Category Archives: Essays

Stating the Conclusion

Posted on by

                                                             

The problem with stating the conclusion first is the same problem as stating the theory without the evidence; it circumvents both reason and logic and what we like to call “common sense.” You see there is no such thing as “common sense”, unless we would agree that everyone is born with some, and over time and experience it develops into practical life skills or perhaps a compass to navigate this material world of ours. Or secondly, considering “common sense” as simply developing through life experiences, it is still unreliable since in this case, it would necessarily depend on an array of tangible and intangible conditions. I am suggesting two cases for your consideration. An intrinsic element, something we might call intuition or conscience, and a mental or structural element which we might call the foundational precepts of the Scientific Method. Both elements are recognized as a standard for inquiry, investigation, and observation. Through either element, we can discern what is a definition, a description, and an experience of every day natural occurrences, technically complex scientific questions, or abstract concepts such as morality, social justice, and righteousness. Since both elements come from different beginnings and end up in the same place, we can use either to develop a model which depicts definition, description, and experience. So, let’s take “common sense” out of the equation, using either the mental or intrinsic elements as a pathway to experience.

Certainly, the Scientific Method fits this model. Formulating a basic definition of what is, along with a thorough and extensive description of what is, and finally and most importantly capturing the real-life experience of what is. We can move from the premise, through the proof to the final purpose. Understanding any method can be corrupted unintentionally by error or purposefully by design, this author intends to consider an authentic representation of honesty and integrity to encourage serious dialog and contemplation. And again, through the intrinsic element, whether it be epiphany, inspiration or guidance from a greater power, the fundamentals remain the same.

Using the definition to draw the conclusion presents a shallow world view, which can be easily manipulated by encouraging the audience to formulate their own descriptions and select the purposes which best fits their particular point of view. Without the description, the experience can assume all the goodness and glory the definition might entail without enjoining any actual world values which might make the experience possible. This sleight of hand trick also forces any opposing point of view to deal with the definition without the related description or experience, which are the substantive component of the definition. This becomes a tactical strategy forcing other world views to frame a response within the parameter of the definition, when in fact the definition might have nothing to do with the description or experience.  

On the intrinsic side of the process, I believe the process actually works better and can be easily seen in reverse order. Whereas, in the mental process, the definition and description build to a depiction of experience; the intrinsic element begins with an experience, and the description and definition are created to support the experience. This means critically thinking people will analytically weigh the merits of the intrinsic experience with the same scrutiny as they would evaluate the credibility of the definition and description leading to the experience produced by the Scientific Method. The assumption made in this model is the realization that the experience is paramount regardless of the process.

For instance, if the experience is harmony, peace, and security which is the same as the definition of a rich and rewarding life, then all sounds well, straight forward, and forthright. However, as we have seen in Venezuela and other areas where Totalitarianism is on the rise, the description of the definition is  millions killed, millions interned  and hundreds of thousand released back into the society to spread the news; then the experience is one of terror and tyranny. Now evilness molds the narrative, the lie becomes reality. When the disconnect is defined as connecting the dots, when the oppressors are defined as the victims, then natural law can be suspended in favor of existentialism. Consider the recklessness of claiming an existential threat, when the goal is to further a political agenda and generate wealth for a few and suffering for many. Consider the damage done when history is defined in today’s politically correct scheme, that’s when yesterday’s impossibilities become today’s headline news, written to suppress what is happening in favor of promoting power and control. As we know the best hidden agenda is one in plain sight, defined by what it’s not, heralded not as absurdity but exalted as the new normal, the new order, and justice in action.

Here in America, just as a river changes its course over time in a slow and unperceivable way, so too does social sentiments slowly drift from one idea to the next. Trends develop and a willing media creates social commentary from prevailing bias and some fragments of today’s pop culture. When observers think things are happening quickly, it’s because they have failed to see the next step in what has become an organized trend. Events are only surprising when the dawning was not an awakening. “How did this happen?”, is not a rhetorical question, it is a desperate call to action. When a society does not value what it has achieved, it will soon lose those accomplishments. Order is replaced with chaos, and chaos championed as a new beginning. The old order is dismissed as inconsequential instead of formational and foundational, a necessary step.  The current conditions are only seen as intolerable by those outside the fabric of success. Those within the structure want change for the better, built on the existing systems. Those outside the systems appear to be disoriented and isolated because their unity is not based on diversity, but in destruction. They cannot build on what is because it’s beyond their experience. Those in the fabric of success understand  constant learning and the implementation of best practices. Those outside the fabric of success don’t want what is new and improved, they want something different. Different in their terms and in their direction, never considering the consequences of changing the engines in midflight which crashes the plane. When you have nothing to lose why not gamble everything.

