The Young Curmudgeon

A powerful article

2006-12-07T21:45:00.000-06:00

One of my favorite publications, which I receive monthly, is the New Oxford Review. It is an orthodox Catholic magazine that pulls no punches--something that far too few publications, let alone many "Catholic" ones, do in the politically correct West. It is scholarly yet accessible, orthodox without being stodgy, and bold yet obedient to Catholic Doctrine. It also challenges the reader to live as a Catholic who is in the world but not of the world. (Sadly, too few "mainstream" Catholic publications [including diocesan newspapers] fail miserably here.) Catholicism, after all, is the true Christian Church because it is the only one out of the 25,000-plus nominally Christian churches in the world that was established by Christ. But I digress...

Back to the New Oxford Review. One way in which the magazine has challenged me--and undoubtedly other politically conservative Catholics among its readership--is its consistent stance against the war in Iraq. The magazine has maintained that Catholics should oppose the war because it violates the Just War doctrine first posited by St. Thomas Aquinas. It has denounced the support given the war by prominent "neoconservative" Catholics in Washington, D.C. Personally, I've never been entirely comfortable with the stated reasons for our sending troops to Iraq. I accepted the assumption that there were weapons of mass destruction (an assumption that Slick Willie himself made but did zero to address). However, I think that the claims about "liberating" Iraq tended to be a stretch that was a sort of "Plan B" to which the neocons turned after no WMDs emerged. More than a century ago, there was no "Iraq." The country--an assemblage of several nations--was a creation of the British Empire. I'm not certain that these groups wanted to live together then, nor do I believe that they're striving for that goal now. Moreover, with all of the corruption in our national government these days and downright treasonous behavior by elected officials and journalists alike, what kind of example is the U.S. setting?

This brings me to my main point--and my reason for bringing up the New Oxford Review article. After reading it, I asked myself whether the U.S. is still the "shining city on a hill" to which President Reagan referred. After all, our federal government has for more than three decades legally sanctioned the murder of 50 million-plus unborn children--a genocide that far surpasses the death toll of the Holocaust. Moreover, American society--following that of Western Europe--continues to broaden the definition of a family so that children can grow up with two daddies and no mommy, or vice versa. Sometimes, I almost shudder when I see what I as a parent am up against. What have we become, and how much worse off will the country be 20 years from now?

Are our "democratic" values really what can cure the world's ills?

Like watching a train wreck, part II

2006-11-16T20:42:00.000-06:00

The national GOP's descent continues as the Powers That Be in the party continue to illustrate why they lost control of both houses of Congress last week. I base my observation on the selection of Florida Sen. Mel Martinez as party chair and Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott as Minority Whip. Since when have these two gentlemen distinguished themselves as great conservatives? Martinez, HUD secretary during the President's first term, hasn't exactly endeared himself to the base. A prime example of why this is so is his support of the President's amnesty program for illegal aliens. Personally, I think that outgoing Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele would've been a better choice to lead the RNC as it licks its wounds and, hopefully, returns the Republican Party to its rightful status as the country's realiably conservative party.

Lott, as you'll recall, served as Majority Leader until he made a comment endorsing Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign on the Dixiecrat/segregationist ticket. (To his credit, I think that he made the comment more to be nice to an old man than to espouse any racist view.) That unfortunate event aside, he caved when the Senate had the duty to convict President Clinton after he had been impeached by the House. Why should he be rewarded with a leadership post now? Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is a decent, conservative choice for minority leader who's demonstrated his ability to take on the opposition, in my opinion. Probably wouldn't be my first pick (I'd prefer someone like Jon Kyl of Arizona, perhaps), but he's eons better than a liberal like Olympia Snowe or, eek!, Arlen Specter.

My main point here is that the GOP still doesn't seem to get it, even after last week. I believe that the party got clobbered--deservedly so, to some extent--because too many Republicans in D.C. became too arrogant (Executive and Legislative branches) and ignored their conservative base of support. (Rick Santorum, who I'm sorry to say will not be returning to the Senate, is one bright exception.) Selecting dynamic leaders who are loyal to the conservative agenda would've given the base some glimmer of hope.

