Henry's and Our Lady of Good Counsel did not give the Archbishop the benefit of the doubt. For months we have heard TV interviews, people on radio call-in shows<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span>, etc. condemning the decisions and actions of the Archbishop for unjustly or unfairly closing down "my church." <span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span><br />This is another example of Catholics being more American than Catholic. These people have been infected by individualism. Hello! We are "Catholic." The word means "universal." This is not your church. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. Archbishop Hughes is a successor of the apostles and the rightful authority over the property you claim to be "your church." You don't have to agree with his decision, but with a little humility and obedience, you should be able to respectfully submit to it.<br /><br />Sigh. Sorry for the rant.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Edit: I should add that I am saddened that arrests were made, although no charges were pressed, but I am frustrated at the attitudes I've seen over the past few months. </span>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-54026836330780164162009-01-09T23:11:00.002-06:002009-01-09T23:30:44.986-06:00Pope quotesRecent thoughts from Pope Benedict XVI<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">I. On the </span><a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://zenit.org/article-24723?l=english">violence </a><span style="font-weight: bold;">in Gaza</span><br /><br />"Once again I would repeat that military options are no solution and that <span style="font-style: italic;">violence, wherever it comes from and whatever form it takes, must be firmly condemned.</span> I express my hope that, with the decisive commitment of the international community, the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip will be re-established -- an indispensable condition for restoring acceptable living conditions to the population -- and that negotiations for peace will resume, with the rejection of hatred, acts of provocation and the use of arms."<br />[emphasis my own]<br /><br />Seems pretty clear to me. Violence bad. Justince good. Peace requires mercy and forgiveness.<br /><br />II. On the rights of <a href="http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2009/01/state-of-world-09-edition.html">Emigrants</a><br /><br />"the needs of emigrants need to be taken into consideration by legislation which would make it easier to reunite families, reconciling the legitimate requirements of security with those of inviolable respect for the person."<br /><br />III. Fighting Poverty to Build Peace<br /><br />"It is towards the poor, the all too many poor people on our planet, that I would like to turn my attention today, taking up my Message for the World Day of Peace, devoted this year to the theme: "Fighting Poverty To Build Peace"...<br />To build peace, we need to give new hope to the poor. How can we not think of so many individuals and families hard pressed by the difficulties and uncertainties which the current financial and economic crisis has provoked on a global scale? How can we not mention the food crisis and global warming, which make it even more difficult for those living in some of the poorest parts of the planet to have access to nutrition and water? There is an urgent need to adopt an effective strategy to fight hunger and to promote local agricultural development, all the more so since the number of the poor is increasing even within the rich countries....<br />Acts of discrimination and the very grave attacks directed at thousands of Christians in this past year show to what extent it is not merely material poverty, but also moral poverty, which damages peace. Such abuses, in fact, are rooted in moral poverty....<br />I also express my hope that, in the Western world, prejudice or hostility against Christians will not be cultivated simply because, on certain questions, their voice causes disquiet. For their part, may the disciples of Christ, in the face of such adversity, not lose heart: witness to the Gospel is always a "sign of contradiction" vis-à-vis "the spirit of the world"! If the trials and tribulations are painful, the constant presence of Christ is a powerful source of strength. Christ’s Gospel is a saving message meant for all; that is why it cannot be confined to the private sphere, but must be proclaimed from the rooftops, to the ends of the earth."JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-22009226475898968442009-01-09T22:52:00.005-06:002009-01-09T23:08:10.613-06:00Thesis Thoughts 3: Rahner's Theological Anthropology<p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;">more thesis thoughts which are still somewhat rough, especially the footnotes, but have at it.<br /></span></span></p><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;">RAHNER’S THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY</span></span></p> <p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>The Supernatural Existential</i></span></span></p> <p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> Rahner’s first two works were primarily philosophical in nature. <i>Spirit of the World</i>, his doctoral dissertation, is a philosophical conversation with Heidegger coming from the perspective of Kant’s transcendentalism accompanied by the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. Rahner’s other seminal philosophical work, <i>Hearers of the Word</i>, continues with groundwork he laid out in <i>Spirit of the World</i> and proposes new solutions to problems he perceived in the theological explanations and presentations of his time. This primarily had to do with his discomfort with the relationship between nature and grace as explicated by scholastic neo-Thomism.<br /> All grace was seen as the grace of Christ, but was ontologically grounded in God’s redemptive will. In other words, there was no inherent relationship between the offer and reception of grace and the reception of God’s self-communication through the Incarnate Son.</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote1anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote1sym"><sup>1</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> McCool explains, “[Rahner’s] theological anthropology enabled him to see that, contrary to the manuals' purely entitative understanding of grace, grace must have a perceptible effect on human consciousness,”</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote2anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote2sym"><sup>2</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> all human consciousness regardless of whether a person had been exposed to the Gospel or not.<br /></span></span></p><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> In this regard, we must keep in mind Rahner’s appreciation of and affiliation with Transcendental Thomism. He feels impelled to offer an explanation of how Christ can be the universal savior. Rahner proceeds to develop a system which will identify in man the possibility of receiving salvation and present Jesus as the realization of that possibility. For something to be universally salvific for mankind, man must be <i>a priori</i> oriented to it; it must be capable of affecting mankind as a whole.