                                                                       

Human Rights and the Common Good

Posted on by

One onto my self and one among many is consistent with conventional thinking. Presuming a democracy and free market system, an individual can move freely from one societal structure to the next. Being any part of a household does not preclude one’s status in the economy, the political structure, the denomination, or general social setting. On the other hand, one onto my self and one in the body of Christ, His Church, becomes paradoxical. Saint Paul uses the analogy of the human body to better explain this paradoxical interconnection. Yes, the eye is one onto itself, and yes, it is a unique entity, yet the eye only has substantive meaning within the context of the body; it is what it is because it is in the body and the body is what it is because the eye is what it is. All this gibberish is to utilize functionality, unity, and the comprehensible distinction between the worldly and transcendental. Using parody as our model we can conceivably better understand paradox as analogy.

Let us work backwards, let’s begin with a conclusion concerning this unity in a worldly way and how the individual through his inalienable rights can create the common good. Understanding paradox as a foundational factor in this discussion, let’s conclude government works better when some of the government functions are not performed by the government. Let’s return to the early days of our Constitution and reestablish the notion that promoting the common good means the government will not do anything to impede the common good. Today’s understanding of government is to design and execute programs and legislation which function as the common good. By its very nature, the government is created from and for empire building. When government makes the decisions concerning human rights and promoting the common good, a society can easily gravitate into a Fascist Germany or an Imperialistic Japan. Today’s China is more than a world competitor, China has become a global predator. Similarly, when religion takes the task of governing the society, a present-day Iran can emerge. OK, so how did we get to this conclusion that government in some areas should not govern?   

Firstly, we examine in a paradoxical way, human rights as the vehicle which gets us to the common good which are the same human rights that are found in the common good. In other words, the society has to have basic human rights to create the authentic common good and the common good will expand these  human rights. Either way, we will begin with human rights.

Pope John XXIII, in his encyclical letter of 1963, titled “Peace on Earth”, listed some of these rights as: the right to life and a worthy standard of living, food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and necessary social services. Rights pertaining to moral and cultural values, such as the search for truth, to worship God, to meet and associate with others, and to immigrate. There are certainly political rights and far reaching economic rights: a right to work and work in a safe environment, receive a just wage, and a right to have private property. Certainly, these are all worthy rights and these rights can be easily expanded into greater detail pointing the way to the common good. We find the Catechism of the Catholic Church continues with this idea of worthy rights. Firstly, and foremost by putting the concerns of the common good on the rights and social conditions which allow the people to reach their fulfillment, emphasizing the individual’s participation and responsibility in and for the common good. The CCC beautifully ties the rights of a person to the common good by presupposing respect for and the wellbeing of the person. Human rights and the common good are strengthened by the social development of a group within a peaceful, secure, and just order.

Next, we might want to look at how the transcendental transitions into the worldly. We might see this as the abstract into the practical, theory into practice, interpretation into application, or subjective into objective. How we view this transition is not as important as getting it right, actually having the worldly model be expressive of the vision. I suggest a few mental steps into the process. Looking at the subjective into the objective can be accomplished by agreeing on a standard by which we can measure and evaluate the clarity of the vision, and the results of the implementation. Considering the human rights brings to mind the personal responsibilities associated with these rights, and in some worldly ways the burdens of the blessings. I offer you this, there is a God Standard we can use which demands we act out of love and humility. Taking ourselves out of the equation and loving as Bishop Baron explains, loving for the sake of others, as other. Also, when asking what I am about to do, will it appeal to everyone’s highest ideals and best intentions? Finally, is the underpinning based on right thinking, in other words, kindness, compassion, empathy, and bringing joyous motivation as in giving with a happy heart? If the answer is yes, to these prerequisites, then I can proceed in confidence that I am beginning to move forward in the right direction.

Another step in this idea of moving from theory into practice might be to consider, what is, what should be and what ought to be? Considering Einstein’s life work was never completed. On his death bed were his notes and equations as he spent his final hours working on the mathematical path from the sub-particle mechanics to the world of physics. I am suggesting we do the same by considering problems such as this have solutions, but mysteries do not. Problems will eventually be solved; mysteries will be experienced. Moving into practice, we will by necessity decide, what is. What are the current conditions, what have our institutions, agencies, government legislations and bureaucracies created or failed to create? We know our vision of a kinder and softer world demands we take the next step, what should be? This is where our clear and critical thinking becomes paramount. Not only are we capturing our vision, we are also considering all the resources available and how these resources will elevate what is, to what can be experienced. We are looking for the best of all worlds, the one we have, the incremental transition steps being taken and the accomplishment of our goals, unfolding before us. Ours is a quest of inflorescence, what the Bible calls fruits of our labor. This is the process of nurturing and cultivating, growth and harvesting in the season of plenty. This is much different than the deliberation of what ought to be. What ought to be is that Utopian idea of pie in the sky; what can be imagined but is beyond reach. What ought to be has no prerequisites, there can be no transition from theory to practice because the vision has no foundation. Granted the vision does incorporate love and harmony, virtues, unity, and every platitude known to man, but it lacks character and energy; it has no substance only a clouded vision of heaven on earth.   

