Event: Porn kills Love

Sorry for the late notice.

Tomorrow night I'll be speaking to the Theology on Tap group up in Vallejo, CA about the evils of pornography and how we can begin the process of escaping it's grip.

6pm is the time to arrive and the talk begins at about 7pm. If you're in the area, drop by.

As always, you can find more details on the Events Page.

A Tough Pill To Swallow

Recently the Catholic Bishop's Conference of Germany released a document that would allow for the use of emergency contraception at Catholic Hospitals for victims of rape. According to the instruction, contraception is only to be administered if it can be determined that conception hasn't occurred. The question of accurately determining when conception has occurred isn't my concern in this matter. That judgment is left to medical science. Those of us responsible for helping people make good moral choices should not reach beyond our expertise. We, however (as the German Bishops have done), must concern ourselves with the application of sound moral principles to help guide human actions according to right reason.

Nonetheless, there have been a number of reactions to this instruction. My own initial reaction was that the German Bishops made a bad decision. However, it turns out that the ethical principles they're employing are sound. Indeed, the policy as I understand it accords with the best of Catholic moral thinking. Hopefully, I'll be able to shed light on why.

The reaction against the Bishops' policy is predicated on good moral instincts. On face value the instruction seems to violate one of the clearest principles of moral action. It seems to go against the principle that one cannot do an evil to bring about a good. Also, it seems to imply that contraception is not an intrinsic evil. Those who criticize the Bishops' policy have a line of thinking that goes something like this

One cannot do evil to bring about a good.
But, contraception is intrinsically evil.
Therefore, contraception cannot be used to bring about a good.

This is certainly sound reasoning. However, as with most moral analysis, the matter isn't as clear-cut as it seems. Allow me to try and explain how the Bishops' policy doesn't fall into the error of consequentialist reasoning nor violate objective Catholic moral teaching on contraception.

To understand the Bishops' policy we need to look at the nature of human actions. First, when we evaluate an action we are looking at a specific sort of action. Human persons are capable of two types of action. The first type are human actions. These actions have a moral character and involve the active use of the human intellect and will. The second type are acts of man. These are involuntary actions. They don't involve the active use of the human intellect and will. The former are proper matter for moral evaluation, the latter are not. This is an essential component to moral evaluation. In evaluating a moral act, it's necessary to always consider the actions from the perspective of the acting person(s) involved. It can never remain simply a third person perspective. If we were to do the contrary we would easily fall into the error of physicalism. This issue is one of the central topics of the encyclical Veritatis splendor.

Also, if we are to understand the Bishops' policy we must look at the nature of the human sex act. Contrary to what some may think, questions about the unitive and procreative aspects of sex are not what is important when evaluating this case. What is important is evaluating whether rape is properly defined as a human sex act.

For sex to be a human act, as opposed to simply an act of man, it must involve the willing participation of both parties. It is not simply the biological process of sexual penetration that defines sex as a human act. This is because we are rational animals, not brute animals. Hence, regardless of the perpetrator's disposition it's always the case that a victim of rape is an unwilling participant. She doesn't will the act of rape. Because she doesn't will the act she is free to not will the object of the act, i.e., procreation resulting from the rape. When the acting person is considered in the moral evaluation of this situation it's clear that rape doesn't fit the definition of sex as a human act. It lacks the consent of both parties that's necessary for the act to be properly defined as a human sex act.

Now, a further concern might arise. In Veritatis splendor, John Paul II defines contraception as an intrinsic evil. This means that contraception, regardless of the circumstances, is never a licit means of birth control. So, while one may be tempted to argue that even though rape cannot be properly considered a human sex act, it would still not permissible to use contraceptives to arrest the unwilled end of conception. But, the problem with this line of thinking is that it confuses contraceptives with contraception. It's only when contraceptives are used for contraception that they take on the moral character of contraception. Likewise, if a contraceptive is used for abortion it takes on the moral character of abortion, not contraception. This is why we properly refer to such a drug or treatment as an abortifacient. Contraceptives, however, are not always used for contraception (or abortion). When contraceptives are used in some other licit therapeutic way they don't necessarily take on the moral evil of contraception.

