Doctrine and Dissent
I saw a link on Twitter to a post on Digg.com entitled What Happens After I Die?. Being a curious Catholic sort, I clicked on the link, which took me to another site, a completely black web page that scrolled down “infinitely”.
My first reaction: “Har, har. Oh, what wit. How clever you are. When we die we are annihilated. That’s hysterical We sure showed those religious types.”
But then I thought about the fear evident behind this web page and the posting on Digg (as well as the hundreds of comments and thousands of “diggs” on the web page). What would prompt someone to create this page? Where does this false bravado and antagonism? I recognize there could be legitimate anger against the excesses of some religious adherents. History is replete with people who have committed atrocities in the name of religion. They could merely be offering adolescent rebellion against the faith of their parents or grandparents or rebellion against the moral law they find so restrictive. Yet there might be something more as well.
If someone truly believed that after life was only nothingness and annihilation, I think they would live in terror of death and its inevitability. Like a gazelle being stalked by a pride of lions in the open savannah, death will come for all of us, sooner or later. If after death, there is nothing, how terrifying it would be to contemplate the abyss. But these people do continue to function in their lives. Certainly, denial is a powerful mental process that aids all of us to continue down some paths at one time or another. (Every habitual sinner is intimately familiar with denial.) Still, I believe there is also in them an innate knowledge that death is not the end. Knit into the very fabric of our being is an understanding that we are immortal, a knowledge that lives in our breast beside the natural law.
Melanie reminded me that C.S. Lewis wrote that, unlike the lower species like animals, we experience time because we are ultimately meant to live outside of time. (I’m paraphrasing her parphrase, so excuse my imprecision, if you will.) A fish does not contemplate the water he lives in, but we experience the time we live in many ways. We are observers of time. Time flies and it drags. We mark time and take time. One day, we will see time as God does, from his vantage point. We live in time for a time, so that one day we may live timelessly.
I pity the fearful who mock the darkness with the semblance of a brave front. If only they knew that on the other side of the veil of life is a new life. Not darkness, but light and joy and Life. I pray for them that one day, before it’s too late, they will embrace the Light and Life. Because the alternative is not nothingness, but something worse.
Two new and very different purchases arrived in the mail today.
The first was the book, “The Sources of Catholic Dogma” by Denzinger. This is a classic resource of theology, so classic in fact that Vatican documents, including papal encyclicals reference it as a source and have done so for 150 years. It is also known by its Latin name, the “Enchiridion Symbolorum”. The book catalogs all the creeds and articles of the Catholic faith and every dogmatic definition, every magisterial decree, every papal bull, every major pronouncement of the Vatican up to 1957 when this particular edition was issued.
This is an indispensable work of theology, which should sit on the shelf next to the Bible and the Catechism. Which is why it surprises me it took so long to get one, although I do have other less authoritative, but no less valuable compendiums of Catholic doctrine, such as Ludwig Ott’s tome. So when I saw a tweet from Aquinas and More recently about having the book at a reasonable price, I decided it was time to complete my theological library.
The other purchase couldn’t be more different. It’s the Gorillapod Mobile by Joby. Joby makes a kind of articulated, grippy tripod of all shapes and sizes that attach to just about anything. The legs are made up of a series of connected spheres, each with an equator of a rubber-like grippy material. This combination allows you to place the Gorillapod in every conceivable place. Not only can you just stand it on a table, you can wrap the legs around anything whose diameter isn’t larger than the length of the legs.
This particular verison comes with an iPhone case, a screw mount for a camera (although only a point and shoot is small enough not to tip over this model), and a couple of adhesive backs for other random items. I plan to use it on my desk as an iPhone stand, but also in the summer to attach to the handle of my lawnmower as well as the baby stroller. I think I may also use it when I donate blood platelets to watch movies on my iPhone. Right now my free arm gets mighty tired holding the phone up the whole time.
The Gorillapod is very versatile and I look forward to finding many uses for it.
There you go. An eclectic duo of items whose only connection is that they both arrived at my house today.
Can. 211 All the Christian faithful have the duty and right to work so that the divine message of salvation more and more reaches all people in every age and in every land.
Can. 212 §3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. [Code of Canon Law]
Coadjutor Bishop Jaime Soto, who will become the ordinary of Sacramento, California, at the end of November, was invited to speak to the conference of the National Association of Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries. These are people who work directly for bishops.
Bishop Soto simply repeated the Church’s teachings.
“Sexual relations between people of the same sex can be alluring for homosexuals, but it deviates from the true meaning of the act and distracts them from the true nature of love to which God has called us all,” Bishop Soto said. “For this reason, it is sinful. Married love is a beautiful, heroic expression of faithful, life-giving, life-creating love. It should not be accommodated and manipulated for those who would believe that they can and have a right to mimic its unique expression.”
At least five audience members walked out during his remarks and afterward he endured a group of audience members who berated him for what he said. A board member of the organization was overheard telling one of the tables in the room: “On behalf of the board, I apologize. We had no idea Bishop Soto was going to say what he said.”
Last week, a group of Catholic congressmen from the House of Representatives sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, taking her to task for misrepresenting Catholic teaching on abortion in a TV interview. Here is their letter.
Dear Speaker Pelosi,
On the Sunday, August 24th, broadcast of NBC’s Meet the Press, you stated “as an ardent, practicing Catholic, [abortion] is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority.
Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error.
In the interview, Tom Brokaw reminded you that the Church professes the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being” (2274).
To this, you responded, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.” Unfortunately, your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching and belief regarding abortion.
From the Apostles of the first century to Pope John Paul the Great “the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (Catechism 2271).
Thus, your erroneous claim about the history of the Church’s opposition to abortion is false and denigrates our common Faith. For example, during the reign of Pope Innocent XI in 1679, the Church unequivocally stated it is an error for Catholics to believe fetuses do not have a soul; and confirmed the teaching that abortion constitutes an unjustified taking of innocent human life.
To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write you to correct the public record and affirm the Church’s actual and historical teaching that defends the sanctity of human life. We hope that you will rectify your errant claims and apologize for misrepresenting the Church’s doctrine and misleading fellow Catholics.
The signatories are:
- Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan
- Steve Chabot of Ohio
- Virginia Fox of North Carolina
- Phil Gingrey of Georgia
- Peter King of New York
- Steve King Iowa
- Daniel Lungren of California
- Devin Nunes of California
- John Sullivan of Oklahoma
- John Boehner of Ohio
- Phil English of Pennsylvania
- Jean Schmidt of Ohio
- Jim Walsh of New YOrk
- Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska
- Michael McCaul of Texas
- Paul Ryan of Wisconsin
- Walter Jones of North Carolina
- Mike Ferguson of New Jersey
I’m glad, but not surprised, to see the name of my friend Jeff Fortenberry there. I’m saddened that not one of the Catholic congressmen from my own state are among them.
Photo credit: Screen capture of NBC’s Meet the Press.
