Two New (old) Sins

I blew it.

So, last night, it was snowing heavily in the Twin Cities, traffic going home was nearly at a standstill, my wife and I were both tired at the end of a long work day, then we were compelled to go out into the weather again to Mass, as it was the feast of the Immaculate Conception (a day of obligation for Roman Catholics). We got home around 7:30, now hungry, as well as tired. In an attempt to lighten things up, I volunteered to venture out once more and get some "to-go" food as a treat. After some debate, I ended up going to a local fast food taco joint. Once there, I just kept adding and adding stuff to our order and when I got home, not only did we (mostly I) polish it all off, I added a significant amount of ice cream on top of it. I blew it.

Some of you may know that the human inhabitants of our household have been doing Weight Watchers for a few months. (The canine inhabitant is lean & muscular, and doesn't seem to worry too much about her figure, anyway.) So, yes, I blew my "point" limit for the day. But that's not so much what concerns me. Some years ago now, I began to understand that I don't just enjoy food (a healthy thing), I love it. I idolize it. Often, I don't control it, it controls me. That's what happened last night...and that's what I blew: I fell back into an old pattern of behavior that is blatantly sinful. Yes, sinful. Traditionally (in the Bible and in Christian history), it is called "gluttony," and it has the same base characteristics as other, more readily recognizable, sins: overindulgence, idolatry, self-serving autonomy, self-slavery (creating the proclivity for further sin), etc.

Gluttony isn't spoken of much these days in terms of sins we must confess, repent of, and be forgiven for. Given the characteristic overindulgence on food, especially non-nutritious food, in the US, overeating and resultant obesity is seen as the statistical norm, which, in Aristotelian thought, becomes the moral normative. While the Church has the obligation to continue to preach such sins as sins, and to graciously and generously offer forgiveness for them, it rarely does so. Perhaps its (worldly) reasoning for not doing so is something akin to: if you drive away the gluttons by preaching against gluttony, the Church would be empty. Perhaps food, like money, is one of those "taboo" topics for homilies.

Anyway, skip ahead to today. Upon entering the room where I eat my (this time, modest) lunch at the seminary, I happened upon a fellow student named Margaret, and we fell into discussing the topic of rest. It's "crunch time" of the term (papers due, etc.), so opportunities to rest can be at a premium. When Margaret hinted that she wasn't getting much rest, I (in good humor, but probably too sharply) referred to the concept of Sabbath: that we are designed to need rest, and when we don't rest, we pridefully deny our God-given human limitations. Since Margaret has a wonderful sense of humor, she graciously chuckled and asked if one can confess the sin of not resting.

As with gluttony, the understanding of working excessively--a telltale sign of godless self-sufficiency--as sin has morphed quite a bit over the millennia, as well. In Ten Commandments days, exile and even death was prescribed for those who neglected the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14-17). Nowadays, we actually boast about being "too busy," and we idolize productivity. Can one still confess such a sin as neglecting rest? "Not only can, but should," was my response to Margaret. Nevertheless, I wonder how many confessors hear the penitent confessing their overindulgence in work, their failure to rest. Not many, I'll bet. I'm not even sure many confessors would know how to handle such a confession.

Still, I can envision a Church that adheres to preaching the dangers, the sin, of gluttony and the neglect of rest--not primarily as judgment, but as part of the "old self" that needs to be shed, that the new self, the one being remade in the likeness of Jesus Christ, can grow and become fruitful. Such a move might be radical in these times, but that's the kind of radicalness the Church needs to exhibit: Rest more! Eat less! That's the kind of Church that glorifies God and finds her ultimate fulfillment not in work, not in food, but in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Liturgy of Black Friday

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving. It is traditionally a time of being together, feasting, watching football and parades on television, napping, and, in Wisconsin, where my wife and I celebrate the holiday, deer hunting. Traditionally, too, it is a time to reflect on the blessings of life and to give thanks. It is this last element—giving thanks—that is perhaps the most humanizing part of this late-November holiday.

Gratitude, by which I mean a conscious, active rendering of thanks, moves us outside ourselves as it acknowledges our absolute dependence on others. It humbly celebrates being a recipient as it deconstructs our notions of autonomy and self-sufficiency. And, when our thanks are rightly directed to the author of life and giver of all good gifts, gratitude actualizes us as human beings—as finite, limited creatures who are relentlessly drawn by our loving God into a life greater than our own. Truly, the traditional liturgy of gathering around a table piled high with food and pausing to recount those things for which we are thankful, and to offer our thanks up to God, humanizes us.