So: What is contraception? Simply put, contraception can be defined as the intentional and unnatural frustration of conception in the human sex act. This definition seems to contain all the essential parts needed to adequately describe contraception. It should now become clear why the use of a contraceptive to prevent possible conception resulting from a rape is morally licit. Yes, the use of a contraceptive in this case is intentional, it's unnatural, and it frustrates conception. But, rape isn't properly a human sex act because the victim of the rape isn't a willing participant in the act. Because she doesn't will the act she is free to not will the end of the act, i.e., procreation resulting from the rape. Thus, the use of a contraceptive to prevent conception in such a case doesn't constitute a moral evil. In fact, one could go so far as to say that it could be an injustice to not permit a rape victim from from using contraception in such a case. If we didn't permit the use of a contraceptive in the case of rape, we would be forcing the victim to suffer the end of the act that she has a legitimate right to not will. Such coercion is itself an unjust act of violence against her.

It may be a temptation to suggest that this moral evaluation could lead to a “slippery slope.” If the victim of the rape is free not to will the possible conception resulting from that rape then wouldn't she be free to have an abortion? The short answer is no. Again, if we return to the question of the acting person we can see how procuring an abortion after conception has occurred as a result of rape is morally illicit. In the case of the prevention of conception there are two acting persons involved in the situation. However, once conception occurs there is a third person involved. That newly conceived person now possesses his own dignity. He has a right to life from the moment his life begins.

This is why it's important to make moral evaluations with the acting persons in mind. Remember, it's always persons who act, persons, who have dignity,persons who have rights and obligations. Moral actions cannot be properly understood apart from the intrinsic dignity of the human person.

This may be difficult to understand. It took me quite a while. I had to reread parts of Veritatis splendor and have numerous conversations with knowledgeable brothers to get at the heart of the matter (living among a lot of brilliant Dominicans is awesome). So, if you have further questions, remember, you're always free to contact me using the contact form on this site. But also, don't neglect to read Veritatis splendor. It's a difficult read. But, it's essential for a correct understanding of moral analysis so we don't fall into any of the many errors of our day, whether proportionalism, utiitrianism (or it's derivatives), or physicalism. It's essential that we hold to the moral evaluation provided to us in the Natural Moral Law and Divine Law. If we waver we will fall into the relativism that's so prevalent in our time.

Dust and Ashes

Yesterday was Ash Wednesday. Oddly, my yearly custom has become a Facebook complaint about Mass attendance. Normally people opine sparse Mass attendance. But, on Ash Wednesday, even more than Christmas and Easter, pews swell with souls seeking to be dusted with the remains of burned palms. This is what I opine. It's frustrating because it isn't a major celebration in the liturgical life of the Church. It has a special place in the liturgical cycle. However, it's importance is derived from its relationship to Easter. Ash Wednesday is a midway point. It's a time to look back to Adam and the fall. But it's also a time to look ahead toward Christ and the redemption. It's like gazing down from the top of a mountain dividing two radically different countries. But we are no idle sightseers. We are on a journey from the one land to the other. From sinnful Egypt to holy Jerusalem. The midpoint is important. But this is only due to its relationship to the beginning and to the end of that journey.

This journey of ours is rather odd. It's less like a forced march through rugged terrain and more like a guided tour through a national park. The land has already been tamed. Christ has tamed it. We are simply following after his footsteps. Our guide, the Church, is moving us along the trail he has already cut. Along the journey our guide points out for us significant markers along the roadside for our benefit. This is one way to see the liturgical cycle.

When the Church identifies for us the hierarchy of celebrations she is helping us discern what is important for us to see or know about on our journey. This is why days and seasons are ranked. This is why we have days of precept, days of obligation, and days that are neither. Some celebrations teach us more about the Christian life than others. The Church, as both Mother and Teacher guides us in our path toward greater personal conformity to Christ through establishing which ones are important for us to celebrate. This isn't something we get to choose. The student doesn't get to dictate the lesson plan of the teacher. But this is how so many people act. For one reason or another people choose the lessons they want to accept or not. The student/teacher relationship is broken.

