This is something that I feel needs to be explained. Every year when the Lenten Season comes upon the Christian World, they jump into this frenzy of giving things up, not eating meat and especially it seems, sweets and candies go out the door until the Easter Bunny loads them up with chocolate bunnies and strange eggs. I guess it means something but lets look at it from the way it was originally intended.
The idea of fasting and abstinence (two different events by the way, fasting being eating only one meal and a snack for the other two, and abstinence which is the not eating of a particular food such as the meat of warm blooded animals on Fridays of Lent) has as it basis the idea that you would take the cash saved from eating less (fasting) or from eating less expensive foods (like red meats) and give that cash to the poor. In the middle ages and even into the late 1700's early 1800's beef was a rarity and an expensive meal. Fish on the other hand was cheap and easy to come by in most places, as major cities and towns were located on rivers. This served two purposes, one being water to drink, the other being fish to eat. It was also an economic advantage for moving goods from one place to another. But I digress, the main reason for not eating meat was to save the money, and then give that to the poor.
The idea that God likes it when we suffer, or that self imposed pain is a good thing that God encourages is not a Christian idea. To develop a strong self discipline is good in general, but it is not a road to salvation. The old idea that if something is good it must be sinful is outrightly wrong. That was the heresy of Jansenism, in Jansenist thought, human beings were born sinful, and without divine help a human being could never become good. Jansenism was officially outlawed by the Catholic Church in 1712. Yet many of the ideas of the Jasenists carry over in the overt ideas of fasting for the sake of the poor. That is a silly idea if you just think about it for a minute. “I fast to experience the suffering of the poor therefore the poor are better for my gift of suffering and becoming like them for that time. I have a better understanding of their pain and suffering.” No, you do better by fasting and giving the money you saved to a food bank to help relieve the suffering of the poor.
God does not relish the idea of his people in pain. God does not want everyone to be poor and hungry. God desires that we all be well fed, and happy. If we have more than someone else is not a sin, it is using our talents as given to us by God. Do we have a responsibility with extra goods and material things we have, yes we do. We need to share, we need to give to those who are less fortunate than us in talents and gifts. That is where fasting and abstinence come into play.
You see, it is far better to fast and abstain from bad habits than from food. We have focused on food, yet what God wants is for a people who are loving and caring. When I worked in Catholic Schools, I used to encourage my students NOT to give up candy, but to choose an aspect of their life where they were failing or felt they needed improvement. It could be being mean to a sibling or not being respectful. It could be in an area of their life that wanted to improve such as manners or courtesy. Every day during the 40 days of Lent, they were to address that issue and try either to change that behavior, if it was a bad behavior or make it a part of their life, if it were a good behavior. That is what God wants from us, not people who moan about what they cannot eat or have given up, but people who are trying to become better people.
Fasting is a nice idea, becoming better people is a better idea.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Questions
I am still reading Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. I have encountered a question and I am in the midst of researching for an answer. It seems I am not alone in my quandary of what did Thomas mean when he says that all is "predestined" in the plan of Divine Providence. I have sought out "professional" help on this. I turned to one of the better scholastic teachers I had in my college years and asked him for help. I was relieved to find out that it is a question that is still in open debate and was given the name of a book (Predestination by Reginald Garrigou-lagrange) to find and to read. Lucky me, I have trouble pronouncing the man's last name yet alone taking this on as a light reading assignment! Needless to say a fool and his money (or his credit card) are soon parted. I found the book online at www.Powells.com . They specialize in hard to find books. They had it and for a MERE $22.50 I get a paperback edition of this tome to read.
The question I have is difficult to phrase, so let me try:
I recently read in the Summa the section on Fate and Divine Providence. In this section Thomas says that there is Fate, but that Fate is equal to Divine Providence. He mentions that the word Fate (L. fatum) is derived from the latin word fari which means to foretell. He then refers to Augustine and Bothius who revile at the use of the word Fate as it is used by infidels (pagans) and may be misunderstood by the christian. Then he goes on to say that the christian should understand that Fate = Divine Providence, and that we should use this word in place of Fate as not to confuse the two. Thomas equates the two, Fate and preordained Divine Providence. When I read this, it sounded more like Calvinism. The concept of free will (and I understand that all out comes of free will are in the knowledge and understanding of God) does away with the concept of Fate all together.
