Suffering fails as an objection to God

Boat people in 1982 after eight days at sea.

The Sky Woman of the Iroquois creation myth bore twin boys, Sapling and Flint. The first was kind and the other cruel. The hard-hearted god spent his time creating the hardships that stand in the way of humans and devising problems his twin was forced to fix. 

The Asian perspective on the universal puzzle of life's struggle might be provided by the story of the farmer who responds to the pain and distress with the query "Good luck? Bad luck? Who knows?"

In a YouTube examination of human suffering, Bishop Robert Barron of Minnesota taps into Catholic tradition to challenge us all to acknowledge that God's actions or permissions are beyond our capacity to understand because God is of an order than humans just cannot grasp.

Bishop Barron says:

I do a lot of debate and dialogue with non-believers. Very often when agnostics and atheists attack the faith, it’s along the lines of, “How could an all-knowing and all-good God allow"—now fill in the blank; maybe the suffering of children, or natural catastrophes, for animals to suffer the way they do, or leukemia in a five-year-old.

These are just so anomalous. “How could you possibly believe that an all-knowing, all-good God could allow these things?” Much of the objection hinges upon the puzzle that is proposed by the existence of God.

Here’s a classic answer from within the heart of our tradition. “I admit it,” Paul says, “I admit it. God’s ways are confounding to us.”

He says in Romans 11:33:

Oh, the depth of the riches

and the wisdom and the knowledge of God!

How inscrutable are his judgments

and how unsearchable his ways!

Barron continues:

So the atheist or the agnostic might say, “Well, isn’t that neat? Isn’t that an easy way out of the problem? To just say, ‘Oh, it’s a great mystery.’”

Well, not really. We have to realize whom we’re dealing with and whom we’re talking about when we deal with and talk about God. God is not something in the world.

[O]bjects and events and experiences within the world... If I use philosophical language, those are all categorical things. They can be categorized. I can say, “Oh yeah, that’s this type of thing and that’s something else. Oh yeah, that’s where that thing ends and where that thing begins.”

They are all definable, and limits to each can be identified.

I can say, “Well, yeah, that’s Jupiter, but that’s Saturn over there.” There’s that person, and here’s this person. They’re separate, they’re definable, they’re categorizable.

Then there’s God, the Creator of all things, the reason why there’s something rather than nothing. 

The explanation for the universe itself is not an ingredient in the universe. It’s not a thing among others within the universe.

Very often atheists and agnostics make that fundamental error. They think of God as some big object. “Some say it’s there, some say it’s not. Let’s go find out.” But that’s what God is not.

Therefore, God, in our great tradition, is described as being totaliter aliter. That means not just other, like Jupiter is other than Saturn. God is totaliter aliter. It means he’s “totally other.” God can’t be compared to anything within the world.

It’s not as though, “Well, here’s this thing and then there’s God over there.”  Well, then I could define God. Even that word definition —definire. Finis in Latin means a limit. To define something is to set a limit to it.

God can’t be defined. God can’t be delimited.Therefore, he can’t be contrasted with or compared with anything in the world.

Let's start reading the mystics on this

This means that God can’t be seen. Now, don’t think of that as, “Well, there’s some visible things floating around and there’s some invisible things like atoms and all that.”

No, no, God is in principle invisible. He can never come within the scope of my senses or of my mind. When I move into the reality of God, I’m going to that place—I’ll quote U2 here, but they’re relying on the mystics—where the streets have no names.

If the streets have names, I kind of know where I’m going. [...] But when you’re dealing with God, who’s not a thing in the world, you’re going into a place where the streets have no names.

That’s why there’s that great text in our mystical tradition called The Cloud of Unknowing. Think of the cloud on Mount Sinai, the cloud that signals the presence of God. It’s a cloud of unknowing. "I can’t see. I don’t know where I’m going. I can’t get my bearings.”

Oh, the depth of the riches and

wisdom and knowledge of God!

How inscrutable are his judgments

and how unsearchable his ways!

Why is God doing what God is doing? I don’t know, and that’s not a cop-out answer. You see my point?That’s the only answer I can coherently give, given the nature of God.