America is a child of the enlightenment. Hyper individualism is a foundational disposition of the American ethos. All things get subordinated to the radical autonomy of the individual. Choice is held to be the most important human power in our modern culture. But this is an exaggeration in our society, in ourselves, that should be brought under control.

Unfortunately, I think that the constant reducing and transferring of obligatory liturgical celebrations has damaged our liturgical sensibilities. Ecclesiastical authority may have unwittingly capitulated to this central vice of American society. Not raising the bar and holding people accountable has contributed to the general religious confusion in our time. The establishment and maintaining of obligatory celebrations helps us set priorities in life. Establishing a precept about mandating Mass attendance communicates to people that this action, and this particular celebration is very important. It goes on the top of the list. But instead, I fear we have communicated the opposite.

This is one puzzle piece to a much larger problem. But, it's an easy place to start solving it. That Ash Wednesday has a greater attendance than, say, the Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God, is, to me, a sign that we have our loves seriously out of order.

A Father's Prayer

Blessed John Paul II recounted to his biographers that his father was a man of constant prayer. Often he would find his dad praying (sometimes in the middle of the night or the early hours of the morning) before an icon of the Blessed Mother. This example of prayer was one of the greatest and most profound influences on the future Pontiff. The spiritual leadership of John Paul II's father would radically change the world. All of us share in the fruits of that prayer through the holiness of his son. The retirement of Benedict XVI may prove to be a similar example that will inspire a yet unknown future.

My Godfather was ordained a Deacon by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. This was back when Ratzinger ran the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I asked my Godfather if he knew the Cardinal and if so, what he was like. He did know him, as well as any young seminarian studying in Rome could know the prefect of the CDF. However, he recounted to me that Cardinal Ratzinger was very accessible. He remembered him as a very gentle, pious, scholarly and quiet man. But he also described him as a, warm, kind, and grandfatherly man. Particularly, he told me that, spiritually, everything that was commonly said about the prayer life of John Paul II was also true for Ratzinger. He was, even then, known to be a man of deep prayer.

It seems that he will continue to be a man of deep prayer.

The Holy Father has indicated that following his retirement he will spend the rest of his life dedicated to prayer and contemplation. It's a fitting end for a man who took the name Benedict upon his succession to the Chair of Peter. He will be free to exercise those gifts of prayer, study, and contemplation, given by God, for the sake of the Church.

This is a good thing for the Church. By resigning he is able to demonstrate that the authority of Peter is not about consolidating power. Even the Papal Office is subordinated to seeking a life of holiness. Freely relinquishing the authority of his position is a sign of this reality. It can also be taken as a statement against the Pelagian tendencies of our time. He's able to remind us that our job description or productivity cycle is not the end purpose of our life. Instead, our urgency should be primarily directed to prayer and seeking holiness. His resignation, if nothing else, should serve as a reminder of this reality. It's also, practically speaking, a good thing for the administration of the Church. While the decline and death of John Paul II was a necessary sign for the dignity of human life, it was a strain on the administrative necessities of the Church. This protects the Church in our modern, fast–paced world from too much of an interruption in her temporal management.

There are any number of hope laden spins that can be given to the Holy Father's decision to resign.

Yet, I find my own optimism to be hollow.

Admittedly, this is completely selfish.

When John Paul II was Pontiff I prayed that Cardinal Ratzinger would be his successor. During the Conclave held after the death of John Paul II I was cautiously optimistic. Upon Ratzinger's election as the Successor of Peter I was elated. I couldn't contain my joy. I was so inspired by the movement of the Holy Spirit I entering the Dominican Order. This was my response to Benedict XVI's election. A vocational renewal, if you will. Because I'm in my 30s I'm often mistaken for being a part of the so-called JPII Generation. That's only partially true. While John Paul II was a profound influence on me during my initial conversion back to the practice of my faith, it was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger who influenced me after I returned home. Really, I tend to think of myself as part of Benedict's Generation.

