A Suggestion for Spiritual Health

A while back while watching one of the tennis Majors, the commentators explained what Venus Williams was reading in between games.  She had made a list of her tendencies as a tennis player; thus, when she made a lot of back hand errors she would look at her list to remind herself of the ways in which her mechanics tended to break down.  Thus, she even if she wasn’t doing well she knew what she needed to do to improve.  Venus Williams is a wise person:  she realizes that it’s often difficult to keep in mind all of her flaws at once.  Even when practicing every day, small errors sneak in that can throw off one’s entire game.

Perhaps Venus Williams insight into tennis can be translated into the spiritual life.  Often our vices can become so deep-seated that we cease to recognize them in ourselves.  Thus I propose making one’s own personal examination of conscience; don’t just use the stock-examens provided in the back of church, but make a list of all of the ways in which you usually tend to fail.  Not only does this make one’s confession more complete, but if this examen is used every day it prevents those flaws from becoming buried and forgotten.

In order to compile the list, I recommend reading Archbishop Dolan’s Priests for the Third Millenium.  Don’t be fooled by the name; it’s a wonderful book for laymen, too.  The book is a collection of lectures on the virtues, and Dolan does not pull his punches.

Interesting Article on Catholic Marriage

I just read an interesting article that claims that divorce among faithful Catholics is just as common as divorce among the general population.  While some may be shocked, I can’t say that I am.   Back when I first entered seminary, I naively thought that Catholic seminary was a place where the cream of the crop gathered.  Seminary was an ideal community of holy men, I thought.  My idealism has since been shattered, not just because I’ve witnessed imperfections in others, but because I see so many imperfections in myself.

If orthodox, prayerful seminaries are wrought with difficulties, how much moreso will the Catholic marriage be difficult!  Marriage is a permanent thing, whereas seminary is temporary.  Furthermore, many seminarians can get through seminary bitter without ever having someone correct them; in marriage, one cannot get bitter with one’s situation without severely hurting the marriage.

Anyway, it was an interesting article.  It’s recommended reading.

The Suffering Man

I discussed prayer with a group of high schoolers today.  It was a good discussion, but at one point I wished to bring up a point but deemed it too “advanced” to be discussed at that moment.  I wish to record it here.

I learned this semester that it is possible to make the very act of suffering a prayer.  This semester I had more trouble making time for prayer than any other time since I entered seminary, but the graces flowed more readily than ever.  I’d say the only way to explain this is to acknowledge that suffering itself can be a form of prayer, of uniting ourselves to God.  It is also the case, however, that some people suffer and become bitter.  What distinguishes those who become bitter from those who become holy through suffering?

It’s odd that God uses suffering to improve us.  Why didn’t God choose pleasure to produce saints rather than suffering?  Why did God choose silence and obsurity as the vehicle for his voice rather than the sounds of a busy city?  Why did God choose evil and the Cross rather than comfort and leisure to be the precursor to the Resurrection?  I don’t know the answers to these questions; all I know is that I have found Christ to be most present to me in silence, suffering, and the Cross.  We may never understand why God chooses to reveal himself in the ways that he does, but the key to making one’s suffering a prayer is simply to acknowledge that God is infinitely wiser than us, and that he wishes for us to find him in the midst of tribulation.  When we accept our crosses with such faith and hope that the way of the Cross ultimately ends in Resurrection our lives truly become a prayer.  Thus, the keys to making one’s suffering a prayer are the theological virtues.

A Passing Thought

Jesus told us to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us.  He forgave those who were persecuting him as he was dying on the cross.  But should we stop there?  As Christ was dying on the cross, he not only forgave his persecutors, but he also was offering expiation for their sins on their behalf.   Christ did not just pray for his persecutors, but he also conquered their death and loved at least some of them into heaven.

We cannot redeem like Christ can, but we can still, as St. Paul writes, make up for what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ by bearing our sufferings patiently.  We can offer Christ’s body and blood on their behalf when we receive him in the Eucharist.

If I received one grace out of this semester, it is this.  Towards the end of the semester, I had an imagining about someone who hates me reaching heaven and having Christ ask them to account for his or her sins (for short, we’ll use ‘his’).  Jesus lists his sins against me, for which the individual is sorry.  Jesus then says to him, “normally sins of this sort require a fair amount of time in purgatory to pay your debt for these sins; but that debt was already paid for you:  Paul has already paid your debt for you.”