Now, let me take it a step further. So that’s the undefinable quality of God, but God is also a person. God’s not some dumb object or force. God is a person.

I don’t know about you, but persons are always mysterious. And I’m talking here about human persons.

[A] person always remains elusive and mysterious,because the person has got a hidden, secret identity that is apparent to you only when the person reveals it.

Isn’t it interesting that married couples—married for forty, fifty years—will say, “My husband or my wife is now more mysterious to me than he or she was before.”

That makes perfect sense to me, perfect sense that the more you delve into a human person, the stranger and more elusive and mysterious that person becomes.

Now, combine these two things. God is an infinite, undefinable person. Therefore, how inscrutable his judgments, how unsearchable his ways.

Something like a child and parents 

Stay with that last phrase for a second. Think of a little child in relation to his parents. A little three- or four-year-old. And the three- or four-year-old understands, “Oh, my parents love me, but man, do they do strange, inscrutable things. Forcing me to go to bed when I don’t want to. Telling me I can’t do this or that, and that’s the very thing I want.

But when I’m hungry for something and they tell me no, I can’t have it. They take me to this guy wearing a white coat and he sticks needles in me. I don’t know what they’re doing.”

If a child could be given the vocabulary of St.Paul, he would say vis-à-vis his parents,

“How inscrutable they are, how unsearchable their judgments. I don’t know what they’re doing. Somehow I know these two people love me, but boy do they do strange things to express it.”

Well, obviously the little kid doesn’t have the capaciousness of mind to take in what his parents understand[...] Parents get it, but the child, in principle, can’t get it.

Now, take that, and lift it to the infinite degree: the difference between our consciousness and God’s consciousness, the difference between us and this infinite, indefinable person who is God.

Is it puzzling that his judgments seem pretty strange and inscrutable to us? Sure. In fact, the more religious you are, the more you’re going to feel this.

The takeaway is this: 

Why do we think for a second that we should be able fully to understand the judgments of God? No, no, “the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God.”

You say, “Okay, well then where am I left?” Where you’re left, I think where we’re all left, is in the attitude of that child vis-à-vis his or her parents: “I know these people love me. I know that at some deep, instinctual level. I don’t understand why they do everything they do, but yet I will trust. Yet I will trust.”

Now we come to the central teaching of St.Paul, which is what he calls faith. But don’t think of faith propositionally, first of all, as accepting certain propositions.

Think of faith as meaning this existential trust. I’m justified, Paul says, by faith, by this trust in God whose ways and judgments I know remain inscrutable to me.

We are relating to an infinite, indefinable person who loves us. Therefore, in him we place our trust.

 Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

Poetry and our spiritual journey from indifference

Yes, we are the unappreciative possessors of a spiritual capacity to travel into the "invisible and unnameable regions of being" that is much, much more than employing our mental processes alone to build a mere body of cognitive knowledge.

Once again, that "information architect", Maria Popova, by investigating how poets come to understand the human condition, identifies "the truth about us” that is exhilarating. She warns of what can be described as the scab of indifference that covers the eyes and ears of our heart, an indifference engendered by submission to the sensual body, the lustful eye, pride in possessions.

SPELL AGAINST INDIFFERENCE

by Maria Popova

The rain falls and falls

cool, bottomless, and prehistoric

falls like night —

not an ablution

not a baptism

just a small reason

to remember

all we know of Heaven

to remember

we are still here

with our love songs and our wars,

our space telescopes and our table tennis.


Here too

in the wet grass

half a shell

of a robin’s egg

shimmers

blue as a newborn star

fragile as a world.

It's so true that the wonderful world around us has meaning, should we care to pause and consider who we are and the source of the gift put into our hands.

Like poetry, prayer is an instrument for paying attention. As Paul observes in his letter to the Romans:

For what can be know about God is perfectly plain since God himself has made it plain. Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity—however invisible—have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made [...] to see it was rational to acknowledge God.

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

Still we need to ask: what is marriage?