The day after tomorrow has been dubbed “Black Friday.” Black Friday, as one local newspaper claimed, is itself “tradition,” and “the American way.” It is a day when many Americans, still sluggish from the previous day’s feasting, rise before the sun to patronize malls, discount stores, specialty shops, and the like in the spirit of holiday shopping. Stores have taken to opening in the wee hours of the morning and rewarding “early birds” with extra savings. Shoppers have responded by lining up outside said stores, feverishly awaiting admittance, and clamoring over one another in a frenzied pursuit of particular items—items which do not deserve the moniker “goods.” This frenzy, as we have tragically seen, has even resulted in human death.

The liturgy of Black Friday is, rightly considered, a dehumanizing liturgy. Albeit, many shoppers who flood the stores that day lay claim to a selfless motivation: they are out buying Christmas gifts for family and loved ones. However, the stated goal of buying gifts loses all its credibility if one’s attitude and actions on Black Friday are decidedly ungiving. The goal of Black Friday shopping, at its core, is still one of acquisition (in contrast to reception). This acquisition is accomplished by utilizing one’s own resources (money, time, strategy) and unabashedly competing with others, even to the point of violence—even fatal violence!—in order to obtain that which one desires. The liturgy of Black Friday moves us ever deeper into our own selves, stirring up our self-centered desires and appetites not merely without the consideration of others, but often in active opposition to others. An unfortunate few Black Friday shoppers tragically find themselves no better off than a 12-point buck caught in an open Wisconsin field. The vast majority, even if immediate ramifications are not as poignant, still suffer definitive, destructive effects.

Of course, it is deeply ironic that we can spend one day supposedly immersed in the practice of gratitude, acknowledging our own dependence and limitations, and spend the very next day immersed in the practice of consumption, relying on our independence and our ability to surpass our limitations. The humanizing rituals of Thanksgiving are sadly often lost in the dehumanizing practices of Black Friday. What is needed is for us to take a page from the liturgy of Thanksgiving: to pause before consumption, offer thanks, and let the spirit of gratitude inform, guide, and even restrict our consuming—all with a humble appreciation for, and deference to, others a la Philippians 2:3-4.

Vatican Note on New Apostolic Constitution - Catholic Online

Vatican Note on New Apostolic Constitution - Catholic Online

Huge ramifications from this, I'm sure!

Indoctrination

The recent squabble about President Obama's speech for schoolchildren scheduled for today has been fraught with controversy. Right-wingers are up-in-arms, claiming that it's dangerous for Obama to be given such a platform to speak "his message" into the lives of the young and impressionable, claiming that they don't want their children "brainwashed" or "indoctrinated." Left-wingers have replied with astonishment, claiming that all the President wants to do is encourage our children to work hard in school, not "indoctrinate" them in some liberal viewpoint.

While this wildfire is obviously fueled by the out-of-control partisanship in our nation's politics, it has given me pause to reflect on the concept of "indoctrination."As long as I can remember, "indoctrination" has had negative connotations, usually alluding to something akin to brainwashing, which conjures up images of fascism and/or religious cults, but more readily applicable to mainstream ideologies, e. g. liberalism, conservatism, Evangelicalism, or Catholicism. And, of course, kids are always the ones held up as the potential victims of indoctrination. Parents don't want their kids indoctrinated.

What's at risk, apparently, is these kids' freedom to think and choose for themselves whether they might be more democratic or more republican, more Christian or more atheistic, etc. To my mind, however, this "freedom" is largely a ruse. Humans learn through interaction with other humans: both directly, as through conversation; and indirectly, as through reading and the media; either actively, as through explicit, evaluative assertions; or passively, as through omitted sentences, word craft, and propaganda. And at the level of the child, it seems to me that all of this interaction could be viewed as indoctrination, taken to mean the teaching of a particular ideology. Even the statement "I don't want my child indoctrinated" stems from a particular ideology whose doctrine is passed on through human interaction. Simply put, there is no human interaction ungoverned by ideology.