The question is, what exactly is Thomas trying to express about Fate, and are we Fated in life or are we acting in Free Will? In Divine Providence is there the concept of Fate, thus making the use of Free Will a mute point?
So, with the information I have received that this is an idea still open to debate as to what exactly is meant by the terms Fate, Predestination, Divine Providence and Free Will, I journey forth on my trek to knowledge and understanding.
A quick sidebar here, in that Augustine understood the word Fate and Fates more in the understanding of what we would call astrology today, thus his aversion to the use of the word and how Aquinas, living almost a 1000 years later looks at the word differently. Thus I need to see how I would understand the word myself today, and try and revamp that idea as well.
Looks like I have my summer reading list all lined up!
The question I have is difficult to phrase, so let me try:
I recently read in the Summa the section on Fate and Divine Providence. In this section Thomas says that there is Fate, but that Fate is equal to Divine Providence. He mentions that the word Fate (L. fatum) is derived from the latin word fari which means to foretell. He then refers to Augustine and Bothius who revile at the use of the word Fate as it is used by infidels (pagans) and may be misunderstood by the christian. Then he goes on to say that the christian should understand that Fate = Divine Providence, and that we should use this word in place of Fate as not to confuse the two. Thomas equates the two, Fate and preordained Divine Providence. When I read this, it sounded more like Calvinism. The concept of free will (and I understand that all out comes of free will are in the knowledge and understanding of God) does away with the concept of Fate all together.
The question is, what exactly is Thomas trying to express about Fate, and are we Fated in life or are we acting in Free Will? In Divine Providence is there the concept of Fate, thus making the use of Free Will a mute point?
So, with the information I have received that this is an idea still open to debate as to what exactly is meant by the terms Fate, Predestination, Divine Providence and Free Will, I journey forth on my trek to knowledge and understanding.
A quick sidebar here, in that Augustine understood the word Fate and Fates more in the understanding of what we would call astrology today, thus his aversion to the use of the word and how Aquinas, living almost a 1000 years later looks at the word differently. Thus I need to see how I would understand the word myself today, and try and revamp that idea as well.
Looks like I have my summer reading list all lined up!
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Choose Wisely
Of all the things that Aquinas covers in his Summa, his discussion of free will and choice are to me the most interesting. The intellect is the key for most of what Aquinas dictates as the "image and likeness of God" that we has humans possess. Since we are material beings, made of matter as well as of spirit (which he focuses on as the intellect) we are the lower level beings. We apprehend ideas in our mind, we do not have the reality in our mind. We have an understanding of an object, we do not know the object in its reality. We can only know through the senses, thus our understanding and our knowledge is limited.
That alone opens a lot of doors to the idea of "freedom of choice" or of choosing right from wrong. It allows for a lot of "grey" area in moral teaching as we know each person has a different apprehension of this as they are understood in our mind. Two witnesses to the same event have different memories and truths. A person is neither focused nor in sync with another at a level that they both see the same thing and understand the same event in the same way. Take this thinking and this logic to its fullest and you have a true libertarian understanding of moral "truths". Yet, we all accept I hope, right is right and wrong is wrong. As for degree of culpability we all differ.
I look at the Muslim world and how they choose their governments, They are usually autocratic, with few governmental entities. There is no need for many of the entities, because in Islam, a lot of what governments would do, is in fact done by the local Mosques and the charities that they operate. From our advantage point in the west, we see this as religious interference in governmental affairs, they see it as normal and good. Alas, who is right or wrong is a matter of location, culture and religious belief.