                                                                                                                                                                  Photo Source

So, what is marriage? Does the world we live in today require a new definition from what has been handed down as part of the wisdom tradition of ages past? Are humans now somehow different from humans who came before and who lived in a myriad of cultural groupings, large and small, but who had a common insight into the symmetry of man and woman and child? 

From that rich vein of experience that is history, the Catholic Church is clear on the anthropology of the human person, even before revelation offers its confirmation. The Church's study of how to be optimally human, that is, how each person— and each society—can flourish, has come to be termed the "theology of the body". 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (#1660).

Writer Leila Miller comments:

Jesus spoke about marriage as a one-flesh union that only husbands and wives can form [...] Marriage is a special kind of communion between one man and one woman that is ordered toward their mutual love and toward the procreation of children—bonding and babies. 

In 1930, Pope Pius XI wrote an encyclical on Christian marriage, Casti Connubii, which says that “the child holds the first place” as a blessing in marriage. Second is “the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract” (19).

This understanding of marriage is not merely a “Catholic thing.” It is universal, a part of our human nature. All cultures in human history recognized, until about two seconds ago, historically speaking, that marriage is a union of man and woman ordered to children and families.

As the Catechism says: The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes (1603).

Christians are "imposing their view”

Leila Miller tackles the difficulty some people have, perhaps those who did not have an intellectually challenging experience during their higher education and continue to live in a bubble of an myopic present:

People who claim that the Church is “imposing” its view of marriage on others don’t realize that anyone who claims to define marriage for himself also “imposes” a view of marriage. For example, laws that define marriage as “the union of two adults” impose that view on polygamists and those who believe in child brides (both of which are practices that, unlike SSM, actually have historical precedent).

The only way not to impose a definition of marriage is to say that marriage is “what anyone wants it to be”—in which case it ceases to be anything at all. 

Christianity did not exist until a little over 2,000 years ago, and yet, until just 2001 when the Netherlands became the first to legalize “gay marriage,” the entire history of the pagan and non-Christian world had only known bride-and-groom marriages. 

Neither ancient cultures that approved of homosexuality nor modern atheistic regimes that are fiercely opposed to religion had or have “gay marriage.” 

Why? Because the natural-law understanding of marriage (conjugal union of bride and bridegroom, woman and man) has always been a universal human understanding. The conjugal view of marriage is the only view that explains why government has an interest in regulating marriage in the first place: because it’s the only type of union that produces a child.

This type of relationship is unique among all others, and society rightly sees the need to bind fathers to mothers formally, in order to secure and promote a stable environment in which to rear and educate children born from their union. If we are going to accept the new “relational” or “romantic” view of marriage (that marriage is solely about the love that exists between two people), then none of the remaining marital norms that almost everyone—including supporters of SSM—accepts should still apply.

When people think that marriage is simply for companionship or romantic love, they have a hard time understanding why companionship and romance between same-sex couples should not be recognized as a marriage. They also don’t understand why sex should be saved for marriage when marriage is just about a fuzzy concept of “love” rather than a one-flesh union that is ordered to result in a child.

However, when we recognize that only a man and woman can form the “one-flesh” bodily union of marriage, any relationship that lacks this element, no matter how dedicated or caring it may be, is not a marriage. 

While it's not deemed politically correct to view marriage as being for the sake of the child and for the welfare of society as a whole, the consequences of the loss of that understanding through the social upheaval that the Sexual Revolution has wrought are devastating those chained to the Western experience. See these headlines:

💢 US suicides hit all time high in 2022  

💢 Mental health emergency in UK as urgent referrals for under 18s triple

Augusto Del Noce, an Italian philosopher and political thinker, is regarded as one of the preeminent political thinkers and philosophers after World War II. He traced the dis-ease in the West to a particular cause:

Del Noce describes the sexual revolution as the essence of the “Occidentalist heresy,” the radical abolition of the sacred. After that abolition, there is no objective, cosmic order of truth to which individual behavior and social norms and institutions must conform.  