What is more valid for a parent, however, is the desire to monitor and filter those voices which reach one’s child. I would imagine most parents would want their children to hold a similar ideology to their own and are subsequently suspicious of the barrage of voices modern children encounter which may prove sufficient to topple a parent’s influence. There is some good in this, most especially because many such voices today are unfiltered (for example, this blog).

So, what about the Church? Does the Church hold to an ideology? Of course. Does it seek to hand that ideology on to young people? Absolutely. Is this a bad thing? One’s answer to that question depends on what ideology/ies one has been indoctrinated in. But to pit a freedom of thought ideology against it is doomed to fail, for it becomes, in the end, self-defeating.

Barth on Calling

"...our calling to be Christians, as plainly shown in the New Testament in the figure of Peter, must take place again and again. No man who is called does not also have to see and understand himself as one who has still to be called and therefore as one who stands alongside and in solidarity with the uncalled. ...For all the seriousness with which we must distinguish between Christians and non-Christians, we can never think in terms of a rigid separation. All that is possible is a genuinely unlimited openness of the called in relation to the uncalled, an unlimited readiness to see in the aliens of to-day the brothers of to-morrow, and to love them as such and not simply as men, neither the Old Testament nor the New knowing anything of a general love for humanity."

- Karl Barth

(Church Dogmatics. Translated by Rev. G. W. Bromiley. Edited by Rev. Prof. G. W. Bromiley and Rev. Prof. T. F. Torrance. Vol. IV, pt. 3. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1962, p. 494. Apologies for the non-inclusive language.)

Income Distribution Within U.S. Religious Groups (Pew Forum)

Very interesting graphic up at The Pew Forum:
Link is here: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=376

Pannenberg on sex, marriage, family, and religion

"...In every case, however, the necessary presupposition is that the community is experienced by its members as meaningful and its claims on the individual as justified. Only if this supposition is verified can the family become, not only for the children but also for the married couple and the parents themselves, the place where human beings undergo a 'second birth' as 'sociocultural personalities.' When this presupposed priority of the community over the individual is no longer acknowledged, the individuals involved will experience the claims of marital and familial obligations as a suppression of their freedom, and not least of their sexual freedom, and they will seek emancipation from these fetters. But the priority of the community over the individual is not self-evidently valid. It requires a justification and legitimation which in the final analysis can only be found in religion. Crises affecting the structure of authority in marriage and family will therefore always be religious crises as well..."

- Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Anthropology in Theological Perspective. Translated by Matthew J. O'Connell. London: T & T Clark, 2004, 437.

More good Pannenberg...

Ok, so I'm finding good stuff here, can you tell? Here's something that might not preach to modern Western society very well, but oooo! is it good:

"The connection between act and consequence and therefore the liability of culprits for their actions precede the development of the idea of guilt and create the objective need for such a development. It is only this objective state of affairs that forbids our making no distinction between guilt consciousness generally and the various kinds of neurotic guilt feelings, and deciding that since the latter exist, all guilt consciousness is the manifestation of a disease from which human beings ought to be liberated through a more humane type of education and through instruction of the masses. For if in fact there is a necessary connection between actions and their consequences, so that in the interaction that makes up society the consequences either strike back at the agent or do harm to social life itself, then it shows a lack of realism to shut our eyes to it and to declare that we can do without the idea of guilt, at least in the sense of holding agents responsible for the consequences of their actions."

- Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Anthropology in Theological Perspective. Translated by Matthew J. O'Connell. London: T & T Clark, 2004, 291.

Pannenberg rocks!

“The way of human beings to the (divine) reality in which they can ultimately ground their exocentric existence and thereby attain to their own identity is thus always mediated through the experience of the external world. This is especially true of the relationship with the other human beings, that is, with beings whose lives are characterized by the same question and experience. But having said this, we are back in principle with Herder’s conception according to which human beings need to be educated to be themselves—educated to reason, humanity, and religion—and that such education comes to them through their experience of their world but especially through dealings with other human beings, because the theme of those other lives is or has already been the same as that of their own.”

- Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Anthropology in Theological Perspective. Translated by Matthew J. O'Connell. London: T & T Clark, 2004, 70. (italics in original).

Thought for the day (or longer)...

"Church grows from within toward the outside, not vice versa."

-Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. Church, Ecumenism, and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology. Translated by Michael J. Miller et al. San Franscisco: Ignatius Press, 2008, p. 15.