But here in the United States, there is a great divide over many issues that could be simply resolved if (ah, that fine word of indecisiveness) we would just look at things differently. The idea that all countries must be a democracy as an example. Some of the greatest ideas came to us from people who lived and thrived under monarchs. Why is democracy so important. The majority can be wrong you know! We saw that in the democratic election of Adolf Hitler’s party to the Reichstag in 1932. They choose poorly. So too with the Italians and the election of the Fascist Party in with Mussolini in the 1920’s. Democracy does not always mean that just because the majority choose freely that all is well. And when you look at how choices are made in the United States today, with minority opinions and ideas, using courts to enforce their ideas onto the majority (yes, both the right and the left use the courts to this end, it depends on if you are in that minority whether you think it is a good idea to utilize the system for you minority view, be it the saving of a tree to the saving of a job) is not a true democratic ideal. Here you have a minority idea being enforced on the majority. The role of our courts have changed from interpreters of the law, to enforcers of the law.
Here is the crux of this rambling essay, freedom of choice is made with the apprehended reality we have, NOT the reality as it is. Thus, all our choices are poor choices. You see, it doesn’t matter if we live under a dictator, a monarch or in a democracy, the individual choices we make will always be flawed because we seldom look beyond our own comfort zones for information. I used Islam deliberately in this essay because just the mention of it makes people angry and they refuse to see that there are good ideals and practices in the faith of Islam. Have they read about the ideas of the faith or talked to Muslims about their faith? Just one example of not moving outside of our zone to look for more information to enhance our “apprehension of the reality” we are going to judge and act with our free will.
Knowledge is key, understanding is the lock. Together they make us better humans and better humans make better choices.
That alone opens a lot of doors to the idea of "freedom of choice" or of choosing right from wrong. It allows for a lot of "grey" area in moral teaching as we know each person has a different apprehension of this as they are understood in our mind. Two witnesses to the same event have different memories and truths. A person is neither focused nor in sync with another at a level that they both see the same thing and understand the same event in the same way. Take this thinking and this logic to its fullest and you have a true libertarian understanding of moral "truths". Yet, we all accept I hope, right is right and wrong is wrong. As for degree of culpability we all differ.
I look at the Muslim world and how they choose their governments, They are usually autocratic, with few governmental entities. There is no need for many of the entities, because in Islam, a lot of what governments would do, is in fact done by the local Mosques and the charities that they operate. From our advantage point in the west, we see this as religious interference in governmental affairs, they see it as normal and good. Alas, who is right or wrong is a matter of location, culture and religious belief.
But here in the United States, there is a great divide over many issues that could be simply resolved if (ah, that fine word of indecisiveness) we would just look at things differently. The idea that all countries must be a democracy as an example. Some of the greatest ideas came to us from people who lived and thrived under monarchs. Why is democracy so important. The majority can be wrong you know! We saw that in the democratic election of Adolf Hitler’s party to the Reichstag in 1932. They choose poorly. So too with the Italians and the election of the Fascist Party in with Mussolini in the 1920’s. Democracy does not always mean that just because the majority choose freely that all is well. And when you look at how choices are made in the United States today, with minority opinions and ideas, using courts to enforce their ideas onto the majority (yes, both the right and the left use the courts to this end, it depends on if you are in that minority whether you think it is a good idea to utilize the system for you minority view, be it the saving of a tree to the saving of a job) is not a true democratic ideal. Here you have a minority idea being enforced on the majority. The role of our courts have changed from interpreters of the law, to enforcers of the law.
Here is the crux of this rambling essay, freedom of choice is made with the apprehended reality we have, NOT the reality as it is. Thus, all our choices are poor choices. You see, it doesn’t matter if we live under a dictator, a monarch or in a democracy, the individual choices we make will always be flawed because we seldom look beyond our own comfort zones for information. I used Islam deliberately in this essay because just the mention of it makes people angry and they refuse to see that there are good ideals and practices in the faith of Islam. Have they read about the ideas of the faith or talked to Muslims about their faith? Just one example of not moving outside of our zone to look for more information to enhance our “apprehension of the reality” we are going to judge and act with our free will.
Knowledge is key, understanding is the lock. Together they make us better humans and better humans make better choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)