</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote3anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote3sym"><sup>3</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> As we have said above, following his Transcendental method, in order for Rahner to remain consistent with his system and hold that Christianity is true and that divine revelation has occurred, he must show that it is generally credible to believe in revelation; he must show that man has a capacity to receive revelation. Rahner explains,<br /><br /> If we start from ourselves, God’s revelation cannot be validated either in its actuality, or in its necessity, or in its inner nature. … It remains questionable (at least for the time being) whether and in what sense we can discover in ourselves something like a “power of hearing” for an eventual revelation of God, <i>before</i> we have in fact heard it, and have thus found out that we are capable of hearing it.</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote4anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote4sym"><sup>4</sup></a></span></span></sup></p> <p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> Nevertheless, Rahner argues that man is essentially a “hearer of the word” and develops a theological anthropology which views man ontologically and essentially as such. Ratzinger explains, “The paradox of the being <i>man</i> is that he can find the ‘universal’ in himself only in tension with the ‘particular’, with a history that comes from without, so that man can be described and postulated, as it were, <i>a priori</i>¸as the receiver of a revelation history, as a “hearer of the word.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote5anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote5sym"><sup>5</sup></a></span></span></sup> <sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote6anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote6sym"><sup>6</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><br /> </span></span></p><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Thus, Rahner sees in man an ontological dynamism and openness towards the Ultimate Horizon of Being, God.</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote7anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote7sym"><sup>7</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> Knowing that God desires all men to be saved and therefore that He offers salvific grace to all men, Rahner reasons that God has created man with the capacity to receive grace and to perceive it precisely as grace.</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote8anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote8sym"><sup>8</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> Rahner proposes that God creates a creature, man, that he could love, that could “receive this Love which is God himself” and receive it for what it is, “the unexpected unexacted gift.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote9anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote9sym"><sup>9</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> This ability to receive God’s self-gift must be an intrinsic part of the makeup of man. </span></span> </p> <p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">This 'potency' is what is inmost and most authentic in him, the centre and root of what he is absolutely. He must have it <i>always:</i> for even one of the damned, who has turned away from this Love and made himself incapable of receiving this Love, must still be really able to experience this Love (which being scorned now burns like fire) as that to which he is ordained in the ground of his concrete being; he must consequently always remain what he was created as: the burning longing for God himself in the immediacy of his own threefold life. The capacity for the God of self-bestowing personal Love is the central and abiding existential of man as he really is.</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote10anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote10sym"><sup>10</sup></a></span></span></sup></p> <p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> Rahner refer to this as the “supernatural existential.” McCool explains, “God's real offer of his grace produces a "supernatural existential" in the human soul. This "existential" is a permanent modification of the human spirit which transforms its natural dynamism into an ontological drive to the God of grace and glory.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote11anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote11sym"><sup>11</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> Rahner intended his supernatural existential to unify nature and grace which had become too distinct and separate in neo-scholasticism. Thus on top of man’s theoretical pure nature is added the supernatural existential, this transcendent potential or openness to receiving grace prior to the actual offer of divine grace and revelation.</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote12anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote12sym"><sup>12</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> Klaus Riesenhuber further clarifies, “This is only a way of saying that man’s nature must be spirit, in the sense of unlimited transcendental openness to unrestricted being. What is called man’s “obediential potency” to receive revelation is not some competence coordinated with various others, but is his spiritual nature itself.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote13anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote13sym"><sup>13</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> Riesenhuber explains that here Rahner follows Marechal by formulating in a new way Aquinas’ “natural desire of the beatific vision.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote14anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote14sym"><sup>14</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><br /> </span></span></p><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">We can now begin to see, with a preliminary and still blurry vision, how Rahner’s theological anthropology will attempt to posit Christ’s universal significance for salvation, for, following the Christ event, the grace of which also extent in to past times prior to Christ, the supernatural existential places all men, not merely those who have had historical contact with Jesus or his followers, in a new and improved condition. </span></span> </p> <p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> [The unbaptized man] exists in a different situation because of the ‘objective redemption,’ which is a real and basic moment in the ‘subjective’ salvation situation of every man…because of the ‘supernatural existential,’ because of God’s continual offer of the grace for supernatural salvific acts, his situation is other than it would be if it were determined only by his ‘nature’ and by original sin.</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote15anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote15sym"><sup>15</sup></a></span></span></sup></p> <p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">But how is it that Jesus’ salvific grace is offered to and accepted by those who have had no contact with Christianity? What is the effect of this offer and acceptance? What of those who <i>have</i> had contact with Christianity? Can they accept the grace while rejecting the Christianity that has been offered to them? </span></span> </p> <p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><i>Transcendental and Categorial</i></span></span></p> <p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size:100%;"> We shall explore Rahner’s answers to the above questions shortly, but before we do so, we must examine how his theological anthropology sets the stage for his response. </span></span> </p> <p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> Having posited the supernatural existential in man, Rahner continues the development of his system by discussing his technical terms “transcendental” and “categorial.” Rahner explains what he means by “transcendental” fairly clearly. In “a ‘transcendental experience,’ that is an experience of the unlimited openness of the spirit to being as such, there is on the subjective side of all knowledge a knowledge of God that is real although implicit, that is, not necessarily objectified.