An Examen

We'd like to welcome back Patrick Castle, who has some frank thoughts on life and development in Christ to share.

---------------

Even though I've been busy in the past couple months, I made a concerted effort to live my faith more actively, rather than keep it cordoned off to one corner of my life. I attended public schools up until this year, and I never pursued Catholicism intellectually or even used it as a primary descriptor for myself; I just sort of went to Mass on some Sundays and checked off the box next to Catholic on surveys. I happened to choose a Catholic university, but this was not a part of my decision-making process. This year I became more and more uncomfortable with identifying myself as a Catholic, without actually understanding what that meant or living that lifestyle. I made a concerted effort to learn more about my faith and ended up falling in love with Catholicism again. I also started viewing the world through a consciously Catholic lens. As a result, I have learned:

Priests really are not scary. I was a Teen Assistant to the Children's Choir at my local parish and occasionally interacted with priests in that capacity, but I remained mostly intimidated by the priests. As crazy as it might sound, I felt unclean in their presence and could not see them as people but rather I saw them almost as things waiting to send me into the dark abyss. I was nervous, when I found out that I would be living on the same floor as a priest. But through being in closer proximity to priests , I realized that they are people too. I have transitioned to a healthier sense of awe at their love and their dedication to education, as well as a more realistic understanding of their humanity. Rather than being afraid, I use them as role models.

I think the Fray is a closeted Christian band, and I still am trying to find Catholic symbolism in Sara Bareilles songs.

Reconciliation is fantastic. After an absence of several years, thanks to the support of friends, in the near future I will be returning to the confessional. I will finally put aside my pride and my fear of admitting imperfections.

It is okay to ask questions. I am not expected to know everything. Even though it may be overwhelming at times, it is better to admit that I do not understand rather than nod sheepishly and hope nobody notices that I have no idea what's going on. People in a position to answer questions will be excited that I had the interest and courage to ask.

Loving everyone is difficult and requires effort and practice.

 Finding people to help you on your faith journey is essential. They don't just remind me to go to Mass on days of obligation and answer questions about doctrine (though that is appreciated), but they encourage me and support me in living your faith. They make it easier to wake up at 8 AM to go to daily Mass. They challenge you to be better and to do more. Having people who understand your perspective and struggles makes living according to your principles less of a burden and more joyful.

Individual participation is necessary too. I need to develop a personal relationship with God, and I can't be Catholic vicariously.

Prayer. I need to pray more consistently and better.

Love is real and it is okay to admit it. I don't mean that I didn't believe in love previously, but I treated it like something reserved for romantic special occasions and close family members. Love is constantly expressed, from the random stranger holding the door open to the friend who comforts you when you receive news of a family tragedy. We are constantly surrounded by love, and I am happy now that I make an effort to recognize it.

Gratitude. I have been incredibly blessed, and I need to appreciate more the gifts I have been given.

Dedication to faith does not require sourness. Though faith should be taken seriously, I deprive it of meaning when I remove the joy. I can be contemplative but that should not lead to grumpiness.

Not everyone appreciates it, when you are listening to We are Young and the line “Set the world on Fire is sung,” and I shout “Like the Jesuits.” Every. Single. Time.

Finally, consistently performing the Examination of Consciousness is the best decision I have made in a long time. I only started in the last month, but it helps me develop a closer connection to God and gain a greater understanding of where I have been and where I am going. I have sneakily, or not so sneakily, used this article as a sort of Examen for the year, but typically, it is a way to reflect and improve on a daily or even semi-daily (I'm not there yet) basis. I am able to recognize my deepest flaws but also witness my blessings and successes. I use the Examen to form a spiritual routine and ensure that I keep my faith at the center of my life.

For more information on the Examen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8QvBTj23ON4

If you are still reading, you deserve a round of applause. Your reward: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onS2EmtpbhM

Culture:Total War, Pt. 1: What is the Culture War and Why We Shouldn't Like It.

(My blogging has been delayed by my mourning over the sad death of my friend Casey Falconer, with whom I frequently debated and discussed the deep stuff with. His death has encouraged me to pause in reflection and contemplation; a contemplation which continues leading me to more important questions and conclusions than before about true joy.)

I'm getting sick to my stomach with the culture wars. It's time that we critically look at them here at Gaudium Dei.