Pope John XXIII laid out our human rights as a pathway to a rich and rewarding life. Considering the human rights in and of themselves are not experiences, they are to be experienced. Virtue is only virtuous because of a worldly experience, something accomplished in our world, perceived as authentic goodness. The idea leads to action, without the action the idea is only a shadowy reflection of what ought to be. The spoken idea is only rhetoric, without the man-made action, the Holy Spirit has no arena. The human rights capture the vision; the worldly event captures the experience.

Our mission becomes the work of the Church, with or without the church, moving from the abstract into the practical. Taking what was once the function of government or what was perceived to be a necessary function and creating a new structure for the common good. The goal being collaboration. Communication to coordination and cooperation, all leading to collaboration. In this way the government can become a recipient rather than the originator. In the light of the Covid-19 pandemic, much has been said about the restructuring of government and the opportunities to make changes for the common good, what the pundits see as a way forward through existing structures and the strengthening of government. What the laity sees as strengthening government as they promote the common good with structures tangent to the normal operations of government. We have all seen these unique entities in ordinary ways, such as, neighborhood watch groups, private and home schooling, nonprofits, rural volunteer fire departments, foundations for charities and church sponsored charities. I will leave structuring and labeling to the sociologists, the political scientists, and economists. Its time to put away the clichés like, human dignity for workers of the world or capitalism not corporatism. Its obvious some platforms make a better starting point than others, again, its not about empire building, its about saving our souls, human rights and promoting the common good.

So, here’s how it worked. As a representative of Catholic Charities, I met in committee with West Palm Beach Food Bank, United Way, other charity groups and some non-profit food providers. Our goal was to establish nutritional requirements for children of different age groups, base line pricing, distribution schemes, and coordination between entities to provide weekend food for kids living in insecure home kitchens. This program is customarily called, “The BackPack Program.” Our program is designed for kids up to the ages of ten to twelve. The school systems provide breakfasts and lunches for children in need, but nothing was being done for their weekend meals. Through the effective administration and fund raising of Catholic Charities, the work of a field liaison, and the volunteers at the Churches, approximately 400,000 meals have been given away over the last six years. The program evolved to a point where there are no prerequisites, reordering and inventories are controlled by distribution logs. Recipients are simply asked to sign a form with the kids name and the adult who is picking up the food. There are no questions asked, just show up and pick up the meals. The program is so popular and successful that the school districts are now directly sub-contracting with the non-profit distributors so the kids can take the food home after Friday’s school day. The program could continue indefinitely as long as there is private funding, on the other hand, this is a case where government did step in to promote the common good based on the work of a unique entity whose sole goal was to further the sanctity of the individual and the promote the common good. Blessings for all of us.

Laws of Growth

Posted on by

By way of introduction, let me say I am a recent convert. A lifelong seeker who found a profound answer in Catholicism, which is, a person cannot find Grace. God’s love, His providence and His grace are gifts; we as His children, we can only receive and accept the design of His creation. More precisely, as children in the twenty first century, we know and love God in His singularity, while we struggle with all our facets, our passages and often times the resulting duplicity.

There are times when the dogma of the Church or the passage from scripture didn’t ring true for me. At those moments, I asked myself what it is I don’t understand and looked deeper into my thinking before I declared a point of departure. Being a believer forces me to reconsider, study and contemplate looking for what is right in scripture and what runs parallel with my thinking. Many times, an explanation from a priest’s point of view, or an insightful homily is all it took to show me the wisdom of scripture and the wisdom of the Church. However, as a Catholic writer I give myself the latitude to begin the dialog, realizing my obligation is not to lead the reader away from the Church or into sinful behavior. Using this as my standard, there are many times when I do find a point of departure in the interpretation or point of view of other Catholic authors.