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote16anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote16sym"><sup>16</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"> In other words, the transcendental aspect of man is a realization of the supernatural existential. God gives man this openness to receive his revelation as grace. A transcendental experience is one in which man receives this grace and responds to it positively, but without consciously identifying it as God’s offer of Christ’s salvific grace.<br /> </span></span></p><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Unfortunately, Rahner never explicitly clarifies the ontological status or precise meaning of his “categorial,” however, we can surmise it’s approximate meaning from its juxtapositions with the “transcendental.” Marshall attempts to approximate Rahner’s meaning as follows:<br /><br /> ‘Categorial’ simply means ‘what can be put into categories.’ … More precisely (since for Rahner the transcendental too can, at least indirectly, be evoked in language), the ‘categorial’ is circumscribed in space and time; in this sense human words, the sacraments, the church and Scripture can all be called ‘something categorial.’ Rahner is especially given to contrasting transcendental with ‘historical,’ where ‘historical’ has the broad meaning of ‘spatio-temporal,’ and so is equivalent to categorial.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" name="sdfootnote17anc" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote17sym"><sup>17</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;"><br /><br /> The problem of determining the precise meaning and ontological status of the “categorial,” is compounded by the reality that the debates and difficulties over understanding how God’s grace can work to save non-Christians take place specifically in the categorical and historical circumstances of each generation. Thus, a man can transcendentally be in a positive relationship to God regardless of whether or not he has received and accepted the Gospel as communicated categorically in the historical categories of the Christian faith. This begs of the questions of the importance of the categorical presentation of the faith. Is it not relativized by the emphasis of the transcendental revelation?<br /> </span></span></p><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, serif;">Even with this rather long-winded explanation, the precise status and import of the categorical remains vague and elusive. It should become somewhat more clear once we apply it practically using Rahner’s system and theory of “anonymous” or implicit Christians or Christianity, for which the “transcendental” and “categorical” are vital.<br /></span></span><br /><br /></p> <div id="sdfootnote1"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote1sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote1anc">1</a> McCool, <i>Rahner Reader </i>173.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote2"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote2sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote2anc">2</a> McCool, 174.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote3"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote3sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote3anc">3</a> Marshall, <i>Christology Conflict, </i>33.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote4"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote4sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote4anc">4</a> Rahner, <i>Hearers of the Word,</i> 5; Rahner’s emphasis.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote5"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote5sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote5anc">5</a> Ratzinger, <i>Principles of Catholic Theology, </i>163.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote6"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote6sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote6anc">6</a> <i>Hearers of the Word </i>is the title of one of Rahner’s earliest philosophical works and, according to Balthasar, Marshall, Oakes, McCool, etc. lays the foundation for the rest of his thought……fill in with more detail!!!!!</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote7"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote7sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote7anc">7</a> McCool, 174. [SeeRahner (<i>Theological Investigations</i>, vol. IV, p166-69, 174-84 for more quotes and info]</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote8"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote8sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote8anc">8</a> Rahner, <i>Theological investigations, </i>vol 1, 300-302…quoted in McCool 185.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote9"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote9sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote9anc">9</a> Rahner, Karl, <i>Theological Investigation</i>s, vol I, p300-02, 310-315. (McCool 186)</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote10"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote10sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote10anc">10</a> Rahner, Karl, <i>Theological Investigation</i>s, vol I, p300-02, 310-315. (McCool 187)</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote11"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote11sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote11anc">11</a> McCool, 185.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote12"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote12sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote12anc">12</a> McCool 188 = Rahner, Karl, <i>Theological Investigation</i>s, vol I, p300-02, 310-315. (McCool 188)</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote13"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote13sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote13anc">13</a> Riesenhuber, 165.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote14"> <p class="sdfootnote-western"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote14sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote14anc">14</a> Riesenhuber, 166.</span></p> </div> <div id="sdfootnote15"> <p class="western" style="margin-left: 0.56in; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote15sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote15anc">15</a> Rahner, <i>Implicit Christianity, </i>44.<a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote16sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote16anc"><br /></a></span></p><p class="western" style="margin-left: 0.56in; margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote16sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote16anc">16</a> </span><span style="font-size:85%;">Rahner, Karl. "Implicit Christianity." <i>Theology Digest</i>. Sesquicentennial Issue (1968), 49-50.