His love for the faith has always inspired me. His love for the liturgy has moved me to seek authentic liturgical renewal and reform. His decisiveness and clarity are traits I personally strive for. His gentleness and peaceful disposition are an examples I greatly desire to live up to. Now, I'm seeing that I missed the virtue he most prominently exudes – humility.

This is a far more difficult virtue to emulate.

Leadership in my Order is always transitory. We have saying, "Peacock today, feather duster tomorrow." We elect our leaders for a defined term and upon the completion of that term the brother returns to the ranks. We don't receive ecclesiastical titles. When a brother is made a Bishop they cease to properly be members of the Order. The bond established between a Bishop and his Diocese, in some way, overwhelms the bond between him and the Order. In the typical Diocesan structure this is not the case. As a Diocesan priest put it, their structure is a totem pole.

A priest becomes a pastor, dean, vicar, Monsignor, Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope. There's a clear hierarchical structure that one can ascend. The history of the Church is filled with those who have deliberately sought after ecclesiastical honors for any number of reasons, some not so noble. But, by retiring from his office, Benedict XVI, will have exemplified a profound humility toward the Office he occupies, the authority it commands, and the Church he serves. He has attained the height of ecclesiastical authority. And, yet, he has freely chosen to lay it aside for the benefit of the Church. He's done his part. Now, instead of clinging to his Office, he will step aside and submit his obedience to his successor. Who among us would be willing or able to do the same? It's an example to us of both profound humility and great wisdom.

He does not do this to escape the trials of this life. Rather, he's indicated that he will end his days in monastic retreat. I assure you, this is no easy road. The loving diligence required to live the monastic life is rigorous. He will spend the rest of his life dedicated to prayer with and for the Church. Like the father of John Paul II, he will be an example and force, by his prayers, that will enrich and strengthen the Church both now and for future ages to come. He will be an unwitnessed witness to the faith.

I'm sad to see Benedict XVI retire and renounce his Office. But, in this action he's given us a profound example. He has typified humility. It's an act that I will try to understand as I strive to live an authentic Catholic life in conformity to Christ, "who though he was in the form of God, did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. But, emptied himself, taking the form of a slave ... obediently accepting death, even death on the Cross." (Philippians 2:6-8)

Office Notes In Comic Sans

First off, tip o' the hat to Merlin Mann. My title is a reference to an episode of his productivity podcast "Back to Work," cohosted by Dan Benjamin over at the 5by5 Network. It's worth the listen. Well, nearly everything there is worth a listen.

I tend to get really angry when people leave notes in a common space. I'm not talking about posted instructions or reminders. I'm talking about those snarky little notes that say, often in all caps, "YOUR MOTHER DOESN'T LIVE HERE. CLEAN UP AFTER YOURSELF," and usually end with an advanced ""Thank You"" that acts as a veiled threat. First of all, don't talk about my mother that way! Second, it's one of the worst ways to motivate me, or anyone else, to virtue. On the contrary, it provokes me, or anyone else, to anger.

So, stop!

Exit Word, back away from the PC (because no self-respecting Mac user would write such a note ... or use Comic Sans), and walk away.

Why, you might be asking? "Aren't I being helpful?" you ask. Well, no, actually for starters it's cowardly. It's just one more way to avoid confrontation. It may change behavior a few times at best; but, it will eventually fail to be effective. It's like trying to win a war with land mines. Yeah, they are briefly effective. However, they aren't going to achieve victory. And, just like land mines, they can be left around, only to erupt during times of peace. Because, you see, the problem that caused you to write the note wasn't solved at the root. The resulting resentment will lead to gossip and grudge holding — two of the greatest barriers to a healthy community.

Writing a note like this in Comic Sans just adds insult to injury. It's a feeble attempt to mask the underlying anger. It's the written equivalent of sarcasm. One of my Dominican brothers wisely noted that sarcasm is "anger with a smile." The results of both sarcasm and "helpful" Comic Sans notes are the same. And the vice at the root of the problem is the same, viz., cowardice.