Wherever the Occidentalist heresy is introduced, the “True in itself and the Good in itself (permanent values) are denied, and thus religion, metaphysics, and morality in the traditional sense are destroyed.” Indeed, in a society secularized by Occidentalism, not only is there no longer any tradition, but “every expression (novel, show, etc.) is made meaningful only by the intensity or novelty with which it denies some traditional ­value.”

The goal is to ensure that “there is nothing that can be handed down . . . no more fatherland, or family.” Del Noce wrote these words in 1970, and since then the West has gone a long way toward vindicating his analysis. 

Consider also these words concerning the path laid to dismiss the concept of the sanctity of a marriage of a man and a woman for the sake of the child:

Like Wilhelm Reich, who popularized the term, Del Noce sees the sexual revolution as the culmination of “total revolution.” It is one face of a “new, more dangerous, and more radical form of totalitarianism” than any seen heretofore, “even though these new positions claim to represent the highest degree of democracy and anti-fascism.” Unlike previous authoritarianisms, it is not a positive political program bent on world domination, but a negative “totalitarianism of disintegration” aimed at the perpetual destruction of antecedent order.

Another writer comments on this graph:

You think a child whose life was torn apart by his parents’ divorce is going to be excited about the sexual freedom [the Boomer] generation won for themselves? Even if he accepts their moral values regarding sex and sexuality, he can’t escape knowing that there is a cost.

For the old order— in the West—the earth moved. From a study of Philip Larkin's sad, sour poem Annus Mirabilis:  

Sex, or private life, is the big deal in the new order, its distinctive creation. That is the new freedom. But while eros is a democrat, in that eroticism is no respecter of class or virtue, it is also true that eros is a master over willing slaves: Men abandon their dignity because of eros. (Source)

Ω See also: The most important philosopher you have never hear of 

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

Is it true that there is no truth?

The materialism that has taken hold in the Western world —which is not the whole world—has given rise to a self-contradictory skepticism, a foolishness that has become fashionable but which has within it the faultline directing its own collapse:

Is it true that there is no truth? Certain that nothing is certain? Absolutely no absolutes? A universal truth that there are no universal truths? Dogmatically given that there are no dogmas given? An objective truth that truth is not objective? Sociologically or psychologically relative that everything is sociologically or psychologically relative? A myth that all is a myth? An illusion that all is illusion?

The game takes many forms, but you can never win it. Similarly with reductionism. If love is only lust, thought only cerebral biochemistry, reasoning only rationalization, gods only myths, justice only power, choice only unperceived necessity, eternity only time’s dream, etcetera, the formula for that “nothing buttery” is that A is nothing but B, that A is only B—but that means that there is in all reality no A, or dimension of A, that is more than B. 

But you can know that only if you know all reality or all dimensions of reality. And for that, you must have total, all-encompassing intelligence; in other words, you must be God. If you do not think you are God, then welcome to the ranks of at least the open-minded agnostics, those who are not sure that there is no door in the wall, that no angel will ever greet you, etc. If you do think you are God, I thank you for not punishing me for disbelieving in you. 

You cannot justify by the scientific method the principle that everything can be reduced to the scientific method. And since that scientific reductionism is a choice, not a logical necessity, and not only a choice but a logically self-contradictory choice, what in the world is motivating you to make that choice and to live it? Why do you want to deny human dignity, freedom, and spirituality? You don’t have to. Why do you want to chop off your head? 

Ω From: Doors in the Walls of the World: Signs of Transcendence in the Human Story  by Peter Kreeft. 

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

Something ugly simmering in society

Music has always been a cultural indicator.

Ted Gioia is author of The Honest Broker on Substack, a guide to music, books, media, and culture. He is author of 12 books, and has served on the faculty at Stanford. His latest piece explores why fans are throwing things at performers, knowing they might hurt them.

Gioia writes:

It’s a curious coincidence that, during this same period, activists have started throwing things at famous works of art. You wouldn’t normally think of museums and concert halls as epicenters of paintball-esque outbursts. But in the year 2023, they are hot spots for all the worst tendencies. 

Of course, there’s a long history of fans throwing things on stage. But until recently, they were usually nice things. Only in the rarest instance—for example, a vaudeville show of embarrassingly low quality—were tomatoes tossed at a performer.