To his credit, Russell B. Connors in his book, Christian Morality said, “in my view”, as he described the meaning of CCC #2343, Laws of Growth. He went on the say, “We are called to be and to do the best we can—no more, no less.” For me, this statement is not only a point of departure, it is also troubling. On reading CCC#2343, I find clear direction that chastity has Laws of Growth which progress through stages. The CCC continues, a person builds himself through many free decisions, and so knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth. Clearly, Laws of Growth encompasses moral good and moral good encompasses many other Christian virtues including, compassion, integrity, and kindness to name a few. Implying an individual could be his or her own judge as to what is the most one could do at any given time, in any given virtue, including chastity is not consistent with Catholic teaching. The standard is set by Christ Jesus, through His church, the magisterium and the CCC. A person’s accomplishments or limitations at any of the stages of growth does not affect the teachings or the authority of the Church.

The first century Christian could legitimately struggle with what to believe. In an effort to make a radical idea more understandable, many well intentioned clergy and scholars scuffled over the nature, meanings and teachings of Christ Jesus. Saint Thomas asked Jesus to help him with his unbelief as would many followers going forward. As practicing Catholics in the twenty first century, our dichotomy is not belief or unbelief, it is belief or disobedience. We have the magisterium and the Catechism giving clear direction. To imply an irregular relationship, adultery, genital contact outside of marriage or the idea of contraception being acceptable because it is the best we can do at the moment, denies the magisterium its authority in our lives, and more importantly we are putting ourselves ahead of Christ and the design of His creation. In all fairness to our psychological make up and our spiritual nature, we will certainly agree, everyone falls short in the eyes of Jesus. Given this inevitable situation, Jesus also provides a remedy which is glorious, for sure and for certain, that is confession. As the author suggests, it would be trite and unreasonable to think our confession would carry the burden, I’ll never do this or that again. However, confession does mandate, by its very definition, that we will go beyond our thinking and turn away from the direction which is leading us into harmful behavior. This ideal is a long way from subjectively accepting our current circumstances as the best we can do. Matthew Kelly proposes constant learning and the implementation of best practices. Joyce Meyer puts it this way, “I know I’m not where I should be, thank God I’m not where I used to be.” I believe these reflections of the CCC better capture the Laws of Growth rather than the presupposed disposition of an individual at a certain time.

So, is there a fatal flaw in our author’s thinking, or perhaps something not so nefarious? Could a study in hermeneutics be a simple solution? Isn’t there a presupposition at play here, something built into the language or depth of understanding which brings a certain bias to the forefront? It occurs to me both the CCC and the author’s point of view, points to the truth and for the betterment of the individual. The CCC from a principled and rigorous doctrine of spiritual understanding, and the author’s from a softer psychological frame of reference underscoring tolerance of a fragile psyche struggling for forgiveness in a difficult situation.  I find it very telling as the author describes the advice of a good pastor; we learn to refrain from judging others. Certainly, good advice considering our judgments would be mostly if not purely subjective. Saint Paul took it a step further, preaching one should not judge themselves. The conclusion I find is pretty straightforward, its never about us, our evaluations, our frames of reference or our calculated concoctions; it is about His timeless message, His guidance and His direction.

Moral Response

Posted on by

We, His creation are intuitively curious. It’s not enough we ask questions, we see the necessity of adding, “what if” to the answer. It’s not enough we find the foundation; we look for what the foundation is built on. Our life is a vision of voyage. The destination of this vision is experience, the destination of this experience is life, and so it goes on and on through familiar terrain and on uncharted waters. So, what should be our response to the worldwide pandemic? Let’s listen to the wisdom of our hearts which tells us, the greatest gift is creation, without it there is nothing at all. Each of us is unique in body and soul. The body’s greatest gift is the soul. It is ours to nourish and protect as we navigate this world of strife and temptation.Our connection to the divine is the triune body: the mother, the father and the kiss of the Holy Spirit which is our soul at the moment of conception, and the reflection of the triune God. By His authority we are the stewards in His creation.   

Every major religion which has become sustainable through the ages believes in the sacredness of human life. The government will never be the source of the best decision to be made for an individual. Governments are created out of empire building; the best decisions are made for the salvation of souls. So, our response to this pandemic is to save our souls by saving theirs. We will do whatever it takes to protect the sanctity of human life. The young and the old, the healthy and the infirmed, the righteous and short sighted, the greatest among us and the inconsequential are all called to the banquet at His table, all called to be stewards in His creation. Our physical world is a complex arrangement of priorities; we look to our governments to turn this complexity into process. When this process is centered on the individual we find success and harmony, when it’s not we find deceit and devastation. As world citizens and practicing Christians we will walk the thin line between what is right thinking and what is not, what is allowable and what isn’t, what is sustainable and what ends in tragedy. In these troubled times, we shouldn’t look at reasonable steps to take, we should look at responsible steps which will be taken; we shouldn’t look at what we have done, we should look at what He has done for us.