I think sometimes the problem is that confrontation is often confused with being uncharitable. But, in reality, it's uncharitable to not confront bad behavior directly. The common term for this sort of uncharitable behavior is passive aggressiveness. Acting in a passive agressive way reveals a lack of mature emotional integration. In other words, put on your big kid pants and act like a mature adult.

The opposite of passive aggressive behavior is not aggressive behavior. The opposite behavior is fraternal correction. But, you can't just go around confronting people and call it fraternal correction. The practice of this virtue requires a number of things to be in place first. It isn't simply confronting someone in a nice way. It isn't simply confronting someone in a kind way. It's confronting someone in a charitable way.

In order to do this properly we must first be willing to bear the wrong that we've received patiently. It's natural to be angry when we experience a wrong. But, that anger should not control us. It should simply move us to correct the injustice we've experienced. Feelings of anger should quickly give way to pity. Pity should ignite in us a desire to be both merciful and helpful. Remember what Gandalf told Frodo about pity? In mercy we understand the words of St. Augustine, "But for the grace of God, there go I." Thus, the help offered should be born out of Charity. We should desire the good of the person who did harm more than our own relief from the injustice inflicted. We must truly desire the greatest good of the other for his own sake. It's also necessary to realize, and this is tough, that even if you do all of this perfectly your efforts may still fail. Fraternal correction can happen only after all of these have taken place.

Yep. It's hard; but, it's the right thing to do. It's called loving your enemies. It's one of the most difficult things in the Christian life.

Modesto

I wanted to take a moment and thank eveyone who assisted and attended the event in Modesto yesterday. I am deeply greatful that I was able to give the inagural lecture for the JPII Lectures for the New Evangelization at St. Joseph's Parish. It's my hope that the new lecture series will be very fruitful for all who participate.

Last Night

I gave a talk in Sacramento last night sponsored by the Veritas Club. It was a wonderful time. I was giving a talk on the Theological Virtue of Faith which they seemed to appreciate a lot. I was deeply grateful for the oportunity to join them for a fun night of faith and fellowship.

Catholic young adult groups are a beautiful leaven in society and in the Church. These young people take time out of their busy professional day to come together for fellowship and to learn more about the Faith. But it's not just young adult groups. There are so many types of Catholic clubs, orginazaations, groups, Third Orders, confraternities, etc., that provide this service for the Church.

This is one fruit of the Second Vatican Council. The Council Fathers desired that all Catholics take personal responsibility for learning about the Faith. They're doing it! They regularly bring in speakers to help them group in their faith. This is the sort of group that needs to be encouraged and supported by priests and religious. More than that. We need to promote them. These groups are a perfect staging ground for the New Evangelization.

I would encourage you to join a group like this in your area. If there isn't one (or a good one), start one. Don't be afraid, God will bless your work. It is His will that our faith is not individualistic. It is supposed to be lived in the context of communities.

We can't just be pew-sitters. We need to take an active part in the evangelical work of the Church. These groups are an easy and fun way to do just that.

The Enemies Weapons

Every once in a while there is a zealous group who will do nearly anything for their cause. Zeal is a wonderful thing. But, more often than not it's something that is fuled by the fires of an emotional reaction to some percieved evil. A deep pool of anger is unearthed by that percieved evil. This is good. Anger is an appropriate emotional response to injustice and other evils. The problem often occurs when that anger, that zeal, is misdirected or misused. A great example is the eco-terrorist who firebombs a parking lot of SUVs. He becomes the victor over something he believes is a large contributing factor to the harm of the earth's environment. However, by blowing up the SUVs he causes the release of more polluting toxins into the atmosphere than whould have been produced by those despised combustion engines.

Protecting the environment, good. Firebombing SUVs, bad.