His judgment as to why American and European audiences are now creatures to be wary of:

The anger isn’t coming from the music. It’s coming from the broader culture.

Of course, all of us already know that there’s a collapse in civility and decent behavior in every sphere of public life nowadays. The stuff happening on airplanes blows my mind. And it’s also happening at restaurants, movie theaters, and any other place where people congregate for work or play.

"But there are specific triggering issues related to music", Gioia says, and: 

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that many of the worst acts of pre-meditated violence during the last decade have occurred at music venues. In addition to schools and shopping centers, musical performances are frequent targets.

You may think that violence plays out on the battlefield, not at a pop concert. But music has always been a cultural indicator. In some ways, it is our most revealing source of information on society. Sometimes the future shows up in our music even before it gets covered in the newspapers.

So even if I am saddened by the craziness at music concerts, I can’t say I’m surprised There’s something ugly simmering in our society, and it has finally arrived at the pricey front row seats of concerts. All of sudden, fans have decided that an expensive ticket gives them the right to do something abusive to their favorite pop star.

It makes no sense, but it’s definitely part of the zeitgeist. And it will almost certainly get worse before it gets better.

Such is the state of mind of swathes of citizens in countries that have been captured by a progressive nihilism. And take note of this depiction that works for everyone who bears the burden of commitment only to self, the type that has become all too common:

He is a truly postmodern man: no truth exists apart from his; and any alternative reality has to be attacked mercilessly. Because his whims oscillate, so do the non-facts he invents to satisfy them. He is a spluttering, glowering fusillade of fantasies. He is, in Michael Wolff’s words, “a man whose behavior defies and undermines the structures and logic of civic life”. 

Ω See also: There will be more ugly travellers... 

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published. 

SheraSeven and Slumflower lack vision

SheraSeven during a three-hour YouTube session where she says she will never get a divorce.

It's not a pretty sight, the place where many young women are coming from. Love, for instance, is barely a secondary matter, with money certainly to the fore. On that account, Kimberley McIntosh, writing in The Guardian, retorts that young women struggling with debt and burnout need a better vision than getting a rich man to pay the bills. 

McIntosh reports:

Over the past few months, a number of straight-talking, self-help gurus for women (often described half-jokingly in the comment section as “the female Andrew Tate”) have been blowing up on TikTok. SheraSeven (real name Leticia Padua) has been attracting a large audience of young women. Despite not even having a TikTok account herself, clips that have cross-pollinated from her YouTube have racked up almost 20 billion views and counting. 

The comment sections under these TikTok videos are full of women who are fed up with modern heterosexual dating to the point that they don’t believe men have anything to offer them emotionally. SheraSeven’s advice teaches women to game patriarchy and turn their pain into power.

Shera advises women over the age of 25 to seek out and date older, affluent men and to actively play games to get them. This includes hiding your insecurities from potential partners and using reverse psychology to manipulate men, so you can imitate intimacy without the risk that comes with true vulnerability. 

SheraSeven, who is an American self-styled “financial adviser” rather than a relationship guide, and who has been making videos for about nine years, declares, according to McIntosh: 

Once they’ve locked a man down, women should push for them to pay for all of their household bills and expenses. Men without money are “dusties” and not to be entertained.

[V]eering away from the stereotype of the 1950s housewife, and its modern iteration, the tradwife, SheraSeven doesn’t suggest women must take on domestic responsibilities such as cooking, cleaning and child-rearing in exchange for financial support. A man of means can hire people to help with that. You are there to look beautiful and be worshipped. This is presumably what makes her gospel so attractive.  

Slumflower (sic)

A kindred spirit is... "Slumflower (real name Chidera Eggerue), who initially implored millennial women to fight patriarchy by indulging in 'dump him feminism' via viral tweets and cute Instagram graphics that escalated into telling women to only date affluent men – and to take everything from them that they can."

Eggerue, who is British, has written several successful books on topics such as What A Time To Be Alone and How to Get Over a Boy, which the publisher proclaims as a "sensational manifesto and guide to dating men".