</span></p> </div> <span style="font-size:85%;"><a class="sdfootnotesym" name="sdfootnote17sym" href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=djq7wtn_34dzxzbjxw#sdfootnote17anc">17</a> Marshall, 17-18.</span><div id="sdfootnote17"> </div>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-10334149120727732232008-12-15T10:08:00.002-06:002008-12-15T16:02:41.910-06:00On the Bioethics Front...In the past week, two fairly noteworthy documents have been released...<br /><h2>1. Dignitas Personae</h2>The CDF released an update to <a title="Donum Vitae" href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html" id="kxr1">Donum Vitae</a> entitled <a title="Dignitas Personae" href="http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitas_Personae.pdf" id="ee-v">Dignitas Personae</a>. A <a title="summary" href="http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Dignitatis_Vatican_Summary.pdf" id="gs3m">summary</a> and a <a title="Q and A" href="http://www.usccb.org/comm/Dignitaspersonae/Q_and_A.pdf" id="tkqf">Q and A</a> have also been released. The document focuses primarily on beginning of life issues and reproductive technologies like <span style="font-style: italic;">in vitro</span> fertilization. The document also addresses several new issues and technologies which had not yet been formally discussed by the Magisterium. The Q&A doc explains:<br /><blockquote>Some very new issues are discussed here for the first time. Some proposed methods for altering the technique for human cloning so it will produce embryonic stem cells but not an embryo (e.g., “altered nuclear transfer”) are judged to require more study and clarification before they could ethically be applied to humans, as one would have to be certain that a new human being is never created and then destroyed by the procedure. (These cautions do not apply to an even newer technique, using genetic or chemical factors to reprogram ordinary adult cells directly into “induced pluripotent stem cells” with the versatility of embryonic stem cells. This clearly does not use an egg or create an embryo, and has not raised objections from Catholic theologians.) Proposals for “adoption” of abandoned or unwanted frozen embryos are also found to pose problems, because the Church opposes use of the gametes or bodies of others who are outside the marital covenant for reproduction. The document raises cautions or problems about these new issues but does not formally make a definitive judgment against them. The document also goes into far more detail than past documents in raising moral concerns about use of “germ-line” genetic engineering in human beings, for treatments and especially for supposed “enhancement” or tailoring of human characteristics.<br /></blockquote>Despite all the cautions, the CDF attempts to emphasize that the Church's overall attitude toward bioethical research is a positive one, provided that the dignity of the human person is always respected and made a top priority of all research. The document explains:<br /><blockquote>Behind every “no” in the difficult task of discerning between good and evil, there shines a great “yes” to the recognition of the dignity and inalienable value of every single and unique human being called into existence.<br /></blockquote>Interesting stuff. I only wish they had addressed end of life issues. Important and difficult questions remain, but an update to <span style="font-style: italic;">Donum Vitae</span> was needed and is helpful.<br /><h2>2. The Dignity of Chimeras</h2>For those of you who may not know, a chimera is some sort of hybrid animal, in this case, part-human part-something else. Chimeras have for the most part been creatures of fantasy and sci-fi... up until now. Crazy stuff!<br /><br />The British Parliament has drafted a Human Tissue and Embryo Bill. One of the issues addressed in the bill is chimeras. If the bill is passed, "the <a title="creation" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555639/Chimera-embryos-have-right-to-life%2C-say-bishops.html" id="i8ar">cre</a><a title="creation" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555639/Chimera-embryos-have-right-to-life%2C-say-bishops.html" id="i8ar">ation</a> of animal-human embryos - created by injecting animal cells or DNA into human embryos or human cells into animal eggs" - will now be legal. Wow! Another instance of scientists using the dangerous philosophical approach of "let's see what we can do" rather than asking "should we even be doing this." This could potentially be very dangerous stuff, which is why the bill mandates that if a scientist chooses to create chimeras, the part-human/part-animal hybrids must be destroyed within two weeks. <br /><br />This is where the Scottish Catholic Bishops' Conference stepped in. Now if you read about the bishops' statement on a secular news site, you will probably only hear that the bishops said that the chimeras must be treated with dignity, their right-to-life must be respected, mothers whose eggs are used to create chimeras must be given the right to bring their child to term, etc. Predictably, that's not an entirely accurate representation of what the Scottish bishops had to say. <br /><br />First they called for the bill to be rejected by Parliament saying that creating human hybrid creatures is horrific and breaks a moral boundary which is not to be crossed. Only after denouncing the bill <span style="font-style: italic;">in toto</span> and calling the creation of chimeras alarming and horrific did they proceed to add that if a chimera were created, "i<a title="t should not be a crime" href="http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=25355&section=Cathcom" id="d9nn">t should not be a crime</a> to transfer them, or other human embryos, to the body of the woman providing the ovum, in cases where a human ovum has been used to create them" and "Such a woman is the genetic mother, or partial mother, of the embryo; should she have a change of heart and wish to carry her child to term,<br />she should not be prevented from doing so." The bishops conclude "at very least, embryos with a preponderance of human genes should be assumed to be embryonic human beings and should be treated accordingly."<br /><br />This makes sense to me. The bishops are right to be alarmed to call for the denunciation of this "research." However, we cannot know whether or not these hybrids would be persons or not. In order to play it safe and prevent ourselves from murdering innocent persons with intrinsic dignity and an inherent right-to-life, we must allow (and demand!?) that they be taken to term and treated as any other person once they are created.<br /><br />Sigh... God help us!<br /><br />More coverage <a title="here" href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/09/chimeras-right-to-life.html" id="ad3f">here</a> and <a title="here" href="http://www.lifenews.com/bio2163.html" id="jzvw">here</a>.JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-59595988778451613352008-12-04T19:54:00.003-06:002008-12-07T21:37:34.624-06:00From around the Blogosphere and suchGreetings!<br /><br />It's been too long since I've posted, and I still don't have the time or focus to put together anything original or intelligent. Nevertheless, what follows are some stories or thoughts which have caught my eye recently. Let me know what you think.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">On the Peace and Nonviolence Front...