Bad Catholic's musings about abstractions combined with a look at the looming questions of death and life's meaning have led me, in an act of philosophy, to healthily question everything I've done up to this point. Thus, I've come to a conclusion: that we are woefully forgetting the transcendental and infinite of unity, and some of us who are activists are beginning to subconsciously becoming complacent with the culture war. A whole generation of Catholics on both sides of the culture war (ugh! that there are even sides!) seem to be ignoring the unitive goals put forth by Vatican II.

Philosophy is all about its definitions, so in as short of a blogpost I can, let's start with the basics: What is a culture warrior? First, let's look at culture. And we don't have to go far, since Gaudium et Spes has a whole chapter on it:

The word "culture" in its general sense indicates everything whereby man develops and perfects his many bodily and spiritual qualities; he strives by his knowledge and his labor, to bring the world itself under his control. He renders social life more human both in the family and the civic community, through improvement of customs and institutions. Throughout the course of time he expresses, communicates and conserves in his works, great spiritual experiences and desires, that they might be of advantage to the progress of many, even of the whole human family. 

"...that they might be of advantage to the progress of many, even of the whole human family." Here we see that the Church, in Christ's overwhelming positivity and hope, looks at cultures the way they were always meant to be looked at: different ways of mankind seeking to benefit the world.  It is possible, of course, to have a culture which seeks to destroy rather than build up the world, but what Gaudium et Spes points out here is what a thousand ignorant critics of the Church fail to see: a believer of Christ not only knows that Church and world community of people acting and believing exactly the same way is not only unhealthy, but impossible. 


Then, what about the warrior? The term seems to contradict what the above says, for conflict is not only contrary to the transcendental of unity but additionally, according to the logic of Vatican II, impedes progress. Think about it - did anyone really see the human race going forward when we heard about Occupy Wall Street? However some, including me in my past, have believed that the job of the culture warrior was an offensive job. If you disagree with this, ask yourself if you ever followed that compulsion to debate and try to win your points in a comment argument on Youtube, Facebook, or any blogsite. Most likely, you weren't seriously content with just explaining yourself, and felt the need to point out every logical flaw of the person who opposed you.We speak in winning or losing for the culture. Thus, the idea of the culture war itself was born, for wars are made of battles won or lost.

However, Aristotle properly tells us that a virtuous city needs warriors for one reason: defense. He believes Sparta, in its addiction to constant warfare over defense, is itself unhealthy. Why is this the case? It's the reason we secretly all don't like the idea of civil war, schism and excommunication, as much Sebelius might vex us. War is not an easy victory where you can picnic and watch your comrades win with flying colors: it's a bludgeon. Why did Sherman burn the south in the Civil War? Because the South wouldn't surrender, and no matter how much the odds lay on the side of the North, they simply didn't get it. Recall how many nuclear bombs it took to convince Japan to surrender in World War II, not one but two.


This is obviously the beginning to a larger discussion which we will continue here on Gaudium Dei (I promise, no more two week breaks between posts) but ultimately what's the point, the hypothesis I am beginning with? Ending the culture war in any way may be a better solution to bringing joy and unity than bludgeoning in order to win it. This is for two reasons, for firstly the fact that warfare is a disgust unto itself should want us to end it. Additionally though, some, as Bad Catholic pointed out when we factor in abstractions, that the bludgeoning might not even be possible. I'll leave with this quote, and when you read it, think about how many of those online arguments you actually would proudly say you won:

The Christian today defends ghosts and attacks with shadows. He may look like St. George, but he has been given a sword of cloud to fight a dragon of steam. He may kill the dragon in the end, but he will never be happy, fighting such a whispery battle. 

P.S. - Light up the combox. This is an idea in development, and I'd love input on where to take it.

The Georgetown Scandal: Anger and True Joy

(I have returned to blogging from my month break. I now am able to look towards my work here with a better focus as I head into the summer months.)

Georgetown Invites Kathleen Sebelius as Commencement Speaker: Get mad!

Coming to a Catholic Pulpit near you. 

The above encouragement probably looks odd here on Gaudium Dei. Get mad? I thought we were talking about joy here, and instead I'm expressing anger. And I shouldn't be too moved by my passions when writing this post, even when it is an absolute outrage, right?