For the country's sake, I sincerely hope that the Democrat-controlled House and Senate will not do too much damage legislatively. Moreover, also for the country's sake, I hope that the soon-to-be minority Republicans will find the courage to fight for the conservative agenda and hinder the passage of such legislative atrocities as universal health care and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Like watching a train wreck

2006-11-08T05:56:00.000-06:00

At this writing, the Dems have regained the U.S. House after 12 years as the minority party. The Senate is still up for grabs. Regardless of the outcome, this country is screwed. I can't say that the victory for socialism (i.e., victory for liberal Democrats) is a big surprise, though. Rather, I should say that liberalism--or should I say non-conservatism--has been fashionable for much of the time the GOP has controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Our interventionist, globalist foreign policy, coupled with an unwillingness to seriously control our borders, has been very prominent for the past six years. Nor has there been any serious effort to fix Social Security (i.e., at least partially privatize it for younger generations) or enact real tax reform (a flat tax of, say, 15% or replacing the income tax with a national sales tax that targets consumption [my preference]). Let's not forget Bush's willingness to sign into law McCain-Feingold and a huge new prescription drug entitlement--to name two prominent examples of his capitulation. Furthermore, he's virtually ignored the fact the he can (and should) veto excessive spending bills.

The outcome of yesterday's election is no surprise because the GOP, at least on the national level (and with a few individual exceptions), has abandoned its conservative base and the principles of limited government. Instead, they've sought the "middle ground" far too often, only to find themselves in the current predicament. Don't weep for the ousted GOP incumbents, though. I'm sure that they'll find cushy jobs as lobbyists. The rest of us, however, will be forced to swallow even stronger doses of socialism. Speaker Pelosi...eeek!!

A new leaf

2006-10-24T22:51:00.000-05:00

Hello Dear Readers:

Fall is one of my favorite seasons, if not my favorite (with spring a close second). I've always been drawn to the cooler--but not cold--weather and clearer skies that usually come with the season. For me, fall signifies a certain vibrancy--even a sense of renewal. In light of the recent development with my vision, these qualities are even more prescient. In the past couple of weeks, I've felt a certain peace come over me that was largely absent for at least the preceding 12 months. I find myself dwelling less on the future and more on the here and now, and I find more joy in my work and the time I spend with my family. I even stop to smell the roses blooming in my front flower bed. Perhaps in my partial blindness, I'm better equipped to see how richly God has blessed me.

What a week!

2006-10-12T17:08:00.000-05:00

Hello Dear Reader:

For more than 15 years, with the help of some very able specialists, I have avoided becoming blind despite multiple retinal detachments in both eyes. Last November, I developed another detachment in my right eye and endured aggressive treatment that included four surgeries and other procedures. To add some excitement to the mix, this past summer I developed a pretty bad ulcer on my right cornea. All of this, as veteran "The Young Curmudgeon" readers know, affected my appearance, causing me to look like an unpleasant old codger.

Last Friday, I had what I thought would be my final surgery to correct the detachment. I returned to my opthamologist on Tuesday and discovered that the retina detached again. Given the weakened condition of my right eye following the surgeries, my doctor told me that the chances of success from another surgery were not good. Moreover, "success" at this point would entail my ability to see shadows--not restore "normal" vision. Given these slim chances, and not wanting to put my wife and myself through a repeat of the past year, I decided against further treatment.

So, barring a miracle, I am partially blind. This is certainly a letdown, but it is not the end of the world. With the support and prayers of my loving wife and family, along with the certainty that God has inserted some silver lining at the perimeter of this dark cloud, I will not let a defeatist mentality shadow all of the wonderful blessings that I've been given and will continue to enjoy. Moreover, how bad things may get (it's conceivable that I could develop another detachment in my left eye at some point and become totally blind), I know that things can always be worse. I could be alone, or perceive that I am alone, in this new route on life's journey. But I am not. And life will go on.