</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Catholic Lt Col at Gitmo chooses the Cross over the Flag</span><br /><br />Darrel Vandeveld is a devout Catholic. Not so long ago he was also a military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay. However, what he saw and experienced there struck him as immoral and un-American. His well-formed Catholic conscience was not comfortable. He emailed Fr. John Dear, a peace activist, and after much mental anguish chose to quit the US military. Watch the BBC's interview <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7761315.stm">here </a>and read more <a href="http://vox-nova.com/2008/12/03/if-you-are-going-to-follow-jesus-you-have-to-quit/">here </a><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">US Torture policies in Iraq have lead to the Deaths of countless Americans</span><br /><br />Matthew Alexander was an interrogator for a special ops task force in Iraq in 2006. Other people in his position chose to torture alleged and/or known terrorists to attempt to get what they wanted. Alexander refused, and in an article titled "I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq" for the Washington Post he writes:<br /><br /><blockquote>Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.<br /><br /><br />I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.</blockquote><br /><br />Read the entire article <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242_pf.html">here</a>. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">The FDA: What were they thinking? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">This is Silly: Prescription Handguns!??</span><br /><br />According to their <a href="http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/mission.html">website</a>, the mission of the FDA is as follows:<br /><br /><blockquote>The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health. </blockquote><br /><br />If that's the case, why are they approving a miniaturized thumb-triggered handgun as something which can be prescribed? What!? Oh! In the near future it may be covered by Medicare. Ladies and Gentleman, your tax dollars hard at work!<br /><br />More <a href="http://vox-nova.com/2008/12/06/prescription-handguns/">here</a>.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">This is dangerous and reprehensible: Gardasil - Bad for women (a shocker I know) </span><br /><br />Remember how Gardasil was supposed to help prevent much of cervical cancer? Forgetting for a moment that you shouldn't have to be vaccinated for a disease caused by STDs, because... you know... your free will, chastity, abstinence, the moral life, etc. Forget about all that. Generally speaking a drug might be considered a good thing if it can prevent a large portion of the population from getting a deadly form of cancer. Well, as it turns out, Gardasil may actually make things worse. <br /><br /><blockquote>Natural News reporter Mike Adams has uncovered some interesting facts about this vaccine. The FDA has been aware since 2003 that Human Papillloma Virus [1] does not cause cervical cancer. The Gardasil vaccine is unable to eradicate HPV virus from women who have been exposed to HPV (nearly all sexually active women). This makes vaccinating all young women in Texas against HPV virus a very questionable decision.<br /><br />To make matters even worse it has now been learned that vaccinating women with Gardasil may actually increase the risk that those women harboring a benign cervical HPV viral infection have a 44.6 percent increased risk of having their benign HPV infection converted into a precancerous state by the HPV vaccine administration. Thus women vaccinated with Gardasil not only receive no benefit those who were sexually active before the vaccine administration have become at increased risk for developing cervical cancer.</blockquote><br /><br />Read the entire article <a href="http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james170.htm">here</a>. <br />Hat tip to <a href="http://feminine-genius.typepad.com/femininegenius/2008/11/gardasil-fraud.html">feminine-genius.</a> <br /><br />Anyone have any thoughts on any of this? Let me know.JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-11757141933765589642008-11-20T17:46:00.001-06:002008-11-20T17:48:02.575-06:00Thesis Thoughts 2 - Rahner's Philosophical Background<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 12"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CAdmin%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><link rel="themeData" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CAdmin%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_themedata.thmx"><link rel="colorSchemeMapping" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CAdmin%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_colorschememapping.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Verdana; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:536871559 0 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph {mso-style-priority:34; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:.5in; mso-add-space:auto; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst {mso-style-priority:34; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-type:export-only; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle {mso-style-priority:34; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-type:export-only; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:.5in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-add-space:auto; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast {mso-style-priority:34; mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-type:export-only; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:.5in; mso-add-space:auto; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 8pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";">For my Master's thesis I will be researching and writing on the debate between Karl Rahner and Hans urs von Balthasar regarding their conceptions of Christology and the salvation of non-Christians. I shall attempt to post summaries of research, random quotes and the like on a somewhat regular basis. Please feel free to share your own thoughts, ideas, questions, sources, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Before diving more directly into the thought of Karl Rahner or Hans Urs von Baltashar and their soteriologies, we would be imprudent to ignore the historical and philosophical situations to which they are responding and in which they are living. If Plato lived today the manner in which he communicated his genius would certainly be quite different that it actually was.<span style=""> </span>The same could be said of Nietzsche have lived in pre-Christian times.<span style=""> </span>Therefore we must consider Rahner’s philosophical <i style="">sitz im leben</i> before attempting to grasp his system. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">For most of the middle ages and up until the 17<sup>th</sup> Century most people in the Western world saw Jesus Christ as the universal redeemer. In other words, their world view suggested that whatever could be said to be universally or generally meaningful or significant for humanity must in way relate to Christ (Marshall 2). However, Deistic thought countered that Christian presumption, reasoning that for something to universally valid and meaningful, it must also be universally and generally available to everyone.<span style=""> </span>At this time the world was realizing that knowledge of Jesus was not, or had not been, readily available to all people, specifically those living in the Americas. (Marshall 3-4)<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Many Christians embraced this Deistic critique while attempting to maintain the universal meaningfulness of the historical Jesus.