The summer film with the most obvious religious angle is the action thriller  ”Angels & Demons,”  which opened in May and is the second time Tom Hanks and Director Ron Howard have angered some Catholics by playing fast and loose with church history.  I haven’t seen it yet, but hear the suspension of reality required surpasses even “The Da Vinci Code” experience.  Fr. Robert Barron of Word on Fire has a good piece on it.  And the sixth Harry Potter film shows up in theaters in July.  What’s the effect, if any, of these movies  — with their dark, dastardly themes, that offend some religious sensibilities —  on the state of religion in America?

By Kevin Woster

We’re still on vacation, and Mary has the good sense to maintain boundaries between her work time and her vacation time

I’m so bad at that I not only keep blogging over on Take It Outside and Mount Blogmore, I’m now snooping around on Mary’s turf.

I can’t help but share a moment I had Sunday morning over in the Sioux Falls diocese, where Mary and I stopped to attend Mass on the way back from my son’s med school graduation at Creighton University.

Just so happened, the “retired” priest who said Mass at the Mount Marty chapel was the same priest who baptized my son at St. Mary’s in Sioux Falls 27 years earlier.

I reminded father of that, and also noted that that “baby boy” had just graduated from Creighton medical.

“Creighton, huh?” he said in mostly mock concern. “Is he still a Catholic?”

Indeed, I said my son had found plenty of room within his eight years of Jesuit education at Creighton to challenge and question Catholicism and the Bible, among many other things.

To which father replied: “Those Jesuits. We gotta do something about them.”

He was kidding, uh, mostly. But indeed the Jesuits can and do often operate in ways that some in the Catholic hierarchy find unsettling.

Allowing, even encouraging, a frank and detailed questioning of the faith is part of the Jesuit education, it seems to me. Or as a Jesuit priest once said when I confessed - in confession, a direct term that I still prefer to  “reconciliation” - my failures of faith and periodic doubts about certain points of church doctrine, biblical truths and even the very existence of God:

“There can be no answers without first having questions,” he said. “It’s those who think they understand it all with certainty who worry me.”

I’m not one of those. And I really struggle to understand those who say they are.

Rev. Brian Carpenter — Presbyterian Church in America, Sturgis
Kevin,
I’m not exactly sure how you would have us respond to this post, so I will respond how I think best.

We live in a time where basic epistemology… the philosophy of knowing… is under attack. Thus doubt is fashionable and certainty is unfashionable. We must never underestimate the influence of the “Spirit of the Age” on us. It is the positive duty of every human being to discover who God is and what God requires of him. The Spirit of this Age makes that duty harder to even see as a duty. I am not one who sees all doubt as a bad thing. Nor do I see doubt as a positive virtue, as most seem to.

One of the greatest obstacles to communication comes in the ambiguous use of words, especially words that have several possible definitions and usages. “Doubt” is one of those words. There are lots of reasons for doubt and many layers or depths of doubt. Some are more serious than others. The dictionary defines doubt as:

1. A lack of certainty that often leads to irresolution.
2. A lack of trust.
3. A point about which one is uncertain or skeptical: “reassured me by answering my doubts.”
4. The condition of being unsettled or unresolved: “an outcome still in doubt.”

If, by doubting you are saying, “I’m undecided or uncertain on a particular point, but I’m fairly convinced of the validity of the rest of the system.” then that is perhaps not so serious.

If, by doubting, you are saying, “I am generally unsettled or unresolved as to the truth of the things I’m being told.” then that is by several degrees a more serious departure from the system of thought. You begin to loosen the whole framework of things in your mind. It begins to sway and totter a bit.

If, by doubting, you are saying, “I lack trust in the veracity or competence of the people who are telling me that these things are so.” then that is perhaps only a step away from the total ruin of your philosophical or religious framework.

The whole thing comes crashing down when by saying, “I doubt.” you mean, “I am in an irresolute state on all of these things.”

In whatever state you find yourself, you have a duty to investigate these things for yourself and to make up your own mind. Honest brokers will show you their reasoning so that you can evaluate it for yourself. It will be a lot of work and very time consuming, but in my opinion there is no finer use of your time. I even question if each of us was given time for any other purpose.

But none of that really matters if the motives to doubt are not a pure search for truth. Doubt may be very honest, but it’s no good pretending that it’s very costly either. Rigorous and honest atheism and rigorous adherence to some sort of religious system both have their peculiar comforts. But they are also both very demanding and costly in their own way. It’s far easier and pleasanter to simply drift… to draw the comforts of each system when it suits you and to avoid the costly demands at every turn. In an essay entitled “Man or Rabbit?” originally published in the book, God in the Dock, C.S. Lewis wrote:

The man who asks this question (i.e. do I need to be a Christian in order to lead a good life?) has heard of Christianity and is by no means certain that it may not be true. He is really asking, “Need I bother about it?” Mayn’t I just evade the issue, just let sleeping dogs lie, and get on with being “good”? Aren’t good intentions enough to keep me safe and blameless without knocking at that dreadful door and making sure whether there is, or isn’t someone inside?”