I thought so until Georgetown did this. This is nothing short than an absolute betrayal of what the Bishops have been working for these past few months concerning the HHS Mandate. A stab in the back of joy. While, as a Catholic who has watched the Cardinal Newman Society quite carefully, I'm used to Catholic colleges inviting controversial and anti-Catholic speakers to commencement addresses, this crosses the line to a degree that I know will make every Catholic who stands with the bishops...angry. And to say the least, this kept me up enough last night from sleeping for me to know well enough that I'm pissed.

However, while the Georgetown Scandal must and will be addressed (sign the petition against this here), this begs a deeper question, especially with Creative Minority Report's headline reporting declaring "Outrage" or, as I would describe my first thoughts, a "raging out" against this (I was on the phone with my girlfriend and I started yelling a storm!). What place, if any, does anger have on this blog dedicated to God's joy? 


They seem irreconcilable until we ask how one defends true joy? I can think of no better example than the birth of our very country, to whom we have looked for so much inspiration as Catholics in this time we believe freedom to be a challenge. For the protest of the American colonies was one that sought to defend the joy that the colonists had found as pioneers of America, and to not let the oppression of tyranny reign over them (as this contemporary view demonstrates). And it wasn't a calm protest, even from the halls of Congress, who didn't hold back from fearlessly declaring in our own Declaration of Independence how the Tyrant of England has "plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." No doubt, a thousand burnt effigies put up by thousands of angry Americans stood behind that statement to give it passion, a passion enough to ignite a war that would change the definition of freedom for the world.


And thus we find how the connection between "anger" and joy is not only acceptable but necessary, for anger, a righteous and just anger that men are called upon to defend women with, for example, is an anger that is married to joy and thus joy's reason and faith, and if we seek true joy we must not feel afraid to practice. For we do not rejoice in the Church arbitrarily because it gives us good feelings, but because reason and faith has led us to know that the transcendentals of truth, beauty, goodness and unity are held in her high Cathedrals, deep scripture, valiant bishops and, most of all, the humble mission of her charity. If we divorce ourselves from the reason of our anger, we turn into Occupy, without a clear mission. But the anger that drives on our zeal against Georgetown isn't actually anger per se but in fact passion for joy, a passion for the "pursuit of happiness" that made those very colonists move over two hundred years ago.


Obviously I'm not campaigning for a literal war. We additionally must remember to manage our anger, our passion, with the heart of soul of reason and joy. But if Georgetown honoring the very person who authored the oppressive HHS Mandate makes you mad, that's good. Be moved by that passion. For to say the least, Catholics nationwide won't let this betrayal of our bishops go down without making a ton of noise.

YOLO=Christian?

Recent events have caused me to ponder the question: can YOLO be consistent with Catholic living?

My answer: yes and no. You'll have to forgive me for this, I've just finished writing a paper on the Scholastics, and I'm in a mood for reconciling seemingly irreconcilable sources, which will lead to some hair-splitting.

For those who are confused: YOLO is an acronym for the phrase, "You only live once." It is often used as a sort of rallying cry and rationale for some of the less refined delights of the human experience, especially for college-aged youth.

Digression: pictures like this are way too easily accessed with a Google Images search.

In a strictly denotational sense: yes, you only live once, at least in the earthly sense of living. We are not followers of that most ancient of faiths, Hinduism. Reincarnation is not a part of the Catholic faith, although I'm sure that those who believe in it have their reasons. When you die, you are judged and enter into eternal life. So in the strictly denotational sense, this statement is true.

Connotatively, it's problematic. "You will know them by their fruit" (Matthew 7:16). Judging by the fruit of the YOLO attitude, it's not exactly Catholic. I was going to provide one comedian's parody of YOLO, but, alas, this is a Catholic site, and Joe would probably be upset with me. Drunkenness, fornication, objectification, and other things that would make the baby Jesus cry are hallmarks of YOLO. So, it its current form, YOLO is pretty bad. Its connotation is, "you only live once, so get as much pleasure as you can. See also: Carpe Diem (modern connotation), Do it for the story (DIFTS), and "If this is all there is, let's have a ball."

However, YOLO can be salvaged. You only live once: only have one chance to live out a Christian life before the End of Days. I'm not saying that the sole point of living a moral life is to get to Heaven, but that attitude would probably be a step in the right direction. Moving to another level: you only live once; make it matter. Don't squander this incredible gift. Make a difference in the world! You only have one chance to make the lives of others better. The most radical thing a college student can do is live a Christian lifestyle. Ignatius of Loyola and Augustine of Hippo didn't become saints for their early debauchery, but rather for their later conversions and good works. Maybe we can't all be saints, but we can certainly strive.