<span style=""> </span>John Locke’s <i style="">The Reasonableness of Christianity</i> is a prime example of such an attempt. German Christians made the most profound attempts at finding a middle ground between these two assumptions: that of Jesus’ universal significance, and that of the necessity of universally availability of that which is said to be significant. They attempted to reinterpret the heart of Christianity, which saw Jesus as the unique historical redeemer, in such a way as to maintain the concrete notion of the Christian understanding of redemption while dissolving the “indissoluble bond to Jesus” (Marshall 4). [It is because of this new understanding of redemption that Marx can posit a world in which man is redeemed on his own merits with a Christ figure.]<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Thus, Kant enters the scene with his transcendental approach and states that “the unique redeemer is an ideal of perfection, a moral archetype for which we need no empirical example, since the archetype ‘is to be sought nowhere but in our own reason.’”(Marshall 5), leading to Schleiermacher, who offers the most profound and powerful statement of the coalescence of the new deistic assumptions with redemption as posited by Christianity. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"><span style=""> </span>Schleiermacher develops a general criterion for redemption – the relative domination of a universal God-consciousness (‘feeling of absolute dependence’) in all experience.<span style=""> </span>All people can experience the need for God in their dependence. (Marshall 6).<span style=""> </span>He argues that the Christian concept of redemption exemplifies the most clear coherence with this criterion.<span style=""> </span>Ever since, transcendentalists, Rahner included, have adopted Schleiermacher’s general approach and method while modifying the criterion necessary for a meaningful understand of redemption which generally available to all of humanity. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">At this point, before jumping into Rahner we must consider a couple other thinkers who are especially relevant to any discussion of Rahner and Balthasar and who critiqued and revised some the thought of those mentioned above. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Joseph Marechal, a Jesuit priest from Belgium, critiqued Kant for failing to account for the dynamism of the human intellect since objective knowledge can only be obtained from categorical judgment of speculative reason. (McCool xiv).<span style=""> </span>Marechal attempted to remedy Kant’s transcendental approach to make it cohere with the foundations of St. Thomas Aquinas’ thought. “</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Marechal believed that the transcendental method could be extended beyond epistemology and could be used to ground a general metaphysics whose form and structure would resemble the metaphysics of St. Thomas” (McCool xvi). Rahner, following Marechal, becomes the most influential proponent of Transcendental Thomism. However, he attempts to improve upon Marechal’s approach by developing a self-grounding metaphysics rather relying on epistemology and by putting more emphasis on the conscious of the human person.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Around the same time, a Protestant theologian by the name of Karl Barth is heavily critiquing Schleiermacher and his method. “</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Barth saw Schleiermacher as adapting to modernity where he should have resisted it, and distorting theology by moving its center from God and God’s revelation to man” (Kilby 257). Barth was especially critical of the anthropological turn taken by Schleiermacher and others as well as of the notion of having a anthropological or transcendent system on which to rely. Barth countered, “I have no Christological principle and no Christological method. Rather in each individual theological question I seek to orientate myself afresh…not on a Christological dogma but on Jesus Christ himself)” (quoted in Marshall 116).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">To a certain extent, Balthasar will take a quasi-Barthian approach.<span style=""> </span>His critique of Rahner vaguely parallels Barth’s critique of Schleiermacher, and his Christology attempted to be Christocentric, like Barth, rather than anthropocentric, like Rahner and the other transcendental Thomists. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">In our next post we shall look explicitly at Rahner’s philosophical system and transcendental method. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Sources<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Kilby, Karen. “Balthasar and Karl Rahner.”<i style=""> <st1:place st="on"><st1:city st="on">Cambridge</st1:city></st1:place> Companion to Hans urs von Balthasar. <span style=""> </span></i>Oakes, Moss, ed., <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Cambridge</st1:place></st1:city> UP: 2004<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left: 0in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">Marshall, Bruce. <i style="">Christology in Conflict: the identity of a Savior in Rahner and Barth. </i>NY: Basil <span style=""> </span>Blackwell Inc., 1987.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 40pt; text-indent: -40pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";" lang="EN-GB">Rahner, Karl. <i>Rahner Reader</i>. Ed. McCool, Gerald. London: Darton,Longman & Todd Ltd, 1975.<o:p></o:p></span></p> JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-51868581117984984362008-11-17T07:39:00.004-06:002008-11-18T21:00:50.680-06:00Concerned Catholics for the Future of America - Open Letter to Obama<div style="text-align: right;">November 14, 2008<br /><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Open Letter to President-elect Barack Obama</span></b><br /></div><p style="margin-top: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0.19in;"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">President-elect Barack Obama,<br /><br />As American Catholics, we, the undersigned, would like to reiterate the congratulations given to you by Pope Benedict XVI. We will be praying for you as you undertake the office of President of the United States.<br /><br />Wishing you much good will, we hope we will be able to work with you, your administration, and our fellow citizens to move beyond the gridlock which has often harmed our great nation in recent years. Too often, partisan politics has hampered our response to disaster and misfortune. As a result of this, many Americans have become resentful, blaming others for what happens instead of realizing our own responsibilities. We face serious problems as a people, and if we hope to overcome the crises we face in today's world, we should make a serious effort to set aside the bitterness in our hearts, to listen to one another, and to work with one another<br /><br />One of the praiseworthy elements of your campaign has been the call to end such partisanship. You have stated a desire to engage others in dialogue. With you, we believe that real achievement comes not through the defamation of one's opponents, nor by amassing power and using it merely as a tool for one's own individual will. We also believe dialogue is essential. We too wish to appeal to the better nature of the nation. We want to encourage people to work together for the common good. Such action can and will engender trust. It may change the hearts of many, and it might alter the path of our nation, shifting to a road leading to a better America. We hope this theme of your campaign is realized in the years ahead.