To such a man it might be enough to reply that he is really asking to be allowed to get on with being “good” before he has done his best to discover what good means. But that is not the whole story. We need not inquire whether God will punish him for his cowardice and laziness; they will punish themselves. The man is shirking. He is deliberately trying not to know whether Christianity is true or false, because he foresees endless trouble if it should turn out to be true. He is like the man who deliberately “forgets” to look at the notice board because, if he did, he might find his name down for some unpleasant duty. He is like the man who won’t look at his bank account because he’s afraid of what he might find there. He is like the man who won’t go to the doctor when he first feels a mysterious pain, because he is afraid of what the doctor might tell him.

The man who remains an unbeliever for such reasons is not in a state of honest error. He is in a state of dishonest error, and that dishonesty will spread through all his thoughts and actions: a certain shiftiness, a vague worry in the background, a blunting of his whole mental edge, will result. He has lost his intellectual virginity. Honest rejection of Christ, however mistaken, will be forgiven and healed—“Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him.” 1 But to evade the Son of Man, to look the other way, to pretend you haven’t noticed, to become suddenly absorbed in something on the other side of the street, to leave the receiver off the telephone because it might be He who was ringing up, to leave unopened certain letters in a strange handwriting because they might be from Him—this is a different matter. You may not be certain yet whether you ought to be a Christian; but you do know you ought to be a Man, not an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand.

I do not necessarily agree with Lewis that “honest rejection of Christ.. will be forgiven and healed.” It may. It may not. I do not think it will be forgiven and healed unless it is first overcome in this life. But the rest of the essay makes a solid point, and one worth considering, given the state of things you seem to find yourself in.

Regards,
Brian

Brian: Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. I’ve never been entirely comfortable or certain in my faith. Faith implies a lack of certainty, doesn’t it? But I believe completely in the search - for a better spiritual place, a stronger connection to God, a more Christ-like (in my particular religion) approach to life every day. I doubt not because it’s fashionable, but because I doubt. And I appreciate clergy who encourage me to explore my doubts as completely as I explore my certainties. K.W.

Kevin,
If this conversation progresses, I need guidance from you as the “Mary Substitute” as to how you’d like for me to proceed. Shall I use the comments section?

I don’t think that the word “faith” necessarily implies a lack of certainty. Once again, depends on how you’re using the word. I don’t use it that way myself (as far as I can remember.) The Bible defines faith as assurance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. In Biblical parlance, “hope” isn’t in the subjunctive mood, but the future perfect. It implies certainty, not uncertainty. For the classical Protestant in particular, the word “faith” has a very carefully defined and nuanced usage. And, of course, as a classical Protestant who still thinks that the issues surrounding the Reformation are still live, unresolved issues, I don’t mind a bit if you question Rome’s dogmas. Of course, you’d probably not find mine any more palatable.

With what, in particular (in addition to the existence of God) do you find yourself doubting?

Regards,
Brian

Brian: Proceed here or down in the comments section, which has some very interesting thoughts. I’d say I continue to have periodic doubts about the existence of God, and regular doubts about the male-centered “father” God and “Let’s all get together in Heaven” afterlife, as well as pretty consistent doubts about the Bible, and a logical (by a journalist who knows a bit about how easily trusths and facts can get distorted when written and re-written by someone else)  assumption that back in the hazy past men fiddled with it in very human ways for very personal reasons, as well as simple human technical failures and mediocrities. My pattern of doubts began in my college years more than 30 years ago and, while they continues, are less burdensome than they used to be. I’d like to think I have found some answers, and some level of real insight and spiritual comfort and connection. And I’m hoping for more.  And I’m deeply inspired, enriched and humbled by the search. K.W. 

Father Thomas Williams - St. John’s Orthodox Church

The idea of of epistomology being either under attack or ignored today in all facets of society so that doubt and questioning become very acceptable, and even fashionable, especially regarding belief in God and faith, is very interesting. The idea certainly holds up when looking at American society as a whole today.  

Perhaps another factor may be that in the last century with its two great wars and the Russian revolution, with its consequences, we lost the Christ of the great cathedrals, the Christ of the splendidly architected liturgies; and we discovered the Christ who is vulnerable just as we are vulnerable, we discovered the Christ who was rejected just as we are often rejected and we discovered the Christ Who had nothing at His moment of crisis, not even friends, and this was similar to our experience.

 Occasions of doubt will always be with us on earth.  However the day when God is absent, when he is silent - that is the beginning of prayer. Not when we have a lot to say to Him, but when we can only say, “I can’t live without You. But why are You so cruel, so silent?” If we listen to what our hearts say about loving and longing and are never afraid of despair, we will find that victory is always there - the other side of doubt.

“”For You have no delight in sacrifice. Were I to give a burnt offering, You would not be pleased. The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.” (Psalm 51)

By Kevin Woster

Hey, I’m standing in for Mary while we’re on vacation.  Well, at least for today. Or at least for right now.

We’re in Omaha, and she was just saying that she needed to moderate her blog but had other things to do. I think they involved a nap.

So here I am.

Quickly, before I get kicked off, have any of you read “The Physics of Immortality,” by Frank Tipler?
I just bought it for 50 cents off the RC library used book shelf before we left town.