Likewise, in the fight to save lives through the Pro-Life movement it is unacceptable to use immoral tactics to achieve the desired and laudable goal of saving innocent human life. If this is the first time you have heard this, I'm not surprised. You won't hear this from most people. In fact, sometimes the use of evil means to bring about a good is called heroic. This is because most of the English speaking world has been highly effected by the Philosophies of Utilitarianism and Consequentialism. And, in these philosophies all that really matters is the end result. People generally only want to know if some action worked to its desired end. The means used to achieve the desired end is either not considered or given only a passing consderation in the morality of an action. But, Catholics should not and cannot accept an "ends justifies the means" mentality. In fact, this is an ancient axiom held by many for good reason. It is not a uniquely Catholic notion but it is a deeply Catholic notion.

If we are escape the grasp of Utilitarian and Consequentialist ethics then we must take seriously the means that we use to achieve some laudable goal. So, contrary to common practice, if we want to catch a criminal we can't lie to him. The law allows this. But, just because something is legal doesn't make it morally acceptable. Waterboarding is legal. Is it morally acceptable? No. This is a very real and proximate example of doing evil to bring about some good. Likewise, if we want to expose the evil and sometimes illegal actions of the abortion industry we cannot expose them through evil actions. We cannot lie to them. Why?

Lying is always an evil. This is different than speaking a falsehood unintentionally. That should be clear. It is even different than speaking falsehood intentially. Few would argue that performing a dramatic play or doing a magic trick is evil. Lying has a very narrow definition. Lying is speaking a falsehood with the intention to deceive. According to this very concise definition lying doesn't pass the moral "smell test" in a number of ways.

• It violates the purpose of language
• It deprives the mind of truth
• It does violence to the dignity of things
• It is contrary to the common good
• Theologially speaking, Scripture tells lying doesn't please God

Now, I could unpack each of these and discuss all of the nuances. I won't. Instead, I will actually turn comments on for this post. I think that a firm understanding of this topic requires dialogue. So, take advantage of this opportunity. Comments will be a rare occurance on this blog.

But, I will say that all of the points that I listed are ways that lying is an action contrary to nature. This being the case, lying can never be a valid means to achieve a good end. An evil means pollutes the whole action no matter how good or noble an end.

We simply can't use the weapons of the enemy to fight in the cause of good. Every superhero story, every tale told to children to help build their moral character teaches us: It is harder to be good than bad. The hero follows rules that the villian can ignore.

Finally, Scripture warns us that we should never presume to do evil to bring about a good. Only God can bring good out of evil. The contrary would seem a great act of presumption.

God is the God of Truth, he is Truth itself, no falsehood can be found in Him. Likewise, in our conformity to Christ the same should be able to be said of each of us.

I Met A Man

Sometimes there's a man ...

I was at Starbucks* the other day. Coffee shops are great. They are one of the last places where any sort of conversation with any sort of person can freely and spontaneously happen. So, this guy asked me about my life. He was fascinated that I was a Dominican friar. He was a life long atheist. He was also delightfully contentious. Being contentious myself, I immediately loved the guy.

He couldn't fathom how I could live a life dedicated to something he considered absurd. Admittedly, I was ill prepared for his line of questions. I was at a loss for a simple answer that he could accept. He caught me flat footed. I'm not accustomed to that feeling. His questions were like surprise machine gun fire in a dark jungle. I found myself taking cover in tangents. As the saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your ..." My pride couldn't handle lacking a smart response.

The worst thing was that he was genuinely interested. It was almost as if he was daring me to finally give him a reason to believe. He was remarkable. Like many atheists I know, he had a résumé of good humanitarian works that he readily shared. His love and respect for this earthly life was something to be emulated. But, it was also part of his stumbling block. His this-worldly focus obscured his spiritual vision.

It's a fine balance. Similar to driving a car you must be able to see what is right before your eyes while also looking forward to what is ahead of you. Both the proximate and the remote are important. If you only care about those things near to you, the proximate, the worldly, then you will lack an ultimate purpose. After all, the sun will explode some day. All human endeavors will end in fire. But if you only concern yourself with what is ahead, the remote, the heavenly, then you life will miss the life that you have been given and the suffering of others. Perhaps, there is a better way to think about this.