<br /><br />One of the critical issues which currently divides our nation is abortion. As you have said, no one is for abortion, and you would agree to limit late-term abortions as long as any bill which comes your way allows for exceptions to those limits, such as when the health of the mother is in jeopardy. You have also said you would like to work on those social issues which cause women to feel as if they have a need for an abortion, so as to reduce the actual number of abortions being performed in the United States.<br /><br />Indeed, you said in your third presidential debate, "But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.'"<br /><br />As men and women who oppose abortion and embrace a pro-life ethic, we want to commend your willingness to engage us in dialogue, and we ask that you live up to your promise, and engage us on this issue. </span><br /></p>There is much we can do together. There is much that we can do to help women who find themselves in difficult situations so they will not see abortion as their only option. There is much which we can do to help eliminate those unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortion.<br /><p style="margin-top: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0.19in;">One of your campaign promises is of grave concern to many pro-life citizens.<br />On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, when speaking of the current right of women in America to have abortions, you said, "And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."<br /><br />The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) might well undermine your engagement of pro-life Americans on the question of abortion. It might hamper any effort on your part to work with us to limit late-term abortions. We believe FOCA does more than allow for choice. It may force the choice of a woman upon others, and make them morally complicit in such choice.<br />One concern is that it would force doctors and hospitals which would otherwise choose not to perform abortions to do so, even if it went against their sacred beliefs. Such a law would undermine choice, and might begin the process by which abortion is enforced as a preferred option, instead of being one possible choice for a doctor to practice.<br /><br />It is because of such concern we write. We urge you to engage us, and to dialogue with us, and to do so before you consider signing this legislation. Let us reason together and search out the implications of FOCA. Let us carefully review it and search for contradictions of those positions which we hold in common.<br /><br />If FOCA can be postponed for the present, and serious dialogue begun with us, as well as with those who disagree with us, you will demonstrate that your administration will indeed be one that rises above partisanship, and will be one of change. This might well be the first step toward resolving an issue which tears at the fabric of our churches, our political process, our families, our very society, and that causes so much hardship and heartache in pregnant women.</p>Likewise, you have also recently stated you might over-ride some of President G.W. Bush's executive orders. This is also a concern to us. We believe doing so without having a dialogue with the American people would undermine the political environment you would like to establish. Among those issues which concern us are those which would use taxpayer money to support actions we find to be morally questionable, such as embryonic stem cell research, or to fund international organizations that would counsel women to have an abortion (this would make abortion to be more than a mere choice, but an encouraged activity).<br /><p style="margin-top: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0.19in;">Consider, sir, your general promise to the American people and set aside particular promises to a part of your constituency. This would indicate that you plan to reject politics as usual. This would indeed be a change we need.</p>Sincerely,<br /><br /><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Deal W. Hudson<br />Christopher Blosser<br /></p>Marjorie Campbell<br />Mark J. Coughlan<br />Rev. James A. Nowack<br />Craig D. Baker<br />Susan DeBoisblanc<br />Megan Stout<br />Joshua D. Brumfield<br />Ashley M. Brumfield<br />Michael J. Iafrate<br />Natalie Navarro<br />Matthew Talbot<br />Paul Mitchell<br />Henry C Karlson III<br />Darren Belajac<br />Adam P Verslype<br />Josiah Neeley<br />Michael J. Deem<br />Katerina M. Deem<br />Natalie Mixa<br />Henry Newman<br />Anthony M. Annett<br />Mickey Jackson<br />Veronica Greenwell<br />Thomas Greenwell, PhD<br />Robert C. Koerpel<br />Nate Wildermuth<br /><br />New Online Signatures<br />William Simon<br />Deacon Keith Fournier<br />Mary Ruebelmann-Benavides<br />Jesus Benavides<br />Steve Dillard<br />Toby Danna<br />William Eunice<br />Mark Shea<br />Fr. Phil Bloom<br />Christopher Gant<br />Robert King, OP.<br />Peter Halabu<br />Kelly Clark<br />Eric Giunta<br />Mark Gordon<br />Linda Schuldt<br />Michael Mlekoday<br />Bryan McLaughlin<br />Victoria Hoffman<br />Jonathan Jones<br />Jim Janknegt<br />Marcel LeJeune<br />Fr. John Zuhlsdorf<br />Ken Hallenius III<br />Zach Gietl<br />Megan Bless<br />Kathy Myers<br />Timothy M. Mason<br />Kevin Koster<br />John Anthony D’Arpino<br />Brian Desmarais<br />Mary C. BornemanJBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-82876477397148902632008-11-10T18:33:00.003-06:002008-11-10T18:39:39.182-06:00Thesis Thoughts - Historical Background<a name="v4"></a><a name="v5"></a><span style="font-size:85%;"><i>For my Master's thesis I will be researching and writing on the debate between Karl Rahner and Hans urs von Balthasar regarding their conceptions of Christology and the salvation of non-Christians. I shall attempt to post summaries of research, random quotes and the like on a somewhat regular basis. Please feel free to share your own thoughts, ideas, questions, sources, etc.</i></span><br /><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br />In our pluralistic society, what is the state of Christology and the Christian dogma that Jesus Christ is the universal savior of mankind and the cosmos? Before focus our efforts more directly on the above question and the specific theologians at hand, we would benefit from a brief historical overview of the topic.<br /><br />From beginning of Christianity, throughout the New Testament we are confronted with seemingly contradictory passages on the universal or not so universal salvific will of God. Avery Cardinal Dulles, in his <i>First Things</i> article "Who can be Saved?" lists a series of Biblical texts which seem to indicate that salvation requires faith and belief in Jesus Christ. In this regard, he quotes St. Paul, “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9) and St. Mark "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:15-16), among others, and draws the<br />conclusion that </span>"<span style="font-size:85%;">according to the primary Christian documents, salvation comes through personal faith in Jesus Christ, followed and signified by sacramental baptism."<br /><br />On the other hand, in his book <i>Dare We He 'That All Men Be Saved'? </i>von Balthasar convincingly shows that this conclusion is not so clear. He contrasts Jesus' statement of condemnation with statements of Jesus' or God's universal salvific will. We can here cite St. Timothy who writes, "This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:3-6). Balthasar, quoting St. Peter, adds that "God does not wish ' that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Pet 3:9).