Sweatin' to the Orwell

2006-09-27T22:54:00.000-05:00

Hello Dear Readers:

By reading this blog, you're obviously demonstrating that you enjoy good writing, can recognize sarcasm (see the previous post), and are intellectually curious enough not to be force-fed the politically correct drivel that is ubiquitous in the West. Heck, you probably even know what "ubiquitous" means! To you, I offer my congratulations on not being a mind-numb robot!

For those, however, who believe this is a good development, I can only say: WAKE UP!! Although I am, shall we say, "well fed" myself and have been known on occasion to sit in front of the TV for too long (mainly before I became a father), this is truly yet another symptom of how bloated government's gotten. If government had a body mass index, it would be off the charts! If government were a person, I would look like a male, bald Kate Moss standing next to it!

Hyperbole aside, it's very disturbing to me how intrusive government is getting into our lives. Why is this ANY of government's business?? Doesn't it have more important things to do these days like, I don't know, fighting Islamo-Nazis? I also find it troubling that Sam Brownback, who has a record as a pretty strong conservative, is voicing support for this.

At the risk of only sounding negative, however, I do have a solution that will not cost the government one cent and will take zero resources away from fighting terrorists. What is it, you might ask? Well, there are these people called parents (preferably married and representative of both sexes). Parents can do this thing called monitoring their children's viewing habits and activities. If their children are watching too much TV or not eating the right things, they can assert their authority and help their children modify their behaviors. Traditionally, in fact, parents have been expected to use their authority to instill in their children a sense of right and wrong, to keep them on the "straight and narrow." An excellent way to assert this authority is to set a good example yourself. Sadly, these concepts are foreign to too many in this country nowadays because people have become dependent on others (including the government) to do what previous generations did for themselves.

Too many "intellectually challenged" people have allowed government to think for them, to become their obese nanny state. More Americans need to fight new "initiatives" such as the one described in the link. Government is doing nothing more than encroaching more on our freedoms. We need to demand that our elected officials hold the line of government's rampant growth. They need to act collectively in a Richard Simmons-esque manner, holding an intervention with government and putting it on a crash diet.

New Orleans...coming back!

2006-09-25T21:16:00.000-05:00

Hello Dear Readers:

Unless you're an incurable hermit, you know that the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina has come and gone. You also surely know that the "news" media have provided a steady stream of coverage showing New Orleans' seemingly hapless efforts to recover from the terrible natural disaster, which brought out the best and the worst in people--and revealed how there is such a dearth of leadership in that city (Mayor Ray "Wonka" Nagin) and in Louisiana (take your pick...Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the Louisiana Legislature, et al).

Well, I'm here to report that everything's okay now in the Crescent City. Nearly $200 million has been spent to rehabilitate the Louisiana Superdome and the often-hapless Saints--the only NFL team worthy of New Orleans and but one of Louisiana's state-subsidized boondoggles--have returned home. Never mind that many New Orleanians are still are without power, permanent housing, regular trash pickup, access to full health care facilities, etc., etc. The important thing, at least in the minds of some, is that the Saints are back. Tom Benson, arguably the worst, whiniest franchise owner in the NFL, has received his latest subsidy from the taxpayers.

Like the fabled Phoenix, the Superdome has risen from the proverbial ashes and now boasts the latest sound system, fancy new scoreboards, updated luxury suites...and the list goes on. It matters not that high-rises near the facility remain vacant and that many New Orleanians have not returned (and likely will not). Also, disregard the fact that the "Detroit of the South" (my description) was a crime-ridden hellhole in decline even before Katrina. The important thing is that, like a gleaming temple to corporate welfare surrounded by the River Styx, the Superdome has risen again and the Saints have returned to their permanent home. Well...permanent, at least, until Tom Benson follows through on his oft-repeated threat to move the team to a place that will bow down to him and offer him more giveaways. With all of the upheaval brought upon by Katrina (and let's not forget Rita), isn't it good to know that Louisiana has managed to stay true to its "colorful" political system?

Laissez les bons temps rouller!

Thank you, God, for Benedict!!