Balance is not the Christian way. The Christian way of life should be characterized by excess. It is a life of extravagance. We are called by God to love everyone and everything with an absurd level of intensity. This is why we must always love God first. The intensity with which we love God will always qualify the love that we have for creatures. In fact, if we try to go the other way around, if we try to love God by way of the creature our love for both God and others will always be a lesser love than what's possible. 

Love is a dynamic power. It increases itself as it is practiced. By loving God with every ounce of our being we will experience his love. His love is greater than all other possible loves. He is, after all, the source of love. By drawing love from the unfathomable depths of God's love we will find our love for everyone and everything else increased.

This is what I should have shared with the man at Starbucks. I should have told him that I have dedicated my life to love. I have consecrated myself to love. It's absurd, yes. But, it's an absurdity worth any earthly sacrifice imaginable.

* I'm aware that there are many reasons to not like Starbucks. But, they have reliable free wifi and until I have a portable hotspot this is my solution.

Humility

I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts today. During the show one host started recounting his experience with a devoutly Catholic friend – a jurist from Notre Dame. The description of his experience with this friend was less then edifying. The host's friend, presumably an acclaimed jurist, tends to send the host chastening missives concerning faith, morals, and the like. The lawyer lectures him.

I'm sure that the host's friend is well intentioned. However, his approach isn't having the desired effect. Instead, the host seems to feel that those who approach life from a deeply held position of faith are intellectualy unassailable. This is percieved by the host of this podcast as a lack of intellectual humility. Conviction or certitude has been perceived as being pridefull.

This is troubling on a number of levels. I'll begin with my concern about the host's ideas. One problem is the faulty belief that there can be an ideology that lacks a dogmatic core. This is the same as making a judgment without it being based in a principle. This is a logical impossibility. The Anglicans have done a great job of showing us that acceptance of all ideas and opinions quickly becomes its own strongly held and rigorously defended dogma. They have also shown us that this is an impossible position to maintain. It's self-contradictory. This sort of intellectual indifferentism (relativism) is doomed. Once it encounters a position that doesn't accept relativism it has no choice but to anathematize it. It is forced to become unaccepting of the unaccepting.

While I'm concerned with the problem of relativism I'm more concerned with the "pastoral" approach of the host's friend. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Lord knows I've been guilty of the smug self-righteous approach to "helping" unbelievers "understand." Now, I'm working hard to present the faith differently. I've learned that it is unhelpful to just simply assert what you think or know to be true. You may be 100% right. Guess what? No one cares? If I disagree with someone and I don't take the time to discover why they believe as they do, then I don't really love them. On the contrary, I would be more interested in being right.

But, being right isn't everything.

Yes. It is true that my faith is unassailable. But my faith isn't simply an emotional response to some feeling or experience. It isn't something that was simply handed on to me by my family or culture. Yes, there are bits and pieces of these influences in my faith. But, my faith was hard won. My faith isn't even a rational response to sound propositions. Eventhough it is the reasonability of the Catholic faith that keeps me in it when I inevtabilly doubt. Rather, my faith is a gift. It is a gift that the Lord gave me. I have chosen to take that gift and make that gift the center of my life. I want to share this gift with everyone. I want my gift to give others the same joy that it gives me. I want to hand it on to others just as it was handed on to me.

I bet the Catholic Jurist feels the same way. But, for better or for worse, the experience of the faith that he is portraying lacks the depth of joy and peace that characteries the faith. He's letting himself get in the way of the faith.

The most important thing in my life is God. I radically self-identify with this part of me. It permeates all of who I am. After all, I've proessed vows in a religious order. To get to know me is to come in contact with my faith. If I'm a jerk then people's experience of the faith is tarnished. The faith becomes something not worth having. It appears to others as not delivering on its promises. As an old boss of mine would constantly say, "They don't cares about what you know until they know how much you care." Yeah, it's a little hippy, a little too 7 Habits. But, you know what, it's true.