On dating, McIntosh states that SheraSeven "tells the audience she will never start a YouTube channel to give people advice on “real relationships” that aren’t based on money, because all relationships are ultimately based on power". McIntosh concludes:

It’s a bleak picture. So many of the ways women are being encouraged to live [... involve] a re-evaluation of our relationship to work, rest and leisure. We need a collective vision for improving our lives. Without it, women will continue looking for answers elsewhere. 

Given the bleakness in dating or married life conjured up by McIntosh's reporting, what follows is a vision that women can live by that is of a higher order than any that Leticia Padua or Chidera Eggerue seem to offer. The vision arises from the nature of marriage, and on this I quote from the source I cite at the end of this post: 

So, what is marriage? The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children (#1660). [Also], Jesus spoke about marriage as a one-flesh union that only husbands and wives can form. 

Marriage is a special kind of communion between one man and one woman that is ordered toward their mutual love and toward the procreation of children—bonding and babies.

In 1930, Pope Pius XI wrote an encyclical on Christian marriage, Casti Connubii, which says that “the child holds the first place” as a blessing in marriage. Second is “the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract” (#19). This understanding of marriage is not merely a “Catholic thing.” It is universal, a part of our human nature. All cultures in human history recognized, until about two seconds ago, historically speaking, that marriage is a union of man and woman ordered to children and families.

As the Catechism says: The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes (#1603).

 Everybody’s “Imposing”

People who claim that the Church is “imposing” its view of marriage on others don’t realize that anyone who claims to define marriage for himself also “imposes” a view of marriage. For example, laws that define marriage as “the union of two adults” impose that view on polygamists and those who believe in child brides (both of which are practices that, unlike same-sex marriage, actually have historical precedent). [...] In fact, the only way not to impose a definition of marriage is to say that marriage is “what anyone wants it to be”—in which case it ceases to be anything at all.

[T]he natural-law understanding of marriage (conjugal union of bride and bridegroom, woman and man) has always been a universal human understanding. The conjugal view of marriage is the only view that explains why government has an interest in regulating marriage in the first place: because it’s the only type of union that produces a child. 

This type of relationship is unique among all others, and society rightly sees the need to bind fathers to mothers formally, in order to secure and promote a stable environment in which to rear and educate children born from their union. 

When people think that marriage is simply 'relational" (for companionship)  or romantic love, they have a hard time understanding why companionship and romance between same-sex couples should not be recognized as a marriage. They also don’t understand why sex should be saved for marriage when marriage is just about a fuzzy concept of “love” rather than a one-flesh union that is ordered to result in a child.

However, when we recognize that only a man and woman can form the “one-flesh” bodily union of marriage, any relationship that lacks this element, no matter how dedicated or caring it may be, is not a marriage.

The Catechism soars in its description of the vocation of men and women in marriage:

Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter—appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility.

In brief, marriage is a state of life of high significance not only for the man and woman involved, but for the whole of society. It requires the giving of oneself totally to the other, and that is a challenge throughout life which purifies and strengthens the two who commit to becoming one. The gift of oneself raises each to to a true community of love and fidelity.

Such a vision of marriage is what the influencers should be promoting for the happiness of their followers and the benefit of society.

💖 Made This Way, Leila Miller and Trent Horn, Catholic Answers Press, California, 2018.

Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.

 

Created with a purpose and a personal call

Called out of our tombs

 Human dignity 

💢“What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man—that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that He did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does He ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until He has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.”

— ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (died 407)

💢 We are each of us, as Pope Benedict XVI (died December 2022) famously said, “not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.” 

“Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary,” Benedict reminded us. My grandmother is still willed and loved and necessary today, no more or less than my 1-year-old daughter. 

— The Pillar July 22, 2023

💢 It is important to realise that being a follower of Christ is intended to be a source of deep happiness and a realisation that one is truly fortunate to have discovered this vision of life. The happiness comes, even in a time of difficulty, from our close relationship with God, and a lifestyle that corresponds with how God made us. 

 Ω Leave a comment and, if you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified by email when a new post is published.