To our beloved Catholic pundits

Your throats must be parched after all your chatter about how to interpret the Pope's latest encyclical within a framework of binary American politics. Here, have a nice big swig.

Link | John da Fiesole
|

---

Can any two things be any less correlated?

This kind of thing really gets up my nose:

"Bad luck means that the encyclical is coming out on the day of Michael Jackson's funeral. No one will be paying attention," [Fr. Thomas Reese] said.

Seriously, Fr. Reese? Seriously?

Does anyone remember the big story the day Evangelium Vitae was officially released? How about the day Mit Brennender Sorge came out? Rerum Novarum? (Or, for that matter, Slavorum Apostoli or Invicti Athletae?)

Here's the thing about news: it gets old. If you treat the contents of an encyclical like a news story, then the answer to the article's headline, "Will Benedict XVI's New Encyclical Matter?," is assuredly, "No."

(Link via The Deacon's Bench.)

Link | John da Fiesole
|

---

Domestic gods

In isolation, the first verse of yesterday's Gospel reading could sound encouraging:

Jesus departed from there and came to his native place, accompanied by his disciples.

We might think of Jesus' native place as heaven, where we disciples will spend eternity with Him.

Alas, "the Greek word patris here refers to Nazareth," and the passage concludes with the disheartening

He was amazed at their lack of faith.

Worse, what if Jesus' patris today could be said (metaphorically) to be the Church?

Certainly, many of us have known Jesus since we were babies. Not as a carpenter, like the Nazarenes of old, but as the Son of God and Savior of the world. He's on the cross, He's in the tabernacle, He's sitting at the right hand of the Father in glory. He is remote in His transcendence, and if we do draw near Him in any but a casual way it's almost always within the safe confines of a church.

So what would happen if He showed up in our lives, looking and acting differently than we're used to? Like, that is to say, a living Person right here in our midst, not content to wait patiently at the altar but stepping out into the world? Would He be amazed at us, too?

Link | John da Fiesole
|

---

Felix thorna

If power is made perfect in weakness -- and we have it on good authority that it is -- then strength always leaves power imperfect.

St. Paul was bothered by his thorn in the flesh, and so came to understand that when he was weak in himself, then he was strong in Christ.

Suppose, though, we are strong enough in ourselves, at least for day to day living.
(Though whether any of us are actually strong enough in ourselves, and not merely deceiving ourselves about what discipleship demands of us, is another question.) Then, even if we make it through this life without collapsing, we'll still have failed to be the channels of God's power in the world that He intends us to be.

It seems that we can be strong in ourselves, or strong in Christ, and Christ leaves the choice to us. Pray for the grace to make the right choice!

Link | John da Fiesole
|

---

An incomplete number

Eleven men begin their postulancy in the Order of Preachers' Province of St. Joseph tomorrow.

Yay!

Still: Eleven men? Sounds familiar. Whom is God calling to make that number complete?

Link | John da Fiesole
|

---

What I tell you three times

If there's one insight I've had that I think is worth wide dissemination -- and I don't claim it's original, but I'm pretty sure it was independently derived -- it's this:

Our saying something does not cause it to be so. God alone can create light by saying, "Let there be light." For the rest of us, there is at best a contingent relationship between what we say and what is. Even a dictator whose word is literally law depends on those around him continuing to agree that his word is law. God alone is sovereign.

That seems obvious enough in the abstract; who would claim that their saying, "I am holding a donut," causes a donut to exist in their hand?

But if the mere fact of our saying something doesn't cause it to be so, then it follows the mere fact of our saying something doesn't mean it is so. Additional conditions are necessary.

If we know the truth, and if we intend to express the truth, and if we say something is true, then it is true.

Often, though, people rearrange this to something like: If we intend to express the truth, and if we say something is true, then we know the truth and what we say is true is true. From here, it's a short step of assuming people we like (including ourselves) always intend to express the truth to conclude that everything they say is true.

But few people are quite that simplistic. Most of us know anyone can be mistaken about some dry, external, objective fact. But who can tell you you're mistaken about some internal state or experience of your own?

So "Everything this admirable person says is true" becomes "Everything this admirable person says that refers to himself is true." If he tells you what is motives are, those are his motives. If he tells you what his influences are, those are his influences. If he tells you he has consulted his conscience to the best of his ability on the matter, he has consulted his conscience to the best of his ability on the matter. And what Catholic can criticize the actions of a person who follows their conscience?

Except: Every human can be wrong about what is true, even if -- arguably especially if -- it refers to themselves.

Link | John da Fiesole
|

---

Blogging can be risky

Okay, correlation is not causation, but still. Brendon is, "for all intents and purposes, a seminarian," and Kat has applied for an Aspirancy.

So you never know.

Link | John da Fiesole
|

---

Habemus punditii

It's true, as is sometimes pointed out, that if the Pope wrote a laundry list it wouldn't be considered infallible.

It probably would be considered bloggable, though.

And people might scramble to be among the first to read it, and maybe write a sneak-peek preview of it before it was officially released. Maybe that sense of urgency would even make a kind of sense, if only because another laundry list would likely be coming along in a week or two.

Encyclicals, though, come out rarely, and they don't come with an expiration date. I really don't understand the need to read them the day they come out, much less the week before.

I'm not knocking anyone's hobby, much less their profession, and I suppose bloggers can be excused for wanting to generate content that will attract hits.

But personally, I'm far more interested in reading about how Pope Benedict's first encyclical has changed someone's life since it came out three years ago than in reading which four sentences of his newest encyclical jump out at them as they scan it for money grafs as soon as the link works.

Link | John da Fiesole
|

---