<br /></span></span></p><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;">What are we to make of this? Certainly we cannot expect a just and loving God to<br />condemn to hell those who have never even had the opportunity to hear the Gospel preached. But how can they be saved with belief in Christ, without Baptism, without being the Body of He who is life?<br /><br />Dulles shows that some of the early Church fathers held exceptions to the necessity of explicit faith in Jesus for some of the ancient philosophers who seem to have found Christ in the truth of natural<br />wisdom and philosophy. On the other hand Augustine taught that those who had never heard the Gospel would be denied salvation because salvation comes this faith, which they clearly could not have had. They would suffer eternal punishment for original sin and their own personal sins. Dulles informs us that this Augustinian view held sway "throughout the middle ages."<br /></span></span></p><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;">In his Papal Bull <i>Unam Sanctam, </i>Pope Boniface VIII writes clearly and forcefully, "<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human<br />creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.</span>" Additionally,the Council of Florence mentions "pagans" (not merely heretics and schismatics) for the first time in this regard, teaching "The holy Roman Church…firmly, believes, professes and preaches that "no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans", but also Jews, heretics, or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the eternal fire."<br /><br />However, starting in the 19th Century the Church's understanding of salvation "outside" the Church<br />begins to develop. In encyclical <i>Quanto Conficiamur Moerore</i> (1863), Pope Pius IX writes matter of factly "We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all persons, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful<br />life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life." The Second Vatican Council affirmed Pope Pius' statement in <i>Lumen Gentium </i>which taught that Christ is the<br />sole mediator of salvation and the Church is necessary for salvation, but adds that "Divine Providence [does not] deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part,<br />have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life."<br /><br />The fathers of the Second Vatican Council were allegedly strongly influence by the thought of Rahner and his "anonymous Christianity" in developing and formulating the relevant passages of <i>Lumen Gentium</i>. Therefore, in attempting to understand <i>how</i> non-Christians can be saved, theologians have often adopted and adapted Rahner's method and framework in order to discuss Christ as universal savior in a pluralistic society. However, after the Council, Rahner has been looked upon less favorably by the Magisterium, and Balthasar, whose thought Pope Benedict seems to especially appreciate, became one of Rahner's harshest critics.<br /><br />Balthasar does not disagree with Rahner so much on the idea of salvation outside the [visible] Church (in <i>Dare We Hope</i> he comes closer to <i>apokatastasis</i> than Rahner ever did), but he is wary and harshly critical of Rahner's method, which has been termed, "Transcendental Thomism."<br /><br />In my next post I shall explore some of the philosophical and historical influence which led Rahner to choose his method and led Balthasar his.<br /></span></span></p><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><b>SOURCES</b></span></span><br /><p class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0.14in;font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:85%;">Balthasar, Hans urs von. <i>Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved”? </i>San Francisco:Ignatius Press, 1988.</span></p><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Dulles, Avery Cardinal. “Who Can Be Saved?” <span style="font-style: italic;">First Things</span>. </span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" >February 2008</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Dupuis, J., and J. Neuner. <span style="font-style: italic;">The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents </span></span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:85%;" ><i style="font-style: italic;">of the Catholic Church</i>. Alba House, 1983.</span>JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19556797.post-63301480138285577872008-10-29T22:14:00.003-05:002008-10-29T22:19:55.006-05:00MacIntyre on votingI just stumbled across an exerpt from Alasdair MacIntyre's <a href="http://ethicscenter.nd.edu/archives/macintyre.shtml">"The Only Vote Worth Casting in November"</a> in which he discusses how to approach a situation with two "politically intolerable" candidates.<br /><br />MacIntyre writes:<br /><br /><p></p><blockquote><p>When offered a choice between two politically intolerable alternatives, it is important to choose neither. And when that choice is presented in rival arguments and debates that exclude from public consideration any other set of possibilities, it becomes a duty to withdraw from those arguments and debates, so as to resist the imposition of this false choice by those who have arrogated to themselves the power of framing the alternatives. These are propositions which in the abstract may seem to invite easy agreement. But, when they find application to the coming presidential election, they are likely to be rejected out of hand. For it has become an ingrained piece of received wisdom that voting is one mark of a good citizen, not voting a sign of irresponsibility. But the only vote worth casting in November is a vote that no one will be able to cast, a vote against a system that presents one with a choice between Bush’s conservatism and Kerry’s liberalism, those two partners in ideological debate, both of whom need the other as a target.<br />….</p> <p>We note at this point that we have already broken with both parties and both candidates. Try to promote the pro-life case that we have described within the Democratic Party and you will at best go unheard and at worst be shouted down. Try to advance the case for economic justice as we have described it within the Republican Party and you will be laughed out of court. Above all, insist, as we are doing, that these two cases are inseparable, that each requires the other as its complement, and you will be met with blank incomprehension. For the recognition of this is precluded by the ideological assumptions in terms of which the political alternatives are framed. Yet at the same time neither party is wholeheartedly committed to the cause of which it is the ostensible defender. Republicans happily endorse pro-choice candidates, when it is to their advantage to do so. Democrats draw back from the demands of economic justice with alacrity, when it is to their advantage to do so. And in both cases rhetorical exaggeration disguises what is lacking in political commitment.</p><p>In this situation a vote cast is not only a vote for a particular candidate, it is also a vote case for a system that presents us only with unacceptable alternatives. The way to vote against the system is not to vote.</p></blockquote><p></p>I tend to agree. What do you think?JBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00935199824833517345noreply@blogger.com3