Haven’t been able to sit down with it yet, but a scan of the first few pages indicates that Tiper was an atheist who believes he found proof of an afterlife through physics.

This, I gotta read.

Anybody out there already done that?

Rev. Brian Carpenter — Presbyterian Church in America, Sturgis
Kevin,

I found that book by accident. I attempted the book, but was stymied by the mathematics and then I gave it to my father to explain the math to me. He’s got the PhD in molecular biology and the BS & MS in Physics. He attempted it and couldn’t get past the theology. So then we both attempted reading it at the same time. We were not entirely successful because I moved 1500 miles away in the interim.

It’s an interesting book. “Afterlife” is not quite correct. As I remember, the author predicts, using something called “endpoint theory” that there will be a general resurrection at the end of time. The basic argument starts with the idea that every human being is basically a quantum state, or signature or pattern. When you run out of possible patterns for a quantum state, then you have to repeat. So time as we know it can only go on so long before we end up repeating quantum states. Therefore, history has a teleology and a defined endpoint. The repeated pattern is identical to the prior one, so it can be considered the same being as the prior one. Ergo, resurrection.

I think he was not clear in certain things, so I had a hard time evaluating his argument. For instance, he defines the Universe as all that exists. But he is not clear if he means that God is part of the Universe or transcendent to the Universe. That is a major issue that needs to be resolved clearly. He’s also more than a little in love with Tillich’s theology, which is barely theistic. Finally, his “god” does not appear to care about justice and only love, so I can’t go there either.

It’s been five years. Some of the details are fuzzy, so my memories may not be accurate. It’s been on my bookshelf all this time but I recently loaned it to a friend and haven’t gotten it back again to strengthen my memories.

Hope that helps.

Brian

Brian: Thanks. It does help. I butted heads with the math, too, and veered off to read “The Return of the Osprey.” But I’m going back to Tipler when I buck myself up a bit. K.W.

According to recent polls, Catholics give President Obama a 67 percent approval rating, so is the recent uproar over his invitation to speak at Notre Dame’s commencement on May 17 a tempest in a teapot? Is it OK to support an abortion-rights president, but inappropriate to honor him at a Catholic institution?

Father Thomas Williams - St. John’s Orthodox Church

For Catholics and Orthodox Christians we know that “God the Son assumed nothing less than a human nature in the miraculous conception of the person Jesus. The God-Man was never the God - Almost Human! “Well,” some might say, “perhaps the newly conceived thing in the womb is human (an appendix or a heart, it could be argued, is human in its nature), but it’s not another one of us, a human being.”

However from the very moment of conception – which we (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) celebrate at the feast of the Annunciation, singing, “today is the beginning of our salvation: the Son of God becomes son of the Virgin” – the humanity that the Son of God takes on is never devoid of personhood, but is the human nature of the divine Person Incarnate. Scripture makes this plainer: the unborn John the Baptist leapt in St. Elizabeth’s womb when he met the unborn Son of God in Mary’s womb (Luke 1:39–44).

The Incarnation, it is true, is a mystery completely beyond our understanding, a divine “act of power” par excellence. There are many things, too, that we don’t know about the conception and development of the human being in the womb. But we do know that, with every conception, we have another one of us in the womb. This is not above anybody’s “pay grade,” and certainly not above any Christian’s understanding. God entered the world in the womb of a virgin, and hallowed it. What He assumed, He sanctified. And yet today many would have us desecrate what He sanctified.

Why is this Catholic University acting in total disregard of the American bishops? Sad to say it appears that it has sold out just to bask for a few hours in the warm glow of national television’ s political spotlight.
MA 1969, Notre Dame

Rev. Brian Carpenter — Presbyterian Church in America, Sturgis

Well said, Fr. Williams. A true Protestant would also stand wholeheartedly with you on these things.

Of course, it’s none of my affair whom Notre Dame confers honorary degrees upon. It does seem that since they are a Roman Catholic institution they ought to in some way reflect the official position of Rome in their activities and pronouncements. We Presbyterians did not sufficiently police our institutions and very early into the last century they began to cease being Presbyterian in anything but name. I’d caution Rome to avoid our example.

But I also suspect they’d have a hard time finding any politician to confer an honorary degree upon if the standard is that they “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions” as Fr. Williams says above. The political class is not exactly noted for its moral courage and rectitude.

Dr. Nicholas Wallerstein–humanities professor

There’s one word for what Notre Dame is doing: hypocrisy. But no big surprise. This is the natural outcome of our nation’s institutions of higher learning being dominated by sloppy-thinking liberals.

Hazel Bonner — Seventh Day Adventist
So just wanted to say that I do not believe that President Obama is necessarily an abortion Rights advocate but he is pro choice. So am I. I believe that as long as abortion is legal in this country it is a choice between the woman and her doctor. Right to lifers are not truly right to lifers, they oppose most things about life or the quality of life, but are merely anti-abortion. The sooner we recognize that, the better. Just wanted to say this about what is happening. I am pro-choice. That doesn’t mean I am pro abortion. I personally believe that we should end the need for abortion by the kinds of things that President Obama is currently doing. It is a tough thing to deal with, isn’t it?