2006-09-16T15:36:00.000-05:00

Hi everyone,

As you most probably know, Pope Benedict XVI ruffled the feathers of the Islamo-fascists this week by including the following quote in a speech in Germany this week:

Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

Benedict clearly attributed the quotation to the Byzantine Emperor from approximately the late 1300s or early 1400s. The emperor was discussing Islam with a Persian scholar.

Given the widespread fear in the West these days of saying anything publicly that criticizes Islam, I for one am happy that a leader of the civilized world has said what needs to be said. Benedict truly is a gift from God for pointing out the truth, even if he was merely quoting someone else. The fact of the matter is that, throughout history, Islam was spread through force. Conquered people either became Moslem, were murdered, or--if their lives were spared--lived out their days as pariahs. This mentality still prevails throughout the Mohammedan world. Unlike countries that are at least nominally Christian or Jewish, Islamic countries do not have freedom of religion. Non-Moslems continue to be persecuted in these places.

It is also worth mentioning that Benedict was entirely correct in broaching this topic. Islam is a heresy in the eyes of the Catholic Church (along with Protestantism, Modernism, and many other "-isms"). Too infrequently do our bishops and priests enlighten the flock about heresies (nor do they bother to mention the "s" word [sin] often enough, but that's another story). I'm very grateful that Benedict exhibited the courage to tell the truth.

As for the Islamo-Nazis' violent, angry responses that failed to show the same tolerance they often demand from non-Moslems...well, they were just validating what the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus said.

Benedict's complete address follows:

Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a moving experience for me to stand and give a lecture at this university podium once again. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. This was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves.

We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas: the reality that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason-- this reality became a lived experience.

The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the whole of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical skepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on-- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara-- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian.

The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point-- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself-- which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.

But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:

Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.

God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death....

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: In the beginning was the logos. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos.

Logos means both reason and word-- a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.

The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: Come over to Macedonia and help us! (cf. Acts 16:6-10)-- this vision can be interpreted as a distillation of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and declares simply that he is, is already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates's attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: I am.

This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature.

Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria-- the Septuagint-- is more than a simple (and in that sense perhaps less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God's nature.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.

As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV). God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love transcends knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, Christian worship is worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history-– it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity-– a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the program of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.

Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the 16th century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this program forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.

The liberal theology of the 19th and 20th centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this program was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue. I will not repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favor of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. The fundamental goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God.

In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s “Critiques”, but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

We shall return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be “scientific” would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by “science” and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective “conscience” becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter.

This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvelous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application.

While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology.

Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology.

For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”.

The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

9/11 - Five years on

2006-09-10T21:21:00.000-05:00

Hello Dear Readers:

As you surely know, Monday is the 5-year anniversary of the attack on our country by Islamo-fascists. An untold number of media reports looking back at the past five years will likely say something like the country changed forever or 9/11 was our Pearl Harbor. I would largely agree with such comments. However, I'm not so sure if the events of Sept. 11, 2001, still hit home with many elected officials, bureaucrats, and citizens. Make no mistake that the Islamo-fascists want to destroy the United States (and other Western countries). Given the actions (or inactions) of the federal government and certain left-wing groups in the U.S. over the past five years, coupled with their willing accomplices in the "mainstream" media, one can assume that the enemy sees the U.S. as weak, decadent, and easy prey. Here are some examples of how too many in the U.S. have been proverbially fiddling while Rome burns:

The Powers That Be in this country--including President Bush--are still not serious about securing our borders. That's a basic responsibility of the federal government, and it has failed time and again to do just that. There's been lots of rhetoric and tough talk from politicians, but why is it still so easy to cross into the U.S.? Where are the results?
Why are so many politicians--and others in the public eye--so fearful of identifying our enemy? There are even several terms to choose from: Islamo-fascists, Islamo-Nazis, radical Muslims, Islamists, Islamic/Muslim extremists. If "moderate" Muslims are offended by this, well...too bad. It seems to me that they would not want their "peaceful" religion sullied by the atrocities of a relative few. We're at war for our survival, people! I'd rather see feelings get hurt than innocent lives lost.
What is all the fuss about the supposedly horrid conditions for Islamist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? This should have never been an issue. Our country has bent over backwards for these terrorists! We give them prayer mats, special diets, baths (which many of them probably had far too infrequently in their home countries!), and air conditioning (ditto). Maybe we should ship the whiny ACLU types who gripe about the supposed horrid treatment to Crapistan or wherever the terrorist detainees hail from. See how many rights they'd have there!
Our "mainstream" media love to report on the antics of kooks such as Cindy Sheehan, leaving the impression that the country is very divided in the war against terrorism. Certainly there are some differences of opinion, but do we need to advertise them all over the world? Given the instantaneous and global nature of communications nowadays, isn't it safe to assume that the enemy is just as aware of these reports as we are? Once upon a time in this country, there was a widely obeyed rule that differences in foreign policy end at the water's edge. Also, during World War II, there was a saying that "loose lips sink ships." I believe those in the public eye should adhere to the spirit of these simple phrases. Note to media: self-discipline is a good thing.
One quick observation: France is not our ally--not that it would really matter if they were.
A final observation about how some in the U.S. are "fiddling" (see above): Although we're in a fight for the survival of Western Civilization, some in the U.S. (and elsewhere in the West) are passionate not about fighting terrorism but about securing legal sanction for other evils: homosexual "marriage," easier access to abortion (morning-after pill), euthanasia, and human cloning. What I find really ironic, particularly in regard to the gay "marriage" and abortion issues, is that these grave sins would not be tolerated in Islamic countries. Moreover, weren't the Nazis--a term that left-wing activists love to use to describe conservatives--very keen about cloning and killing those who did not meet their standards (Jews, Christians, Gypsies, people with disabilities). But I digress.

So, on this fifth anniversary of 9/11, try to remember where you were and what was going through your mind when the Twin Towers were attacked and destroyed, when the Pentagon was struck, and when the jetliner crashed in rural Pennsylvania. Also, look back on the mood of our country in the subsequent days. Do you remember how we were stunned, saddened, angry...and united against a common enemy? We need to rekindle that unity!

The 32-year-old curmudgeon

2006-09-08T20:55:00.000-05:00

Hello out there!

My name is Matthew, and this is my first attempt at being a blogger. I'm 32 years old and I live in suburban Houston, Texas, with my wife, children, and cats. My family's very important to me, and my primary roles are husband and father. The job that I get paid for is that of editor for a dot.com serving the energy industry.

Now about the name of this blog: it reflects both my appearance and my take on the world's events. First the appearance part. I have had serious health problems with my eyes since age 18. For most of the period since 1992, the conditions have been pretty stable. Since last November, however, they've come back--so much so that I've not had sight in one eye since then. More recently, another issue has popped up that has required me to wear a patch over said eye. Like many people with poor eyesight, I have to squint a lot and I look grumpy when I'm really not. Fortunately, a full recovery is on the horizon--probably by November of this year. I hope to see out of my right eye again...and maybe I'll even appear friendlier!

Regarding my views: politically, I'm quite conservative. I vote Republican only because the other viable choice (the Democratic Party) is worse. I'm one of the many conservatives who voted for Bush twice and has been let down by his failure to control spending, his wrongheadedness on the issue of illegal immigration, his signing of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, and his overall failure to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to advance the conservative agenda. Granted, Gore or Kerry would've been worse, but it would've been nice to vote FOR Bush rather than AGAINST the socialists/Democrats. My overall view about government is that it governs best when it governs least.

I'm also an orthodox Catholic, so I'm quite concerned about social issues. I'm very pro-life, anti-artificial contraception, and very much in favor of laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman. As a husband and father, I've become more aware of how serious the breakdown of the family unit is. I'm also very grateful to have been raised in a traditional family unit where I was taught the difference between right and wrong. As a traditional Catholic, I'm also dismayed by how irreverent the Church has become in the West (i.e., non-traditional hymns, watered-down theology, poor leadership from bishops and priests, etc.).

If I haven't scared any of you off by now (ha, ha), and if you'd like to read about what's on my mind (and even respond), know that you're always welcome here. Also, although I enjoy discussing politics and religion, I'm also open to other topics. Hope to hear from you soon!