Note: Sorry for the dearth of posts lately; finals are fast approaching (which means professors need to cram assignments in for these weeks). Posting will pick up again soon. Hang in there! Also, Marc Barnes has an interesting  post that's been circulating, you can read it here.

Awesome Video

Here's a great video responding to the HHS Mandate. Haven't had one of these in a while. Share it if you can!

Dolan and Time Magazine's Top 100 People

Some of you might have heard about Dolan doing pretty well in an online poll that has some bearing on Time Magazine's top 100. The list of the world's most influential/important people is printed by the magazine yearly.

Firstly, let's be careful. I set very little store by the Time 100 list. Furthermore, we believe the authority of the Magisterium comes through the Holy Spirit, not through the vox populi. Finally, he was number sixteen, beaten by a rather eclectic group including Vladimir Putin, Adele, and Ron Paul.

On the other hand, this is a nice narrative. Catholic bloggers and holders of Facebook pages directed people to vote for the Cardinal; although I don't have any scientific data, I'm almost positive this was the cause of most of his votes. He also placed immediately before Cecile Richards and Lady Gaga, and several spots in front of Barack Obama. A natural rivalry between Dolan's and Richards's supporters caused them to be neck-and-neck to the finish.

The lesson in this, in my opinion? This says less about Dolan personally (except that he's a charismatic leader whose name easily rallies support), and it says even less about the Time 100. I think the best message to draw from this is that we have an edge in social media, or at least dedicated followers of social media, over Planned Parenthood in America. Catholic blogs specifically asked followers to help Dolan beat Richards, while PP supporters did the inverse.

Catholic blogging for the win.

The Pope is the Antichrist

CONCLUSIVE PROOF
FROM THE BIBLE
THAT THE POPE
 IS THE ANTICHRIST

... is today's example of anti-Catholicism! Today is Pope Benedict XII's  85th birthday. Sometimes it's easy to forget how controversial the Papacy is outside of our faith. Generally, the most humorously inane "critiques" of St. Peter's successor (in my opinion) come from the extreme wings of the Christian right and secular left. So I did a Google search for "the Pope" to see which would come up first. The example above came in at #8.

That means that people read this.

 

The Vatican's actual bio for B16 comes just below claims about him being the Antichrist. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

Oh boy. On the other hand, the most easily-accessible example of Papophobia (this word must enter the general lexicon) is crazy enough to be funny. In apparent ignorance of Godwin's Law, the author claims that the Pope is worse than Hitler:

"During the Dark Ages the Catholic Church slaughtered over 150 million Christians, and this atrocity is never mentioned today! The world has almost completely forgotten the many millions of people who were burned at the stake by the papacy because they wanted to worship God according to the Bible.
 
"The slaughter in Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, and Croatia is a direct result of the Vatican’s involvement in this area, but you will never hear about it because the Jesuit-controlled news media not only refuse to mention it but they lie about the situation to keep the papacy from being suspected of their true involvement."

 WHAAAT? Jesuit-controlled media? If the Jesuits control the media, they should probably tell the media that. And 150 million? Does this author realize how big that number is? That's an incredibly huge estimate, to say the least.  That's more than the Black Death. Where does that even come from? Are they counting the Thirty Years' War or something?

Then we have a Bible prediction of some sort of worldwide Papal theocracy:

"Soon the papacy will once again attain enough raw political power to repeat the atrocities of the Dark Ages. Once again the Catholic Church will slaughter true Christians for wanting to worship God according to the Bible. Regardless of how impossible this seems to us today, once again the papacy and its agents will plunge the world into another dark age."

I'm pretty sure this is what they're worried about. That's silly, of course, because we don't have a death ray in St. Peter's. The Obelisk can control lightning, though.

I'm kinda confused about the lack of Bible verses in this supposed-Biblical prophesy. But I'm sure that this is just a clever marketing technique! Yes, a clever marketing technique to get us to buy their scholarly books. I wonder who publishes this...

 

Oh, hi, Pacific Institute. Guess they're a bit more prolific than it seemed in a former post.