I have thus taken up the devotion of offering sacrifice and penance for those who hate me.  My hope is to love my persecutors into heaven even as their actions against me speak to condemn them.  I hope to remove the last traces of bitterness from my soul.  I hope to love my enemies so much that Christ has no choice but to overlook my other faults on my judgment day.

Dominican Vocations

It’s funny when you by chance encounter interviews with people you know.  Part I, Part II.

Mexico, Immigration, and the Flu Epidemic

There’s a flu epidemic in Mexico right now.  Given the United States’ weak border security, it’s only a matter of time before it reaches us.  But then again, I warned people of this two years ago.  Maybe if you people would start reading my blog more this wouldn’t have happened!

I have had a change of heart since my last post, at least in one respect:  I consider economic considerations to be legitimate reasons for protecting our borders.  It seems that anyone who is upset with the way Washington is throwing away our tax dollars in the current economic crisis must also be upset with illegal immigration.  Illegal immigrants have access to all sorts of government programs, including public education, which is growing more expensive by the year.  I remember two years ago reading that in my home county in St. Louis, the average cost of educating a student in the public schools was around $8000 (is that why we call it free education?).  In order to pay for illegal immigrants’ education, we will see either tax increases or a further increase in the size of the money supply.  

Illegal immigration is a bad thing, folks.  It is not a moral burden on our shoulders if an illegal immigrant comes to our door begging for food and we turn them in to the authorities (although we should give them a sandwhich while they wait).  Their circumstances may be bad back in Mexico, and our hearts may go out to them; but it is morally wrong for those immigrants to force us to pay for their education, health care, etc just because they live within our borders.  We may have a moral obligation to help Mexico become economically stable (whether that includes just throwing money at the problem is another story), but that is a separate question from whether people who immigrate illegally are not morally blameworthy for doing so.  Whatever the proper response to illegal immigrants is, complete sympathy is not one of them.

Conservative Accounts of Praeter Intentionem and the Common Good

Many people try to claim that we can restrict our intention in certain circumstances to the good outcome of our actions and not intend the bad outcome.  Examples include killing in self-defense or aborting a baby to save the mother’s life.  Although we psychologically aim at killing the assailant and the baby, we do not intend to do it (for those who haven’t read any of the literature, the distinction between the two may not be as silly as it first appears).   The unintended effect is considered outside the intention, i.e. praeter intentionem (PI).

Conservative accounts of PI often argue that liberal accounts of PI have trouble accounting for things that are intrinsically evil, among other things.  These arguments have a degree of plausibility; however, let’s assume, for instance, that killing in self-defense is not justified.  There is a tradition in the Catholic Church that public authorities have the right and obligation to kill if they intend to kill for the common good:   the common good is higher and more praiseworthy than an individual’s good, and unlike private citizens the public authority is not taking the law into his own hands.

If the conservative reader of PI accepts that the public authority can kill for the common good, he seems to have a problem explaining why such instances are not intrinsically evil.  Saying that the public authority can kill as long as he doesn’t intend to do so as a private citizen but rather as an agent of the common good seems to present an account of praeter intentionem which they didn’t allow on the level of the private individual.

But things get worse.  If the public authority has all of this power to do what private individuals are morally forbidden to do, how can things like torture be considered intrinsically evil?  It seems worse to put a bullet through someone’s head than to waterboard them, and yet public officials have the power to do the former for the sake of the common good, but not the latter.  But this is just a weak version of the problem:  in what way does any government do wrong if it claims to be acting for the common good?  Can a government bomb civilian targets in a war because it is acting for the common good, i.e. the peace and order of the society doing the bombing?  If not, why not?

In my opinion, the problem of justifying the coercive power of the state is just as problematic and important as developing an adequate account of PI.  Conservative PI’ers have difficulties restraining the power of the state; liberal PI’ers have difficulties explaining how any private individual is not a public official, i.e. he has trouble accounting for intrinsic evils among private citizens.

The Shrinking Middle Class

Scary stuff.  [ht]

CNN Teaparty Story

If you haven’t seen this yet, do.  It’s a video of the behind-the-scenes of the CNN coverage of the recent teaparties.  Some woman takes the CNN reporter to task for irresponsible reporting, and it’s a gem.

The article itself is also interesting.

Hattip to William Vallicella

This week, the Maverick Philosopher has written a few wonderful posts regarding taxation. He also has written a priceless aphorism this month.